I always have impressions to those who got admitted into top Universities like MIT, Standford... for studying Engineering (only those with modesity and nice, not being an arrogant jerk though). I don't actually know what they are doing in the University or what they will do, but I always feel they can perform higher level tasks with more complexities. I always think that they are good at create and applying mathematical model in real life and I tend to agree: If you can't apply math, it's your problems, not math.
I am a junior software engineer on embedded devices. I am learning more on Linux kernel and low level stuffs. Even so, my will is not strong enough to pursue technical path forever, with a final purpose is to create something significant on my own.
May I have a chance to get on their level if I keep learning through experience and self-study? In my opinion, Math is the must have requirement, since it seems that programs on those Universities are very Math oriented. Without very strong math skill, how can one perform good in science and researching beyond making regular business products?
How well do graduates from top universities perform and how does it feel compare to the rest of the world?
I always have impressions to those who got admitted into top Universities like MIT, Standford... for studying Engineering (only those with modesity and nice, not being an arrogant jerk though). I don't actually know what they are doing in the University or what they will do, but I always feel they can perform higher level tasks with more complexities. I always think that they are good at create and applying mathematical model in real life and I tend to agree: If you can't apply math, it's your problems, not math.
I would say modestly that 75% of my learning happened outside University. Just using me non-scientifically as an average, lets say MIT was twice as productive at educating people as my school, that would put an MIT graduate at 125% of my knowledge. If, however, I am 33% more productive in educating myself outside school I make up the difference. Not to say MIT graduates aren't motivated to learn on their own, they could easily jump ahead just as well, but there is a point where the knowledge gained at MIT or a community college will be trivially different compared to the stuff you decide to learn in your own time.
I'd say this is especially true in any tech related industry where things change every year and if you fall behind your past knowledge will be outdated and near useless.
Ultimately, college of any type gives you the base knowledge you need for continued progress in a relatively narrow field. Only as a means to that end might you have picked up some directly-marketable skills like programming in this-or-that language. An employer who hires a recent grad is basically paying for someone with the base skills and potential to grow into an area that is interesting to their business. Some grads are, of course, more capable than others, but that only counts for the short-term picture. Its the long-term that an employer of recent grads is looking for.
Bad schools teach you only skills, good schools teach you how to learn. Top-tier schools are usually pretty good at developing and maintaining strong foundational elements withing their programs, as well as providing access to experienced staff and interesting research opportunities. These are the true value of the program, but an individual with a reasonable aptitude and a drive to learn can do surprisingly well for themselves, even with access to fewer resources.
With the Internet this has never been more true than today -- Wikipedia, Wolfram's MathWorld, Open Courseware, Khan Academy, Open-Source software, youtube, and various online forums/users groups make is possible to learn just about anything for zero monetary investment, given sufficient time and perseverance. These resources can be used on their own, or to supplement programs that don't necessarily live up to top standards.
The world is what you make of it.
Bad schools teach you only skills, good schools teach you how to learn. Top-tier schools are usually pretty good at developing and maintaining strong foundational elements withing their programs, as well as providing access to experienced staff and interesting research opportunities. These are the true value of the program, but an individual with a reasonable aptitude and a drive to learn can do surprisingly well for themselves, even with access to fewer resources.
With the Internet this has never been more true than today -- Wikipedia, Wolfram's MathWorld, Open Courseware, Khan Academy, Open-Source software, youtube, and various online forums/users groups make is possible to learn just about anything for zero monetary investment, given sufficient time and perseverance. These resources can be used on their own, or to supplement programs that don't necessarily live up to top standards.
The world is what you make of it.
My observation has been that top tier universities provide a better research experience than others, but education quality is pretty much the same. There are sometimes differences in emphasis in different fields, but the degree programs in one school will produce similar ability in a given student as a different school will for a similar student. For those who take advantage of the generally better facilities and more abundant funding, an elite school might provide better practical education or give their careers a boost. But those same students would probably shine at any other school as well.
Echoing what people have been saying, I do think that the students themselves that make the differences. Top-tier schools' students are smart, not because the school made them smart, but because they are already smart to begin with.
There are differences in the environment among schools. Of course, though, if it's good or bad for students is up for debate. MIT students, I heard, are very competitive. They would cutthroat each other just to get better grades. Other schools are probably more relaxed, their students are more likely to support each other.
There are differences in the environment among schools. Of course, though, if it's good or bad for students is up for debate. MIT students, I heard, are very competitive. They would cutthroat each other just to get better grades. Other schools are probably more relaxed, their students are more likely to support each other.
Being admitted usually means you're good. Graduating from those University may be.
But by no means you can conclude that those who weren't admitted or didn't graduate from there aren't good enough. It's a falacy.
Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and John Carmack... none of them even completed their degree studies.
It's the person, not the school what makes the difference.
But by no means you can conclude that those who weren't admitted or didn't graduate from there aren't good enough. It's a falacy.
Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and John Carmack... none of them even completed their degree studies.
It's the person, not the school what makes the difference.
Being admitted usually means you're good. Graduating from those University may be.
But by no means you can conclude that those who weren't admitted or didn't graduate from there aren't good enough. It's a falacy.
Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and John Carmack... none of them even completed their degree studies.
It's the person, not the school what makes the difference.
Bill Gates finished his degree... 34 years after he started.
The two people I know from such universities (UCLA and Harvard) are unremarkable.
Living in Tokyo I tend to meet more people from Japan’s best rather than America’s best. That means Tokyo University.
Those I have met from there tend to carry themselves differently, believing they deserve more (and because of Japanese society they get it, as it is all about educational background here), but still have a non-impressive skill set.
The strongest ones I meet are ones who simply have a passion for it and do it constantly, regardless of educational background.
L. Spiro
Living in Tokyo I tend to meet more people from Japan’s best rather than America’s best. That means Tokyo University.
Those I have met from there tend to carry themselves differently, believing they deserve more (and because of Japanese society they get it, as it is all about educational background here), but still have a non-impressive skill set.
The strongest ones I meet are ones who simply have a passion for it and do it constantly, regardless of educational background.
L. Spiro
You're making a rookie mistake.
May I have a chance to get on their level if I keep learning through experience and self-study?
It's not the knowledge that's the killer feature of the university system. It's the social aspect. By being in a university, I got to meet the tip top people in their fields. That, and the ability to work on cutting edge research that you wouldn't really have thought about by yourself.
As far as large university vs. small, there's less competition in a smaller university, but then there's less opportunity. You might have to work on something that is absolutely not interesting, even if it's important.
As far as large university vs. small, there's less competition in a smaller university, but then there's less opportunity. You might have to work on something that is absolutely not interesting, even if it's important.
Control theory in the stabilisation of peer-to-peer file sharing networks. *shudders*
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
