In other words, I work in what is perhaps the most competitive and successful sector in the most competitive and successful economy of all time.
And yet what I see around me is a total, total mess. And I believe my school to be considerably above average in terms of how well it is run.
Two observations. First, there is no objective measurement for evaluating higher education. Reputation is everything. Is Harvard the best college in the country? Or was it at one point the best college in the country? Or does it just have the best promoters?
Second, reputation endures long, long after the reason for the reputation has vanished. At my old alma mater some of the departments with the best reputations hadn’t had the people responsible for building those reputations for decades. But the reputation endured and it was in the interest of the university, its faculties, and its alums to keep it that way. The school motto may have been Quaecumquae sunt vera but it should have been “don’t rock the boat” (or whatever that would have been in Latin).
I think one has to keep in mind that the number of students who can exhaust the resources of the better academic institutions is vanishingly small. hence, the individual is primary.
That said, reputation and contacts matter. Harvard lives on it.
I happen to think I attended the best business school in the country. Harvard and Wharton grads, and probably Stanford grads, would scoff. So be it.
But if you are more than 35 years old and you are still using your sheepskin as your passport rather than your capabilities……….there is a problem.
The Harvard and U of C business schools are hard to compare. IIRC Harvard uses the case study approach; U of C is quantitative.
Each approach has its merits. Ironically, those who would benefit most from a case study approach are usually drawn to the quantitative approach and vice versa.
Dave
That is directionally correct, but overstated. Both schools use each. The dichotomy was much ballyhooed back in the eighties when the ” best business school” wars were on.
There are other incorrect notions. “Harvard and Stanford turn out strategists.”. “Chicago and Wharton turn out financiers.”. “Northwestern turns out marketers.”. Blah blah blah
The truth is, they all turn out great grads if they have put in the work. Does Northwestern have a marginally better marketing program? Yeah. Chicago and Wharton better finance. Yeah. Have Harvard grads grown up in the worlds of investment banking and consulting? Yeah, cause that’s what their parents did.
But as I noted. If you are over 35 years old and still reliant on your college cred…….ouch.
I attended a business school that, while fine, is probably not the best in the country, and is certainly not the best by reputation. It rarely cracks the top 30 on most lists.
But I attended it for free. Return on investment matters, in this area as elsewhere.
Everything is relative. I love talking with my son’s Korean roommate and his friends. They have a lot of bad things to say about their system, especially their universities. The kids who have parents who teach, are the most vocal. Ima thinking there is a bit of “we walked uphill both ways in the snow to go to school in our day” going on here.
Steve