So it's been a while since i posted, sorry.
The other day i got into a disagreement with someone at work...and i got really hot and bothered, and not in the good way.
The argument may seem kinda stupid, but it still irritated the piss out of me.
Chemistry is chemistry, no matter what school you go to. Oxygen is always oxygen and C2 + 2O2--> 2CO2. Okay...i can accept that. However...his conclusion to this was...A major in chemistry is exactly the same no matter what school you go to. If you graduate from Indiana State University with a BS in chemistry, you know exactly as much as someone who graduated from UC Berkley, or MIT, or Northwestern. He got a 3.4 when he was at IU, and i got a 3.0 while i was at Rose...therefore...he's smarter than me b/c his degree wasn't any easier than mine.
I call bullshit here. Not that Rose is better than any school out there, but i disagree that a chemistry degree from one school is exactly the same as a degree from somewhere else. The difference is the quality of the professors, the amount of knowledge shoved into the time you have class, and the level of understanding expected of the students. Oh...and did i mention that he said he didn't study at all when he was in college. I studied my ass off, as did most of my classmates. So does this mean that kids who go to Rose are all idiots, b/c they have to study so hard? Perhaps this is just me and my ego getting in the way. I happen to think Rose is a great school, and I'm very proud of the degree I got from there. I worked hard for it...and I display my diploma proudly on my wall at home!
So what do you all think about this? Do you believe that a degree from one school is equivalent to the degree at another school if it's in chemistry since the subject is universal?
posted by Audra @ 6:55 PM
9 Comments:
If i graduate from Clemson with a degree in Business i will get plenty of job offers.
If i get a business degree from Harvard i will get my choice of working for whoever i wanted and will make alot more money to start.
I think that answers the question.
Billy
But business practices vary from company to company and person to person. Chemistry is always chemistry. The science is constant (until someone debunks the theories), but we all learn the same theories, the same reactions, the same mechanisms.
True, but what i am saying is that different schools have different weight. I will most likely get a better education from MIT in mathematics than i would from Central Florida. Sure the concepts are the same and 1+1=2 but i might have a nobel prized winning professor teaching me at MIT.
It all comes down to the approach. His getting a good grade means nothing. For all you and I know he had a teacher who gave him a certain grade for giving a blow job to the professor. Inflation in grades means little to nothing in the job world.
Graduating from Harvard would be enough for me to get an excellent job in the company. Does the company care that i finished with a 2.3? Hell no.
Your degree is universal. The only measurement will come in work performance and quality of work done. If you advance farther than him its because you are better at your job. It wont be because he had .4 better GPA.
Of course he can excel in other ways to move up that have nothing to do with his work. Kissing ass, taking a different career path to get where he is going might bump him past you.
In the end its always about perception. MIT is better than Georgia Tech. If MIT shifted all their staff to GT it wouldnt matter. Perception takes years to accrue and it doesnt wear off as fast.
Just look at Notre Dame. Their football program sucked for a decade. Yet NBC bought the rights for the last 8 years. Perception.
Billy
As for what Billy's saying, there's something to be said for a name. The degree says "I know my stuff." You can get that from anywhere. Like you said, though, some schools make you bust your ass and earn that degree - slacking off for four years proves nothing. Given the choice, I'd hire a student who's had to prove their mettle through a rigorous curriculum, and I think Rose has the better reputation for that.
Does it mean Rose kids are automatically smarter? Not really. But chances are, if we didn't have a strong work ethic going in, we probably walked out with one.
In the end i agree with you when it comes to quality. Teaching and what the teacher expects is major. If a chemistry teacher has 10 students and he is tops in his field then his students will come away with more of an understanding than those who had a class of 70 with a teacher who was qualified.
If you work at a lab that is doing big things or is cutting edge, then having better teachers and schooling is viewed better.
Working for someone who needs your services but isnt keen on quality will be less stringent on getting the best and brightest.
No offense.
Billy
Well, I wasn't trying to imply Rose is the best ever. That was actually supposed to be in response to your top post (about Harvard versus Clemson) - you beat me to the punch by four minutes - that's what I get for getting up and mixing a drink mid-reply.
There's nothing wrong with state schools - cranking out tens of thousands of undergrads a year certainly implies some level of success and demand in the workforce. In addition, after a few years of work your college GPA becomes somewhat irrelevant; future employers will care more about your current projects and real-world experience than your college GPA (or at least that's what I hope - I left Rose with, shall we say, a questionable last quarter and a less than stellar GPA).
Sounds like we're on the same page as far as the degrees being relatively equivalent in information learned, but the school is a factor in getting you out into the world. Once you're out there, your performance generally takes precedent over your college background.
Also, no offense taken. Your arguments made sense, and I didn't mean to sound cocky or anything; just tried to play a different angle on your first post.
I know that when we are hiring someone, if they came from certain schools, they get much more consideration. Why is this? Mainly because students from that school have consistently excelled and been the best investments we've made from an employee perspective. Rose definitely falls into this category.
i feel stupid for coming here sometimes, but i'm not about to leave. i know perfectly well that the rose degree means a lot, both in terms of how employers see me and in terms of my own abilities. proposing that two different degree programs are in any way identical is preposterous.
now, if he wants to argue that rose gives you more than is actually necessary, or that the workplace sets a standard low enough to make any kind of education good enough, then maybe there's something there.
Can you spell EGO? Such a stupid argument hardly deserves comment. But since I am here...
Purdue offers degrees in several fields from professors who are not even in the classroom and yet that degree is better than one from BSU where the prof with a PHd is in the classroom every day?
Yeahright! and anyone who thinks for a second that IU is a match for Rose is the same idiot who thinks that purdue grad knows as much as the BSU grad.
Unfortunatly I have just discribed half the acedemics in the USA.
sorry
Post a Comment
<< Home