Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
I'd go as far as to recommend doing your undergrad degree at whatever your local university is if the trade off is that you can live at your parents while doing it (which means either 1) no need for a job = more time to focus on your studies, or 2) basically no debt upon graduating).
|
It depends somewhat on the situation but in general I agree.
This is somewhat controversial but my cynical view is that there's a continuum of validity in educational fields, with harder science and engineering near the top and stuff like gender studies and maybe management near the bottom. The less scientific fields are based mostly on prestige and social pressures, and are a lot like medieval priesthood structures. In the less scientific fields, the prestige of the institutions matters more. In the more scientific fields, objective results matter more and the institution matters less. So if you are going to be very skilled in a technical area you can go wherever for schooling as long as they can teach you what you need to know, but if you're instead in a prestige-based field you should pick the most prestigious place.
Justin Trudeau for example should have chosen the most prestigious school possible because he didn't develop much in the way of objective technical skills. For him it's all about his network of contacts and credentialism. He took literature at McGill.
There is something to be said for the quality of your peers and it might be a little better at a more prestigious school, because the more skilled students have more options of where to go, but I think this is somewhat overstated. You will find a lot of self-sorting at many institutions by difficulty of the coursework. The lazy kids don't make it to 4th year math courses, they're in underwater basketweaving.
We often hear about the income premium of kids who go to university or better universities, but we don't hear a lot about the qualified ones who
didn't choose the Ivy Leagues and the like.