Is a poor degree from a mediocre university worth it?

[Laura Corin]

I was hearing on the radio today that companies that recruit graduates are not even looking at applicants who have 2.ii degrees (the grading goes 1st, 2.i, 2.ii, 3rd), those from poorly-regarded universities or with degrees in less-academic fields. The competition is so fierce at present that recruiters are just simplifying their lives by excluding the 'less qualified'.

 

Is the situation the same in the US? Is it worth going to university if the student is likely to come out with an unattractive qualification?

 

Laura

[Mary in GA]

Oh my goodness! I think you have opened up a new can of worms here. We've already got the debate about the high cost private vs the lower cost public universities going on.

 

I suppose that if a student was going to university at minimal cost then economically it might not matter if he or she got a degree that was an "unattractive qualification." There are some majors that will never get anyone a decent job, but if you spent very little to get that degree, so what? You move back in with your parents? If the goal was to get a job and make a living maybe trade school/technical school would have been a better choice. Also, there are some jobs that require a four year college degree that really don't justify one. That's a different can of worms!

 

For other more viable fields of study, there are different levels education. Some universities are definitely better or more rigorous than others. I don't think we have an exact rating system like what you describe. So for any given profession, the top jobs will go to those with the top qualifications and so on down. This is largely dependent on field of study and geographical location.

 

OK I've rambled enough!

 

Mary

[Mama Lynx]

I was hearing on the radio today that companies that recruit graduates are not even looking at applicants who have 2.ii degrees (the grading goes 1st, 2.i, 2.ii, 3rd), those from poorly-regarded universities or with degrees in less-academic fields. The competition is so fierce at present that recruiters are just simplifying their lives by excluding the 'less qualified'.

 

Is the situation the same in the US? Is it worth going to university if the student is likely to come out with an unattractive qualification?

 

Laura

 

I think it depends on what kind of job they're going for. Certain jobs look for prestigious degrees/universities. But many lower-level jobs just care that you have a degree, any degree. Still other positions want specialized degrees, and don't care whether you've gone to an excellent liberal arts college, or a school that specializes in only that kind of degree (more job training than what we traditionally think of as college).

[asta]

In the US I don't think it is so much the where as it is the who. As in, who do you know because of where you went to school.

 

The more prestigious the school, the better the chances you have had contact with some well placed "whos". In a tight job market, those contacts are gold.

 

Just as in the UK (well, not Scotland, but in England) how those who went to Oxford take care of their fellow "house mates", US schools with active alumni programs will pat one another on the back (of course, the graduates have to participate in the alumni programs, which means contributing $$$).

 

Another avenue in the US is the "Greek System" which is Fraternities and Sororities (men and women). They are very loyal and "who you know". Depending on which one a person "pledges" to, they will have contacts for life, and belonging to the "right one" will most definitely give them an edge if the place they are applying to has a boss from the same fraternity/sorority. Additionally, fellow members will pass along information about positions and "put in a good word" for each other.

 

But let's face it: Harvard trumps Obscure University from Podunk nowhere. It just does.

 

 

asta

[Nan in Mass]

What happened to the idea of college being a place where one trained ones mind and learned things? Things that might be worth knowing whether or not they have anything to do with the way one earns a living? If you extend this argument, don't you wind up by saying that education for women is a bad idea unless they plan to work outside the home?

Not that I don't sympathize with the but-how-will-we-pay-off-our-school-loans question... Just wondering what happened to the idea of education for its own sake?

-Nan

[Renee in NC]

What happened to the idea of college being a place where one trained ones mind and learned things? Things that might be worth knowing whether or not they have anything to do with the way one earns a living? If you extend this argument, don't you wind up by saying that education for women is a bad idea unless they plan to work outside the home?

Not that I don't sympathize with the but-how-will-we-pay-off-our-school-loans question... Just wondering what happened to the idea of education for its own sake?

-Nan

 

You can definitely have a problem with education for education's sake at a poor college as well. As a college student, I attended a college that was a very poor school because they gave me a great scholarship. I didn't pay for it, so I didn't lose anything, right? I lost a year of my life I will never get back. I can't think of one redeeming factor that I took from that school.

 

I did have some passionate, intelligent professors. However, the classes were dumbed down to such a large extent because of the low academic level of the student body as a whole.

[Nan in Mass]

So is the question really whether it is worth going to a bad college where you won't learn much if it won't even allow you to get a job? I'm confused.

 

How frustrating, about wasting a year. My husband and I waited through college to get married. I sympathize.

 

-Nan

[Laura Corin]

What happened to the idea of college being a place where one trained ones mind and learned things? Things that might be worth knowing whether or not they have anything to do with the way one earns a living?

 

I wonder about the value of a mediocre degree - poor teaching, very little student effort - to the individual too. At what point does it become a wasted period in someone's life?

 

Laura

[creekland]

I think it is only worth it if that is where the student's ability lies. To us, it is fairly important to find the best possible education within a desired field and at a reasonable cost - all in a place where my boys feel they will fit in well.

 

I will not let my boys consider colleges where the entering freshmen scores are VERY far below their ability simply because I know profs can only teach to the ability of their students. I feel the education will be too dumbed down. However, I like having my boys in the top 25% of students entering for the scholarship opportunities (just not top of the top). So, it takes a bit of research to find schools that fit, but they're out there. I check Major Field Test scores (if applicable) and what/where graduates do/go as well as how much they liked or disliked their Alma mater.

 

I will also not let my boys go into mega debt for a name brand school (or any school). I don't want them roped into paying off a ton of debt for the next stage in their lives and do not feel the name on the diploma is worth it.

 

This doesn't mean the schools we eliminate are poor schools. For the right student that fits in with their ability (or ability to pay), they are probably good schools. It's all about fit.

 

Now, it's probably not pc to write the next part, so feel free to end here if you like pc.

 

We also used to hire and we know several business people that hire (or used to when the economy was better). The number one factor all of us liked when hiring was experience on the resume. That would get an interview. For newly minted college grads there are schools on the resume that would get one looked at out of a pile of applicants. They tended to not be the same as the low entering freshman score schools NOR Ivy or equivalent. We didn't trust the education of the low score schools and agreed with others in our area that the elitist attitude (stereotyping, I know) of the Ivy or similar grads just don't fit in with our area. When one is looking for the best possible employee, one looks at attributes that tend to work. I don't know how commonplace our stereotypes are, but I know they are 100% common in our circle.

 

I've noted my preference for colleges tends to be along the lines of those we'd prefer when hiring. If one wants academia or elitist types of companies or places, then one would want the name on the diploma to coordinate. If one has experience on the resume, any school will do. In a low unemployment period any school is likely to do. In a high unemployment period one needs to be more choosy.

[G5052]

I am hoping that my kids can bypass the lower tier schools because I've been on enough hiring panels to know that it does matter if the people hiring are savy. That's one reason that I'm wary of the movement in homeschool circles to have your kids study entirely online through schools that do not have the reputation and quality in some people's eyes. Thankfully there are some top and middle-tier state schools in my state that will do just fine, probably after community college.

 

I actually went to a state school with open enrollment, but those who actually graduated (only 25% at the time) were very much in demand. I got a job right away, and the HR person told me that people from there were hired with only a B.S. degree because they were better than people from any other school in the state even with an M.S. When I went to graduate school, the chairman of the program told me that they accepted any graduate from there with a 3.0 GPA without question while students from some other schools in the state would be required to take certain courses non-degree and then reappy.

[Sarah CB]

I was hearing on the radio today that companies that recruit graduates are not even looking at applicants who have 2.ii degrees (the grading goes 1st, 2.i, 2.ii, 3rd), those from poorly-regarded universities or with degrees in less-academic fields. The competition is so fierce at present that recruiters are just simplifying their lives by excluding the 'less qualified'.

 

Is the situation the same in the US? Is it worth going to university if the student is likely to come out with an unattractive qualification?

 

Laura

 

It's definitely not like that in Canada. Dh worked in a magic circle law firm in London for a couple of years and all of the Brits had either gone to Cambridge or Oxford. We thought it was really weird. For some reason, being Canadian was also Ok - there were people from UBC and from UVic working in dh's group in the firm. I'm not sure why there isn't as much of an emphasis on which university you attended in Canada - maybe they're all good :tongue_smilie:

[Nan in Mass]

I fear having my children wind up at a school where the student body is both uninteresting and especially, uninterested. There was a school like that in my town growing up. Bleck. Would it be better than no college? I think that depends on whether the student is good at making lemonade when given lemons, and on whether the student is going to be severely handicapped by debt, and on what the student wants to do in life. It would be better than nothing if the student wanted to work as an engineer.

-Nan

[TravelingChris]

I know for my children, all of them would want intelligent students around them. But for some, it is more important than others. My oldest likes having intelligent people in classes and does get annoyed with stupids but he does most of his learning at home, anyways. My second is only looking to go to college with at least moderately intelligent compatriots. Even more than intelligence, she wants to attend with motivated students. I don't think she would learn much in a party environment and it would be depressing. SHe does not need the students to be motivated to motivate her because she has done very well in situations where no one else is doing their work. But she finds it very depressing and she gets so much more from interested students. My third is motivated almost solely by what others are doing. I can't send her to a slacker school because she will be a slacker.

 

In terms of hiring and future employment, it really depends on the field. The Federal Government hires based on GPA and diploma. It is one reason that I am not having my two who may want Fed employment go to a hard grading school. Hard in terms of work-fine. Hard in terms of no one gets As- not fine. As me how I know= my degree from a very highly ranked school that did not have grade inflation would not have gotten me a government job that I did later get with my higher GPA in a master's program at a much lower ranked school. SOme places hire on the basis of prestige and rankings of programs. For those, going to a better school is clearly more advantageous.

[Laura Corin]

It's definitely not like that in Canada. Dh worked in a magic circle law firm in London for a couple of years and all of the Brits had either gone to Cambridge or Oxford. We thought it was really weird. For some reason, being Canadian was also Ok - there were people from UBC and from UVic working in dh's group in the firm. I'm not sure why there isn't as much of an emphasis on which university you attended in Canada - maybe they're all good :tongue_smilie:

 

They are the only universities - as far as I know - that have weekly one-on-one tutorials with professors.

 

When I went to university, there were relatively few tertiary institutions called 'universities'. There were also a lot of places called 'polytechnics', which were easier to get into and mostly offered more vocational courses. Then the polytechnics were rebranded as universities, and suddenly it became very important which university you went to: first tier older university, second tier older university, or new university.

 

Some second tier universities do seek to transcend their status for particular subjects: I went to a second tier older university which had an excellent department for the subject I wanted to study. I'm not sure that this was a good decision on my part.

 

Laura

[Deb in NZ]

Dd chose to attend a polytechnic for her BS. Her program is very respected in NZ & half of the students in her program attend from overseas. She will be awarded a Diploma of Marine Studies (like an associate degree) after 2 years study & taking the 3rd year option will gain her a BS-Marine Biology from AUT. She could have attended Auckland University, but we would have had to jump through many more hoops to get her accepted & she wouldn't have been able to study Marine Biology before the Masters level. Where as at the polytechnic dd will come out with many practical qualifications along with the theory. The cost will be almost half of what university would have cost. This was a big factor for dd as she'd like to travel after graduation & doesn't want a huge student loan following her around the world.

 

For our dc we have had them look at where they want to be 10 years from now & map out the best training route to get there. Cost is a factor, but not the main factor. If an university education is necessary to get into / do the job they desire, then the big loan is warrented. But in many jobs an university education isn't the best preparation.

 

Ds#1 wants to be either a mechanical engineer or a naval diver. Neither of those require a university degree as the type of engineering ds#1 wants to work in is more hands-on. NZ trained engineers are sought after worldwide. Tomorrow ds#1 begins a year 2 apprenticeship course at our local polytech. He is only 16yo, but is already working towards gaining qualifications for his career. Friends of his at PS are still working on the basics & have no idea what they want to do. By the time they finish highschool ds#1 will have qualifications & a couple years work experience in his trade that could having him working anywhere in the world.

 

Ds#2 wants to become a mechanic & will most likely follow the same path as ds#1.

 

JMHO,