http://www.martynemko.com/articl ... could-get-in_id1247

作者说这类(顶尖的或者不那么顶尖但学费昂贵的)大学的老师更注重搞研究而不是教学,认为"Winning the campus teaching award is the kiss of death when it comes time for tenure.","Undergraduate teaching is a necessary evil."
这些学校采取放羊式教学, 加一些几百上千人的演讲教学.
还不如社区大学,因为在社区大学,老师的专职就是上课.
那么是否IVY文凭更有利于找工作呢? 作者认为其实是因为学生本身比较聪明,再加各自家庭背景.而文凭本身其实并没有保障,"the New York Times reported that a quarter of Harvard's class of 1958 had lost their jobs, were looking for work, or on welfare, just when their careers should have been cresting...Many in the class of '58 thought their degrees ensured career success. They were wrong."(1958届有1/4的哈佛学子失业,他们当初认为这张文凭对职业会是个保障的.).

没有说他们什么时候失业的阿。.

BERKELEY好像在国内有点名气响过头了. 在加州貌似读书像样点的都能进. 再说质量下降,财务问题...NYU如果是阿布扎比分校,全免费还给2000刀零花那种,还真值得一去.

As a general rule, I would say graduates in the top quarter of their class at a high-quality high school should go on to a four-year degree program, while those in the bottom quarter of their class at a high school with a mediocre educational reputation should not (opting instead for alternative methods of credentialing and training).
http://www.businessweek.com/arti ... e-isnt-for-everyone

作者建议,好学校top1/4上大学,bottom 1/4 进行职业培训, 其余上大专---看情况再转大学..