And so it reinforces itself. Intelligent people flock there because intelligent people flock there. But it also means that the time spent there is more valuable.
Nonetheless, I agree with you. Location probably is a deciding factor in a minority of people who would rather go to MIT to talk than RPI.
I find that crazy. Both teach basically the same thing. If they are both accredited, then it is almost indistinguishable.
Who would you think is smarter off the cuff, a Harvard graduate, or someone who attended an accredited community college and followed it with a masters from an accredited online school?
I'm sad to say that I've been programmed to assume that the Harvard graduate is smarter. It is just a bias that we are all taught as we are young.
Speaking just on computer science here, but the depth of CS courses varies radically across universities. Sure they all might follow the ACM model curriculum, but how much of the book you're actually reading (and which book you're using in the first place), the number and difficulty of practice problems you're assigned, etc. is definitely not basically the same.
I went to an average engineering school, and also took a handful of grad classes. Many of the assignments in Master's classes were a similar difficulty level to the assignments in undergrad MIT classes on OCW. Not all of the courses were this way, but many were.
The big difference between someone coming out of a higher-end school and a community college isn't (necessarily) intelligence or even knowledge, it's that the university educated ones have been prepared to reason about the world in a more complete way. Which is comforting for me to know when I'm hiring.
I should note: I didn't finish college (I made it through three years). My wife on the other hand went on to a PhD. At 24 I was convinced that I had missed nothing. It wasn't until about a decade later that I began to understand that she was capable of seeing so much more nuance and detail than I was. Partly because she's smarter, but partly because she had so much more substance to her education. It gives her a basis to reason from that I don't have. It's a gap I'm feverishly trying to close through completing my own education... but it sure would have been easier to have done it in my 20's...
Not necessarily. It might have required less determination to go along with what others around you were doing, but a lot of people who try learning subjects like calculus as adults report that it seems easier. They have better focus, and most important, they understand why they are doing it.
In short: it's never too late! Study on!
Other ivy league schools, not so much, at least from the watered down versions, and with some exceptions from notables (Financial Markets taught by Robert Shiller, for example)
Most schools, at least in the mooc versions, tend to be about the same level, regardless of prestige.
They should, but they don't. Teachers make a difference. I'm at a mediocre university and watching MIT lectures has made me realize I'm missing out on literally mountains of knowledge. Never mind the qualification process, spending several years with intelligent people (both students and faculty) makes a huge difference.
I went to a tech school. I also went to community college over my first summer for some basic classes. The community college classes were laughably easy and most certainly weren't anywhere near college level, and this was considered a "good" community college.
I hear that in state schools they pack 100+ people in a lecture hall for biology 101 or whatever. That seems like it would be difficult to learn that way. I went to a private school and there was no giant classes.
I'd believe that their curricula are essentially the same, but that's what's "on paper", so to speak. Even if they're both accredited, wouldn't better faculty lead to better teaching? Or better research programs and partnerships with industry? Even stricter requirements and evaluation criteria. If at least some of these aspects are true when talking about "prestigious" universities, then the bias you describe isn't that bad of a heuristic.
No. Generally, at research institutions, faculty are not chosen for their teaching ability. They are chosen for their research background. They are often horrifically bad teachers, if they even teach the class at all and don't just assign it to a TA.
It also doesn't take a world-renowned genius to teach an undergraduate or even a Master's program. It takes someone with a very solid grounding in the subject, which should be any graduate, who also happens to be a great (preferably enthusiastic) communicator.
Hiring for teaching ability they are not good at, even when they intend to.
I will have to say that I have had a few, select few, of those few bad teachers.
As a TA, I can also say that I am thankful that my professor doesn't stick the load of our lecture work on me, but I have heard from many other TAs that this does happen. From what I understand, I'm VERY lucky that I am working with am amazing teacher.
My school allows transfer credit from all of the neighboring community college.
I also have friends who attended my same high school who are attending community collage. We have traded notes on classes and it seems like we do learn the same material.
The only difference is that my school packs every class with 20+ people while their school has at max 15 people per class.
This is also very anecdotal but the teachers that I have met from their school are also most focused on helping students rather than getting all of their hours of teaching done for the week so they can continue their research.
Again, this is only my experience.
This may not be universally true, but it's something I've observed.
Good point. That was a big reason I started my education at a community college. Classes were cheap, small, and there was and agreement for automatic admission with full credit transfer between that CC and the university I wanted to attend.
In addition, the CC was also 10 miles from my home instead of the 35 miles to the university campus, which was one more reason. For me, it was a no-brainer to go to the CC for two years and then transfer.
"Smarter off the cuff"? After reading about Harvard's interview and admissions process, combined with their 98% 6-year graduation rate, I wouldn't think much about a Harvard graduate without speaking to them.
>I'm sad to say that I've been programmed to assume that the Harvard graduate is smarter.
Programmed by who?
>It is just a bias that we are all taught as we are young.
Whom are "we"?
Bryan Caplan has written much about 'signaling theory' and education in posts like this one: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/02/mixed_signals.ht...
It depends. In the limited world of software startup hiring, a compsci student that got admitted to MIT/Stanford but drops out after his freshman year conveys a more valuable signal than graduating from the University of Alabama (a much lower ranked school) after 4 years of study.
If it's an older institution doing the hiring such as IBM or Goldman Sachs, they'll want that official piece of paper showing you graduated regardless of the school's low ranking.
Edit: Excepted to accepted. Read what your damn phone types for you...
excepted = not included in the category or group specified