The true value of a degree from a lower tier school?!

There are many types of thought process of the true value of a degree.

For business types, like me, its about brand value- getting into a school with the right recruiting contacts & connections

For others, its about "prestige", saying you graduated from college.

For others, its about "learning".

For others, its "transitioning between high school and the real world"

And then you have all the other randoms variables.

-------------------

So why would you ever even bother to go to a school not in Tier 1...

Here are my thoughts:

The personal accomplishment people aren't really benefiting. While personal accomplishment is one thing, $50k in debt is another. I think its almost more painful to hear when someone "boasts" that they graduated from some "noname university" then to say I didn't go to college.

The brand value people are not going to go to online programs, since job connections is almost nilch. :thumbsdown:

----------------

I just don't get it. Why not save your money and go learn via online for free. There are so many sources of information these days, you don't need to pay someone to teach you how to program... there are BOOKS for less than $100 that can you teach you from step 1 how to program something.

----------------

I believe the federal government is making it worse by giving out loans to people attending FOR PROFIT schools. These for profit schools are making a killing off these fed loans... and guess who gets stuck with the bill when people drop out, you betcha US taxpayers. 1 TRILLION Dollars of Debt.

-----------------

It is my belief that the american education system is ridiculously overexpanded these days. We need to go back to the old European system where college is for the people who are a fit for it, and you can go to trade schools for people who want to do other jobs. That is how its done in many developed countries in Western Europe & Asia.

Get rid of all these random B&M "schools" who can't survive without federal funding. Let the market system run, the crappy schools will shut down, and quality schools will continue to run.

You DONT need a college degree to "succeed" in life. In fact, right now I am making less hourly (if my salary divided by hours) than my friend who is an electrical contractor. Of course his salary is not consistent, but still, you dont need a college degree to not live comfortably.

Personally, I partied my ass off in college a a top 20 business school (US News) and still pulled a 3.6. Of course the brand name allowed me to secure a job without even leaving the campus, except for final round interviews. But I digress, now if i can get a 3.6 doing nothing, whats the value of a no-name school. Absolutely nothing. The educational system is a joke. $50,000 for a piece of paper. It amazes me.

 

My "lower-tier" undergraduate degree netted me a 20% pay raise.

If that isn't value, it'll do.

 

Worthy investment then... but how much did that degree cost you?! I can see some unique situations where it does pay off. Then why not just go to Community College.

 

This only proves that the school at which you "earned" your degree is, regardless of its ranking, a joke. (That is, if we accept what you say as entirely true.) Such an observation proves nothing about the quality, rigor, or perceived value of other schools, especially ones that you have no experience with yourself.

As I'm sure others will point out, there are many reasons a person might earn a degree. For many jobs prestige doesn't matter one iota. It's just a checkbox on the resume that's necessary to get your foot in the door so it doesn't matter much if it's from tier-1 fancy school or tier-4 local unknown school. Other people earn degrees for personal fulfillment. They are obviously not so worried about ROI.

That said, I do think the education system bubble will eventually pop like the Internet bubble back in 2001. There does seem to be degree-lust these days. (I say this as a guy who is currently in the process of applying to local B&M grad schools ...)

 

I did, then transferred to a four-year college. My Bachelor's degree cost me about $6,000 above the Associate's, which was less than that. I recouped my investment in less than a year.

 

Why couldn't you get a 4.0? The value of a no name school is just that - there is no name. Maybe, just maybe people actually spend more time learning instead of depending on a name to get them a job.

 

My BS cost me about $6K in all including the Microsoft Cert classes at the community college. My MS was just under $7K but it was only $1,100 out of pocket due to tuition assistance. Graduate Certificate was $2,500 out of pocket. PhD cost me $3K out of pocket. Total cost over 10 years was roughly $12.6K out of pocket for a BS, MS, grad certificate, and PhD. No loans - all cash. Total time to recoup - 1 semester.

 

My nickle assessment is that there are 5 types of schools.

a) Those with a negative reputation. They are either too pricey, millish, or considered lame by industry. You've seen their ads no doubt. Anyone *Even people NOT on this board* could name a handful. I'd say these do more harm than good.

b) Back-yard schools. These are automatically branded because they are in your community and or state. University of X or ABC Community College will be a zillion times more respected by members of that city/state simply because it's familiar. All of us know at least 50 of these. (...50 states...get it?)

c) Ivy League. Golden ticket. Nuff said. (Sure wish I had a degree from one of these, my extension courses will have to do)

d) Industry schools. Where "everyone & anyone" in your field attends. If you're not in an industry like this, you'll have no idea. Career training is here too. (I've got a degree from one of these)

e) Everyone else. They fly under the radar, don't advertise, are legit, are average, and they represent 97% of anyone's world view (save our members, of course). Number 325 is completely and insignificantly no different than number 326. (I've got a degree from one of these)

In my opinion, if you're attending an "everyone else" school, than any one is as good as the other. Shop price, shop policy, and interest.

As a total edu-junkie, I get that people take classes for the value of it. But, I'm also on the other side of 40. I've got money and time to study whatever the heck I want. I'm not starting from scratch. You can bet my advice to the kids is career-job focused. Seriously, and respectfully, I won't pay for an undergrad philosophy degree.

What I find ironic, is that these threads come up from time to time, and I always laugh when I think of the Harvard-Princeton-Yale debates judging each other....how Princeton sucks (or was that last year?) because they are number 2 vs 3, or 1 vs 2.....

So, I guess my opinion is to do what you think is best for yourself, feel good about your decision, and move on to chapter 2.

 

Some observations:
1. Trade education should not be in universities - Trade schools can do it better - In my country it is called competency based training and is assessable by different methodologies to more academic pursuits;
2. A large percentage of business training was in the British Commonwealth in the past was the province of Professional Boards such as Chartered Accountants - one worked in an accountant's office and studied for the board exams - a low cost system which ensures that supply does not exam demand. The number of accountants expand according to the growth of staff in commercial offices that train them;
3. Universities focussed on humanities and the sciences. They were about creating thinkers so knowledge expands, however, they were also places where the wealthy could network. Essentially, there were two classes of people there. The first were the networkers and the second were the very bright who won scholarships. The latter were about taking the world forward, while the former were about keeping the reins of power within a class system. The co-option of the clever into the upper class ensured that power remained there. The established networks at the university coupled the wealthy, but dull, with the intelligent but poor. Money and brains stayed in the exclusive upper class system. Britain ruled an empire by this system through a scholarship process - the colonial bright went on scholarship to Oxford or Cambridge and stayed within ruling milieu. The disruption to the empire was minimized, with some notable exceptions (Gandhi slipped the net and studied at University College London).


I note that the tier ones in their literature acknowledge their Nobel Prize winners, but don't seem to want to own the effect of their educational process on the GFC. Their graduates, not the lower tier universities graduates, produced that benefit for the world. It is a wonder to me that graduates from the same business schools that have that dead fish hanging around their necks are still almost worshipped. Maybe they should slip a tier or two for those who have shed a tear or two for the losses they have experienced because of no fault of their own.

Now:

Online learning has blown apart education exclusiveness and the ability to control information. The problem with online learning is that people actually learn things and don't use the educational process as merely a networking exercise. This can be very challenging to the power elites so they have attempted to reclassify the educational system into tiers to restore the exclusivity. The argument has now shifted to the premise that your education, for example, is not really quality education so you cannot get into the club.


This ultimately won't succeed because many responsible, so called average, universities are producing knowledgeable graduates who have to read and learn the material because networking won't work for them online.

It is true that libraries provide good education for free. A degree is not required to be knowledgeable, in fact, many degree holders in the past were far from knowledgeable, but the degree has now become a perceived passport to higher income in some cases.

 

There may be some truth to this for "business types" and there may be a lot of business types on this forum, which could be the reason this topic comes up so much.

As a mother of a Princeton graduate and a Virginia Tech Ph.D. graduate who is employed at MIT (and her husband is employed at Harvard), I just don't think the tier of the school matters for most of us, as long as the school is properly accredited.

For example, my sister and her kids are nurses. My sister got her 2 year degree from a 2 year community college. She worked her way up to management and does very well. She recently did use an online for-profit to get her BSN. Her daughters got BSN from the local state college. Both are employed. The point is if you have a goal, you look for a school that can help you achieve it. If you want to be a nurse, teacher, social worker, law enforcement, and such, I think any accredited school that offers a program that leads to the licensures/certifications you seek is appropriate. Sure there may be some preferencial treatment to some who graduated from "better" schools, but most often it is about your GPA, and how your interviews go, etc.

I became a teacher by choosing a school that met my needs for flexibility while raising very young children, and not being able to attend very many traditional classes. And I was hired as a teacher. Teachers and many other professions often get promotions for getting a Masters Degree, and are sometimes even required to get one after they are hired. Any accredited school will do, unless a particular district has its own rules on what schools will suffice. Of course it is up to the individual to make sure the selected school will meet these requirements. I was also hired at a local B&M University after earning a Ph.D. from NCU. Would I likely be hired at Princeton with my NCU Ph.D? I don't think that would be impossible though, if such a Ph.D. graduate had enough other notable accomplishments, I don't think the degree from such a school would necessarily mean you could not be hired as a professor at an Ivy League school. I have no desire to work at an Ivy League school. All my "lowly" degrees have improved my life in just the ways I hoped they would.

 

I do agree with this.

 

I have a client who is routinely hiring permanent staff for work that often supports what I do for him (at a significant monthly retainer). He requires a college degree to even interview, which is a source of amusement for me since I do not have a bachelor's myself (my clients never ask for a resume, only work samples). Over dinner a few months ago I said to him, "you do realize that I am not qualified to even interview for those other positions, ones that pay one-third of what you pay me."

The look on his face was, shall we say, priceless.

 

It depends a lot on your career option. If you are a CPA, Medical doctor, Nurse, Chiropracter, Lawyer, etc, it is the license that matters the most and the source of the degree becomes secondary. Many CPA firms hire you based on the scores on the CPA exam and not on the degree. A degree from a school like Excelsior college would be more than enough if you want to become a CPA.
In India and the UK for example, qualified accountants do not even hold a degree but a certification from a recognized association (e.g. ACCA).

Even, Alan Harper from two and half men has a degree from a Mexican school and seems to do very well in his practice.


If you want to become a professor, the source of the degree matters a lot. A professor with a PhD in Business from Harvard is looking for at least 150-200K starting salary while a PhD from a low tier business school would be lucky enough to get a job that pays a starting salary of 60K.

If you are planning to get an MBA, it makes no sense to spend a lot of Money in your undegraduate degree. A cheap degree by examination from Excelsior with a high score GMAT would be enough to get you in into a good MBA school. You might need to spend 100K in your MBA education but it might not matter much if you saved a lot of money in your undergraduate.

Bottom line, not everyone needs an ivery league degree for a specific career goal.

 

In my experience, nobody - nobody - cares where a colleague or staffer got their degree. If the degree holder doesn't bring it up, it will never come up in conversation. There is too much real work to be done, and people distinguish temselves in other ways. There is wisdom though in avoiding places with negative reputations, to borrow Cookderosa's term.

 

I’d go one step further and say that some of my past employers went out of their way to NOT hire graduates from top tier schools. Their experience of hiring engineers from top tier schools was not positive!

Maybe too much partying and not enough learning taking place as noted by the original poster.:shhh:

 

Some kids have their heads inflated because they went to an expensive school. If you parents have money, this doesn't make you special or better than others. Some people went to modest schools and probe themselves later in life.

I believe more in standard exams or metrics than fancy degrees. Someone with a PE, CPA, etc license deserves more respect than someone that just graduated with a BA from a top school.

For academics, I normally check their research and publications. There are a lof of professos that have fancy degrees but that haven't done much after this while you have others with less reputable doctorates that achieve so much.

There is no doubth that a good education can open doors but then it is up to you to use this to achieve better things in life.

 

The title of this thread is a question ("The true value of a degree from a lower tier degree?") and I think I provided a pretty compelling answer.

To paraphrase Steve Levicoff, I didn't learn much at the undergraduate level that I either didn't already know or have had any use for in my life. However, that's from the perspective of an adult who had already served in the military and as a police officer, so my life experience was vastly greater and more varied than the average 18 year-old, fresh out of high school.