Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The current undergraduate university market is almost entirely a reputational marketplace -- people are shopping for reputation/prestige.

It turns out that prestige has very little to do with undergraduate education quality.

This used to make lots of sense -- for centuries, college was more important as a place to meet other people as it was a place to actually learn useful skills -- and so you were primarily trying to go to the highest-class place you could get yourself in to.

In this day and age, though, I don't think that's the right way to approach choosing a school.



I agree with all of this except the last sentence, which I entirely disagree with.

The gap between elites and non-elites is growing, and as a result, the value of breaking into the social circles of the wealthy and "legacy" students who dominate elite schools is also growing.

Meanwhile, high-quality educational content is becoming more widely available - often published for free by those same elite schools - so the value of the education itself is approaching zero. (For some programs, notably elite MBA programs, the value of the education is basically zero already and has been for some time.)

If a course is taught by a TA or adjunct who barely speaks the language in which it's conducted, rather than by the distinguished professors whose names are on the department website, that's an annoyance, but all it costs you is some time on Khan Academy or Coursera to learn the material on your own. Your well-connected classmate who introduces you to a hiring manager or angel investor will have a much larger impact on your life.


What do you think has changed? Is shopping for prestige a less useful strategy than it used to be? Now that more people go to university, arguably prestige is even more important.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: