Snobbery in education.

CramCycle

AnonoBoy wrote: »

The snobbery among university students who haven't even graduated is laughable though. I

Undergrads tend to be the worst for it. With UCD vs TCD mentalities, ITs vs DIT, whoever against whatever.

At postgrad level it doesn't seem to happen as much as you often collaborate with these universities and other more "prestigous" universities around the world. I have met Irish researchers who publish with top 10 universities, I know one of my old colleagues is in the top 10 most cited nature publishers (ignore the fact that I mistrust nature technical papers). I have friends who went into Cambridge and Oxford postgrads with their irish undergraduate, I have friends who are in Duke with a degree from Dundalk IT, another is postdocing in Northwestern with an ITT degree.

While the standards to get in are lower for Science, only the good ones get their honours BSc and the best of these are more than capable of competing at the top around the world.

It may be a different ball game for other degrees, I am just giving you typical science examples (anecdotes, befoer anyone points it out) but they are quite a few anecdotes for someone as socially inept as myself.

I have found Irish postgrads to be more adaptable, they are not better but I feel you get alot more out of us when we are put under pressure. This said, as my previous posts have shown, there are some terrible ones, who i wouldn't trust to make a cup of coffee, let alone make up a buffer in a lab.

AnonoBoy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think I did take you up slightly wrong alright.

BrokenArrows

Is there a guarantee to be a differernce in quality from IT vs University? No.

Can there be a difference? Yes.

I did my degree in an IT. Looking back at it after working in my field i say that the quality of the course was absolute ****e. I learned more in 6 months on the job than i did in 4 years of a degree.

The technologies we were thought was old, out of touch with the job market and the lecturers were poor 9-5ers who were basically failed workers who fell back on teaching.

When it comes to technolody degrees if the modules are not updated every year they they are out of touch.

gutenberg

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with you that Irish students should be given more information about studying abroad, especially for undergraduate study. I remember being a 15-year-old having just finished the Junior Cert with excellent grades, and going to the Higher Options Fair with my dad. There was a section devoted to international universities and my dad actually spoke to the rep from Cambridge, with the guy saying that I should consider applying in light of my JC results. However, when I mentioned it to my school it was immediately shot down as impossible. Some friends did apply for UK courses through UCAS, but none were successful because the school didn't know how to do UCAS applications properly - the importance of the personal statement, reference etc. The students who applied were qualified for the courses they wanted in terms of grade equivalents etc., but other aspects let them down because they had no guidance. The school was a community college where a significant number did not progress to third level, but rather than trying to support those who were interested in going, they left people to their own devices, and made no effort to help people. It's disappointing. I'm sure there are much better schools out there of course, this is just my memories of how the secondary school system can close off options for people.

I will say however that going to one of the Irish universities doesn't automatically close you off from a good PhD. I'm at Cambridge now after an undergraduate degree from an Irish university, doing a fully-funded doctorate. On my Master's programme, also at Cam, there was a student from NUIG, who had a place to continue to the PhD but ultimately chose not to. At my college in Cam I've met tons of Irish students, many of them mathematicians and physicists interestingly, since Cam is an excellent place to study those topics. All of them had Irish undergraduate degrees, and none had any issues securing places. One or two of them, after doing Part III here, left to pursue PhDs in the States. I do absolutely agree with you that we should always be encouraging our students to pursue the best options they can, but I don't necessarily agree Irish university graduates are in 'no man's land' after they graduate with regard to postgraduate study. I can't say anything about ITs since I don't know enough, but my anecdotal experience with the universities has been quite positive.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gutenberg

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd be inclined to agree. My experience of study here is that people are interested more in how you did and what you did (so undergraduate dissertations, for example) versus which institution you've come from when it comes to postgrad. Now, maybe I just haven't noticed any snobbery because my undergrad is from Trinity, and since TCD is extremely well-known here I was never questioned about it - which may indicate a kind of snobbery, in some ways, as I don't know how how someone from one of the other universities or an IT would fare.

AnonoBoy

CramCycle wrote: »

Undergrads tend to be the worst for it. With UCD vs TCD mentalities, ITs vs DIT, whoever against whatever.

The girls in my example were doing Arts degrees in NUIG which points-wise was far far easier to get into than the course all those icky GMIT students were doing.

Maireadio

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I work in a job where they don't care too much about where you studied and are more concerned with what you've done.

What if all the interviewees have done stuff?

Maireadio

CramCycle wrote: »

Undergrads tend to be the worst for it. With UCD vs TCD mentalities, ITs vs DIT, whoever against whatever.

Once, I was going in for the shift with this guy on a college night out, until he found out I was a TCD student. He was UCD and I'm not joking, he walked away when he found out I went to TCD. Just. Walked away. I said to him "What does it matter?" and he said over his shoulder "It matters".

Maybe he just thought I was munting and it was an excuse. :pac:

CramCycle

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The technologies we were thought was old, out of touch with the job market and the lecturers were poor 9-5ers who were basically failed workers who fell back on teaching.

When it comes to technolody degrees if the modules are not updated every year they they are out of touch.

A symptom of the lecturer rather than the Institute. My immunology lecturers notes were out of date by almost 15 years and he was publishing at the time. He just didn't give a toss.
Maybe it's more prevalent where you were than the norm but it happens everywhere in Ireland alas.

Maireadio wrote: »

What if all the interviewees have done stuff?

Who has done more relevant stuff and done it better, as well as impressed their suitability to the environment.

Shelga

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmm. In general I would tend to agree, but I would respectfully put forward that you are overlooking some notable exceptions, perhaps due to the conversation focusing on law/finance/science research. There are other large industries where degree quality is not an overly important consideration when progressing a career.

I work in manufacturing, and the people at the top of their game in my company (which is huge) are very much there based on the results they have achieved throughout the course of their work. No one cares that you got a first from Oxford when quality scores and volumes produced are down. If you can be seen to turn around a factory's output, innovate in terms of efficiency and lean production, and inspire the people you work with, this is all that will matter when moving around the business.

As an example, one of our very senior directors is known for his almost religious attitude to quality. He single-handedly changed the way an entire factory thinks about how our products are produced. He earned £1.8million last year, excluding bonuses. I can find plenty online about his previous employers and the impact he had there, but absolutely nothing about his educational background. I don't even know if he has a degree. I'm pretty sure he doesn't consider himself just "working in a job".

Now, this is not an isolated example. This is the case with pretty much every high-ranking manager or director I can think of here, and in other companies in the industry. I think in the more old-school, "get your hands dirty" type jobs, practical experience counts for so much more. And these are huge industries. The careers are most definitely prestigious, by any measurement.

Of course I agree with the point about degrees from prestigious universities carrying more weight in many areas such as law and science, but the realities of a great number of workplaces are a lot more nuanced than that. A graduate who starts in my team and brags about his first from Cambridge will not go down well!

I think a narrow version of what constitutes 'prestige' is what is coming across as snobbery, tbh.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AnonoBoy

Maireadio wrote: »

What if all the interviewees have done stuff?

They look at who's done the best stuff!

Maireadio

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because I'm well read.

Across all the humanities subjects?

steddyeddy

Maireadio wrote: »

Across all the humanities subjects?

As I said I'm god.

No but really I have no disrespect for anyone who does an arts degree. I was simply pointing out the earlier hypocrisy when someone (not me) mentioned art degrees weren't as prized as STEM subject degrees. The language they used was very snobby "I.E worthless" ect but no more than language such as "backwater institutions". The two people who talked about higher calibre grads and also snobby comments like backwater institutions were the two people who complained about equally snobby comments about arts degrees being useless. In other words they could give it but they couldn't take it.

I don't think arts degrees are useless and likewise If I'm hiring a science grad I hire the person not the institution.

steddyeddy

In science they pick the person not the person's alma mater.

The problem with the prestige selection theory is that it assumes a primary variable dependent only on institution and not

A: how much work the student put into their coursework
B: how much self directed learning the student is engaged in
C: the student's ability to fit in with the current group
how the student's own research and interests fit to the group
E: the student's capacity for problem solving

Now if I had someone apply for a PhD or interview with us I wouldn't be a very good scientist if I assumed. Assumption based on one variable I.E institution is assuming you need all you need to know about the student based is snobbery and self destructive snobbery at that. In other words it doesn't really happen. I expect the prestige factor is more important in finance regarding connections.

One of the most recent post docs in the American facility I work in came from a polytechnic in the UK. He was second author on a paper (I suspect he should have been first) on a paper which has a high impact factor in biofuels. He was interested in the area, fit the group and very importantly didn't rely on things like prestige factor in place of talent.

Shelga

I think we are basically on the same page throughout this thread, Permabear- I just think it is important to consider the vast number of careers out there in science and engineering that value practical experience above university qualifications/contacts.

I don't think anyone could claim an engineering degree from MIT is ever going to be a hindrance, as such.

I think these are important considerations for someone finishing university and trying to decide between further study or starting work- what do I want to achieve in my career, and what's the best route to getting it? The answer to that will vary enormously from person to person, even assuming they are all highly ambitious.

CramCycle

Shelga wrote: »

I don't think anyone could claim an engineering degree from MIT is ever going to be a hindrance, as such.

There is reverse snobbery, where you are not hired because they believe you either won't stay or will realise quickly you are over qualified and either try and jump up the ladder or leave.

Happened to me when i was an undergrad, it was stupid, but they thought I had to much ambition. I was looking to get work experience, it was a 3 month contract, some interviewers are idiots.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Maireadio

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but really I have no disrespect for anyone who does an arts degree. I was simply pointing out the earlier hypocrisy when someone (not me) mentioned art degrees weren't as prized as STEM subject degrees. The language they used was very snobby "I.E worthless" ect but no more than language such as "backwater institutions". The two people who talked about higher calibre grads and also snobby comments like backwater institutions were the two people who complained about equally snobby comments about arts degrees being useless. In other words they could give it but they couldn't take it.

They're not comparable.

It goes without saying that the harder an institution is to get into, the greater the abilities of the admitted will generally be. Across all disciplines. Science, arts, all of them. And they use the interview system that you yourself think is a better form of deciding who gains admittance.

This is different to saying that one discipline is more difficult than another. And you said this, claiming science had more difficult concepts.

Can you not see the difference?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sugar Free

Interesting discussion in the last page of this thread. My experience of the pharmaceutical industry would be that those who went to the more widely known universities don't necessarily progress any quicker than those who did not...to a point.

When candidates are being considered for promotion to the executive levels (say VP and up) however, the ranks tend to be filled by those who were educated at undergrad level at top U.S. and European universities or who have completed company sponsored graduate programmes at these institutions, such as INSEAD or Wharton.

Certainly this is my observation in my current company and it seems similar in all of the top 7-8 companies. Those people who have the ambition and professional ability to reach the higher levels but who for whatever reason do not have the academic pedigree tend to move to the more medium sized companies where these opportunities are available.

In many cases they end up on very comparable compensation packages as their experience from the larger companies is highly sought after. So from what I've seen, reaching the top few levels of decision making where you can genuinely influence the direction of an organisation over time is certainly achievable. However getting to that position and the scale of the company in which you can do this is undoubtedly made more achievable by attending a better known university, internationally.

To reiterate in case I'm taken up the wrong way, I'm referring to the upper management levels of these organisations and not the research chemists or business analysts.

steddyeddy

Maireadio wrote: »

They're not comparable.

It goes without saying that the harder an institution is to get into, the greater the abilities of the admitted will generally be. Across all disciplines. Science, arts, all of them. And they use the interview system that you yourself think is a better form of deciding who gains admittance.

This is different to saying that one discipline is more difficult than another. And you said this, claiming science had more difficult concepts.

Can you not see the difference?

Yes I generally think science has the most difficult concepts. I'm not alone in this. I'm not diminishing the worth of arts.

Maireadio

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I generally think science has the most difficult concepts.

What has brought you to this conclusion?

steddyeddy

Maireadio wrote: »

What has brought you to this conclusion?

The concepts.

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I generally think science has the most difficult concepts. I'm not alone in this. I'm not diminishing the worth of arts.

I'd say Philosophy would be more difficult. The books are feckin' huge and it's more fluid while being less objective.

Avatar MIA

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes I generally think science has the most difficult concepts. I'm not alone in this.

No, but doesn't add any weight to your argument either.

steddyeddy

Avatar MIA wrote: »

No, but doesn't add any weight to your argument either.

We can agree to disagree

Fighting Irish

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Has anyone encountered much snobbery when it comes to education?

I have both in my work and personal life. I got my degree at an IT while one of my colleagues got hers at NUIG. She used to make little comments inferring that University degrees were much better than those attained at ITs.

In one sense I think she has a point as degrees earned from universities tend to look better on paper for prospective employers, but the actual content of the course isn't all that different I don't think.

Another form of snobbery in relation to education I encountered was from my brother, who left formal education at a fairly young age. He was of the mind that students were essentially useless and had very little common sense. I think his snobbery came from some insecurity he had about his own education.

She does and she's right, but you shouldn't care about that, life isn't a competition

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd say Philosophy would be more difficult. The books are feckin' huge and it's more fluid while being less objective.

Yea some bits of philosophy are difficult alright.