

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

I saw an interesting comment in the thread for the post for "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education" (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645000) that prompted me to flip the bit and ask this question.
======
GavinB
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 can do the kind of work that
you really want to be doing. If you can achieve that, you're better off than
most Ivy grads. A top school brings a few advantages, sure, but nothing that a
little success can't cure, and _certainly_ not happiness.

~~~
endtime
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 get at is that while being from MIT or Stanford makes a
good first impression, personal achievements say a lot more about you than the
hand you were dealt by the extremely noisy college admissions process
(consider this: I am a CS grad student at Stanford, and I was rejected from
UMD and UMass Amherst for grad school).

~~~
vlad
_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.

------
Dilpil
Indeed I do. MIT grads are automatically understood as smart. I can often
convince people after a few minutes of conversation, but I do not always get
those minutes.

~~~
anotherjesse
I feel that, but I see the issue is not being as connected.

People who went to elite colleges built a valuable network, many of their
friends and class mates are in big business or startups. None of my class
mates are anywhere near the valley or startups.

------
grandalf
It doesn't matter at all where you went to college, or even if you went to
college.

Sure, graduating from Harvard offers some short-term advantages, but if you're
motivated you can take the lead.

Consider how much time in college is wasted studying minutia for a competitive
exam that has no impact on learning.

Consider how much of college is often spent stressing about stupid deadlines
that really don't matter or fawning over prestigious faculty who did something
noteworthy 30 years ago and have coasted since.

My advice: Do something that really matters, and take the initiative to teach
yourself as you go. You are (and should be) your own harshest critic. Make it
your responsibility to find others to join you in your quest (if necessary). A
college campus might be a good place for you to recruit.

But certainly don't hang your head!

note: most students at top phd programs didn't go to major name brand
undergrad programs... they went to small (not well known) schools and
accomplished meaningful research that would have been harder to accomplish in
a cutthroat name brand atmosphere.

~~~
rdr
"note: most students at top phd programs didn't go to major name brand
undergrad programs... they went to small (not well known) schools and
accomplished meaningful research that would have been harder to accomplish in
a cutthroat name brand atmosphere."

i think it depends on the department. some smaller departments at top schools
are fairly elitist in their admissions, mostly since they're based so heavily
on recommendation letters. if you didn't go to a top undergrad institution,
chances are they don't know who your letter writers are and might not give as
much weight to your letters or application. just speculation, tho :)

------
rgrieselhuber
I saw both threads and I think that you're probably wasting useful energy by
dwelling on this (true or not - I don't spend much time analyzing it).

At the minimum, if you feel inferior because of something like this, try to
find a way to turn it into a challenge to succeed at whatever you want to do
in spite of it. There are many successful people out there with non-name brand
college degrees.

------
J_McQuade
Well, it may be a little different in the UK due to our many-tiered higher
education system (Oxbridge, redbricks, ex-polytechnics and a moderate spectrum
in between), but I'll chip in my two copper pence either way.

Actually, this is a question I've thought about a little too much, I'd wager,
because, as a prospective undergraduate, I actually turned down an offer to
read mathematics at Cambridge and decided to study at the University of
Bristol instead. The latter is in itself a well-regarded institute, no doubt,
but it cannot be said to have anything near the Oxbridge 'name-weight' (for
want of a better term).

Do I regret my choice? In some ways yes, in some ways no. The decision was
very much informed by my particularly working class background - I did not
believe I would have 'fit in' to the predominantly upper-middle-class culture
of either the university or the city that surrounds it. In hindsight, my
opinion hasn't changed at all. Bristol suffers many of the same problems as a
university, but as a city it is as colourful as they come.

I believe that forgoing the 'top tier' university worked such wonders for my
social development (and, hence, my subsequent happiness) that I cannot bring
myself to regret it wholesale. However, I can't help but feel there's an
undeniable magic that happens when a highly selective and competitive
institution brings a bunch of smart, young people together to explore their
interests.

Being a part of that could, as the "Disadvantages of an Elite Education"
article suggests, have ended up insulating me from the 'regular world', but
there is the odd occasion where I cant help but wonder what could have been if
I'd chosen to experience it. Maybe that's what it takes, you know? I try not
to dwell on it for long, though - I've left that to my folks!

I've not planned to become a high-ranking politician or appear on BBC Radio 4
(yet), so a non-Oxbridge education hasn't hindered me much _so_ far... Either
way, though, I'm still (relatively) young and it will be a good few years
before I can evaluate these decisions with any great degree of accuracy.

We'll see, I guess.

~~~
rg
Having lived in both the US and the UK, I'd observe that the prestige of one's
university counts for MUCH more in the UK. To an American it is unbelieveable
how much Brits focus on where they went to school (at all levels) rather than
their abilities--and they are correct to do so, because other Brits use
schools and universities as vital credentials. It's an aspect of the class
system in the UK which doesn't exist in the same way in the US (note also the
discussion of "working class background" versus "upper middle class culture"--
not at all the same in the US). Someone from the UK might well obsess about a
degree from an elite university, but in the US any good degree gets you over
the threshold and able to compete on equal terms.

~~~
jstevens85
Yes, Brits may put more focus on which university you go to, but that isn't
necessarily a bad thing.

In the UK, getting into Oxbridge is nowhere near as difficult as getting into
Harvard, Yale, Princeton. There are 24,000 undergraduate spots at Oxbridge for
60 million Brits, compared to 17,000 spots at HYP for 300 million Americans.

Also, the application criteria at Oxbridge is far simpler. It is based
entirely on academic potential. British universities are uninterested in
extracurricular activities and "well-roundedness". In the US, very smart
students with perfect grades are rejected from Harvard because they weren't
editor of the school newspaper, because they got a D in History in 9th grade,
or because they couldn't write a good essay about "If you were going to sing a
song in a talent show, what would you sing and why?" That doesn't happen in
the UK. If you are smart, work hard in school and get good grades, you'll get
into Oxbridge. The same can't be said for getting into HYP.

All of the British universities are public, so there doesn't exist the
situation where students may choose to go to Berkeley instead of UPenn because
they want to save money, or because they were offered a scholarship.

Which university you attend in the UK tends to be a better indicator of
intelligence and academic success than where you study in the US.

~~~
daveungerer
Wow, I genuinely never knew that about the UK. It's strange how the flood of
information on US universities drowns out everything else.

From what your saying, that makes Oxbridge rather attractive for many people
on this site, who were never interested in being "well-rounded" just for the
sake of university admission.

------
alexgartrell
I go to a "name brand" college (Carnegie Mellon, you can disagree if you'd
like) and there are LOTS of CS majors who don't know anything. Likewise I've
worked with people from state schools who know exactly what they're doing.
Anyone who associates eliteness with where an undergrad degree was obtained is
wrong.

The only plus side to name-brand colleges is well known professors, but most
of learning is self-motivation anyway.

~~~
babycakes
> I go to a "name brand" college (Carnegie Mellon, you can disagree if you'd
> like) and there are LOTS of CS majors who don't know anything.

That was my impression of ECE at Purdue University (a top 10 graduate school
at the time, unsure of undergrad ranking). Most undergrads were incapable of
functioning as engineers. I taught two different senior-level courses while I
was there. The top students were excellent, as you would expect. The rest
hobbled along. I had seniors who couldn't approximate the gain of an op-amp or
make a common-emitter amplifier. Not one of the senior design students
bothered to simulate their circuits before building them (and frying them).
They had no idea how to test a circuit once they built it.

I actually credit the undergrads' ineptitude to the curriculum. Purdue has
lots of classroom instruction but very few labs. I had approximately double
the number of labs as an undergrad at the University of Arkansas. Even the
worst students were capable of building and testing a circuit, whereas the
Purdue students would expect the TA to do their testing for them.

------
jerryji
I only feel inferior when I haven't done enough to maximize my potential.

~~~
rdr
that's probably the most healthy attitude ;)

i suppose it's harder when you are around people from name-brand colleges, no?

if nobody around you went to a name-brand college, then of course there's no
point of reference

------
anigbrowl
No, but I have felt inferior for not going to college. For a variety of mostly
personal reasons, it didn't seem like a life-enhancing decision at the time
(~25 years ago, in Ireland).

~~~
mickt
It's never too late! I went back to college and got a degree in Computer
Science when I was 35.

~~~
endtime
Yeah, I've seen a few people in their 30s or 40s doing CS degrees, and I
always respect them for it. Don't let your age stop you if it's something you
want to do.

------
jpwagner
I invented ___ is way more compelling than I went to ____.

------
gabriel
I was recently re-reading the "regrets" pamphlet by _n+1_ magazine (link at
bottom) where the premise was to get a round-table discussion of some
"intellectuals" and ask them what they regret about their education in order
to provide a guide for current students in ideas of "literature, philosophy,
and thought."

Some of the participants went to the Ivy League, but all of them went to
highly respectable schools. There were a few points that I'd like to share.

Quite a few of the participants had a feeling like they screwed up big time in
choices in their education. Not necessarily about the choice of school, but
in, for example, choosing the English department instead of Literature and end
up studying Theory rather than readings and after a few years they found out
they missed out on _Anna Karenina_ in favor of Foucault. This was to the
extent that some of them claimed to go to masters school to make up for what
they didn't do as an undergraduate, and regretted that too.

Another idea that they quickly agreed on is that the very nature of a regret
is to notice what choices you _should_ have made, and clearly it is too late
to do anything about it. Yet, some of the participants were reluctant to even
call them regrets. How can you call your life a regret? This is a group of
people where there was no question that reading the right book at the right
time would (and did) change their life, and it really wasn't a question of
"for better or worse", but they would learn their lessons and are the better
for it.

I suppose I'm talking about making decisions, reflecting on those decisions
over time (sometimes it takes years, decades even), and then gaining a modicum
of wisdom.

Feeling inferior would seem to me a common sentiment. Hasn't everyone had this
feeling before? You feel like you missed out on something you may have not
known existed until you had the years to figure out it was even there. Yet, I
don't think you should deny yourself the line of thought that this would take
you down, and it may take a long time, but I think you need to turn these
feelings around to find a genuine calling/relaxedness of what you are here to
do.

No affiliation with the publishers, but I highly recommend the $9 "What We
Should Have Known: Two Discussions" (aka regrets) pamphlet:
<http://www.nplusonemag.com/pamphlet-two>. It is well worth the money,
especially if you are in the situation where you think you might be ready to
hear their advice.

------
udekaf
I feel inferior reading this article instead of coding.

~~~
ovi256
Upmod, but you should feel inferior for not thinking, not for not coding. You
are not a code monkey, but a thinking problem solver, whatever your label is
(engineer, scientist, technician, CEO, whatever).

That remembers me Sir Popper wrote a book "All of Life is Problem Solving."
Got to read it some time...

------
johnnybgoode
Here is the comment you're referring to:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645316>

I want to add that even if you personally don't feel inferior about it, you'll
probably still feel something when you know someone else is judging you for
it.

And of course, sometimes it doesn't even matter how you feel. You are at a
disadvantage regardless.

As I said in the other thread, college degrees today are titles of nobility by
definition, thanks to state support. Titles of nobility were supposed to have
been abolished.

~~~
rdr
what do you mean by "thanks to state support"? please clarify, thanks.

~~~
johnnybgoode
The state confers special privileges on degree holders that are denied to
everyone else. It also regulates, funds, and grants degrees itself.

Examples include credential requirements for many different occupations,
licensing laws, and job eligibility.

Of course, there are also the more "unofficial" effects of these policies.
Credentialism is widespread in society thanks in no small part to the massive,
state-funded school system.

~~~
philwelch
That doesn't make it a title of nobility, especially since the government also
grants things like military commissions, presidential medals of freedom, and
appointments to high positions all the time, all of which are more similar to
titles of nobility than university degrees.

Either you're speaking metaphorically or you're pushing some crank theory, I
can't tell which.

~~~
johnnybgoode
Instead of trying to define by example, let's use an actual definition:

"A title of nobility grants special legal privileges to an individual at the
expense of the rest of the people."

If you have a different definition, that's fine, of course. Then we're just
down to semantics, and I guess you could say I'm speaking metaphorically. But
I hope you're not just excluding certain titles because they don't fit the
preconceived idea of a title of nobility in most people's minds.

~~~
philwelch
Did you just make up that definition or do you have a citation? Because that
definition isn't particularly useful: for instance, any elected or appointed
office would then qualify as a "title of nobility"--a police officer has the
legal privilege to execute warrants, detain people, and carry arms at the
expense of the rest of the people (who must subsidize his training, equipment,
operating expenses, and salary). That's not the constitutional definition by
any means.

Inventing a deliberately weak definition and declaring victory isn't an
especially effective or honest debating tactic.

~~~
johnnybgoode
You don't have to accuse me of lying or being dishonest. I admit the majority
is on your side, but I'm more interested in accuracy than how useful something
is for you.

I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a
century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama:

"To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom
privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not
necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the
privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order.
Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142."

Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being
dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.

~~~
philwelch
The words may be the same, but the meaning is significantly different, and I
have little interest in whatever sophistry you intend to pursue in order to
support your crankish opinion that university degrees are unconstitutional.

Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text
there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier
definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the
drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title
of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.

~~~
johnnybgoode
I never even mentioned the Constitution, so that's not my argument. You
probably assumed I was talking about the Constitution when I said titles of
nobility were supposed to have been abolished. In fact, I was referring to the
idea that our society is supposed to be an egalitarian one (in a legal sense).

As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.

~~~
philwelch
<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 did, in fact, abolish titles of nobility impeded getting your point
across, rather than helping. You give the distinct impression that you're
blaming me for misunderstanding what you so poorly communicated in the first
place.

If your argument is simply that college degrees are anti-egalitarian, I will
happily agree with you. But our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian
in the first place. It had slavery. I'm also happy to point out that it's not
possible to even have pure egalitarianism, which is one reason why meritocracy
is so much better. (You will undoubtedly counter that reliance upon college
degrees is not efficiently meritocratic, but see? Now we've got ourselves a
truly interesting and worthwhile discussion.)

There is also the alternate hypothesis that whenever I debunk your argument,
you start pretending you meant something entirely different from the outset.
But I am choosing to be charitable and assuming you simply miscommunicated
what you meant in the first place.

~~~
johnnybgoode
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 productive.

 _"our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It
had slavery."_

You appear to continue with your US-centric perspective here. And even with
that perspective, so what? The fact that it had slavery sounds like a good
reason not to take what was "meant" as gospel.

As for legal egalitarianism being impossible, that's certainly not true. I'm
not sure why you believe that.

~~~
philwelch
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.

------
ideamonk
I have stopped to. Thought I don't get excellent facilities, or a good geek
crowd as name-brand colleges have here in India, I've started to believe in
myself... ever since I did some freelance web design last year, and got myself
into computer security related intern this summer, I've been more confident
over my belief that "brand name doesn't matter, if I have skills and
confidence over what I know, I can surely find the best for myself"

Have you ever felt inferior for not being from a name-brand college? - Yes, in
the beginning of my college days, when people would ask me which college are
you from? I would tell, and they would go... hmm haven't heard the name...
okay.. whtever.

Do you feel inferior for not being... ? NO way, I wish to be a grand brand
myself, why the heck attach branding n stuff to college, be the name,
influence, etc yourself :)

------
tptacek
I barely went to college at all. I wonder if I feel _better_ about my
situation than does someone who went to Grand Valley State instead of UMich
CS.

~~~
grandalf
didn't cmdrtaco go to gvsu?

------
NoBSWebDesign
I usually try not to compare myself to others too much (too many variables in
life experiences make such comparisons difficult anyway). But if anything, I
feel superior for having accomplished what I have with graduating from a "no-
name-brand" school.

~~~
babycakes
> But if anything, I feel superior for having accomplished what I have with
> graduating from a "no-name-brand" school.

I am motivated to try harder at work because I feel like I'm fighting for all
smaller school graduates in a company full of Stanford, Berkeley, MIT,
Illinois, Harvard, CMU, and Michigan grads. I also ensure that everybody knows
where I came from with a huge Razorback flag on my wall.

------
quellhorst
I feel superior for not following the system and even going to college to rack
up debt to get a piece of paper.

People rarely ask what college you went to. A name-brand degree is just a
pissing match that doesn't matter.

4 years of outdated assignments won't much of a difference further out in your
life. The value of the paper you went into debt to get is going down every
day.

~~~
notauser
Every time I apply for a job, my engineering degree cuts out two or three
annoying questions (which they might not even bother to ask before throwing my
CV away).

I'm thinking about moving to Hong Kong. A masters degree makes immigration
trivial.

Sometimes I find that an interesting problem is related to something I studied
in college and so I know where to start.

When I meet the parents of the girls I date I start with a few extra points of
reputation in hand.

Each time I sit more professional exams the whole process is well within my
comfort zone so I can concentrate on the material rather than stress about the
outcome.

Not a bad investment if you ask me - although no one has asked me where I went
to school in years either.

------
xenophanes
A more important question than whether you _feel_ inferior is whether you
_are_ inferior. The answer to that one is "no".

If you feel inferior, but aren't inferior, then the problem is your feelings.
Change them.

------
ellyagg
I compliment colleagues and friends who have CS degrees, and deprecate myself
about it out loud, but I secretly don't feel the least bit inferior. In fact,
I kind of enjoy the drop-out hacker makes good story.

------
tdavis
No, and I'm not even from a non-name-brand college. I am confident in my
abilities and seem to be adequately respected among my peers who know me.
That's good enough for me.

------
zaidf
I hardly goto an inferior college(UNC-Chapel Hill). But I am studying what is
considered an _inferior major_ (communications).

I love it! When I tell my friend of my major, they roll their eyes in
disbelief. But then I tell them of all my classes with the basketball players
and they are quickly envying me:) That aside, I am studying rhetorical studies
and truly enjoy it!

~~~
zackattack
You have class with Psycho T?!

~~~
zaidf
Hell yeah! My first debate in speech/debate was against Tyler and Bobby. Of
course I won but damn they were pretty good:)

[http://zaid.posterous.com/tyler-hansborough-is-
talllllllllll...](http://zaid.posterous.com/tyler-hansborough-is-
tallllllllllllllllll)

------
lief79
Well, I choose public rather then Ivy, but it's not far behind. I generally
feel better because I choose to get a similar education without going
massively into debt. I figured I'd be going for a masters, at which point it
wouldn't matter.

At some point in time, I'm still thinking about getting a masters ... but Penn
State would be a lot easier to get a company to pay for.

~~~
endtime
For what it's worth, I have a friend at Lockheed right now and they are paying
for her master's at UPenn.

------
gambling8nt
I wouldn't say I've felt inferior. I've occasionally felt significant regret
over my collegiate decision. But then I remember that most such people wind up
paying $200k more than I did to go to college. Going to an MIT or Harvard
might have gotten me somewhat better connections and opportunities, but it is
difficult to see those as adding up to that large of a difference.

~~~
vomjom
Rarely do most people who go to top schools pay full price. Only those from
extremely wealthy families do.

All (yes, all) the top schools are need-blind, meaning they don't look at your
financial situation when deciding whether to accept you. A few of them
(Stanford, Harvard I think) are offering completely free tuition if your
parents make less than $100k. For other situations, you typically would get
around 75% of your tuition free even if your parents make over $100k a year.

The difference in first year average salary for an MIT grad vs. a state school
grad is enough to make up that difference.

~~~
gambling8nt
Most of these pro-rated tuition policies are very, very new; until very
recently, even students at top schools were expected to take out loans to
cover some medium-sized fraction of the tuition costs. By comparison, going to
a rather good state school, I got paid a net of around $8k per year to go to
college.

The financial equation is different for every person, but the value add of a
name-brand school over a state school is typically a hard sell--for a
motivated student a decent education is available everywhere.

~~~
srn
About financial aid: the previous year my parents had made at least 80k, and
that's generally how people judge your need. The year I picked schools one of
them had lost their job and my family was at below sustainability levels.

That being said, I got an excellent scholarship for the college I went to. But
I still regret not going to a "name-brand" school independent of the
educational quality of the college. The kind of people you're around and the
contacts you make are really different. That can be useful on an ongoing
basis, not just right after you graduate.

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

------
edw519
Never.

I don't know what doors were never open to me because of my college.

I do know that for every door I did enter, it was only a matter of time before
the only thing that really mattered was demonstrated performance.

If more people would just forget about B.S. like "pedigree" and focus on
delivering value to their customers, we'd all be better off.

------
jamesbritt
What do people find when they Google your name?

------
michaelawill
Sometimes I feel inferior to those that went to school at all. But then it
passes and I realize I have no loans to pay back.

------
colinplamondon
No.

------
joeycfan
No. Do you think math is different at Yale or something?

