Ask HN: Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college?

#91

Post by anamax » Sun, Jun 07, 2009, 11:48 PM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #84

anamax wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about some more? Adding "teacher" to my list leaves us closer to "few" than "many". Note that the vast majority of engineers aren't licensed....

going back to the original statement of "Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility." Licensing laws cover plumbers, electricians, massage therapists,barbers, air conditioning contractors, auctioneers, boxing (judges, promoter, referees, boxers themselves, managers), cosmetologist(and their schools), tow truck drivers, moving companies, temp agencies,…

>> going back to the original statement of "Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations, licensing laws, and job eligibility."

Yes, let's. One of the claims was that there were credential requirements for many different occupations. (Licensing for other things is a separate claim.) I've listed a couple of examples and we're nowhere near many.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that state imposed licensing is widespread, but that's a separate claim. I note that licensing is largely independent of public supported schools.

Re: Ask HN: Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college?

#92

Post by philwelch » Mon, Jun 08, 2009, 12:02 AM UTC

johnnybgoode wrote: post #88

philwelch wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://xkcd.com/169/ Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness. Or, in other words (since you are no doubt preparing to quibble that you weren't acting particularly smug), the onus is on you to clearly communicate your argument, and using phrases like "titles of nobility were supposed to be abolished" and then not answering my objections about the Constitutional text that di…

philwelch, I tried to talk with you here but it seems like you insult me at every turn, and now you're trying to blame me for your invalid, US-centric assumptions. This seems to be a habit of yours, because even in this post, twice you claim that I'm "undoubtedly" about to respond in a certain way. Perhaps if you read what I write without jumping to conclusions about what must be in my head, this would be more produc…

I tried to talk to you, but it turns out you consistently mean something different from what you say. For once, I'd like you to clearly and literally state, just once, what you're on about instead of going in circles.

In particular, the onus is on you to clearly define what "legal egalitarianism" means, why college degrees violate that principle, and why we should care. That's an honest discussion. Trying to cleverly redefine terms like "nobility" isn't.

Re: Ask HN: Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college?

#93

Post by brl » Mon, Jun 08, 2009, 12:33 AM UTC

As somebody who has never regretted dropping out in high school I find this whole conversation pretty amusing.

Re: Ask HN: Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college?

#94

Post by joeyo » Mon, Jun 08, 2009, 12:40 AM UTC

johnnybgoode wrote: post #90

joeyo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that all that this does is shift the effective grant of title of nobility from the university to Consumer Reports or to the insurance company or to Yelp-for-doctors.

No, there are some very significant differences. First, there isn't any reason there would only be one ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp-for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the rating of any person or organization, and so would everyone else. Second (but related to the first difference), the main problem with a title of nobility is that it grants legal privileges, thereby erecti…

  > First, there isn't any reason there would only be one
  > ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp
  > for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the
  > rating of any person or organization, and so would  
  > everyone else.

This is true--at least at first. I suspect that whatever ratings mechanisms develop to fill the void, they would eventually coalesce into a single entity (or maybe a couple of entities with geographic specialties) that would, with time, come to enjoy de facto government sanction. This is one instance where I think most people don't actually want variety and choice. 100+ ratings organizations are useless if none of them have any data on the doctor in question (to continue with the physician example). So whichever ratings systems get an early lead would quickly dominate. And once they have achieved monopoly status they can shut out anyone who doesn't want to play ball with them. The general public can of course ignore these ratings, but they would do so at their own peril. (It's worth noting that you can already ignore the "ratings" of physicians and go see unlicensed doctors right now).

Now, as for your point about eliminating the legal barriers to practice-- ie anyone can practice medicine-- while removing licensing would eliminate direct legal action (ie no going to jail for practicing medicine without a license) I think it would instead lead to increased civil suits. Consider: right now if a licensed physician is prone to malpractice or has other deficiencies they are forbidden from practicing. This can happen without anyone being actually harmed. On the other hand, if a physician gets bad ratings from yelp-for-doctors then they just need to find uninformed consumers or at least people who chose to disregard those ratings. When members of the public are inevitably harmed by poor doctoring they will have no legal recourse but to sue the doctor. True, they could avoid going to that particular doctor again, but the damage is already done. I'm not sure if we actually want more lawsuits to be brought against professionals-- it may end up making the cost of their services even more expensive than they are now, wiping out any cost savings from them not having to go to school and become licensed.

I guess my point is that there is no free lunch: guilds and professional societies are ancient institutions and they enjoy legal status in recognition for the useful role that they have in serving society. It may be fun to speculate what would happen if they vanished but don't be surprised if the institutions that arise to replace them necessarily gain the properties of the original institutions.

Re: Ask HN: Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college?

#95

Post by johnnybgoode » Mon, Jun 08, 2009, 4:46 AM UTC

joeyo wrote: post #94

johnnybgoode wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are some very significant differences. First, there isn't any reason there would only be one ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp-for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the rating of any person or organization, and so would everyone else. Second (but related to the first difference), the main problem with a title of nobility is that it grants legal privileges, thereby erecti…

> First, there isn't any reason there would only be one > ratings organization, one insurance company, and one Yelp > for-doctors. You would be able to reject or accept the > rating of any person or organization, and so would > everyone else. This is true--at least at first. I suspect that whatever ratings mechanisms develop to fill the void, they would eventually coalesce into a single entity (or maybe a couple of e…

"I suspect that whatever ratings mechanisms develop to fill the void, they would eventually coalesce into a single entity"

I know you're speculating, but I don't think that's realistic. For that to happen, people would have to unanimously agree on a single rating mechanism.

As for doctors, their guild gives us a great example of what actually happens when guilds enjoy special legal status. Guilds and professional societies work to restrict entry into their fields, in order to prop up their own salaries. When they do this, they usually claim they are simply ensuring high quality.

Re: Ask HN: Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college?

#96

Post by vlad » Mon, Jun 08, 2009, 7:39 AM UTC

endtime wrote: post #45

GavinB wrote: post #31

It never ends. Even at a "Name Brand" school you're still looking up at Harvard-Princeton-Yale. If you're there, you're looking up at the Rhodes scholars, valedictorians, and the "stars" of each department. You have to remember that once you go to some top-rated school, you're suddenly in an environment where everyone goes to that school, and it stops being special. Set goals that will get you to a place where you ca…

This is very true. I'm at a top "name brand" school for CS, and, honestly, when I look at myself next to someone from a good but less-well-known university (say, UW) who has done really interesting research, I feel inferior in a way. I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department. What I'm trying to…

I guess it has something to do with this guy really being a star in a pretty good department, versus myself being a pretty typical student in a very strong department.

UW is a top name brand grad school for CS.

personal achievements say a lot more about you than the hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process

Grad school decisions at all the universities you mentioned are made by professors themselves, and they typically look for candidates who are interested in getting a PhD. Stanford's three year Master's program is career oriented.