|
United States47024 Posts
On May 21 2015 05:13 Zess wrote:
Meanwhile I have jack shit training in what I do and no one in their right mind should've hired me for a software dev role given that I studied and did research in glorious Guomindong subject of econometrics, but because I had fancy diploma from top 10 US school I just got job offers anyways that pay me to moderate wei2coolman.
To be fair, that's probably harder work than your actual work.
|
On May 21 2015 03:02 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 02:52 Eppa! wrote:
Its not really questionable to use grey areas as a basis for change when american universities are have having a monetary crisis. In fact it is an excellent time to change the foundation for them to lay the groundwork for a financially failing and critical part of the country. You sort of misinterpreted my point. At one end of the spectrum, you have purely privately funded research. At the other end you have purely government funded research. However, neither end of the spectrum represents the vast majority of research that gets funded through a multitude of sources both public and private. That purely private research produces "bad" research and purely public research doesn't does not speak to the quality of the middle ground, which can be negatively affected by policies that attempt to shift research funding away from private sources toward public ones. A whole lot of research that gets mixed funding is good research and even if you feel like shifting money away from private-funded research is getting away from the "bad" research, you're still negatively impacting a lot of research that's done in that middle ground.
I never said that. I was talking about state funded profitable research needs need to get actually get paid for their research which contrary to today when its injected into companies that neither pays for it directly or indirectly yet gets massive profits from it.
Edit: Ill slowly work my way through the other comments.
On May 21 2015 03:07 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 02:42 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 02:37 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 02:29 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 02:21 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 02:19 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 02:02 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 21 2015 01:42 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 01:40 WaveofShadow wrote:On May 21 2015 00:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
[quote]
For tuition/cost of college? Yes. It's a huge disparity. Just to put it in a little perspective : I didn't expect to get in where I did on the first try as its the only English speaking school in Canada. I fully planned on trying again in a year and also applying to US schools. In total I paid something between 60-70k in tuition for my entire time here (4 years). Some of the US schools are upwards of 40k/year. The most expensive US schools are currently at around 60k - 65k USD/year. Before financial aid mind, but in general some tuition reform to allow mid-/lower- tier schools, which don't have rich alumnis or large financial endowments (as the best schools do), to afford to be more liberal in their scholarships and financial aid is something direly necessary. This of course draws up the legitimate question: where does the money come from?" To that I say we invade Europe and loot their valuables. Maybe if state research/patents where not giving them away for free but actually selling them to companies US unis wouldn't be in such a shitty financial situation. You know the Murican way. Patent and research results is a muddy field, but I want to point out that a lot of research is only possible due to private company funding/collaboration, with the stipulation that they are entitled to use anything that come with the research. Such excellent research that the IMF funds that gives them a reason to impose recommentations that tell austerity in Greece is great for the country and big pharmacy companies finding a similar drug that does the same thing as the generic drug but can be patented as a new drug. Er I have no idea what you're trying to say. That a bad value research tend be company funded and good value research tend to be state funded. There is a reason why new drugs released has 0 correlation with R&D costs in drug research in pharmacy companies. I saw ex machina yesterday I was a good movie but with some obvious plot holes. Also WaveofShadows why didn't you tell use you where in a movie? Wut And ketara the only English speaking school for my profession
All gingers look the same.
|
Oh yeah I'm not saying that my friends aren't hard working or qualified.
I guess what I'm saying is that for each of them, they at some point made the decision that staying in school was a poor choice.
They live vicariously through me since I have the least disposible income of the group yet somehow I'm the one on a 6 month vacation and the most "educated".
|
United States47024 Posts
I would assume that Zess is raising the idea of how disproportionately easy it is to get a job with a degree (and one in an ostensibly unrelated field, no less) compared to the work required to get said degree is when contrasted with the corresponding amount of work required to prove yourself in the field without a degree.
Though Zess' degree is from a relatively prestigious school, which plays a part in that comparison.
|
I'm taking a year off from one of the most prestigious schools in the America, if not the world, and being back home really seemed to tell of how stupidly much a degree from a good school gives you advantages.
It took me literally months to find some sort of minimum wage paying part-time job, because I'd show employers my resume and they're like wtf, so I wouldn't get fired. I had to stop saying where I went to school because they seemed to be intimidated? idk really. I landed my current job without ever saying where I went to school.
Although it was pretty funny when everyone found out the dishwasher was a Princeton student 
|
Dear Indonesia
Your internet sucks
|
I have a friend who had that problem recently and it would have been really funny if it wasn't so sad. In order to get a job he had to straight up lie about his credentials and say they were much worse than they are.
|
I have a friend who had that problem recently and it would have been really funny if it wasn't so sad. In order to get a job he had to straight up lie about his credentials and say they were much worse than they are. Ketara you meant to click the edit button.
|
I have a friend who had that problem recently and it would have been really funny if it wasn't so sad. In order to get a job he had to straight up lie about his credentials and say they were much worse than they are. Ketara you meant to click the edit button. I dont even understand how thats possible dont you have to delete the quotes?
|
On May 21 2015 03:07 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 03:03 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 02:53 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 02:52 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 02:45 TheYango wrote:On May 21 2015 02:42 Eppa! wrote:
That a bad value research tend be company funded and good value research tend to be state funded. There is a reason why new drugs released has 0 correlation with R&D costs in drug research in pharmacy companies. The line between private and state-funded research gets pretty blurry when you have organizations that are partially funded both ways and individual groups/researchers that move between the two on a micro level. At the extreme ends of purely-state funded or purely private-funded research you could say that, but using that to drive policy-making that affects the much larger gray area in between is still quite questionable. Its not really questionable to use grey areas as a basis for change when american universities are have having a monetary crisis. In fact it is an excellent time to change the foundation for them to lay the groundwork for a financially failing and critical part of the country. Well, universities aren't the ones that are financially failing so there's no incentive for them to change policy. A lot of them are? http://www.economist.com/node/21559936 All that article states is that colleges are taking on more debt, which isn't inherently a sign of financial instability. The article then goes on to throw in a line about student debt, which has no direct bearing on the financial health of colleges. Nor does the state of private lending have a direct effect. The article is just a scare article that throws a bunch fo scary sounding terms and numbers and figures and conflates a few different angles into one grossly simplified (to the point of duplicity) narrative.
Debt is an issue when a large part of what is funding the increased debt are coming closer to hitting the a limit. With current university bubble its not a question of if its question on when.
On May 21 2015 03:11 TheYango wrote:
The article is basically saying what I already said before which is that top universities make decisions that are essentially a money sink with no real return and sustain it via their massively large endowments.
That's not exactly anything new, surprising, or exciting. It's also the only way top universities actually get anything done, lol.
Its an article from 2012 of course its not exciting. Its not only endowments are funding the expansion its also increasing the amount of students and tuition cost.
On May 21 2015 03:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 03:11 TheYango wrote:
The article is basically saying what I already said before which is that top universities make decisions that are essentially a money sink with no real return and sustain it via their massively large endowments.
That's not exactly anything new, surprising, or exciting. It's also the only way top universities actually get anything done, lol. Well, it works until it doesn't. And it's hard to say when/if endowments will ever stop. So for top universities I don't think there's any pressing need to overhaul policies.
It works until it doesn't is probably reason for the most large criseses in capitalism.
|
|
|
On May 21 2015 05:14 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 05:13 Zess wrote:
Meanwhile I have jack shit training in what I do and no one in their right mind should've hired me for a software dev role given that I studied and did research in glorious Guomindong subject of econometrics, but because I had fancy diploma from top 10 US school I just got job offers anyways that pay me to moderate wei2coolman. To be fair, that's probably harder work than your actual work.
Lol
I'm fairly certain (as much as one can be, I was only told this) I got a raise early on in my current position to a) match industry averages and b) because I had a bachelors degree. They made a point at this time not to higher anyone without a degree as well. I can't remember exactly but it was implied I was going to make more money than someone currently working here with the same title because I had a degree.
|
Baa?21245 Posts
On May 21 2015 05:41 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 03:07 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 03:03 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 02:53 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 02:52 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 02:45 TheYango wrote:On May 21 2015 02:42 Eppa! wrote:
That a bad value research tend be company funded and good value research tend to be state funded. There is a reason why new drugs released has 0 correlation with R&D costs in drug research in pharmacy companies. The line between private and state-funded research gets pretty blurry when you have organizations that are partially funded both ways and individual groups/researchers that move between the two on a micro level. At the extreme ends of purely-state funded or purely private-funded research you could say that, but using that to drive policy-making that affects the much larger gray area in between is still quite questionable. Its not really questionable to use grey areas as a basis for change when american universities are have having a monetary crisis. In fact it is an excellent time to change the foundation for them to lay the groundwork for a financially failing and critical part of the country. Well, universities aren't the ones that are financially failing so there's no incentive for them to change policy. A lot of them are? http://www.economist.com/node/21559936 All that article states is that colleges are taking on more debt, which isn't inherently a sign of financial instability. The article then goes on to throw in a line about student debt, which has no direct bearing on the financial health of colleges. Nor does the state of private lending have a direct effect. The article is just a scare article that throws a bunch fo scary sounding terms and numbers and figures and conflates a few different angles into one grossly simplified (to the point of duplicity) narrative. Debt is an issue when a large part of what is funding the increased debt are coming closer to hitting the glass ceiling. With current university bubble its not a question of if its question on when.
I don't think that term means what you think it means.
Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 03:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 03:11 TheYango wrote:
The article is basically saying what I already said before which is that top universities make decisions that are essentially a money sink with no real return and sustain it via their massively large endowments.
That's not exactly anything new, surprising, or exciting. It's also the only way top universities actually get anything done, lol. Well, it works until it doesn't. And it's hard to say when/if endowments will ever stop. So for top universities I don't think there's any pressing need to overhaul policies. It works until it doesn't is probably reason for the most large criseses in capitalism.
But it's so difficult to pinpoint what works and what doesn't and why. Hindsight is 20/20, but for every financial crisis that is "predicted" you have hundreds of other predictions that never come true. It's difficult to justify major policy changes based on the idea that a crisis might come.
|
On May 21 2015 05:33 thejuju wrote:I'm taking a year off from one of the most prestigious schools in the America, if not the world, and being back home really seemed to tell of how stupidly much a degree from a good school gives you advantages. It took me literally months to find some sort of minimum wage paying part-time job, because I'd show employers my resume and they're like wtf, so I wouldn't get fired. I had to stop saying where I went to school because they seemed to be intimidated? idk really. I landed my current job without ever saying where I went to school. Although it was pretty funny when everyone found out the dishwasher was a Princeton student
There are some areas that won't hire cops who have an IQ higher than 110 because apparently the average cop's IQ is ~102 or some shit.
Such metrics like higher education, IQ, etc as a deciding factor against hiring always made me laugh. A person is willing to work cheaper than they're actually worth, and you're saying "no" to that because of some arbitrary bs you made up in your tiny head?
It doesn't surprise me after being in the same class as a ton of management majors who went "huh, I never thought about that" when my one class essentially went over the idea that "old people are people too and have the similar wants/desires as other people." But at the same time it still makes me shake my head. ~.~
|
Baa?21245 Posts
Well, there's also the idea that people with higher degrees expect/will ask for higher salaries, so it's not worth going through the whole hiring process and waste time/effort only to have it break down at the salary negotiation stage. I know it's quite common for PhDs say they only have a Master's when looking for industry jobs.
|
On May 21 2015 05:51 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Well, there's also the idea that people with higher degrees expect/will ask for higher salaries, so it's not worth going through the whole hiring process and waste time/effort only to have it break down at the salary negotiation stage. I know it's quite common for PhDs say they only have a Master's when looking for industry jobs.
Eh in a way PhD's are not as attractive for industry. They're fall less malleable than graduates 
|
On May 21 2015 05:54 Doctorbeat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 05:51 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Well, there's also the idea that people with higher degrees expect/will ask for higher salaries, so it's not worth going through the whole hiring process and waste time/effort only to have it break down at the salary negotiation stage. I know it's quite common for PhDs say they only have a Master's when looking for industry jobs. Eh in a way PhD's are not as attractive for industry. They're fall less malleable than graduates
Only a certain level of crazy get PhD's anyway.
|
On May 21 2015 05:05 Ketara wrote:
Anyway, just saying that in my personal experience I know several people with good tech jobs and little to no formal schooling.
This is something of a unique feature to programming. The people who manage to do this in other STEM fields are typically genius-level.
It's partly cultural (SEE: Bill Gate's iconic origins), partly the volatility of the industry, and partly its accessibility. All in all it's an anomaly and not a template for how other fields can effectively function or a solid plan for your average professional hopeful.
|
i was under the impression that software engineers were slightly higher up on the chain than average programmers. like the kind of people that mostly have to go to meetings discussing the software that needs to be developed then telling the lower level employees what to work on .
|
On May 21 2015 05:46 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 05:41 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 03:07 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 03:03 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 02:53 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 02:52 Eppa! wrote:On May 21 2015 02:45 TheYango wrote:On May 21 2015 02:42 Eppa! wrote:
That a bad value research tend be company funded and good value research tend to be state funded. There is a reason why new drugs released has 0 correlation with R&D costs in drug research in pharmacy companies. The line between private and state-funded research gets pretty blurry when you have organizations that are partially funded both ways and individual groups/researchers that move between the two on a micro level. At the extreme ends of purely-state funded or purely private-funded research you could say that, but using that to drive policy-making that affects the much larger gray area in between is still quite questionable. Its not really questionable to use grey areas as a basis for change when american universities are have having a monetary crisis. In fact it is an excellent time to change the foundation for them to lay the groundwork for a financially failing and critical part of the country. Well, universities aren't the ones that are financially failing so there's no incentive for them to change policy. A lot of them are? http://www.economist.com/node/21559936 All that article states is that colleges are taking on more debt, which isn't inherently a sign of financial instability. The article then goes on to throw in a line about student debt, which has no direct bearing on the financial health of colleges. Nor does the state of private lending have a direct effect. The article is just a scare article that throws a bunch fo scary sounding terms and numbers and figures and conflates a few different angles into one grossly simplified (to the point of duplicity) narrative. Debt is an issue when a large part of what is funding the increased debt are coming closer to hitting the glass ceiling. With current university bubble its not a question of if its question on when. I don't think that term means what you think it means. Show nested quote +On May 21 2015 03:16 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 21 2015 03:11 TheYango wrote:
The article is basically saying what I already said before which is that top universities make decisions that are essentially a money sink with no real return and sustain it via their massively large endowments.
That's not exactly anything new, surprising, or exciting. It's also the only way top universities actually get anything done, lol. Well, it works until it doesn't. And it's hard to say when/if endowments will ever stop. So for top universities I don't think there's any pressing need to overhaul policies. It works until it doesn't is probably reason for the most large criseses in capitalism. But it's so difficult to pinpoint what works and what doesn't and why. Hindsight is 20/20, but for every financial crisis that is "predicted" you have hundreds of other predictions that never come true. It's difficult to justify major policy changes based on the idea that a crisis might come.
Sorry ESL.
Most bubbles are stopped before they become to large a risk. Major policy changes do happen before a crisis hits and is often the reason why a huge crisis does not occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
