Great post by Paul Graham on the importance of getting the right college education... Finally I don't feel stupid for not having an academic degree... ;-)
"Practically everyone thinks that someone who went to MIT or Harvard or Stanford must be smart. Even people who hate you for it believe it.
But when you think about what it means to have gone to an elite college, how could this be true? We're talking about a decision made by admissions officers—basically, HR people—based on a cursory examination of a huge pile of depressingly similar applications submitted by seventeen year olds. And what do they have to go on? An easily gamed standardized test; a short essay telling you what the kid thinks you want to hear; an interview with a random alum; a high school record that's largely an index of obedience. Who would rely on such a test?"
I particularly relate to this part:
"...Because how much you learn in college depends a lot more on you than the college. A determined party animal can get through the best school without learning anything. And someone with a real thirst for knowledge will be able to find a few smart people to learn from at a school that isn't prestigious at all."
Anyhow - good post, especially if you're hiring people. Go and read the whole thing here.
I definitely agree with the 2nd paragraph. It's completely up to the individual as to what they learn. Anyone can "coast" through college and walk through all of the motions, but if they don't apply themselves they won't really "learn" anything...
Posted by: College Success | April 17, 2008 at 11:09 AM
What you are saying about being admitted to school makes a ton of sense. Still, what school you graduate from DOES matter. It may make YOUR resume stand-out from the thousands of others. AND it simply does not matter if you ARE smart. What matters, today, is whether or not YOU have ALL the qualities a company is wants. Haven't you heard of the seven step interview? When it comes to employment after graduation, there are hardly any cursory examinations. Employers feel they can predict whether or not you will succeed with the company and stick around based on a series of tests and a few interviews. They base their success rate off of the people they've chosen. Who's to say that they didn't pass-up a more perfect fit based on one wrong answer? Who is measuring whether or not these people are succeeding? AND who's to say that the people whom are not succeeding and whom these companies passed-up would not have succeeded with that particular company?
These are things that are not being measured? Can they be measured? Would these measurements be accurate or just spur a fifteen stage interview?!
Maybe we should all work for HR and try so hard to create job security for ourselves at the expense of others time and money?!
Similarly, maybe we should all work as admissions adviser and recruiters at colleges and universities and make arbitrary decisions that we only, later, attempt to justify.
It's life...so let's stay strong and deal with it.
Posted by: cmm | October 02, 2008 at 01:23 AM