@Bagsy thst makes sense.
@whang the two are different. Too much product choice leads to decision fatigue. Well managed diversity of ideas leads to collective intelligence and prevents confirmation bias and extremism
I know. I’m just trolling you 
1 Like
Can’t be too sure. I’ve definitely made some pretty stupid assertions on here that others pointed out
I’d be wary. Not only does GOOG have a history of launching stuff and killing it which would mean,
- You have one of these certificates, but in the future this “service” is dead. The potential employer attempts to verify the veracity of the certificate but can’t since all of this content is dead. Unless this becomes very popular and they have a working memory of “oh yeah, that existed”
- You invest a bunch of time, are 75% of the way there, and then the service is killed. You have nothing to show for your efforts.
Also,
- Android Development
- Sure, they are qualified to offer this but it is in Kotlin and few places have transitioned into doing Android development in Kotlin AFAIK. Java still reigns supreme
- Project Management
- See above, GOOG kills things so often they arguably aren’t the best at project management
- IT Support
- AFAIK the only way to get support from GOOG is to post on Hacker News and have it go viral
- Data Analytics
- I assume they know their stuff here
- UX Design
- You are joking, right? They routinely make their UX worse.
2 Likes
Thanks for the input!
I couldn’t agree with this post more.
3 Likes
My mum works in the college consulting/test prep industry. It blows my mind how parents are willing to spend around 10,000usd on a freaking 2 Week test prep course and nearly 100,000 on a consulting package just to get into a university because of name
What’s crazier is that my mum’s company is considered one of the “lower price” options
1 Like
Degrees have become as dumb and self defeating as any of the other status symbols people pursue.
1 Like
I agree to an extent.
My opinion is that there’s percentage of ppl who go to university that have no business in university
There’s a much larger percentage who should not be chasing “prestigious university” since the actual learning in most universities is pretty much the same (price differences are largely the result of amenities, student demanded by the way)
There’s a small percentage who would benefit from attending a name brand uni bc the status associated with the university is more or less required for career advancement. Most of these ppl can afford it.
Finally, there’s a very small percentage who manage to take full advantage of being at a name brand uni because of access to more resources (research funding, contact with famous faculty…)
That girl would benefit a LOT working directly with someone like Alvin Roth, who happens to be a professor At Stanford. She’s going to Harvard for some reason. While the Harvard econ department is amazing, Stanford’s literally has a Nobel dynasty on the subject she’s working on
1 Like
IMO the whole tertiary education industry needs a massive shakeup, and it looks like COVID is already starting it. Currently I’m studying for my second bachelor’s (mech eng, first one was econ & finance). I’m doing a full course load of 4 units/semester and currently have only 3-5 hours of face-to-face learning a week. All the rest is done through online lectures, using lecture slides made many years ago by former lecturers that haven’t been updated this whole time. Last semester a lot of lectures and labs were pre-recorded (some recorded many years ago), so you didn’t even get to ask questions during the session.
There are many full free lecture series on mech eng topics on Youtube and other places, so what exactly am I paying all this money for?
1 Like
Agreed! The shittiest part is that price inflation is pretty much driven by the student loan industry, which imo is one of the most despicable. Preying on the future generation.
Oof! I’m lucky in that my school did a very good job with their switch online and my professors are VERY responsive. Some of my friends at other universities are in a similar situation as you
My parents have paid and are paying a lot of money for my schooling. I’d like to think it’s not all a waste
1 Like
As a student and “tutor” (doesn’t translate well what I did, I taught classes and graded submitted assignments) I never bought into the utility of lectures as a learning tool and would have much preferred to study on my own but have “lectures” where students send in their questions beforehand to be educated on what presumably is the hard/non-obvious stuff.
1 Like
agreed. THere’s quite a bit of research showing that traditional lectures are, for the most part, very ineffective.
One of my professors experimented with something like this- “flipped classroom”. It worked quite well, but the problem was that most of the students didn’t want to ask questions so most “class periods” ended up being a discussion between myself, two other students, and the professor about random stuff. I really enjoyed it, but a bit more structure might have been more helpful in terms of actually learning the content
I haven’t seen flipped classroom be implemented in the way I suggest, the only instances where I’ve experienced flipped classroom being explored is students show up to be able to ask questions and that does tend to lead to the experience you shared. Questions aren’t submitted beforehand. I believe this to be suboptimal as, in my experience, most students are afraid of looking foolish in front of their peers and would rather sit silently with their knowledge gaps intact than expose them to the class.
1 Like
I went to a public high school that was actually decent, especially in terms of course offerings, but ultimately most people went to a small state school to party. If they want to spend their or their parents’ money that way, fine, I think they should still have that option even if I and others may feel it is a waste. Middle and high schools should promote other options to this demographic from the beginning.
Career advancement is a major reason to attend a well-known university – not the only one. I did not attend any other school for college, so I cannot compare, yet I am confident my education was different from other universities. I would still say it changed me as a person even if I were not pursuing an academic career.
My alma mater is highly research-focused, but not everyone wants to do undergraduate research. The quality of education nevertheless enriches most students’ lives. I don’t believe in education is a means to an end, or at least not for everyone.
My parents were not able to help me with homework after 2nd/3rd grade. They didn’t even ram college down my throat. They wouldn’t have even known that test prep services existed nor did they review any of my college application materials. I was a good student in high school and dreamed big, even though no one pressured me to apply to prestigious schools.
I don’t want to discredit her accomplishment, as it is impressive, but this girl attended one of the most elite prep schools in the country.
There is no way I could have developed such a theory in high school. I did not attend academic summer camps or do any shadowing/research as a high schooler. I was not involved in olympiad, debate, etc. I tried out for my school district’s half-day STEM program for gifted high school students and was not accepted.
I don’t mean to brag about it, especially as to this day I still feel like my acceptance was a mistake. But I earned my bachelor’s from a highly prestigious and respected university, attended by plenty of kids from these elite prep schools. I worked hard in high school but not much more than my more “gifted” peers who opted to attend one of our state schools, which is also a pretty great university nationwide.
There were definitely other students at my college who fit my demographic (first-generation students who attended public schools), but we were of course the minority. You know, maybe we didn’t take as good advantage of the resources as those who understand academia far better than us. At least not at the beginning. It seems like you think this group is a poorer fit for top universities, as if they’re wasting space and money.
I did not have this know-how my first couple years of college let alone in high school. I doubt I even knew what a scientific article was. So I should automatically be relegated to less prestigious options, or at the very least not even bother trying because I may or may not know what I want or be pushed toward accomplishing incredible feats at an early age?
I can’t deny that there is often pressure for an economic return on a large educational investment, or that merit must be involved in admissions. Yet I don’t think measuring “benefit” solely by the likelihoods of winning a Nobel prize, becoming a tenure-track professor at a famous university, bathing in cash at a self-founded Silicon Valley start-up, etc is right.
1 Like
Thank you for this response. It’s what I’ve been wanting to hear, but sometimes, what I want to hear isn’t what I need to hear. Checking for bias on my part
Agreed
I feel fairly confident that my education is different. The professors at my school are exceedingly open to undergraduates, truly interdisciplinary and incredibly supportive of students whether in terms of research or career development (career coaching starts the summer BEFORE freshman year starts)
I’ve talked to my friends from hs at other universities and their experiences are, to a large extent different. Some are at more “prestigious” universities but do not have the same opportunities as me
I can’t imagine how brilliant she must be. The appendices of these market design papers are 20+ pages of proofs.
I come from a just as, if not more, privileged background when it comes to academics. My parents aren’t rich per say, but are willing to sacrifice pretty much anything for my brother and my education. We also have connections. I don’t think I could have come close to her level in HS regardless of how much help my parents gave me (short of cheating of course)
No. I think that some of them might get a similar, if not better, education somewhere else. There is a (possibly large) percentage of them who are brilliant and NEED to be at a prestigious university to access the resources they need to realize their potential
There is a postdoc fellow who recently joined the department my major is in who came from a very prestigious university. He’s first generation and experienced incredible hardships growing up. He did some pretty groundbreaking neuroimaging work. His first paper out of grad school was featured in Nature Magazine and his images made the cover. The project was extremely expensive and resource intensive. Had he been at a less well funded university that could afford to provide generous grants as well as support to secure outside funding , his project might not have gone through.
100% disagree
These are all good things that can distinguish prestigious universities from mediocre or bad ones, but they still foster that education is a means to an end. Granted, America warrants that attitude at least a little bit. It should not be dismissed nor is it evil, but it’s also not the only motivation for some.
I don’t think a university’s education and resources are synonymous. More prestigious universities are usually but not always better in both areas, which often work together to provide experiences that students feel are worth the time and money. Some students are attracted to a top school for one or both of these elements. They can be mutually exclusive.
Just because a student does not need to work with a Nobel Prize winner or have the best connections to secure a top-paying investment banking job does not mean that a top education from a school also with those resources is less potent or beneficial for them than for someone who fits the demographic you describe.
This is without a doubt true. But how would you feel if this student didn’t have – or at least didn’t show – this potential in high school? Is applying to a prestigious school in high school not worth his time and money, or should such school not bother accepting him because he may not take advantage of these resources even if the education alone could change his life? How would you feel if after college he decided to not expend his brilliance on research?
1 Like
definitely not. The phenomenon of brilliant kids from disadvantaged backgrounds not applying to prestigious universities because they underestimate themselves or do not believe they can afford is apparently a big issue. We spent a day talking about it in the Behavioural Econ and Public Policy class I took last semester. a lot of these students might end up paying less to attend a prestigious university because of the ability of these institutions to provide generous financial aid
I’ve met him and I think he’d achieve great things regardless of what field he decided to pursue
This was part of my point and I especially agree with with this
I guess there’s a lot to be said about the learning environment
My main point in all of this is that a lot of the students who’s parents are spending thousands and thousands of dollars or are making themselves miserable in attempt to get them into a prestigious university might be better off “settling” for a lower ranked one- and possibly giving a seat to someone who might benefit more
It saddens me that a class is necessary to bring this issue to light, but, um, yes, this is true.
You are saying
How could they get a better education somewhere else if you think learning is virtually equal across institutions? Maybe you think educational quality is fixed, and the only thing that distinguishes prestigious schools from mediocre ones is resource quality or quantity? If so, I disagree.
I think you overestimate the number of parents who do these things.
How are you deciding who benefits from a high-quality education? Someone who has academic know-how and both wants and knows how to start doing research the moment they step foot on campus, probably even before then? That’s the impression I get based on
You say she’s attending Harvard “for some reason” as if it’s a bad thing that she’s not following your formula to win a Nobel Prize, which in itself is an unpredictable process, not a recipe.
I don’t understand why students from the demographic I mention would benefit from a high-quality education any less than those you deem more likely to publish in prestigious journals, which would be a ridiculous metric to use in college admissions anyway. Not everyone at a prestigious college wants to work with Dr. Top Publisher in Nature Whose H-Index is > X or at Goldman Sachs, or even bother trying.
2 Likes
A couple of my professors and high school teachers said that the actual academics (not including learning environment, resources etc) are basically the same across universities. I’ve only been to 1 so I’m just parroting what they told me
What’s different is how that education is delivered. At some “less prestigious” schools, there might be better interaction with professors or some niche program that’s perfect, but gets overlooked because an applicant is chasing name brand
possibly
no. A first generation student who is brilliant but never had the opportunity to shine would benefit much more than the kid from prep school who only wants to be in a prestigious school for the name and fancy diploma
I think had I gone to an ivy league, I’d be wasting my parent’s money because the education I’d get there is no better, if not worse, than the one I’m getting right now.
My logic is that if she’s really interested in market design and wants to continue, which is likely since she has received a sizeable grant, she’d want to be in proximity to those at the top of the field. Also, it’s not like Stanford’s education is any worse than Harvard’s, nor is the learning environment, resources etc.
I guess I just can’t imagine why she wouldn’t want to go to Stanford