4 ms·

It never ends. Even at a "Name Brand" school you're still looking up at Harvard-Princeton-Yale. If you're there, you're looking up at the Rhodes scholars, vale

by GavinB 17y ago

It never ends. Even at a "Name Brand" school you're still looking up at Harvard-Princeton-Yale. If you're there, you're looking up at the Rhodes scholars, valedictorians, and the "stars" of each department. You have to remember that once you go to some top-rated school, you're suddenly in an environment where everyone goes to that school, and it stops being special. Set goals that will get you to a place where you can do the kind of work that you really want to be doing. If you can achieve that, you're better off than most Ivy grads. A top school brings a few advantages, sure, but nothing that a little success can't cure, and certainly not happiness.

endtime 17y ago
This is very true. I'm at a top "name brand" school for CS, and, honestly, when I look at myself next to someone from a good but less-well-known university (say, UW) who has done really interesting research, I feel inferior in a way. I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department. What I'm trying to get at is that while being from MIT or Stanford makes a good first impression, personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process (consider this: I am a CS grad student at Stanford, and I was rejected from UMD and UMass Amherst for grad school).
- vlad 17y ago
  I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department. UW is a top name brand grad school for CS. personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process Grad school decisions at all the universities you mentioned are made by professors themselves, and they typically look for candidates who are interested in getting a PhD. Stanford's three year Master's program is career oriented.
buro9 17y ago
I'm in England, I can tell you what this is: It's the class system. Oxbridge > Red brick university (old) > ex-Polytechnic This could be changed of course, but the things that the Oxbridge and red bricks do so well is the networking. The societies, the sticking together, the essence of "you must be thoroughly decent and clever because I experienced that system and you did too", except the entry requirement was not smarts but whether you could afford to fund yourself through and could get through the entry requirements. I say it could be changed because I see similar power of networks in smaller social nets. For example I see cyclists online have a great bond with other cyclists and a very strong bias towards other cyclists... to the degree of giving work to cyclists based on no other criteria than those people appearing to be qualified (but many thousands of others are) and exist in the pre-requisite community (belong to a cycling community). So the class system can be thought of as exclusive social networks. The education itself is not the measure here, it's whether you are in the network or not. Why this opens it to change is that the network they are in has to be exclusive, and so would a replacement, but it changes by you working with those you went to college with to build your own networks and positively discriminate towards each other. To the degree that if you have 2 candidates in front of you and 1 is MIT and one is <insert your college> you opt for your college or fellow institute over MIT. Basically... you do have means to weaken the influence class system by discriminating positively towards your social network. Just standing by and bitching that you (not the poster, but general "you") don't belong to the advantaged network isn't going to help you, and you can't become a member of that network... you can just build a new network and make it strong. I've perhaps over-simplified a hell of a lot of this post... it's early and I'm hungover.

by GavinB 17y ago

endtime 17y ago

This is very true. I'm at a top "name brand" school for CS, and, honestly, when I look at myself next to someone from a good but less-well-known university (say, UW) who has done really interesting research, I feel inferior in a way. I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department. What I'm trying to get at is that while being from MIT or Stanford makes a good first impression, personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process (consider this: I am a CS grad student at Stanford, and I was rejected from UMD and UMass Amherst for grad school).

vlad 17y ago
I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department. UW is a top name brand grad school for CS. personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process Grad school decisions at all the universities you mentioned are made by professors themselves, and they typically look for candidates who are interested in getting a PhD. Stanford's three year Master's program is career oriented.

buro9 17y ago

I'm in England, I can tell you what this is: It's the class system. Oxbridge > Red brick university (old) > ex-Polytechnic This could be changed of course, but the things that the Oxbridge and red bricks do so well is the networking. The societies, the sticking together, the essence of "you must be thoroughly decent and clever because I experienced that system and you did too", except the entry requirement was not smarts but whether you could afford to fund yourself through and could get through the entry requirements. I say it could be changed because I see similar power of networks in smaller social nets. For example I see cyclists online have a great bond with other cyclists and a very strong bias towards other cyclists... to the degree of giving work to cyclists based on no other criteria than those people appearing to be qualified (but many thousands of others are) and exist in the pre-requisite community (belong to a cycling community). So the class system can be thought of as exclusive social networks. The education itself is not the measure here, it's whether you are in the network or not. Why this opens it to change is that the network they are in has to be exclusive, and so would a replacement, but it changes by you working with those you went to college with to build your own networks and positively discriminate towards each other. To the degree that if you have 2 candidates in front of you and 1 is MIT and one is <insert your college> you opt for your college or fellow institute over MIT. Basically... you do have means to weaken the influence class system by discriminating positively towards your social network. Just standing by and bitching that you (not the poster, but general "you") don't belong to the advantaged network isn't going to help you, and you can't become a member of that network... you can just build a new network and make it strong. I've perhaps over-simplified a hell of a lot of this post... it's early and I'm hungover.