[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Educated Liberals (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/26/2004 5:51:57 PM EDT
|
wo what do yall think about em? why? college, the way they were raised, geographics, what? granted, i sell propane and propane accessories but i also graduated summa cum laude from a 4 year...........and im fairly certain theres not a liberal bone in my body how can you supposedly be so fucking "smart" and yet, be so fucking dumb? do they go into college a certain way? (as i did, bit my goddamned lip, or mouthed off when the decidely communist professors mouthed off) do they go in with skulls full of shit and get brainwashed in school by those same liberal professors? or is there very simply an undetected birth defect that makes somebody well spoken and apparently capable of the most complicated tasks except for logical thought??? |
Reading your question, it seems like you're not actually interested in any explanation that would disabuse you of the notion that there's something fundamentally WRONG with people who disagree with you. Maybe I misunderstood - if so, please correct me. To try to answer your question in a way - I know lots of people who are super-smart, can think very logically, yet just fundamentally disagree with me on many issue. The very subjective nature of our perception of reality means that we can look at the same objective facts and interpret them in very different ways. |
spoken like a true college professor  and hell yes i'm interested in knowing why, but in the same breath i certainly do feel that theres something fundamentally wrong with people who disagree with me on the big issues..........lets not kid ourselves, theres people out there that despite history, would love for the US to be communist or who will play politics despite their own country's best interests............sorry, but they are FUCKED UP PEOPLE, period. |
|
i'll also throw in a little aside......................half my family sells propane, the other half are doctors, from pediatricians to neurologists to immunologists...................... my cousin is a neurologist, my age, probably the smartest sonofabitch i know, but you give him a manual and an instructional video and the fucker couldnt change a flat tire, ZERO common sense, maybe that's their problem? i have no idea how he swings politically but being from TX i've got my hopes up...................... |
don't be a cockhead, cockhead i said CORE beliefs, jackass, you can think red is a better color than blue, more power to you monkeynuts, im having a difficult time understanding how somebody can think that , despite this country's history, it might be better to give shit away to lazy pieces of shit via taxpayer money rather than have people fucking work for it, thats all now get back on topic dipshit |
|
Although I have noticed something interesting, which has always puzzled me a little - actually two things. First, most university/college professors do seem to be very left wing (liberal), and I wonder why. I know it's not because universities refuse to hire right-wing people (although some people outside the university persist in wanting to believe that), so I'm always curious if it's because more conservative people are less interested in becoming academics? Or is it perhaps that the more time you spend in a university setting, the more idealistic and naive you become, and so everyone ends up being liberal? I THINK it's the former - that conservative folks who are really clever and COULD become academics tend to gravitate towards more lucrative professions (like investment banking, consulting, etc) and are less interested in pure research and academics. When I was getting my doctorate, there were several more conservative people who started the program with me, but the dropped out (and went back to highly paid consulting jobs) because they just didn't have the patience for academia. The other thing I've noticed is that business school faculty are MUCH more conservative that other faculty. Some of us might want to tell ourselves it's because we're smarter  and while I'd gladly claim to be smarter than some professor of medieval english literature or sociology, I'd have a hard time claiming I was smarter than a physics professor or a mathematics professor. Of course what's interesting is that business school faculty make MUCH more money than the rest of the university faculty, and so I wonder if (A) more conservative are drawn to this particular side of academica, because you can make a really good living (as opposed to physics or mathematics), or (B) once you start making the big bucks, you quickly start to see the wisdom of more self-serving conservative fiscal and tax policies . I think it's the former, because my fiancee is super-liberal (and perhaps why I responded a little harshly to TexRdnec's post) and making lots of money has not made her any less liberal. And she really is one of the smartest, most logical and clearest thinkers I have ever met. She is so much smarter than me, that it is humbling. Granted, she is insane - but that's because she's a women, not because she's liberal 
|
Thanks for posting that. As someone who ran away kicking and screaming from the hallowed, sheltered, government-funded halls of academia and graduate research, I share some of your opinions here, but it makes my head hurt when I try to put them on paper. I never could get comfortable living in that narrow, confined, sheltered world most professors live in. That's not to say there aren't some professors who are fine folks-far from it- but I just hated the disconnect between academia and the rest of the world. Having said that, I'm enjoying my MBA program.
|
|
and speaking of higher educaction: i recall my post-graduate interview (which was required for graduation) now granted, i was drinking heavily and don't remember much, but the guy asked me, "have you thought of continuing your education" so i hesitated for about a second and said, "sure have, just don't expect me to do it at school" i HATED college, wasn't in the dorm, commuted every day (45 miles each way) so never got in on any of the good parties or anything, HS however i'd go back to for a visit in a second |
|
I think part of the higher pay for business professors is to keep them at the school. What is a Greek literature doctorate going to do? Teach or deliver pizza. The business prof. can teach and consult or go into business. I too am surprised by smart, liberal minded, people. Just like intelligent crimminals seem to be an oxymoron to me. It has to go back to subjective experiences, and also include the ivory tower of education which has different standards than normal industry. |
I was a little like that - I didn't HATE it, but I just wanted to get it over with and move on. Problem was, when I started college, I just couldn't identify with a bunch of 18 and 19 year-olds, who idea of fun was secretly drinking a beer or two. Especially since in Denmark, there is no drinking age - so I got that whole drinking heavily and getting shitfaced thing out of my system when I was 14 and 15 - and didn't have a lot of patience for it when I was 22 and had just reisgned my commission in the army as an infantry platoon commander. I never got invited to parties either - wonder why |
It's a good question. The first thing that does come to mind though is that it is a frustrating and somewhat unfriendly place for conservatives to be. My first love is literature and philosophy and I seriously considered continuing on to get a doctorate and teaching but I found the culture so unpleasant I knew I couldn't work amidst it.
I've known very wealthy folks who were extremely liberal despite obviously being quite concerned with earning and accumulating money.
Same here. I dated a woman for years who was quite brilliant. Held advanced degrees from MIT. Not someone I would ever consider softminded. Yet she is exceedingly liberal and displays the same inability to rationally discuss things like gun control as evinced by the standard soccer mom. I think it's solely an issue of having one's mind made up to the point of being unable and unwilling to let any other data enter it. |
|
One of my poli sci profs who studies political parties told me that ppl without college educations tend to be more to the Left, those with a 4 year degree more to the Right, but then with graduate education back to the Left. But I'm not sure if they actually change, or they were to the Left to begin with. |
That's pretty much the only reason. The economics term is "opportunity cost" - the university pretty much has to pay close to what we could make elsewhere. For business school professors (dependning on field) that means wall street, consulting or the corporate world - and for the medieval literature prof it means manning a cash register at Barnes and Noble
One of the best thinkers I've ever met in my life is a full professor at Vanderbilt's business school, and he is probably the most liberal person I have ever met. Some of you would probably have an aneuyrism just talking to him |
|
I would hazard a guess that 70-80% of the faculty at my college are conservative, gun owners. There are a few 'liberal-post-60's-hippies' hanging around, but they are the minority. They keep their mouths shut, though. I guess it is because we have them outoutgunned. TRG PS. I have a CHL/CCW permit, my dean, the college VP, Pres, most of the board of directors.... |
|
Dear TexRdnec, Here's the answer: It's pure human nature. Firstly: Because of "human nature" all people value these fundamentals; security, peace, liberty, opportunity. HOWEVER, these three things ultimately conflict with each other. SO, what basically happens is that at some point we all have to make some choices as to which of these four things we value the MOST. Basically, American Conservatives have decided that the most important things to them are: liberty and opportunity. And American Liberals are people who have made the decision that what is most important to them are: peace and security. Now comes the "complicated" part. How does one achieve these things? The fundamental flaw in Liberalism is that there is an underlying dysfunctional assumption (you are correct) that security can be achieved by remaining forever a "child" and having a superior authority or "daddy figure" (translation: Big Government) provide for your security instead of taking responsibility for it yourself as an adult. This brings us to the second part: There are two fundamentally opposing philosophies regarding social organization. Liberals believe that ultimately ALL responsibility can be collectivized. Conservatives believe that ALL responsibility (except the responsibility for a people to provide for the common defense) can be left up to the individual. The truth lies somewhere in between. This reality sets up the current tug of war. How many responsibilities need communal attention vs. individual attention. These are the basics, as I see them. So, "No", Liberals are not crazy. But they have made some fundamentally different value choices from Conservatives AND there IS an undercurrent of dysfunction regarding their reluctance to accept high levels of personal responsibility. 
|
|
You know I use to chalk it up to some people are just so book learned they have no common sense. I use to see this alot with design engineers that could draw shit that would amase you but had no idea what that drawing would look like in real life or how to make it. Then after being in business a while I found all these highly educated guys that had outstanding common sense and still liberal as hell. I then chucked it up to having had an easy life so could afford to be liberal for the didn't know the other side. Then you turn around and meet all these guys that are blue colar workers with minimal education and feel the same way. I've chucked it up as a virus that you catch from hanging around anti-gun kooks that knows no education or gender. It's a virus a disease like aids so avoid them! Tj |
|
In my college stint, I got my B.S. in Political Science then went on to get my MBA (don't ask "why" the combination). In my experience, I saw a fairly good balance. In the Poli Sci school, I really think the professors took positions just to be provocative. I saw the greatest concentration of "liberal" mindsets in the social sciences area. It was here that I think that the professions the professors chose were done so because they liked "structure". They knew that they had a job that, given tenure, they were protected by the system. In the business and poli-sci areas, these people at least had some shot at private sector jobs where competition was present. This isn't to say that I have negative feelings toward one mindset or the other, just sharing my observations. University life, as most of us know, is a "fantasy" life. I am fond of saying that a University is an upside-down society. C'mon, what other institution can you think of where the employees get preferential parking places over the paying customers? I enjoyed going to college more after I was married. I then matured to the point where I took the philosophy that since I was paying for this experience, more things were going to go my way rather than swallowing everything they told me I had to do. Maybe that was the conservative side of me coming out.
|
|
One of the things I've learned from this forum is to be more exact in my language. So I'm going to avoid the use of the word liberal (to me, liberal just means someone who wants change) and substitute socialist, or warm-fuzzy. Whatever... I think some socialist ideas come from religion. I was confused about what my church taught me and what the real world taught me, as well. What I learned, fighting against it all the while, was that socialist, warm-fuzzy ideas don't work. Period. And I learned that, as I said, in the real world. (I have a BA and a JD) |
damn coolio, goooood answer 
|
|
Two examples: What Tex is looking at are the people who loudly advocate gun control, despite research that says it doesn't work. What Tex is looking at are the people who advocate expanding income redistribution, despite all the failed socialist countries. It is obvious to him (and me) that the facts say that gun control and large scale income redistribution does not work. But, as DK-Prof above said, perfectly reasonable people can see the same facts and come to a different conclusion. The question that nobody has ever been able to answer for me, is why people choose to hold the belief in spite of the facts? Doesn't seem very reasonable to me. OTOH, the leftists do indeed have a notion about society having a 'safety net' role, and they want to make it encompass as many problems as they can. Remember the debate about social security? Obviously, it came up because the number of retired people is going way up, and the ratio of those paying in to those taking is getting very low. It went like this. Righty: "SS has a serious financial problem, and we need to find other solutions, such as private sector programs." Lefty: "Social Security is the greatest social safety net ever devised. We MUST keep it solvent." Righty: "Okay, but the problem is, there exists a serious money problem. IOW, To fund social security, we have to take more money from the working people and give it to those who aren't working. One good solution that allows each person to provide for HIS own future is the Roth IRA." Lefty: "It is the government's responsibility to provide that service. NO to privitization! Besides, nobody knows about the Roth IRA anyway. How can we expect people to invest in a program that nobody knows about?" Righty: "That information can be easily obtained at any bank or credit union. In fact, there are magazine advertisements about it, increasing awareness." Lefty: No to privitization! Social Security is the greatest social safety net ever devised, and it must be kept solvent!" That is an actual conversation I had with a lefty a few years back. Doesn't sound very reasonable to me. Most leftist concepts don't, because they require the individual to act against their own self interest and for somebody else's interests. As above, if somebody can explain it to me, I'll be glad to listen. |
It's a common misconception that my job (and that of my collegaues) is about teaching. It is not. My job is about empirical research, and publishing it in academic (peer-reviewed) journals. The greater the "quality" - for lack of a better word - of the school (there's actually a classification system out there) the more the focus on research. At places like Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, Northwestern, etc., professors get hired and promoted based on their ability to conduct and publish research, NOT their ability to teach. That's not to say that the school don't care - they obviously want good teaching (particularly at business schools where we obsess about Business Week, Fortune and Finanacial Times rankings) - but it is just not something that is really going to affect your chances of promotion, and it not something you are ever really trained to do during your 5+ years og graduate school. I work on my research all year long, prety much every day. In contrast to that, I teach for 14 - 21 days every year in the Fall. Not to knock anyone in particular, but teaching is really not THAT hard, and there are million of really skilled high school teachers that could probably teach college/university material quite well if they had to The less the quality of the school, the less it cares about research, and the more it cares about teaching. So while at the Stanfords, Micigans and Chicagos, promotion is pretty much all about your research, at a regional state school or small private religious school, it's all about teaching (and nobody cares about research). And then there are tons of universities in the middle, where there's a balance between research and teaching - depending on the quality of the school. Sorry to take a detour, but it always frustrates me a little when I tell people I'm a university professor and they invariably ask "what do you teach?"
|
You mean TexRdnec? Nahhh. They joined the union back in 1845. Texans only think they're a different country. 
|
I think those are really good points, but I think it is ALSO important to remember that there are lots of really smart liberals who have had similarly frustrating conversations with idiotic conservatives. Keep in mind that while most of you consider that you are very LOGICAL and REASON, and believe that "liberals" are EMOTIONAL and FEEL - it is ironic that there are many liberals out there who perceive the exact same thing, only reversed. If you try to be objective about it, you actually see many conservatives who are really not particularly logical at all, and who try to get their point across by shouting you down instead of reasoning and arguing - and can do nothing but repeat the "party line" without any reason or logic of their own. Some of the liberals I know are VERY FRUSTRATED at what they perceive as the inability of many conservatives to actually carry an argument, and instead just revert to a "I'm right and if you disagree you are stupid" attitude, but with little explanation or jsutification for their argument. One example for me (that I am sure many of you will disagree with) is Bill O'Reilley. I cannot watch him anymore, because I feel like he's such a tool - because of his inability to engage in REAL argument. Instead, he just wants to sit on his television throne and dispense his sage and unfailing advice to all the stupid masses, and usually argues by riduculing those who disagree with him, misrepresenting the other side, or setting up a straw-man arguemnt for his opposition. He so rarely actually engages in a REAL logical argument, that I just stopped watching him. Others of you may think he's the greatest thing since Jesus Christ and that fine - and ulitmately just demonstrates how different people can perceive the same thing very differently. Personally, I think one of the most important things to argue successfully with people is to really understand them - not just their particular positions, but also their underlying philosophy and viewpoints. I believe that when you are narrowminded or uninterested in understanding WHY people disagree with you, then it becomes very difficult to argue effectively, or ever really convince anyone of your side. |
|
More thoughts. There exists two main stereotypes in politicals: the heartless conservative and the mindless liberal (please call them leftists! )The leftists have a scale of intelligence. The more you can act on someone else's behalf, the more intelligent you are, because it is easy to act in your own self interest. However, the conservative perspective is that the most dependable and consistant action you can expect from a person is for him to act in his own self interest. |
They never do 
|
The only explanation I can give is one which will surely stir the pot. [spoon] Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13) But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Philippians 2:4) [/spoon] Having said that, I hasten to say that these are RELIGIOUS ideals, and that no one has the right to make anyone conform to them. Dire consequences come when one tries to make religious tenets into political ones. edit: fixed typo |
|
Thank you. I have so many friends who think this guy is some kind of hero. I watched his show a few times because everyone was talking about it. All I saw was a another talking-head, except this one refused to allow anyone to speak half the time. I don't like many of the so called 'debate' programs these days. It's not about debate, it's about screaming at each other. Why do I want to watch shows with left-wing whakos and right-wing whakos scream at each other? I see it much the same as coolio put it earlier. It really seems to be a fundemental inability to accept personal responcibilty that guides the He simply can't see it from any other perspective. He's not a stupid man, in fact on many things he's well informed. Like most closed minded people though once he makes up his mind on an issue he will filter out all news to the contrary and select only the items that agree with his position. So it's really a cobination of human factors that lead people to take that path and stick to it despite all attempts to reason them out of it. I may not be any better though. I find I also install the filter on some issues. I try not to, but it happens. So yes, there is probably a liberal or two who could say similar things about me. 
|
|
People are made of genes. Each gene controls an aspect or characteristic of that person. Scientists can be religious. The need for certainty in a belief system has little to do with understanding nuclear physics. The mathematician can't program his vcr. The characteristic of being able to understand mathematical concepts has little to do with the logic of the vcr. Women can understand genetic coding, yet the image of a child shooting themself with daddy's gun can be overwhelming. It does seem that some charateristics go together more often. Ultra conservatives and religious fundamentalists. They seem to be extremes that go together. Ultra liberal and overly emotional or overly empathetic seem to go together. |
Don't start a nature vs. nurture argument, or we'll be here all week 
|
|
Dk, I was typing out a long-winded reply when IE6 bombed on me....so here's the short version: How do you defend your position that a university that focuses on research is 'better' than one that focuses on education or extension? I disagree with that mindset, but won't bother dragging it out because IE6 is enjoying itself today and I can't re-type the reply I just lost. I am a student. I came to a university for education. I do not wish to do research. I do on occassion benefit from university extension (and if I weren't too lazy to type, might argue that in some ways extension is the most noble function of a university), but, as a customer of the university, seeking education, not extension or research opportunities, should I, as a customer looking to invest in furthering my education, consider a research-focused university to be superior for my needs to an education-focused school? |
|
There is one specific sub-type of "Educated Liberal" with whom I am very familiar. I went to a Jesuit college where the priest-profs were the "true believers"; the liberals who based their belief system on a concept of "Social Justice". For the Jesuits, they were able to logically argue that by strictly following Christ's example, the world would know true peace. It's a great theory and one I wish would work. In certain contexts, perhaps it is effective. Ghandi, a Hindu, used non-violent protests to good effect against a civilized opponent (the UK). It does not, however, take into account what happens when you deal with an enemy who just as sincerely believes that you are an infidel, and the only good infidel is a dead infidel. I have a world of respect for most of the Jesuits I have known. They are intelligent, devout, selfless and in many cases - brave - men. But the whole Catholic Peace movement really gets on my nerves. We just cannot reason with barbarians who would happily cut my children into pieces if they had the opportunity. As far as the stereotypical, young educated liberal? Well, I think it is a case of intellectual laziness combined with misplaced idealism and a dose of plain old immaturity. The poseur-hippie, starbucks-burners of today will most likely become the SUV soccer mommies/daddies of the next decade. I think the old axiom is true that folks get more "conservative" as they progress through life, raise kids, make more (taxable) money. There will always be a hardcore of leftists, just like a hardcore of right-wingers. It's that "cool-to-be-a-protester" group that I think find it just too easy to fall into the lazy trap of liberalism. This quote from Ann Coulter's new column sums it up:
How much easier to just pretend it will all go away. How much easier to criticize than contribute. How much easier than to research and remember history. How much easier to follow the crowd's mood than to take a stand. With maturity comes a willingness to listen, to learn, to admit your errors, to use logic instead of reactive emotionalism. What pisses me off is the core of leftist profs who have found a home in academia and have access to these young, impressionable minds. |
|
i have trouble believing that or any number of other examples i could bring up but am too damn lazy to do so at this point |
You know, I always wondered why we got along so well. Now I know. TXL |
That's an incredibly good question, and I've got several different ways of approaching it (I use the word "approach" instead on "answer" because I'm not sure there is a good answer). First, let me try to be a little clearer in my language. When I say better or higher "quality" it is in part from my perspective as an academic, and not as a student. The role of universities is two-fold - one is research, and one is education. In the Carnegie classification of universities, "research-1" is considered the top rank, and those are universities that spend enormous amount of money on research (and recieve large federal grants). To a certain extent, students at research-1 schools do get a little bit of a weird deal. Usually, the "higher quality" universities are also the more expensive ones. In my field, the top univesities include schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Michigan, University of Texas (Austin), Vanderbilt, Washington University, MIT, USC, U. Penn, Carnegie-Mellon, Michigan State, - and many others. Most of those are pretty pricey (although some are state schools). Most students THINK that the job of faculty is to teach them, and are usually VERY surprised when they learn that teaching is a relatively minor part of tenure-track and tenured faculty's work. (Students are usually stunned to learn that I do no teaching at all for over 9 months out of the year, yet get paid a considerable salary all year.) On the other hand, however, I also think students DO get a superior education at research-1 universities. After all, who would you rather have explain the Standford Prison experiment to you in your Psychology class? Phil Zimbardo at Stanford, who conducted the experiments in the 70s? A psychology professor at a research university who regularly conducts his own experiments and understands the complexities of research design, interpretation of findings, etc? Or a professor at a lower-"quality" university who is not trained to do research, and has read a book about the Stanford Prison Experiments? Much of what you learn in universities (particularly in empirical fields like physics, psychology, etc) is knowledge that has been discovered in university research, and I think there's a real benefit to the students to be taught by the kind of people that are involved in the research and knowledge development, and not just professional teachers who have read about it. I can read a book myself, after all, and can probably understand it just as well as a teacher. But I can learn a lot by having a researcher explain it to me, and can benefit from the opportunity to be able to ask questions NOT in the book and get thoughtful answers. Of course the flip side of that is that some researchers are NOT good teachers. I used to be a teaching assistant for an economics professors (and assisted with his research as well), and while the guy was a brilliant researchers and game theorist, he sucked in the classroom. I essentially ended up teaching his class for him. However, even given exceptions like that, I think the students at research-1 universities are better off than those at more teaching-oriented schools. I REALLY don't want to sound arrogant or superior here - but the skills and training required to conduct and publish empirical research are much harder and rarer than the skill required to teach. Not everyone can teach, but there are a lot more people that can be good teachers than there are those that can be good researchers. I personally believe that the level of rigor, logic and clear thinking required to be able to successfully design, conduct, analyze and publish research is the kind of thiking that benefits students in the class room. To address your question on a PERSONAL level - I ultimately simply respond to the incentives I am faced with. I will be promoted or fired based on the quality (and amount) of my published research, wheras the quality of my teaching will have very little bearing on my career. Since my goal is to be promoted, and since the school hired me to conduct research, it HAS to be more important to me than teaching. To do otherwise would be irrational for my own career, and would also be to screw my employer by choosing to prioritize things other than those I was hired to. But I completely agree with you - a top research university is a weird place from a student's perspective, especially if the student is paying top dollar for tuition. |
If it really worked like that the answer would be clear. However much of the time in the type of scenario mentioned above you won't be taught by the man himself but by a teaching assistant. |
Actually, at most of the schools I've worked at (and have colleagues at), the use of teaching assistants for ACTUAL classroom lecturing is extremely rare. It might happen at large state schools, but is unacceptable anywhere I've worked (I use teaching assistants a lot in my MBA classes, but they are only used for grading and for emergency stand-ins if I'm hit by a bus or eaten by zombies or something). For example - here's Phil's syllabus for his Psych class http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~zpsych1/syllabus.html - notice that most of the lectures are by him or guest speakers (other top researchers that come in to lecture) and only the help sessions are run by graduate assistants. (To clarify - when I said I taught the econ class for the professor I worked for that sucked at teaching - what happened was that he would teach the class during the week (Tu Thu), and then practially every student in the class would show up to the "help sessions" I ran on Fridays, because they hadn't understood any of the material he was trying to teach them, and I would spend three hours teaching all the material again.) Sometimes, you are correct that doctoral students (usually in the fourth or fifth years) will teach classes, but these are the same people that will be professors the following year, so that's not really the same as letting "assistants" teach classes. For example, when I was getting my doctorate at the Kellogg school of management (at Northwestern University). I taught a negotiations class to the MBAs. However, the class I taught had been developed (syllabus, reading materials, exercises, etc) by people like Max Bazerman, Maggie Neale, Leigh Thompson and Jeanne Brett - all considered top leaders and researchers in the field of negotiations. The reasons Kellogg used doctoral students to teach negotiation classees was to keep class size down to 30, not to give Max, Maggie, Leigh or Jeanne a break (they still had to teach their own classes). |
|
I can live with that explanation....I don't think I agree with all of it, but no big deal there. Next question: Let's say you're a manager hiring someone. Your choice is between me, with my small (but well-respected) Christain university MBA (eventually) and some guy with similar background and undergrad degree but he has a big-name MBA. How big of a factor would the difference in our degrees be to you, as a businessman? |
Others are probably better qualified to answer this question, since I don't work in the real business world, but I can take a whack at it from a placement perspective. It is a very important thing for business schools (especially those competing to be in the top 25 in the Business Week rankings) to place their graduates well - meaning to have as many as possible place at big, reputable companies with big salaries. This means that the schools try very hard to get recruiters to come to campus, and organize recruiting trips for students to wall street, etc. The "brand name" schools obviously have a huge advantage here, since recruiters and companies recognize the names, accept the reputation for quality, and if they have hired from particular schools in the past can accurately judge the quality (and alums in the company can try to influence hiring from their alma mater). The bigger brand name schools (like Harvard, Kellogg, Chicago, Wharton, etc.) have an additional advantage over the smaller brand name schools (like Vanderbilt, Washington U., etc) because recruiters can make one trip to Chicago, or Kellogg or Harvard, and pretty much find all the people they need, because those schools crank out so many damn MBAs every year. Between Chicago GSB and Kellogg (both located in Chicagoland) some recruiters really wouldn't have to travel anywhere else. Smaller schools like the business schools at Vandy or Wash U., that produce far fewer MBAs thus have to work harder to get the recruiters to come into town and interview their students. Essentially, a lot of the money you pay for the big MBA programs is to pay for their placement offices and networks. So that's why so many people want to get the MBA at Harvard, Wharton, Michigan, Kellogg, and Chicago (to name some of the big brand name schools) - to better be able to get a job. When it comes right down to it, the actual MATERIAL being taught to them is probably not very different from the material being taught to you. Keep in mind that most MBA programs at top 25 schools LOSE money off their MBA program. You're doing really well if you break even However, to more directly answer your question - If I were personally a manager looking to hire someone, I'd be less interested in the university (assuming it met certain quality criteria for the MBA program, like accredidation, stats classes, etc.) and much more interested in your intelligence, personality, philosphy, ethics and background. Ulitmately, you can always TRAIN someone to do a particular job - but it's the right PERSON you want: their drive, their motivation, their honesty and integrity, etc. So it personally wouldn't make a huge difference to me. |
| Thanks for the answer. I think that's what I was wanting to hear. Not being fond of the northeast in particular, or big cities in general, I'm not worried about competing w/ a Vandy grad. I'm more worried about using my MBA to advance my current career, unless the right $$ comes along, then I'll change careers. |
Well it's a bit hard to understand when the bible belt typically votes Republican! Yet fringe groups such as Gay activist typically vote Democratic. Tj |