4 ms·

I think the world is more complex than that, people would still rather go to a good competitive school rather than a school of weak peers. It fosters higher sco

by kanobo 6y ago

I think the world is more complex than that, people would still rather go to a good competitive school rather than a school of weak peers. It fosters higher scores and standards in global activities such as standardized tests and national awards, etc. If this wasn't true, bad schools (pre-college) would be much more popular since it is much easier to get a higher GPA.

rxhernandez 6y ago
The idea that the perceived value of something is equal to its actual value is far from reality. I have met plenty of people that went to top 20 schools that just gave up once they got there yet, still managed to graduate and go to graduate school. I have met plenty of people from my undergrad (definitely not a top 20 school) who were absolutely relentless in their studies and managed to have far more lucrative careers than those slackers who went to top 20 schools. I mean, I have nearly 3 degrees in EE, CS and Physics. Physics is usually one of the hardest majors at any university and my homework assignments/tests weren't much different than MIT's homework assignments/tests; sometimes they were a lot easier and sometimes they were on par with their graduate classes. For my lectures where MIT had their OCW version online, they were near identical; the lectures where there wasn't a corresponding OCW lecture, the quality was around the same. Moreover, CS and EE weren't much easier than physics so I can't imagine top 20 universities had much higher quality there either. (My university also deflated grades to the point where the average GPA was a 2.7 which made it that much more cut-throat (since a 3.0 was the cutoff for many engineering jobs)) (Also, from what I recall, UCSB was much harder to get into than my school yet, they were blacklisted at many engineering companies for having the earned reputation of being a party school; while, at my school, we had those companies consistently come to our career fairs) If idiots manage to graduate top 20 schools and yet idiots of similar caliber can't graduate from schools that are far below the top 20, their grade inflation is completely unwarranted.

by kanobo 6y ago

rxhernandez 6y ago

The idea that the perceived value of something is equal to its actual value is far from reality. I have met plenty of people that went to top 20 schools that just gave up once they got there yet, still managed to graduate and go to graduate school. I have met plenty of people from my undergrad (definitely not a top 20 school) who were absolutely relentless in their studies and managed to have far more lucrative careers than those slackers who went to top 20 schools. I mean, I have nearly 3 degrees in EE, CS and Physics. Physics is usually one of the hardest majors at any university and my homework assignments/tests weren't much different than MIT's homework assignments/tests; sometimes they were a lot easier and sometimes they were on par with their graduate classes. For my lectures where MIT had their OCW version online, they were near identical; the lectures where there wasn't a corresponding OCW lecture, the quality was around the same. Moreover, CS and EE weren't much easier than physics so I can't imagine top 20 universities had much higher quality there either. (My university also deflated grades to the point where the average GPA was a 2.7 which made it that much more cut-throat (since a 3.0 was the cutoff for many engineering jobs)) (Also, from what I recall, UCSB was much harder to get into than my school yet, they were blacklisted at many engineering companies for having the earned reputation of being a party school; while, at my school, we had those companies consistently come to our career fairs) If idiots manage to graduate top 20 schools and yet idiots of similar caliber can't graduate from schools that are far below the top 20, their grade inflation is completely unwarranted.