Profile Evaluation : In a terrible situation
- Thread starter Nikhil Arora
- Start date
- Joined
- 5/27/11
- Messages
- 184
- Points
- 38
Actually those free courses finally provide you with a certificate containing your marks and the percentile in the course. There were several articles where it was also mentioned that the university students started following those online course instead of one offered at the university .Also finally some job offers were made to the TOP 1% of the class.Therefore such courses aren't purely recreational as what they may appear to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/e...ll-topple-campus-walls.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Sorry for diverting the topic.
Shantanu Kumar
I am aware of these courses (taking one from Stanford this semester) and I am glad that schools are spreading knowledge. But the proliferation of free materials does not mean accredited universities must accept those courses. As happy as I am for those top 1% from the class, I wonder how many of them are current students to begin with and how many class participants can point to the class as the deciding factor that made the difference in employment.
People often want to break into lucrative industries with the lowest cost of entry, but that desire runs directly against the interest of incumbent. Medicine, law, engineering, and business all have established standards/career paths to regulate the dilution of their profession, and the limitation of courses offered is one of their many safeguards. If free materials are ever considered "comparable" to accredited courses, then the professions lose control on the influx of new entrants. These new entrants are very unlikely to be accepted by their more established predecessors, and the old geezers will most likely think you cheated.
University enrollment signals a number of things including your achievements since high school, affiliation to alumni bases, and research / placement related effort / expenses / network. In many profession, admissions to each programs is closely scrutinized by the affiliated professional association, accreditation boards, and practitioners. So if your GPA is not high, take more classes. If your GRE isn't good, retake it. If your w/e isn't relevant enough (for you to even make a case in your essay), apply for another job. Because if a school accepts you using some alternative measures (all the free courses you've completed) and overlook some traditional criteria (GPA, GRE, etc), practitioners and bystanders tend to call the quality of the school into question. So there is no shortcut. Do the work, and fix your mistakes.
But as I mentioned, I was merely rephrasing what I've heard from an admissions lady. Maybe the attitudes have changed since last year and my impression has become outdated. But if that is not the case, then I would not get my hopes up for those free courses making any impact on my admissions profile.
I am aware of these courses (taking one from Stanford this semester) and I am glad that schools are spreading knowledge. But the proliferation of free materials does not mean accredited universities must accept those courses. As happy as I am for those top 1% from the class, I wonder how many of them are current students to begin with and how many class participants can point to the class as the deciding factor that made the difference in employment.
People often want to break into lucrative industries with the lowest cost of entry, but that desire runs directly against the interest of incumbent. Medicine, law, engineering, and business all have established standards/career paths to regulate the dilution of their profession, and the limitation of courses offered is one of their many safeguards. If free materials are ever considered "comparable" to accredited courses, then the professions lose control on the influx of new entrants. These new entrants are very unlikely to be accepted by their more established predecessors, and the old geezers will most likely think you cheated.
University enrollment signals a number of things including your achievements since high school, affiliation to alumni bases, and research / placement related effort / expenses / network. In many profession, admissions to each programs is closely scrutinized by the affiliated professional association, accreditation boards, and practitioners. So if your GPA is not high, take more classes. If your GRE isn't good, retake it. If your w/e isn't relevant enough (for you to even make a case in your essay), apply for another job. Because if a school accepts you using some alternative measures (all the free courses you've completed) and overlook some traditional criteria (GPA, GRE, etc), practitioners and bystanders tend to call the quality of the school into question. So there is no shortcut. Do the work, and fix your mistakes.
But as I mentioned, I was merely rephrasing what I've heard from an admissions lady. Maybe the attitudes have changed since last year and my impression has become outdated. But if that is not the case, then I would not get my hopes up for those free courses making any impact on my admissions profile.
- Joined
- 8/15/11
- Messages
- 20
- Points
- 13
If I were you, I would find a Non-Degree program in Math and take some math course to overcome my weaknesses. GRE Q doesn't suffice!
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,247
- Points
- 273
Because MFE is accredited master degree that will give you OPT/CPT benefit and meet the minimum qualification required for many quant-type jobs.
Getting a job which leads to Green card is a nice bonus as well.
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,247
- Points
- 273
I read this a couple days ago and it seems like online courses are spreading and many universities are going to jump on this wagon
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/e...-walls.html?_r=1&ref=education&pagewanted=all
- Joined
- 5/27/11
- Messages
- 184
- Points
- 38
bullion
I agree with everything you have to say. I just hope these free online courses could somehow break the monopoly of traditional college education which may seem highly unlikely in the near future.
Andy Nguyen
Already MIT/Stanford/Michigan/Berkeley are riding this wagon.
I agree with everything you have to say. I just hope these free online courses could somehow break the monopoly of traditional college education which may seem highly unlikely in the near future.
Andy Nguyen
Already MIT/Stanford/Michigan/Berkeley are riding this wagon.
Shantanu Kumar
Actually, I don't know if free online courses are such good ideas. Let's say you took these free online courses. So you satisfied all the "pre-req" for MFEs. You send off your applications. All a sudden you realize EVERY APPLICANT has taken the class and gotten good grades. The same thing has happened in actuary exams, CFA, FRM. Now you need another way to distinguish yourself. The phenomenon is hardly new especially in China and India. They may not have internet video lectures, but they can purchase engineering books at substantial discount (or just photocopy), so basically EVERYONE read them. The result is increase in competition and depressed salaries across the labor market, and that's why you have so many foreign engineers/computer scientists who want to do MFE in the States.
The reason I say things are recreational (and hopefully stay that way) is because having such a monopoly is what distinguish you from everyone else. If everyone has a degree from Harvard, no one will care if it is Harvard. Part of the social value of higher education is to group people into different calibre/interest/path/clique, and exclusivity is exactly what makes any title/degree/institution desirable. And let's face it. Most people don't study for the pure joy of studying. They hope to accomplish / prove something to future employers for higher salary. Admissions office might no longer be able to bar you from enrolling/studying, but it also means that none of your personal essay / life story will matter except your grades. Are people ready for such raw competitions?
We have seen brand dilution from Columbia MSFE/MSOR/MAFN, and all the Rutger programs. The CMU MSCF Online option truly scares me, too. Even if you can justify such expansion with legit industry demands, it is unlikely such program will scale down to match softened business cycle (due to extra overhead) and you end up with a highly saturated market (fresh graduates without jobs and difficult to re-position displaced alumni). On the other hand, Baruch has done a fabulous job promoting and protecting its brand. It actually has less students now than during the 2004-2008 period, and their declining admissions rates just means they can pick and choose from more qualified candidates. In comparison to its overall university rankings (really not that high), the program is nothing short of a miracle (well, their faculty and students worked hard on it) and a true exception from the herd.
Eventually, the industry will retaliate with new exams, degrees, certificates, and you'll start chasing another credential/qualification through a bunch of new educators. Obviously, such competition is crucial for the advancement and evolution of any industry. But before we celebrate the liberation and access to quality educational materials, we should really examine the actual purpose and function of higher education in our society.
Actually, I don't know if free online courses are such good ideas. Let's say you took these free online courses. So you satisfied all the "pre-req" for MFEs. You send off your applications. All a sudden you realize EVERY APPLICANT has taken the class and gotten good grades. The same thing has happened in actuary exams, CFA, FRM. Now you need another way to distinguish yourself. The phenomenon is hardly new especially in China and India. They may not have internet video lectures, but they can purchase engineering books at substantial discount (or just photocopy), so basically EVERYONE read them. The result is increase in competition and depressed salaries across the labor market, and that's why you have so many foreign engineers/computer scientists who want to do MFE in the States.
The reason I say things are recreational (and hopefully stay that way) is because having such a monopoly is what distinguish you from everyone else. If everyone has a degree from Harvard, no one will care if it is Harvard. Part of the social value of higher education is to group people into different calibre/interest/path/clique, and exclusivity is exactly what makes any title/degree/institution desirable. And let's face it. Most people don't study for the pure joy of studying. They hope to accomplish / prove something to future employers for higher salary. Admissions office might no longer be able to bar you from enrolling/studying, but it also means that none of your personal essay / life story will matter except your grades. Are people ready for such raw competitions?
We have seen brand dilution from Columbia MSFE/MSOR/MAFN, and all the Rutger programs. The CMU MSCF Online option truly scares me, too. Even if you can justify such expansion with legit industry demands, it is unlikely such program will scale down to match softened business cycle (due to extra overhead) and you end up with a highly saturated market (fresh graduates without jobs and difficult to re-position displaced alumni). On the other hand, Baruch has done a fabulous job promoting and protecting its brand. It actually has less students now than during the 2004-2008 period, and their declining admissions rates just means they can pick and choose from more qualified candidates. In comparison to its overall university rankings (really not that high), the program is nothing short of a miracle (well, their faculty and students worked hard on it) and a true exception from the herd.
Eventually, the industry will retaliate with new exams, degrees, certificates, and you'll start chasing another credential/qualification through a bunch of new educators. Obviously, such competition is crucial for the advancement and evolution of any industry. But before we celebrate the liberation and access to quality educational materials, we should really examine the actual purpose and function of higher education in our society.
alain
Older and Wiser
- Joined
- 3/29/04
- Messages
- 2,767
- Points
- 93
Hopefully, that day will come soon. It will be great if people care more about what you know and what you can bring to the table instead of which school you went to.
Yike Lu
Finder of biased coins.
- Joined
- 5/10/10
- Messages
- 772
- Points
- 53
It's much easier to score top 1% in one of these online courses than if you were taking it at the school since the population is just so much larger. Most students at top schools are by construction already in the top 1%.
- Joined
- 5/27/11
- Messages
- 184
- Points
- 38
Yike Lu
There is some truth in that but actually its not quite true.On the other hand there were more 100% score in AI class and none at Stanford.The obvious answer for that is there were no programming assignments which were part of Stanford curriculum.As far as i remember those 1% were those who had score of 98% or above in aggregate which i think will make 1% at any university.
There is some truth in that but actually its not quite true.On the other hand there were more 100% score in AI class and none at Stanford.The obvious answer for that is there were no programming assignments which were part of Stanford curriculum.As far as i remember those 1% were those who had score of 98% or above in aggregate which i think will make 1% at any university.
Out of 160,000 students who enrolled 23,000 completed the course successfully.
Percentile was awarded among those who completed successfully.If i argue more i can say there were students from all over the world there as compared to the one at Stanford University which has TOP 1% of mostly american students.You also see this thing during higher studies admission in US universities where GPAs keep soaring due to applicants from all over the world
