Is anyone else appalled by that sentiment?

If the whole point of going to an Ivy League school is to obtain an education that supposedly exceeds all others in terms of quality (and cost), who cares how you got admitted, as long as you leave with a degree? These students, at least in the case of Columbia's School of General Studies[1], take the same courses along side regular students and graduate with the same BAs/BSs, albeit granted by a different resident college. These are people clearly capable of handling the coursework of an "elite" institution who would otherwise be kept out by overly restrictive admission requirements, requirements which clearly have more to do with perpetuating the institution's prestige than anything else.

What's next, looking down at transfer students for not taking all of their courses at the school they graduated from? And what about legacy admissions? If we're so concerned about distinguishing between those who were vetted by a selective, supposedly aptitude-based admissions process and those who weren't, shouldn't we assume those graduates who attended the same elite schools their parents did benefited from some form of legacy admission and hold that against them as well?

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_School_of_G...

Forget what that "other" person said.

If you have a degree, you have a degree. I get the same letters pleading for alumni donations that Eliot Spitzer gets.

It's unfortunate that there are some that cling to a model of social hierarchy that is predicated on beauty contests rather than actual objectively measurable achievement.

I'm argue that someone who earned a degree from Harvard or Yale or Columbia that did the work and earned the grades deserves no less respect than someone who did all that AND passed an admissions process. That process is the only thing that TRULY separates the non-traditional from the tradition student.

I fail to see the distinction. The Penn LPS FAQ (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/lps/faq/general) suggests that their night school students get the same degree and in some cases study with the same professors as the day students. Is there a reason to suspect the quality of the education would be dramatically different?

The distinction is much stronger in Columbia. There you are part of an entirely different school (School of Graduate Studies), which shows up on your diploma and transcripts and which you are supposed to put on your resume. While you may take the same classes and get a degree that sounds the same as the ordinary undergrad schools (Columbia College and Barnard College) you have technically got that degree from a different school.

And they say that transferring out of that school into Columbia college is not easy at all.

When I went to Columbia College, the GS students tended to be the best students. They were more prepared, more motivated, and had much more poise. If anything the GS degree would look better to me.

I know the snob factor goes down, but the GS degree should mean something to people who care more about education than branding or signaling.

He wasn't making a comment on the quality of the education; just the fact that it's dishonest to say that the General Studies degree is equivalent in terms of prestige, which the article implies.

That whole prestige thing is BUNK.

For the record, I'm a graduate of the Harvard Extension program (undergrad) and I'm also a member of the Harvard Club of NY.

If you're in your 20's and have no other accomplishments to speak of then the signaling effect of having an Ivy League degree is probably going to do something for you.

But if you're in your 30s or 40s, you're going to be judged on what you've done outside of an academic environment by almost every single person you meet.

In fact, trying to game the prestige game in your 30s or 40s by touting your Ivy League degree is likely to have a NEGATIVE effect on your prospects. Just ask anyone from Harvard about the "dropping the H-bomb."

Personally, I think the whole prestige thing is just so much hot air. I've met plenty of dolts with Harvard degrees and plenty of supremely intelligent people who have only a year or two of college.

Keep this in mind: I have tons of friends who did an undergrad and a graduate degree at Harvard; not a single one has ever held that over my head or compared my degree with theirs.

Totally agree w/the name dropping your school being a bad thing. However, just being a member of the club of people from those schools just keeps paying dividends as your career moves on.

My friend quoted above went to Penn (Ivy League), I went to Auburn University (State School in Alabama). Both of us moved from the US to Argentina. I'm 36, he's about the same age.

Penn alumni in Buenos Aires? DOZENS, NEY HUNDREDS. They're CEO's of major startups here, Argentines who had good grades, wealthy families, and went the US for school and came back.

Auburn Alumni in Buenos Aires? i'm sure there are a few. Most will be with me at the sports bar on saturday watching Auburn-LSU. None are Argentines who went to school in the states and came back to run startups... He has a huge networking advantage here I don't.

I tried to get Auburn to even start an alumni club here and they ignored my mails, for instance, whereas the Penn, Harvard, etc. clubs are an ongoing valuable source of connections and relationships for their members.

I have plenty of connections at this point but it's a natural advantage I often find myself having to work harder to make up for.

Keep this in mind: networking opportunities come in many forms. Alumni clubs are just one avenue available to someone who is trying to connect with others.

BTW, Auburn is a very good school. Excellent academics and a good reputation almost everywhere in the world.

Of course, one of the afflictions of state schools is an overemphasis on sports. My feeling is that there is an attraction affect happening with certain schools that depends on their "brand." It may be the case that people who want to enter the corridors of power seek Ivy League degrees while others want to tap into more localized fraternities focused on something other than wealth/power/prestige.

As a 29-year old Harvard (College) grad, I agree that "what you've done outside of an academic environment" is more important than the prestige of the degree itself. However, I've been surprised that the prestige of the degree has continued to be important throughout my career. My experience is that it doesn't go away.

And the H-bomb has a negative effect on social relationships. Not generally professional ones.

Tell me about it. I actually had a girl stop mid-conversation, spin on her heels, and beat a hasty retreat when I mentioned Harvard.

Maybe I should have said I went to Bunker Hill Community College.

Ah. I would've thought them equivalent in terms of prestige, but I attended a state school in the southeast and don't spend too much time thinking about these things.

It really seems like you've managed to secure the top-tier education while sidestepping the selective admissions process. Quite the hack, no?