Originally posted by vito_corleone:
kaplan publishes a guide that sorts out how diff schools fare in diff areas. very true, you don't need to be from a "good" college, a small, relatively lesser-known college can produce students that go on to do just as well as students from other "top schools" so long as the teaching staff and the school are good at what they do and impart valuable knowledge. also, smaller colleges tend to have a smaller student to teacher ratio giving students more attention and a more personalised touch as compared to the large lectures that go on in the bigger colleges
What you're saying is true - in the case of some individuals, their interests(learning-wise, at least) could certainly be better served if they went to smaller colleges(ie.mini-ivies like Williams, for instance) where they get more individual attention. Saying that, it might be better for them to be "big fish in small ponds than small fish in big ponds".
Now, saying that, I gave my example to illustrate the point ranking doesn't strictly matter - not as what you'd perceive in Singapore anyway. Look, even
comparing among the very top universities, there's no absolute - you could have an engineering degree from MIT and MIT could be ranked first for that faculty this year, but that doesn't mean it'll remain first forever. Hence, in essence, even in the eyes of employers, what's there to suggest a MIT graduate should rank more highly than one from Stanford, Caltech or even UC Berkely? I know this for a fact because I graduated from Stanford and know of friends who have gone to a couple of the "elite" colleges(Yale, UPenn, MIT to name a few). So basically, what I am trying to say is, if I got shortlisted for a job interview along with another graduate from a top college, whatever we have achieved(regardless of the school or class of our degrees) will go out of the window - it's how we perform at the interview that will determine who gets the job.
Someone mentioned in this thread that people will still go "wow" even if you graduated from Yale with an engineering degree even though that faculty is not as well-regarded as their counterparts from more " tech-oriented " colleges like MIT/Caltech/Stanford. Yes, this is actually also true. At the end of the day, employers(in the US, at least) do take into consideration the "selectivity" of the college you attend. If anyone is wondering(those who are familiar with the US system, excuse this part), this is why : when people apply to colleges in the US as freshmen(ie.undergraduate courses), they're not required to specify their intended majors even though they're allowed to do so if they wished. Hence, unlike those following the British education system, your admission to a particular college has no bearing whatsoever on your preferred course of study - basically, there's nothing to suggest you'd stand a better chance of getting admitted to MIT if you chose to do history(yes, there're history modules even at MIT!) over engineering. Hence, if employers were looking for someone to do a job that does not require precise specialisation(ie.jobs of an engineering nature which a history graduate may not be equipped with the skills to undertake, for instance), there's literally nothing to seperate a Harvard engineering graduate from a Stanford history graduate in terms of who might get the nod for the job. Ultimately, it's down to the personal qualities that would make a difference...
