3 ms·

That is very scary if it's true. If a degree in the experimental sciences from a top-10 institution does not pay better than a degree from Tumbleweed State the

That is very scary if it's true. If a degree in the experimental sciences from a top-10 institution does not pay better than a degree from Tumbleweed State then the employment market for scientists is completely broken.

tyingq 11y ago
It may pay better, but they are calculating the overall return, meaning the cost of that top-10 degree is a factor as well.
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  I agree this might indicate that top tier institutions simply extracted all of the value difference that separated them from the others.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Well, maybe they extracted all the cash difference. Some people use degrees as status symbols. What's the old joke? How do you know if somebody went to Harvard?
nerga 11y ago
Why is this scary? Experimental sciences typically don't pay well, regardless of where you go. Increasingly you need a masters to even get a lab bench job. PHDs very rarely pay well either unless you are in a few specific fields. People from the math and sciences who want to make money go into software or finance, its been this way for well over10 years.
khaolak 11y ago
This is very encouraging if true. The difference between a 17 year old applying to "a top-10 institution" and a 17 year old applying to "Tumbleweed State" is almost exclusively what their parents income is (both directly for ability to pay, and indirectly through living in a desirable school district throughout their K-12 education). I did my undergrad at a "tumbleweed state" school and grad school at a top-10. The difference in the average student at each school was privilege, not ability. Turns out, best and brightest from Idaho to Ohio and Minnesota to Mississippi are just as smart and just as hardworking as the best and brightest from California and Massachusetts.
bglazer 11y ago
Is it broken or working like it's supposed to? I've never understood the desire of scientists to rank and self-segregate themselves into "elite" and "Tumbleweed State". First, it's not in scientist's self interest to give up chances at career progression to an elite cabal of admissions panels. Secondly, it actively restricts the flow of ideas to artificially limit the pool of respected scientists to only those people at a few institutions, even while the total number of scientists continues to grow. Finally, science is science, whether you're in Wichita Kansas or Cambridge Massachusetts. Why is it bad that scientists are judged on their objective output rather than the place they went to school?
kamaal 11y ago
>>If a degree in the experimental sciences from a top-10 institution does not pay better than a degree from Tumbleweed State then the employment market for scientists is completely broken. It is the the other way. Why do you think a guy who can produce a good algorithm from Tumbleweed State be paid less than a person who studied hunting habits of native americans in Stanford? You are not going to college to buy aristocracy, that you will get lifelong rights to a nice pay regardless of your skills.

tyingq 11y ago

It may pay better, but they are calculating the overall return, meaning the cost of that top-10 degree is a factor as well.

cmdrfred 11y ago
I agree this might indicate that top tier institutions simply extracted all of the value difference that separated them from the others.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Well, maybe they extracted all the cash difference. Some people use degrees as status symbols. What's the old joke? How do you know if somebody went to Harvard?

nerga 11y ago

Why is this scary? Experimental sciences typically don't pay well, regardless of where you go. Increasingly you need a masters to even get a lab bench job. PHDs very rarely pay well either unless you are in a few specific fields. People from the math and sciences who want to make money go into software or finance, its been this way for well over10 years.

khaolak 11y ago

This is very encouraging if true. The difference between a 17 year old applying to "a top-10 institution" and a 17 year old applying to "Tumbleweed State" is almost exclusively what their parents income is (both directly for ability to pay, and indirectly through living in a desirable school district throughout their K-12 education). I did my undergrad at a "tumbleweed state" school and grad school at a top-10. The difference in the average student at each school was privilege, not ability. Turns out, best and brightest from Idaho to Ohio and Minnesota to Mississippi are just as smart and just as hardworking as the best and brightest from California and Massachusetts.

bglazer 11y ago

Is it broken or working like it's supposed to? I've never understood the desire of scientists to rank and self-segregate themselves into "elite" and "Tumbleweed State". First, it's not in scientist's self interest to give up chances at career progression to an elite cabal of admissions panels. Secondly, it actively restricts the flow of ideas to artificially limit the pool of respected scientists to only those people at a few institutions, even while the total number of scientists continues to grow. Finally, science is science, whether you're in Wichita Kansas or Cambridge Massachusetts. Why is it bad that scientists are judged on their objective output rather than the place they went to school?

kamaal 11y ago

>>If a degree in the experimental sciences from a top-10 institution does not pay better than a degree from Tumbleweed State then the employment market for scientists is completely broken. It is the the other way. Why do you think a guy who can produce a good algorithm from Tumbleweed State be paid less than a person who studied hunting habits of native americans in Stanford? You are not going to college to buy aristocracy, that you will get lifelong rights to a nice pay regardless of your skills.