Stop pretending your alma mater matters

This is an example of very weak use of the term "bias." The poster should substitute a word like "preference." "Bias" connotes a predisposition, often for irrelevant reasons.

The "bias" the poster refers to regarding degrees from nationally accredited schools stems from a great deal of evidence demonstrating their inferior acceptability to employers and as prerequisites for higher study. This isn't "bias."

As for the notion of "bias for," I'd like to see some evidence of that. I'd settle for "preference for." No way. For more than 10 years I've said that under no circumstances is a degree from a nationally accredited school acceptable where one from an RA school is not. This extends to the silly notion that a degree from an NA school would be preferred over one from an RA school. Even at the very heights of, say, DETC and the very fringes of RA, this would be very hard to demonstrate.

While this issue does vary from person-to-person, but it does not "depend" on the individual. There are more resilient, systemic factors than individual differences. The poster offers a false equivalency that has been disproved in both scholarly and practice arenas.

"Anyone who says that an RA degree candidate is better than an NA degree candidate is just plain wrong." This is a little vague, but the qualifier you add afterwards (that your wife's company accepts both) let's us know what you're saying. Again, you're totally wrong. Holders of degrees from NA schools are at a severe disadvantage. Certainly, such things don't matter in individual situations, but systemically they sure do. A lot. You could look it up.

(NB: Yes, yet another "RA is better than NA" discussion. But it's misleading posts like the one in question that call for rebuttal. This board is responsible for offering sound advice to degree-seekers, many (most?) of whom don't understand the differences in accreditation--and are often taken advantage of for this reason. Plus, having honest discussions on this topic can help us point out the really good aspects of NA schools, when and where they present themselves.)

 

That's not what the research indicates. The above presumes some knowledge of the differences between NA and RA on the behalf of hiring managers or their proxies. But there is a demonstrable and severe lack of such understanding--and about accreditation in general. (Which is the sole reason why the diploma mill industry exists!)

There is no reason to expect the acceptability of NA degrees to rise or fall under changing economic conditions. There's too much ignorance of the differences to allow real distinctions to be made by people who ought to be making them. (If they did, I would agree with Kizmet's premise because it's based on the inferiority of NA degrees.)

Kizmet's right in principle, IMHO, but the realities will prevent any real change.

 

You are right if we are only talking about new hires. Actually reputation will matter in this situation, when an employer can hire a grad from a nationally known school for a little more if any than they pay the local college graduate because the job market is tight.

 

Thanks for addressing all the parts but you missed this question - Just curious - are you a hiring manager?

 

Here's what I posted: "Let's say that I am a corporate manager..."

This is obviously a hypothetical scenario. And as such, it doesn't answer the question of whether or not I am a corporate manager in Real Life.

But it doesn't matter. I didn't make any claims based on my personal corporate management experience (or lack thereof). Instead, I cited (and documented) Intel's corporate management policies. You may or may not agree with Intel's managers -- but they clearly do exist in Real Life, regardless of whether or not I do.

 

You seem a little defensive. I did not mean to put you on the spot. I think of "corporate manager" as different from a "hiring manager". I have worked with project managers and product managers that are not people-managers and have never hired or fired anyone and do not have any direct reports. I have worked with people managers that do not hired or fired anyone but only supervise the day-to-day activity. I have also worked with people that have a strong say in the hiring process but do not manage people like HR.

It was just a question to better understand your personal perspective. You obviously do not feel comfortable sharing that - I am sorry I asked. Lastly, I assume you exist in Real Life...don't you?

 

My college helped me get jobs and interviews among many applicants. I haven't graduated yet.

If an employer has to choose from 1) community college applicant 2) my school 3) Harvard, who wins?
If it's between community college and my top tier, I'll likely get the interview first. I need the work experience to go along with that college, though. If it's between my top tier and true top school (Harvard), Harvard wins. Hands down. If I see Harvard/Georgetown/Top 10 on a resume, I call them. Hands down. Harvard/true top tier catches my attention. PoDunk Community College doesn't catch my attention on a resume among other applicants who have similar no-name schools.

Alma matter sometimes matters for some degrees. Networking/connections can help. They helped me some.

I think what school you went to matters most when STARTING a career.

When starting a career, you only have the degree to put on a resume... perhaps adding in summer jobs.

Once you're 10-20 years out of college, your work experience generally starts mattering more than the college.

If two applicants apply to my company, one PoDunk Community College and one from Harvard, Harvard wins.
If, however, these same applicants are 50 years old-- and have worked since they were 22-- the game could change. Maybe the 50 year old PoDunk Community College had better jobs since college than Harvard U. (Honestly, I'm guessing Harvard grad probably has the better work history, since they likely got their foot in the door earlier and a different start to their career. But, it is possible that comm. college 50 year old wins...)

I think the alma mater mattering also depends on "how good" the alma matter is.

Harvard vs. Hanover Community College? Harvard wins, hands down. Harvard opens more doors on a resume from the start. Kansas University vs. Missouri University? Not much difference. Harvard vs. U. of Phoenix? Which applicant gets the interview? Harvard, of course.

If we're talking TOP TOP tier (Harvard, Princeton, MIT), a prestigious school helps. If we're talking #99 on the US News 100 list vs. some state school, reputation matters less. I wouldn't pay $200,000 for a BA from whatever school is #99 on the US News list. Not that the US News list is everything, but ranking and reputation help when comparing two drastically different schools. (Harvard opens more doors than PoDunk Community College. However, PoDunk Community College vs. Average State School might mean very similar doors open... in which case, choose the cheapest school when the reputation and benefits are so similar.)

I'm not saying some liberal arts major from, say, Boston University or MIT will rake in money in salary after graduating. With some extracurricular or college job experience, they're just more likely to get an interview in the job they apply for that fits their degree and experience.

If we're talking salaries over the entire span of someone's career, I would be curious to see the results. If PoDunk Community College majored in engineering and landed a decent job, how would they fare compared to Harvard graduate who majored in Liberal Arts? If we're talking Harvard liberal arts major vs. PoDunk Community College liberal arts major, I say.... Harvard grad gets an easier foot in the door with equivalent college majors.

 

Salaries by School Attended

Full List of Schools - PayScale College Salary Report 2012-13

College..... Starting Salary..... Ending Salary.....
Harvard..... $50,700..... $111,000.....
NYU..... $48,700..... $92,300.....
Univ. of Phoenix..... $41,900..... $64,300.....
Princeton..... $58,300..... $137,000.....
Strayer..... $45,000..... $67,000.....
DeVry..... $44,600..... $71,800.....
Georgetown..... $52,700..... $98,000.....
Yale..... $48,900..... $105,000.....
Western Governor's..... $44,000..... $70,700.....
Columbia..... $54,700..... $105,000.....
MIT..... $68,400..... $118,000.....
Johns Hopkins..... $52,500..... $90,200.....
Dartmouth..... $54,100..... $111,000.....

 

And, for the school ranked #1050 in the U.S.,


The Art Institute of Pittsburgh.... starting salary of $33,800..... ending salary of $46,000.

Our Harvard grad? Started at 50,700..... ended at $111,000.

Our Princeton grad? Started at $58,300..... ended at $137K. That's not far from $100K/year more than AIP.

Coker College grad? Started at $26,800.... ended at $46,100. Big difference from our top tier grads.

(Yes, socioeconomic, work ethic, networking, personality, health, etc. factors come in to play, along with college rankings.)

 

From the article: “Just think if the world were different. If the labels of schools didn’t matter—or, rather, if the premium-brand schools were like yachts or Ferraris, only for the ostentatious rich. Decent schools that offered merit scholarships were for scholars, and certificates from them proved nothing more or less than completion of a very specific course of study. And the rest of us stopped crowing about, or worrying over, the name on our college sweatshirts, or our kids’ college sweatshirts, or any of our LinkedIn profiles.

We might find more interesting things to think about. Like actually learning. Or becoming better people.”

I believe the point that the writing was trying to make is that real learning and the whole package of the person should matter more than the perception of the alma mater.:yikes:

 

If both applicants were later in their career and community college grad ended up with better work experience, yes. I could see that. Or, if someone community college grad had better work experience than Harvard grad, I could see that too. I think the odds of Harvard grad having a better resume occur more often than not-- either because of the easier foot in the door from right out of college, or because of motivation/drive/socioeconomic/smarts/connections/social class/work experience that led the Harvard grad to be Harvard to begin with.

Community college certainly isn't damning-- and Harvard isn't a golden ticket either. A true top tier education like Harvard and the things that often go with it (money, connections, drive, intelligence, extracurriculars, award-winning or experienced professors) just seem to rock the boat in the favor of the top tier grad having an easier ticket in the door and the likelihood that they have a good resume. Not only because of the name of the school, but the life and personal motivation of the grad. I've taken classes at community colleges, state colleges, top tiers, and vo-techs. The type of kids that these schools draw are generally very, very different. Though, I did have a handful of classmates at the community colleges that were also accepted to top tiers and chose to save money. Those money saver types are different than the other classmates from that school that went to the local comm. college or vo-tech because that was their only option due to grades, not having been encouraged by teachers/parents to even attend college, not having any money to attend college, having kids as a teen, and other life issues.

Since I sound like a comm. college hater, I will say I actually enjoyed my community college and local no-name college classes. They're very different than top tier classes and competitive classmates, but serve a great purpose at a great cost. Some of the professors there cared more than others, but I did find them overall more welcoming to student questions- unlike some top tier professors- and tended to have smaller class sizes at the comm. college. Tuition costs were great. It's just a very different college experience than attending top schools.

 

I've had this thread buzzing around in my head every so often the last few months.

My thinking lately goes like this:

In a tighter economy, the emphasis is going to be more on tangible skills (what you bring to the table) rather than how prestigious your degree is (how nice the name is on the diploma). I think this is what the originally referred-to article is saying-- it may not matter as much how well known the school is, especially if you can't deliver.

I think it's possible that some alumni from lesser-tier schools may edge ahead of the hefty name school graduates IF their education/backgrounds prepared them better for a specific role. Also, some companies are still suffering from graduate sticker shock: they don't want to spend for candidates from pricey schools.

I am reading that for fields where resume screening by a live body is a big deal (e.g. finance), name schools still win. This seems to be restricted to certain fields, though.

Sorry if I repeated anything in the thread-- but this has been a thought in my head off and on for a few months now.

 

This doesn't mean your alma mater doesn't matter; it just means it's a terrible job market out there. If anything, it will mean your alma mater is more important than ever. If companies can only hire a fraction of freshly minted graduates compared to what they used to, it's obvious they'll pick who they feel most confident in. All things equal--i.e., recent grad with little experience vs. recent grad with little experience--it's going to be hard for the guy with the Podunk Online U to compete with the guy with the prestige pedigree--Harvard, Yale, et. al. I do't see how from what you said, you extrapolated that alma mater won't matter. That's more likely to be true when jobs are plentiful and employers will take just about anyone.

 

But you can hire someone from Podunk U for $50K or Harvard for $100K and both are lacking in experience, my money is on Podunk U.

 

I'll take 30k in this economy, I'll feel rich!!

 

I'm seeing a lot of this lately, unfortunately.

 

I used to make $65,000 in a medical company, without a degree at the time. Unfortunately I got laid off in NYC during the recession. Moved to FLA where the rest of my family lives. The only thing I could find is $12 an hour work. They won't let employees clock 40 hours, so they let us have 35-36ish hours. I went back to school in the recession and got my four year degree (TESC) and now looking for a potential grad school to attend and another job. I'm not trying to change the subject and make a sad story, just in reality, I would literally die for a 30k job right now. Now would I want to remain on a 30k salary for the rest of my life? No, I just want anything other than $12, heh.

 

If the economy is bad like it is, Harvard grads will rather take that $50k than hold out for a perhaps nonexistent $100k job. There's lots of variables, but I don't buy the "alma mater doesn't matter" idea. The average Harvard grad doesn't make that much more than the average college grad, so it's not like they're all graduating and only looking at $100k+ jobs. With a job market like this, getting any decent job is more important than how much it pays. If you're a recent grad who has no job offers, it doesn't matter if you went to the U. of Phoenix or the U. of California at Berkeley, you'll likely take the first decent, non McDonal's job that comes your way. And it's almost certain an employer will offer that Berkeley guy the job before the Phoenix, given that the salary will remain the same.