Snobbery in education.

Candie wrote: »

I'd say it's a poor indicator of your ability to appreciate intelligence in others if you make blanket statements about the relative intelligence of students of different disciplines.

You have to wonder what motivates people to insist they're of greater intelligence than others, despite a lack of actual evidence.

I don't assume I'm of greater intelligence to someone with, say, a media studies degree. Just like I don't assume I'm smarter than a carpenter, the woman who does my dry-cleaning, or the waiter who serves me coffee.

Perhaps it's because I don't need to, since I can allow that intelligence comes in many forms, and excels in many areas, and I don't presume to have intimate knowledge of the challenges inherent in, and most pertinently, the intellects of people involved in fields other than my own.

Intellectual snobbery has zero value.

Says the person who assumes graduates of different universities are of better calibre.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear, I think you’re missing the point of that article. It says both IT’s and universities are rumored to be blacklisted, so what it really boils down to is the quality of the graduates from the individual college (or more likely: the specific course). As an aside, I went to an IT and had no problem with applying to Google and at least getting to the interview stage. Ditto for the US multinational I’ve spent the last few years working for either. I’m not aware of that particular company using blacklists either. At least not in my area (speaking as someone actively recruiting IT folks at the moment). If a candidate does not meet the bar, they don’t get the job regardless of what institution they attended.

Secondly, I have yet to see anyone in this thread properly answer the point that if it’s ok to judge people on the college/university they attended, then why is not ok to judge people based on the course they studied (some being more difficult to get into and finish than others). I know there are other variables at play, but it takes a lot more determination and effort for someone who had to put in 25-30 hour weeks lab/lecture time in a STEM course than someone on 15 hours a week studying some of the easier arts course. Not to mention the high attrition rates for STEM courses. There are exceptions of course: someone who studied maths as part of their arts degree may be more challenged than some of the easier STEM courses. But we’re talking about the average experience here. It would be great if folks would at least be consistent with their snobbishness.

The take away from this thread should really be: “it depends”. Maybe for some professions, who you know, what rugby playing school you went to and what university you attend may matter. But for many other industries, it’s a meritocracy and employers evaluate people on their individual merits. If I screened for candidates, strictly based on what college they attended, I would end up finding no-one for the roles we’re trying to fill.

Finally, I can’t resist a cheap shot at Hedge Fund managers as well (present company excepted of course). If ever there was an industry which was defined by mediocre performance, despite the credentials of those working in it, this would be it.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just to be clear: all of the above is alleged to be happening with American MNC’s. There is no clear proof other than hearsay, and I have certainly not seen it happen at my employer.

As noted earlier, one could get into science in UCD with 300 points before the recession, but English at UCD at the same time required 475 points. Did someone with a 300-point LC automatically become a higher caliber of student than the English student with a 475-point LC just because he enrolled in a science course? Of course not. You can't tell me that a lot of mediocre to average students haven't enrolled in that course over the years, just because they didn't have the points for something else.

It depends on the year. When I was in college during the late 90’s / early 2000’s, the points for STEM courses were consistently higher than arts courses pretty much everywhere. So you mileage may vary depending on what year you pick. Also, I took a look at the stats for last year as well. The points for STEM courses are still generally higher than for arts.

However, nobody could ever have gained entry to Harvard with the equivalent of 300 points (or 475 points, for that matter). Almost half the students in Harvard are valedictorians, i.e. they were the single best student in their high school. Somebody with the equivalent of a 300-point LC wouldn't last a week there. And yet it's suggested on this thread that a science student in UCD is of a higher caliber than someone studying philosophy at Harvard. That's simply nonsensical.

I think choosing edge cases such as elite colleges like Harvard is a bad analogy – your taking one extreme case and comparing it with the average here in Ireland. A student who gets into Harvard is probably going to be in the top percentile no matter what the course they happen to be doing. Plus even if they do end up being moulded into a snob at the end of their university experience, I would cut them far more slack than someone from here who got into an easier arts course looking down on someone who got higher points than they did to complete a far harder STEM course. Naturally, the aforementioned Harvard grad will probably look down their noses at people who did both courses (as you rightly pointed out here and in other threads how poor academic standards are at all levels in the Irish education system to begin with).

Finally, if the CV of either person landed on my desk, I would still take both people as they come, and adjust my bias for individual factors i.e. someone who did a liberal arts degree at Harvard my still have put in far less effort to get a high GPA than someone who studied a STEM course in UCD. Additional factors like work on personally projects and a general enthusiasm for the subject area would also be considered as well.

donegaLroad wrote: »

I was at school with a guy who gained his degree in computer science from a local IT. He went on to become one of the team who developed Windows 95.

I'm sure Microsoft couldn't give a toss where he got his qualifications from so long as he could deliver. In fact all the tech companies are like that, or am I wrong?

North America must be the world leaders in education snobbery, with England close runners up.

I know a man that never went to college and he's a multi millionaire today and there are plenty more like him.

MysticalRain wrote: »

Finally, if the CV of either person landed on my desk, I would still take both people as they come, and adjust my bias for individual factors i.e. someone who did a liberal arts degree at Harvard my still have put in far less effort to get a high GPA than someone who studied a STEM course in UCD. Additional factors like work on personally projects and a general enthusiasm for the subject area would also be considered as well.

As Permabear stated above, it is not necessarily the case that a person with less timetabled hours "put in less effort". Quite a bit of science is quite formulaic and an ability to work outside timetabled hours might well be the skills needs for a job.

it can also be case that students can mature quite a bit between 18 and 22 and their admission to third level is not the only measure of their ability, especially if they went to mediocre school.

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you just pick one year's CAO points to arrive at that conclusion? Science degrees require higher entry points some years, Arts degrees require higher points other years.

Yes that's true in years gone by but as Pbear says when the points where lower there was a higher dropout rate. Less people were up for the task. Also I still think science degrees are generally harder to complete.