Is Elite College Worth It? Maybe Not

Cypress said:
I did not read the OP either, but I make it a point to see what you have to say when I get a chance.

I do not have enough actual personal experience and evidence to have a strong opinion on the role of elite colleges. Maybe it is because elite universities are more common in the eastern U.S., or maybe it's because I have only had garden variety corporate and academic jobs. I really do not meet that many professionals who went to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton. Are they all on the express train to careers in the State Department, Wall Street, and foreign service? Way outside my league, man!

I do have a very distinct impression that the top notch science talent really does end up at the elite universities. You almost cannot be a top tier scientific researcher without Ivy League, MIT, Cal Tech, or at least an elite, top tier public university under your belt (UC Berkley, Michigan etc.). I have run across exceedingly few elite scientists and researchers with PhDs from University of Montana, Kansas State University, University of Maine, et al.
Click to expand...

I fought my way into Cambridge because F.R. Leavis the critic was there. Because I'd served in the Airforce first and met all my friends there, I was drunk a lot of the time and was on a fast train to nowhere, but I did manage to be Secretary of the Socialist Cub, (my Chair became a High Court Judge - grrr!) and got into all the New Left stuff at the right time. That's all I mean really - plenty going on, like the Footlights people and such. My oldest daughter went to Cardiff, which sounds more friendly but less interesting. I also met my very bright wife, so I think it was worth it, despite all the tedious boarding-school buggers who infested the place.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
it doesn't completely contradict anything, you buffoon
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. It contradicts this: "I'd argue the one variable left out is the major the student chooses. If you want to go into the business world is studying Psychology at Harvard going to help you much more than a Business major at State U? Probably not."

One of the top 4 employers of Psych grads is Bank of America.

So because of that, it proves that statement of cawacko's wrong, doesn't it?
 
cawacko said:
So your argument for a kid who wants to go into the business world is study psychology at Harvard over business at State U.
Click to expand...

I am not making any argument like that. All I'm doing is proving your argument is fucking wrong. I don't know what the best path to getting into the business world is, all I know is what the empirical evidence and data tell me. And the empirical evidence and data tell me that to work for one of the biggest banks in the country, a History, English, or Psych degree would suffice.

Personally, I think the value of a Harvard education vs. that of a State University is higher, regardless of the major or degree. Intangibles such as internships, networking, and recommendations play a major part in that too. There's greater opportunity for someone to take advantage of all three if they go to Harvard vs. State U. That's just how it is because of Harvard's reputation and alumni network.
 
cawacko said:
You had a fit and a melt down because you thought I was putting down your major instead of understanding the question of should one major in the field they want to go into.
Click to expand...

No, cawacko, once again your ability to understand basic human emotions and responses is lacking.

I was attacking you because you were trying to argue that the degree someone gets makes them less employable and you singled out three degrees, all of which either track the national average for income, or exceed it, and all three of which also count major banks and financial institutions among the top employers of people with those degrees.

When you were called on that, you shifted the goalposts by meekly referring to a "metaphor" and shitting forth degree programs you subjectively value less than others, even though the objective data shows they aren't of any less value than other degrees, and in fact, contradict your long-held, fundamental, dogmatic belief that some degree programs are worthless. EVEN WHEN SHOWN DATA proving they're not, you continue arguing your dogma that they are.

So that doesn't make you thoughtful, or informed, or reasonable, or educated, or intuitive, or savvy, or of good judgment...it simply makes you a zealot.
 
Hello TOP,

TOP said:
You are still entitled to your opinion this morning;) You would be*guessing incorrectly, however and I didn't follow the Bill Cosby case.
Click to expand...

Well it was a guess, after all. And not a wild one. It was based on solid research. Of course, trends are just that. Not absolute. Thanks for being nice. A majority of Trump voters were fans of his TV show. Those who weren't tend to be extremely critical of Hillary Clinton.

TOP said:
Today is World Down's Syndrome Day....go buy a couple of pairs of https://johnscrazysocks.com/?_ke=ey...MI1vrq4paT4QIVwxx9Ch1AtgspEAAYASAAEgLXsfD_BwE
You'll feel better:) Guaranteed;)
Click to expand...

Never heard of John's Crazy Socks.

Looks like a great venture:

John's Crazy Socks
 
LV426 said:
I am not making any argument like that. All I'm doing is proving your argument is fucking wrong. I don't know what the best path to getting into the business world is, all I know is what the empirical evidence and data tell me. And the empirical evidence and data tell me that to work for one of the biggest banks in the country, a History, English, or Psych degree would suffice.

Personally, I think the value of a Harvard education vs. that of a State University is higher, regardless of the major or degree. Intangibles such as internships, networking, and recommendations play a major part in that too. There's greater opportunity for someone to take advantage of all three if they go to Harvard vs. State U. That's just how it is because of Harvard's reputation and alumni network.
Click to expand...

stop misleading the young, asschild.
 
LV426 said:
Yes, it does. It contradicts this: "I'd argue the one variable left out is the major the student chooses. If you want to go into the business world is studying Psychology at Harvard going to help you much more than a Business major at State U? Probably not."

One of the top 4 employers of Psych grads is Bank of America.

So because of that, it proves that statement of cawacko's wrong, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

no. its horseshit.
 
LV426 said:
No, cawacko, once again your ability to understand basic human emotions and responses is lacking.

I was attacking you because you were trying to argue that the degree someone gets makes them less employable and you singled out three degrees, all of which either track the national average for income, or exceed it, and all three of which also count major banks and financial institutions among the top employers of people with those degrees.

When you were called on that, you shifted the goalposts by meekly referring to a "metaphor" and shitting forth degree programs you subjectively value less than others, even though the objective data shows they aren't of any less value than other degrees, and in fact, contradict your long-held, fundamental, dogmatic belief that some degree programs are worthless. EVEN WHEN SHOWN DATA proving they're not, you continue arguing your dogma that they are.

So that doesn't make you thoughtful, or informed, or reasonable, or educated, or intuitive, or savvy, or of good judgment...it simply makes you a zealot.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are lying. What's it like to blatantly lie like you do? You never even read the article so you have no idea where I was coming from with my question. Instead you go ape sh*t crazy thinking I was saying something I wasn't.

So the issue here is your own. You have personal issues. Feel free not to respond anymore to me.
 
LV426 said:
I agree cawacko's point is horseshit, that's why I responded to it.
Click to expand...

no yours is, fool. the ivies are cronyistic and self serving, and that's how you are trying to sell it. knowledge is power, but networking is corruption. the institutions of oppression are crumbling. making victims white is not a solution, though it may be satisfying for idiots.
globalists like your dumb ass dominate academia, so of course you want everyone indoctrinated on the taxpayer dime.
 
cawacko said:
Nope, you are lying. What's it like to blatantly lie like you do? You never even read the article so you have no idea where I was coming from with my question. Instead you go ape sh*t crazy thinking I was saying something I wasn't.
Click to expand...

I quoted you directly.

You brought something up that wasn't even in the Op-ED you reference in the OP.

So you entered new subjects not covered by the Op-ED into the debate to advance your preconceived and prejudicial notions about the value of a college education.

It was all you and your actions, man.

Seriously. Get a grip.
 
AssHatZombie said:
no yours is, fool. the ivies are cronyistic and self serving, and that's how you are trying to sell it. knowledge is power, but networking is corruption. the institutions of oppression are crumbling. making victims white is not a solution, though it may be satisfying for idiots.
globalists like your dumb ass dominate academia, so of course you want everyone indoctrinated on the taxpayer dime.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone was rejected from Ivy League schools and is still very bitter about it.
 
LV426 said:
I quoted you directly.

You brought something up that wasn't even in the Op-ED you reference in the OP.

So you entered new subjects not covered by the Op-ED into the debate to advance your preconceived and prejudicial notions about the value of a college education.

It was all you and your actions, man.

Seriously. Get a grip.
Click to expand...

You quoted, then misrepresented, why I was asking the question in context of the article I posted. Simple stuff but maybe you can have another 50 to 100 posts without actually addressing the article. I have faith in your sir.
 
cawacko said:
You quoted, then misrepresented, why I was asking the question in context of the article I posted.
Click to expand...

The context is that what you were asking wasn't covered by the OP-ED you were quoting.

That's why you brought it up, man.

You entered something new into the debate that the Op-ED didn't cover because you wanted to advance a personal and preferential narrative to attack degree programs you subjectively judge. Why do you subjectively judge them so? Simple; you're a dogmatic zealot.

You literally said it was something you were adding to the Op-ED that wasn't covered by it, so I naturally took issue with what you said because it was fundamentally wrong and disproved by empirical evidence, hence, it was a dumb point to make and actually undercuts any goal you were hoping to achieve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top