Stop pretending your alma mater matters

How to burst the college bubble: Stop pretending your alma mater matters
http://news.yahoo.com/bursting-the-higher-education-bubble--why-college-shouldn’t-matter.html

"Last year, after all, more than 50 percent of recent college graduates were jobless or underemployed. A college degree may still be the subject of widespread idolatry—evidently worth the mass sacrifice of human childhoods—but it’s a guarantee of nothing."


Comments? :Eyecrazy:

 

For years I've been advising people to strongly consider price among the top criteria when choosing a school. This is especially true for people studying within the liberal arts fields. You might argue that it doesn't matter since someone else is paying the bill (uncle sam or parents, etc) but it's still money out of someone's pocket. I'm betting that the schools that will suffer first, and most, will be the small liberal arts school like Hampshire and Amherst. Mom and Dad are paying all the bills and then Johnie and Suzy wind up working in the local bookstore 4 years later. In the end both kids get MBAs and working for the nearest conglomerant.

 

Hampshire, yes.
Amherst, no.

What's the difference ? Endowment.

Hampshire: $28,900,000
Amherst: $1,641,000,000 (= 56 times the Hampshire endowment).

If you adjust for size, Amherst is one of the wealthiest schools in the country -- it's wealthier than many of the Ivies, on a per-student basis. So they can afford to heavily discount tuition for non-wealthy students.

If you can get into Amherst, the tuition will be adjusted to make it affordable. The catch is that you probably can't get in, because it is one of the most selective schools in the country.

 

Kizmet, that's a pretty good summary of the situation.:notworthy:

 

Thanks for understanding my point.

 

In certain circles, my alma mater matters.

 

Some schools have a national reputation, some a regional one, and some only a local one.

When one is outside schools' spheres of influence, differences in quality hardly matter.

Reputations are often based on non-quality factors. Football is a major player in this. And while there is little real difference between, say, UoP and, oh, Strayer, there is a major difference in reputation. UoP is almost universally recognized--if not actually understood. They're the poster child for DL, for good or bad. Strayer? Meh.

I took an MBA from National U. Where I'm from, San Diego State University's MBA has a much stronger positive reputation. In the rest of the country, no on makes that distinction.

Personally, I've earned degrees from four schools no one has ever heard of, even though three are absolutely huge. Never been a problem. If people want you, they want you. Would I rather have a Harvard BA rather that one from USNY (now Exclesior)? Sure! Would it matter? Sure! Is the BA from University of San Diego a better degree? Probably. Does it matter? Not one little bit.

I've been studying degree acceptance for decades and did a Ph.D. thesis on the subject. School reputation matters, but no where nearly as much as some people think. I'm about to personally test that theory once again. We'll see.

 

If people keep talking like this, DETC diplomas will lose what stigma they have left.

 

Hardly. Acceptance of degrees from DETC schools (or lack thereof) is largely institutional. That is, it's organizational decision-making--regulations, rules, etc.--combined with what Bourdieu called Habitus that causes and perpetuates the disparity regarding the acceptability of these degrees. That isn't going to change because of comments made on an obscure discussion board, just as it isn't caused by such.

 

Rich, I think you're missing the point.

It's not comments here that affect such things. Admittedly, I didn't explain my assertion completely because I thought most long-time posters could surmise what I was alluding to.

My point is, if the popular media is now dissing extremely expensive B&M degrees as being worthless, then quite soon the "hiring world" may not care whether your degree is DETC or not.

Things could quite quickly change to the point where only certain roles absolutely require degrees, and then it won't matter where said degrees were obtained-- just that they were completed.

 

No, I didn't miss it. I just don't agree.

The problem with this theory--the commodification of college degrees, is that it won't work in the direction you describe. If hiring managers (or their proxies) start making qualitative decisions regarding earned degrees, they will certainly draw distinctions not favorable to DETC-accredited schools. A rising tide might lift all boats, but an ebbing one will scuttle the most vulnerable first.

Schools accredited by DETC are mostly the beneficiaries of a huge increase in the use and recognition of college degrees. It's no coincidence that DETC rose into its current form coincident to the rise of part-time and DL programs at RA schools. Most DETC-accredited schools operate at the fringes. If employers turn to other sources for discriminating among employees and candidates--creating a shrinking market--those schools are not going to do well.

In other words, the source of your degree will matter more, not less.

 

Let's say that I am a corporate manager, and that I have traditionally favored RA degrees. Now let's suppose that I have growing concerns about the quality of RA degrees, based on personal experience or media reports. What are my options?

Well, I might say "Gee, an RA degree is no guarantee of quality. So maybe I should stop favoring RA over NA."

But isn't there another possibility?

Maybe I would say something like this instead: "Gee, an RA degree is no guarantee of quality. So I maybe should start favoring degrees with heavy-duty professional accreditation, like from ABET or AACSB."

This is not a hypothetical scenario. And it does nothing to help DETC or other NA degrees.

 

Just curious - are you a hiring manager?

I am a hiring manager and I am more concerned with the experience of the candidate. If, for some reason, the position does not really require much experience then the school depends a bit more. If you limit yourself to only "degrees with heavy-duty professional accreditation, like from ABET or AACSB" you are cutting out a significant portion of the applicant pool. This is a great way to cut out some really qualified candidates by taking a narrow minded approach. If a manager does not have the ability determine if a candidate has when it takes during the interview process, they should not be a manager. By the way, thanks for the link to an article that is just over 5 years old.

 

I agree. In practice, there are many factors (especially experience) that affect hiring -- not just a school's reputation. But this thread is concerned solely with the school reputation factor -- or, as the thread's title suggests, whether "your alma mater matters". So that's what we are focusing on here.

That is obviously true -- just as you limit yourself to RA degrees, you will cut out a significant portion of the applicant pool. Yet some employers do seem prepared to limit themselves in such ways.

To the best of my knowledge, Intel still has exactly the same policies in place today. Do you have any evidence that Intel's policies have changed ? If not, then the article still serves to demonstrate the point. The point is that some employers -- like Intel -- are addressing concerns about RA by establishing even tighter standards.

I'm not necessarily endorsing this approach, just pointing out that it exists.

 

But at what point do you set a baseline criteria? You could just as easily argue "why limit yourself to college graduates?" when there is a bigger applicant pool of HS graduates.

Given the amount of information out there on the RA v. NA debate - the average hiring manager could easily make the argument limiting the pool to the RA holder is excluding those in the applicant pool who have demonstrated that they do not make wise decisions given the information on the advantages/disadvantages of the alternative choices.

 

"Pretending"?

I think that in some situations, when having a university degree is effectively a 'check-the-box' matter, where the degree was obtained probably won't matter a whole lot.

But in other situations, such as technical or academic employment where employers need advanced expertise in specialized subject areas, those employers are probably going to have a great deal of interest in where a degree was earned. Those making hiring decisions will probably have a very good idea which university departments are active in their areas of interest, will be up to speed on who is teaching where, will know what approaches different university departments favor, and so on.

 

I could not agree more. I work for a multi-billion dollar medical device manufacturer and it all depends on the department (not the company). In sales, a degree is a check mark. They care about your capital sales experience. In field service, we care more about your experience and certifications (A+, MCSE, CCNA, etc) but a degree is required. In design and manufacturing the degree matters. If it is not ABET you are not even considered. Actually, some of the directors will not consider an ABET degree that took you 4 years to complete. If you did not do it in 3 - 3.5 years you are a slacker in their eyes.

 

Correct. There are different points where you could set the baseline. And if you decide to change it, you have the option of moving in two different directions. You could move the baseline in a way that allow more people to qualify -- or you could move it in a way that would allow fewer people to qualify. Both are possible.

If the baseline is RA degrees, and this begins to change, it might move in the direction of increased acceptance of NA degrees. That's possible. But it could also move in the other direction, towards some form of "RA+". That's possible too.

 

Personally I think if a business recognizes NA degrees then those candidates should be considered. There are those here that have a bias against NA and DETC and those who have a bias for. In reality, it depends on the individual period. Anyone who says that an RA degree candidate is better than an NA degree candidate is just plain wrong. My wife works for a large multi-national and they accept both.

 

I would suspect that as the economy continues to falter and unemployment continues to be relatively high (with new grads appearing on a regular basis), the tendency will be toward RA+ rather than RA-.