Korean Job Discussion Forums

[ernie]

i've been thinking lately about how sad it is that kids from about age 7 are under so much pressure to get into a good high school, to get into a top-tier university, to get a top job with one of the big jaybol companies in korea...

this got me wondering: is there really a difference between an 'elite' university and a second-tier school? i mean, do the lower universities skip half the textbook or something? what's the point of handing out a BA or a BSc if it's not worth the same as one from another school? i guess this applies to the USA, too - i mean, why is Harvard the be-all-and-end-all of schools?

people will point to higher test scores achieved by graduates from 'elite' schools, but this is confusing the effect with the cause! since the smartest kids go there, of COURSE they'll score highest!

has there been any SCIENTIFIC study of this phenomenon? i mean, take a large group of students with similar abilities and randomly assign them to various universities, and then test them after the fact... if there's a significant difference, then i will concede, but without that, i don't believe it...

it seems to me like the jaybol use 'elite' schools as yet another way to keep people here in line... why isn't it 'discrimination' to judge someone based upon their school rather than their abilities? can you sue for this?

why should the decisions a 10-year-old makes affect their entire life? it's just sad (to me, at least) that kids here don't seem to enjoy their childhood because they're working day and night to get a job where they'll have to work day and night... where's the payoff?!

[adeline]

that is ridiculous, there is a huge difference between universities, you are looking at them like they are public high schools. What matters for unis is not the textbook used! if that was so then no one would need to go at all, they could just read a list of books and get their degree. What matters is the courses offered, academic resources available, and most importantly the professors. It does matter where you go to school, that is why they publish statistics about what percent of graduates were hired within a year in their chosen field. These candidates are not desired because of the flashy name on the diploma they are desired because the employer knows for sure that they got a great education.

[reactionary]

i'd have to disagree with the above poster. i think elite universities are really just name brands and don't necessarily offer better educations (see the grade inflation in the ivy league as an example of one problem). If someone gets hired in their chosen career, come on, let's be serious - unless it's a really skilled profession like engineering, employers don't care so much what you've learned. They just like the name brand. for the most part you won't be applying your economics degree to your entry level business job.

i went to a semi-elite univ (recognized home, not so much in korea) and it didn't really do much for me - had friends at community colleges who seemed they were getting a lot out of the small class sizes and people who really are educators rather than researches who consider teaching classes a burden to their "real" work.

[the_beaver]

By accepting only higher-level students they are one very large component into setting themselves up for success.

[ernie]

certain companies hire people based upon the NAME of the university on your degree first and your skills second... this practice is RAMPANT in korea! this is wrong, IMO, for both economic and ethical reasons... since when did cronyism become 'a way to ensure success'? also, if the best students all go to certain universities, then OF COURSE they will score higher on tests...

my question is this: who says that those are the top universities? if they claim to be bastions of higher learning, then surely they should be subject to scientific scrutiny, shouldn't they?

why bother calling degrees from lower universities the same name, if they're not worth the same! the government regulates what is required for a school to give out degrees, so why is there such a wide discrepancy between elite and lower schools?

in fact, people CAN 'just read a list of books and get their degree'... many universities offer correspondence courses!

[lastat06513]

Here's the irony.....

In Korea~ Students are taught that they have to study their brains out until they reach uni. There, they slack off alot. And most of the content offered is mostly theory-based with very little practicality. In Korea in the end, it is the bragging rights a student has and the prestigious name that fits nicely on their resume that matters the most. As many uni/college teachers have said, many of the uni students in Korea (not all) are some of the worst, most obnoxious students possible.

In the US (for example)~ Students slack off so much BEFORE entering uni/college and those that don't do so well during placement exams have to take remedial classes to make up for the stuff they neglected to learn in school- adding more time to their "college experience". Also, in places like the US, going to a university is not mandatory, a person has a personal choice either to go to college or job enter the workforce (which turns out to be a bad decision because alot of the jobs now that only require a high school are 'burger joints'). In the US, it all comes down to how much money a person might earn by getting a degree. True, it would be good to get into a good university....but you are not going to see the frantic lunacy that happens in Korea

[zeppelin]

Universities aren't just about teaching undergrad degrees. Indeed some profs act like the teaching of undergrad students is a necessary evil...

The quality of a University is affected by the quality of the academics it can attract, the quality of the research it produces, and the quality of the courses it offers. These all determine how much research money it can attract etc.

Elite universities may offer smaller tutorial groups, better resources, and the chance to be taught by leading academics in their field. Whether this gives a better undergraduate degree or not is definitely up for debate and probably depends on the individual student using their initiative and using the resources available.

For post graduate students its story all together...

[flakfizer]

I remember a piece about this topic done by 60 Minutes, or TIME or some other well-known news group that showed that at the top universities, the great profs rarely taught undergrad students but spent all their time in research with a few grad students. Undergrad classes were often taught by TAs. Their conclusion was that going to an elite university does not mean you will be being taught by those wondeful profs if you're an undergrad.

[RACETRAITOR]

The main, most important thing about going to a "good" university is that it has a good reputation. For instance, in the US you have the Ivy League schools which enjoy a good reputation, probably because they have a high tuition. This will impress employers and give you important social connections.

When it comes to quality education, the number one factor is class size. You're getting a better education in a class of 20 than a class of 200. That means the smaller the university (or at least the lower the teacher:student ratio) the better. You could probably get a better education at a technical school than a university. You're not going to get a better job than the ivy league graduate but you'll be able to outthink him.

[ajgeddes]

[ernie]

it's funny: in my limited experience i've found that reputation is INVERSELY proportional to their quality of education! schools with 'bad' reputations work hard to provide a quality education to shake their stigma, while the 'top' universities can manage to treat their students like crap because it doesn't matter what a few undergrads think!

[flakfizer]

[ajgeddes]

[ernie]

i've been to 2 universities and a college... and i'm also relating the experiences of my friends as well...

[ajgeddes]