RebKell's Junkie Boards

[ClayK]

Often it's said that a player should go to a particular school because the "value" of the education there is much higher than somewhere else. Setting aside how one would define "value," and how one individual would find higher "value" in one place than another, which are very difficult questions to answer as people are so different coming out of high school, I'm just not sure it makes sense to criticize kids for not going to the "elite" schools.

In fact, I would argue that the "value" of an education is in great part determined by the quality of students choosing to attend a school, not what happens while at the school.

For example, take the incoming class at New Mexico State University, and trade it with the incoming class at Cal (ignore the size difference). Ten years down the road, which group will be making more money (if indeed that's the "value" of education)? I would say, without question, that the freshmen who qualified for Cal will do better than the freshmen who qualified for New Mexico State, regardless of where they get their college degree.

What we're really talking about is value added by a college, and I don't think that's nearly as great a factor as some suggest. I know, for me, when I went back to school in my mid-20s, I got a lot more academic value out of a community college than I did in my first go-round at UCSB.

_________________
Oṃ T�re Tutt�re Ture Sv�h�

[Nixtreefan]

To say that there is an overwhelming advantage, then every kid should go to Stanford or Princeton or whatever top school there is in their area. However, reality is, one can argue that its all just numbers, and as with stats, you can argue for your cause. I don't think it has anything to do with education as much. The trend for kids seems to have changed over the years. I feel that they put more importance on playing and who they are playing with. A lot seem to think they can make it in the basketball world as they have numerous evaluators at camps telling them that they are the bees knees.

[ArtBest23]

I say "value" has largely to do with the name on the diploma.

People spout all the time "you can get a good education anywhere."

Try telling that to your potential employer when your resume says New Mexico St and the other candidates for the position are from Stanford, Princeton and MIT.

The freshman who was good enough to be accepted at both Cal and New Mexico St will do better with a diploma from Cal than from New Mexico St, and that has nothing to do with any subjective assessment of what the student learned in school. It has to do with the value placed on that degree by employers.

And I would question your conclusion that swapping incoming classes would result in the NMSt grads out-earning the Cal grads. The NMSt grads won't even get interviews for many of the jobs that the Cal grads get.

If you assume that the reason you're going to college is to get a well paying job and not simply some abstract desire to become "educated", then the degree from the more prestigious school is without question more valuable.

[FrozenLVFan]

[pilight]

[calbearman76]

The decision on where someone should go to school is complex. For a women's basketball player, unless you are a top 100 prospect, the decision should be based primarily on getting the best education you can handle in a field that will both interest you and provide for a pathway to success. As long as the coach and the program are acceptable (you certainly want to have a positive experience in college), that should be the least of your concerns.

It doesn't help much to go to a top school if you are not smart enough or not particularly interested in doing the work (disregard if you are thinking about UNC). But if you can handle the load, the better the school, the better your chance for getting your foot in the door for your first job. Being an athlete can also help because a prospective employer will see that you were able to budget your time well.

Also remember that the value of the school name on the diploma drops off dramatically after your first job. Once you have entered the work force where you went to school is far less important.

[dtrain34]

Clay, don't know if you were responding to this when you picked New Mexico State as your example re: added value -- setting up everyone else to use my poor Aggies as their punching bag in their comments -- but how about this:

"In a Brookings Institute report, NMSU ranked in the top 10 percent for value-added mid-career salary. NMSU is listed at 89th of 863 institutions for value added mid-career earnings. Value added is the difference between a college’s predicted and actual student economic outcomes, as defined in the report."

"Predicted" would seem to mean just what you're talking about, yet the weaker incoming class does better than it should in mid-career.

Meanwhile, my favorite example of this babble about the elite schools always winning the resume battle comes from a 60 Minutes story about a doctor who was the CEO of Merck a few years ago. The story (kindly I think) said he "chose" to transfer from Cal as an undergraduate to Cal State-Hayward (now CSU-East Bay). 99 out of 100 he got booted from Cal and went to the next closest school and still he soared in the business world.

[BallState1984]

Shouldn't the question be the best value degree? Seriously, I think those players that chose to get degrees in engineering, such as Ukari Figgs, Sammy Woods and Cindy Lamping, or nursing like Cass Bauer, Shelbie Justice and Becca Bajorek and not to mention the many teachers, are light years ahead of those who chose to get degrees is questionable fields lie wimmin's studies.

_________________
Terminally afffected with Our Girl Syndrome and proud of it!

[ClayK]

[ArtBest23]

[Nixtreefan]

Thats assuming some of the same players can get into engineering!

[ClayK]

[ArtBest23]

[PUmatty]

The aspect of this that people often forget is likelihood of graduating. To pick on poor NMSU again, the average incoming student is more likely to default on student loans than to graduate in four years, and few than half of incoming students graduate within eight years. Part of that may is probably differences in incoming students, but there is a growing body of research (some of it by me!) that indicates that even similarly qualified and financed students are dramatically more likely to graduate at some schools than others.

For context, the national four-year graduation rate (for first-time, full-time students) is around 39% and the national six-year graduation rate is 58%. Matriculating to a four-year college and graduating are two very different things.

[dtrain34]

What is the percentage of schools though where more students graduate in FOUR YEARS than default on student loans? I'm guessing it's not a given at any place below the "elites."

For what this is worth, to bring women's basketball into it, only two members of the WAC All-Conference First Team were also All-Academic. Both played for NMSU and I'm guessing that distinction might mean something on a resume, even if it did come at the nation's 199th-ranked academic school.

My personal experience was BA from the University of La Verne; graduate work at San Francisco State and University of San Francisco -- all in physical education or sports management. No Ivies or anything close in there and until I aged out of my chosen profession (apparently) never had trouble getting a job.

[ClayK]

[FrozenLVFan]

[CamrnCrz1974]

[Dennis1361]

Using Cal is a poor choice in that Cal is a state school. #2 what the fvck is "value added?" I suppose if one views a college education as a trade school and one determines value added as an average then one misses the whole point about a college education. Lets face it a degree in anything from NMSU is not in the same game as one from Stanford. And a major in Anthropology is just a bad joke. As is Business Administration. If one is not in the sciences or professions then a college education should be in the Liberal Arts. And there are many fine schools that are a better choice than old state u such as Haverford, Williams, Beloit etc.

[summertime blues]

[myrtle]

I got my degree in pre-law from Stanford, did well on the LSATs, and was accepted to several high end law schools...but by then it was totally clear that law was simply not my 'thing'. I graduated but then dropped out of the whole education track for ten years. Then I went back and got a degree in computer science from a much less prestigious institution...and later added a masters. BUT even though the computer science degree determined what I would do in life, wherever I have gone, the thing that catches all potential employers' eyeballs is that degree from Stanford. It may not be fair but I really believe it is a door opener. That's not to say you can't be totally successful getting a degree from podunk U (or getting no degree at all for that matter), but IMO it's just a step or two easier for most if you have a degree from one of the bigs, even, as in my case, if the degree you get has nothing to do with the job you are doing or applying for.

_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman

[ClayK]

I would agree a Stanford degree gets attention. So does Yale or Harvard or Princeton or MIT or Cal Tech. I'm not so convinced about Cal or Michigan or the other large public schools that churn out thousands of degrees each year.

_________________
Oṃ T�re Tutt�re Ture Sv�h�

[ArtBest23]

[beknighted]

[dtrain34]

Still trying to connect this up to women's basketball....

Unless we're talking about a kid choosing Stanford over Connecticut, how does this factor into most "basketball" decisions. You've got a plethora of quality, but not Cal flagship state schools up around the top of the basketball rankings and kids are going to make a basketball decision in most cases.