Share your source for this information.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Are you using AI - and how?
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
Share your source for this information.
I’d go with more like 86.2%…or maybe 42%.
There are a great number of seriously good academics at “lesser” schools than the Ivy’s. That said, seriously great schools tend to attract seriously great scholars. The real trick is to find a school that has an excellent faculty in your chosen field. Just using the basics, I wouldn’t hire a Harvard engineer over an MIT engineer with the same degree. I certainly wouldn’t hire someone with a degree in Agriculture from Yale over someone with one from say…Kansas!
As for @tylerwhyler, do your own work, it will make you a leader in your profession.
tylerwhyler
New Member
what source is there lol. An undergrad degree needs to teach basically the same shit or else it would be inadequate. If Standford's CS department is teaching a bunch of stuff that other universities aren't teaching, what are the things Stanford is leaving out of their CS curriculum? All undergrad degrees are the same number of credit hours.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
Having been in recruiting for years, attended recruiting conferences, listened to what HM's are actually looking for I can with a good amount of confidence say this isn't really accurate anymore as it was decades ago. A person who gives a referral to a HM may end up getting that candidate a closer look but it by no means they will pass the initial interview and if they do it does not mean they have any extra advantage.
tylerwhyler
New Member
I more so meant networking for civilian jobs. I mean I wouldn't know, but what I've seen online it seems like the networking people get from going to prestigious schools is very valuable.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of Stanford's CS program.
Having said that, elite programs aren't about leaving out information. It's the difference between learning from people who used cutting edge search algorithms for Google and encryption to protect sensitive information for large businesses vs. a career professor teaching you stuff he learned 20 years ago in graduate school and writes just enough papers to keep his job.
You will also learn that 20 year old stuff in a top program, but it's not the culminating topic of the curriculum.
As an example, scholars were teaching the heliocentric model long before it became common accepted knowledge.
More to the point: AI isn't going to return answers on anything that is cutting edge, it only returns mainstream knowledge. And the real danger is that it will tell you ground breaking research is wrong.
Education is about developing a deeper understanding about a topic. AI can only explain the understanding that already exists.
Last edited:
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
I am talking about civilian jobs.
This is untrue, even within the same college at a particular university. Granted I'm 20 years out of undergrad, but as one data point: U of MD Engineering Bachelors varied from 125 to 140 credits, IIRC. I think Chem E was the longest, with most students taking 4.5-5 years for completion.
tylerwhyler
New Member
Okay, either way my point is that a mathematics degree is a mathematics degree. A computer science degree is a computer science degree. A history degree is a history degree.
Sure prestigious schools will often have more rigour and perhaps more cutting-edge research included in their curriculum... but it's really not all that different than a regular old state school education. I will reiterate that 90% of the curriculum is going to be very similar. You need to learn core concepts regardless of where you go to school.
I've heard this anecdotally from a lot of different people, and there is proof of this in that it really is not that uncommon for undergrads at state schools to do very well with their education and get into graduate programs at prestigious schools.
The founder of Nvidia is a random example: state school to Stanford master's program.
So no sources, but now you're saying you know all about how accreditation works?
Different schools will have completely different courses within the same degreefield of study. Bio-101 (intro to biology) might not change much, but Thea-325 (scenic design) will be vastly different.
Stop talking out of your ass. You're among the professionals in a field that you want to join. It doesn't impress anyone.
I pretty much agree with this for the technical fields. If you are a math undergrad, by year four you are studying advanced calculus that was figured out a couple of hundred years ago. Physics student? Quantum mechanics remains fourth year topic, and that is a hundred years old.
The universities use the same books pretty much.
The people who really want to teach, to excel at that craft, don’t excel at research typically, and vice verse. Plenty of exceptions, but it generalizes.
One thing cool is very often you can get access to class notes for the classes at the “high end” schools and compare them to the others.
This!
As a young Math major in the the 80's, Yy 3rd and 4th year classes progressed quickly in complexity and were taught by ever more esoteric and eccentric professors. I was specializing in Operations Research. There was a specialized publisher called "THE PROBLEM SOLVER" that produced basically class notes and "how to" and "what the professor actually wants to see" type booklets. Basically "peer reviewed gouge" - that was applicable for your field of technical study across the university community in the US. Worth every penny. It was the difference between getting a C and a B for me.
I suppose that could be right. The Arts between schools are, and should be, pretty different.
Duh…sorry I somehow posted this in the wrong place!