There’s a lot of reasons people are unemployable, the college you attended is not. A business degree at NAU is worth more than women’s studies degree at Stanford.
You can keep telling yourself that, but a business degree from anywhere is worthless. The curriculum (basic accounting, how to use Microsoft Office, etc) could be taught to anyone with half a brain in six weeks. But that's beside the point.
Unfortunately, what matters is the appearance of pedigree. That's why investment banks hire people with art history degrees from Princeton. The hypothetical women's studies grad from Stanford is going to be assumed to be smarter than other people because of their degree-granting institution.
But when you get into technical majors like engineering or other STEM degrees people don't really care much about where you went. You either know how to do it or you don't, and there's not a huge surplus of people who know how to do it. It is a lot easier to do 'business' because the concepts are pretty straight forward, and the toughest math might even be compounding interest rates. But in many STEM fields the math is very difficult to comprehend, so if you can do the job it doesn't matter what university you went to, you're hired. My economics courses as general electives were the easiest classes I had, engineering courses are way harder and have a tougher curve because many of the students are better at math/science.
But when you get into technical majors like engineering or other STEM degrees people don't really care much about where you went. You either know how to do it or you don't, and there's not a huge surplus of people who know how to do it. It is a lot easier to do 'business' because the concepts are pretty straight forward, and the toughest math might even be compounding interest rates. But in many STEM fields the math is very difficult to comprehend, so if you can do the job it doesn't matter what university you went to, you're hired. My economics courses as general electives were the easiest classes I had, engineering courses are way harder and have a tougher curve because many of the students are better at math/science.
Take a calculus-based intermediate micro or macro class or even econometrics and tell us all how easy it is.
But when you get into technical majors like engineering or other STEM degrees people don't really care much about where you went. You either know how to do it or you don't, and there's not a huge surplus of people who know how to do it. It is a lot easier to do 'business' because the concepts are pretty straight forward, and the toughest math might even be compounding interest rates. But in many STEM fields the math is very difficult to comprehend, so if you can do the job it doesn't matter what university you went to, you're hired. My economics courses as general electives were the easiest classes I had, engineering courses are way harder and have a tougher curve because many of the students are better at math/science.
Take a calculus-based intermediate micro or macro class or even econometrics and tell us all how easy it is.
considering most engineering classes are based on advanced calculus/differential equations, I don't think a calculus based micro/macro class would be too difficult mathematically for stem students.
I swear he started to choke up and get a little teary-eyed when he was talking about the runner who faced a bunch of struggles this season. Big fan of a coach who cares that much about his athletes (especially at a school level, whether college or below).
There’s a lot of reasons people are unemployable, the college you attended is not. A business degree at NAU is worth more than women’s studies degree at Stanford.
this is 1000% not true. Maybe it makes you feel better about your "lumberjack" BS. The connections alone at stanford are worth more than knowing a few runners in flag.
There’s a lot of space between unemployability and the “Stanford connections” you mention in your follow-up post. Are lack of elite job connections tantamount to being unemployed/unemployable?
You can get a good education and acquire valuable skills at any school. Elite institutions aren’t for everyone, and they don’t automatically give you a marked advantage.
There’s a lot of space between unemployability and the “Stanford connections” you mention in your follow-up post. Are lack of elite job connections tantamount to being unemployed/unemployable?
You can get a good education and acquire valuable skills at any school. Elite institutions aren’t for everyone, and they don’t automatically give you a marked advantage.
I agree with everything you said, until the last eight words.
But when you get into technical majors like engineering or other STEM degrees people don't really care much about where you went. You either know how to do it or you don't, and there's not a huge surplus of people who know how to do it. It is a lot easier to do 'business' because the concepts are pretty straight forward, and the toughest math might even be compounding interest rates. But in many STEM fields the math is very difficult to comprehend, so if you can do the job it doesn't matter what university you went to, you're hired. My economics courses as general electives were the easiest classes I had, engineering courses are way harder and have a tougher curve because many of the students are better at math/science.
Take a calculus-based intermediate micro or macro class or even econometrics and tell us all how easy it is.
I double majored in electrical engineering and economics. The math in upper division economics was not easy, but it was a lot easier than the math in my upper division engineering classes.
If you want to know why Mike Smith the greatest college coach ever go watch his interview after their 2019 loss. College xc coaching is so much about the people and the mental side, training is all the same. 10 mile tempos, mile reps at threshold etc etc. None of that is special. There’s a reason all these kids want to go to NAU and want to run for Mike Smith even though there’s dozens of schools with bigger budgets and better academics.
Thanks for directing us to that interview. Here is the one I found. A lot to appreciate about his attitude here.
Watch Episode 1 of 'NAU: Running With The Boys': https://bit.ly/35CDoeTAfter coming up short to BYU, Smith explains what he hopes his team will take away fro...
Mike Smith has his bachelors in psychology not physiology. Most think that coaching is about the physical training and yes that is a major part. However, Smith is a master with the mental side. You can sense it when even watching their little workout videos. More coaches should focus on becoming mental experts. Instead too many choose to major in gym.
It's a 10km XC race, not a 1500m ... Mile times mean little in NCAA cross. Strength is so much more important especially since you're racing 2x10km in 7 days. 5k PBs are a better measure of talent since not everyone has run 10ks.
Ask Jakob if his 1500 speed helped him in the 5k. Ask Mo Farah if his 1500m speed helped in the 10k.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but 13:20 and 27:40 aren't what they used to be. Super shoes make a much bigger difference over 5k and 10k than 1500.
We used to only get 3 or less men under 13:30 in the 5k per year. In 2022 there were 21 and 36 men at 13:35 or faster. 27:40 is only 13:50 pace. There were 118 men at 13:50.00 or faster.