I chose to do my undergraduate degree in PPH part-time as a mature student at Birkbeck College, University of London based purely on entry requirements [life experience over school qualifications] and timetable [evenings and one weekend morning leaving me ‘free’ to work a 9-5 job]. Turns out it was a reasonably prestigious university and degree, but obviously not in the same league as Oxford et al.
After a year or two, having chosen subjects we were interested in, my peers and I were much more careful to consider the presentation skills of lecturers on potential future courses as well as the courses themselves. In one 2nd-year philosophy course, the lecturer paced up and down along the front of the class staring at the ceiling while more or less muttering to himself the whole time. He was an amazing philosopher with stacks of published research, but a terrible, terrible lecturer.
Good undergraduate lecturers should have the kind of skills required to present a TV or radio programme on their field of expertise because, let’s be honest, reams of published research is rarely very relevant at this level, but that seems to be what Ivy League universities value most.
I'd never considered lecturers' presentation skills before but you're absolutely right. Published research doesn't translate to being able to teach well, and that should be the foremost quality of a lecturer. Looking back, the professors/teachers who stand out in my memory the most are the ones who presented well, who could engage the class and made complicated topics easy to understand. Thanks for sharing this. Also, I really admire you for doing an undergrad degree on top of a 9-5 job. That's something that truly requires dedication and discipline.
What about the signaling aspect of it? Getting a degree from a prestigious university signals that you're a capable person to prospective employers (whether or not that signal is justified is another matter). I think in many countries (Thailand for example), this signaling aspect is still very important when it comes to getting a solid career, or at least a head start compared to others.
IMHO the school does not matter one bit, what matters is do you want to learn & are you going to put in the effort. Provided the effort is there you could attend - if you will excuse the acronym - the South Holland Institute of Technology, and be just fine.
I like the acronym! What do you think about university names opening doors when it comes to job search? In Thailand (where I'm originally from), not graduating from a top university can be a big obstacle to getting a job at a top firm.
I suppose if your sole focus is getting a job at a top firm, then maybe Ivy league is the way to go. Personally I have never thought that way, never wanted to be an Indian in someone else's tribe. I would never go to a particular school, because it is what someone else would find appealing. At some point you have to be true to yourself. I wrote a blog a while back on being true to yourself... check it out if you get a chance... https://bagholder.substack.com/p/my-way-21-08-25
It makes you wonder doesn't it. What should/should not be the purpose of a formal education? I'd like to think it's /not/ for the sole purpose of getting a job, and I've never seen my education in that light. But I think this is a privilege few people can afford. I imagine for the vast majority of people, a "good" degree is a way to secure good employment and gain financial security, and they just don't have the luxury of choosing a degree or a university based on their true preference of what they'd like to learn and where. Is it a systemic issue? Is it a mindset issue? You're really opening a can of worms once you start looking deeply at the issue.
I chose to do my undergraduate degree in PPH part-time as a mature student at Birkbeck College, University of London based purely on entry requirements [life experience over school qualifications] and timetable [evenings and one weekend morning leaving me ‘free’ to work a 9-5 job]. Turns out it was a reasonably prestigious university and degree, but obviously not in the same league as Oxford et al.
After a year or two, having chosen subjects we were interested in, my peers and I were much more careful to consider the presentation skills of lecturers on potential future courses as well as the courses themselves. In one 2nd-year philosophy course, the lecturer paced up and down along the front of the class staring at the ceiling while more or less muttering to himself the whole time. He was an amazing philosopher with stacks of published research, but a terrible, terrible lecturer.
Good undergraduate lecturers should have the kind of skills required to present a TV or radio programme on their field of expertise because, let’s be honest, reams of published research is rarely very relevant at this level, but that seems to be what Ivy League universities value most.
I'd never considered lecturers' presentation skills before but you're absolutely right. Published research doesn't translate to being able to teach well, and that should be the foremost quality of a lecturer. Looking back, the professors/teachers who stand out in my memory the most are the ones who presented well, who could engage the class and made complicated topics easy to understand. Thanks for sharing this. Also, I really admire you for doing an undergrad degree on top of a 9-5 job. That's something that truly requires dedication and discipline.
Being broke at the time was the biggest motivator!
Ah... money. It may not buy happiness but it does buy a lot of things!
Does the school actually matter? Not so much. It is much more a question of what the student has learned from the experience.
What about the signaling aspect of it? Getting a degree from a prestigious university signals that you're a capable person to prospective employers (whether or not that signal is justified is another matter). I think in many countries (Thailand for example), this signaling aspect is still very important when it comes to getting a solid career, or at least a head start compared to others.
IMHO the school does not matter one bit, what matters is do you want to learn & are you going to put in the effort. Provided the effort is there you could attend - if you will excuse the acronym - the South Holland Institute of Technology, and be just fine.
I like the acronym! What do you think about university names opening doors when it comes to job search? In Thailand (where I'm originally from), not graduating from a top university can be a big obstacle to getting a job at a top firm.
I suppose if your sole focus is getting a job at a top firm, then maybe Ivy league is the way to go. Personally I have never thought that way, never wanted to be an Indian in someone else's tribe. I would never go to a particular school, because it is what someone else would find appealing. At some point you have to be true to yourself. I wrote a blog a while back on being true to yourself... check it out if you get a chance... https://bagholder.substack.com/p/my-way-21-08-25
It makes you wonder doesn't it. What should/should not be the purpose of a formal education? I'd like to think it's /not/ for the sole purpose of getting a job, and I've never seen my education in that light. But I think this is a privilege few people can afford. I imagine for the vast majority of people, a "good" degree is a way to secure good employment and gain financial security, and they just don't have the luxury of choosing a degree or a university based on their true preference of what they'd like to learn and where. Is it a systemic issue? Is it a mindset issue? You're really opening a can of worms once you start looking deeply at the issue.
Thanks for sharing your post by the way!