How can anyone take UTR seriously at this point???

[texrunner]

Not a fan of UTR, especially after what has happened recently with how some results count and others don't, as well as how the algorithm has seemingly changed - again.

Up until not long ago, if two players - let's say an 8.0 and a 10.5 - play, the match would not count UNLESS the 8.0 got 7 or more games against the 10.5 - thus making it "competitive." That seems fair to me! (that's also stated somewhere on UTR's website.)

Now apparently there is only a 2 point spread as opposed to the 2.5 spread. I get that part but what i don't get is now, even though a match might be competitive, the results do not count AT ALL. This happened at a recent tournament in which my child participated. There were at least two or three matches that i know of where someone ranked much lower beat a much higher rated opponent. In one case a player with about a 5.5 UTR beat an 8.02. The match was over 3 hours and the lower player busted their *** and played absolutely lights out. But guess what...while the match shows up on their profile it does not count toward her UTR since there was more than a 2 point difference in the players' ratings.

Am i missing something here...how on earth can that be OK? I know if my child who is about an 8.10 beat or had a competitive match with say a 10.5 she sure as heck would want that to count as one of the 30 matches!

I know coaches use UTR as a recruiting tool and I get that, but the algorithm seems flawed and also changes willy nilly. Given that, how can they see your rating as necessarily accurate? I know that is why most decent coaches want video and even better, want to see the players in person, but i've heard of some who literally say "If your utr isn't X then don't call us we'll call you!" Also, my daughter has friends who are rising seniors and are getting a lot of calls from coaches. One parent said her child spoke with a coach who has seen her play multiple times - I think at a couple of nationals - loves her personality as well as her game, yet still asked "what's your UTR? Why after watching this player on several occasions, would that even be a question. She obviously likes the player and is interested, so why even bring up UTR?

Enlighten me

 

[jcgatennismom]

You should read this thread https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/why-utr-is-a-deeply-flawed-system.613706/ 3 pages of posta. I wrote a lengthy post in 8/18 about UTR flaws, but despite its flaws, it's the only system that pulls in international and domestic results for juniors, collegians, pros, and to some degree rec adults. Your daughter's or friends' scores may not be included in the UTR calculation, but are reported online so players can send screenshots of results to coaches to show they are competitive vs higher ranked UTR players in spite of their underranked rating. I think college coaches are somewhat confused and frustrated with UTR rankings too as many college players rankings dropped an average of .7-.8 from spring 2018 to spring 2019 as well as many juniors so it is like comparing apples to oranges when the algorithm changes that significantly. How do coaches compare current players accurately with juniors, potential transfers, and current players with a moving target that currently is moving down? Even the top 10 ITA Newcomer/Freshmen from Sept 2018 went down an average of .7 in UTR by May 2019. UTR algorithm changes makes it look like college tennis causes players to go backwards in their development, when it's more the case that UTR may rank iTF jr world players higher than collegians, and when they play actual collegians, their rankings drop. Those top players started college with an average ranking of 14.1 and ended dual season with an average ranking of 13.4. It would help if UTR counted a full 12 months of results as top players rankings drop when summer and fall Future results drop off after 30 college matches. I do think the range included in calculations should narrow as players advance. A beginner/intermediate junior male with an athletic background in other sports might be quickly able to move from a 4.5 to 7 if not held back by results more than 1.0 UTR diff in opponents being weighted less. UTR should tweak the algorithm so the usual blowout results between opponents with wide-ranging UTRs dont count or have little weight, while competitive matches do count regardless of UTR difference.

What is really ironic is that the ITA is hosting the summer ITA circuit of tourneys with many of the first week's tourneys (registration is closed) having a range of males from 6-high 12 and even some unrated players, 4s, and 5s. The tourneys with 32+ players will have 2 or more draws, but several tourneys have 32 or less players with UTR ranges of 3+ between lowest and highest players meaning players will play matches that dont count in UTR.

 

[texrunner]

Thanks for the detailed reply and I will check out that thread. What is a bummer for the lower rated player is her UTR will not enjoy the boost it would if the score had counted, which is a shame since so many USTA tournaments (and others i assume) separate players based on their UTR. Of course better to get in the top draw because more standing points are to be had.

 

[wings56]

You don't have to pay to have a UTR rating correct?

 

[rafazx10]

You don't have to pay to have a UTR rating correct?

That is correct. I actually didnt even know I had scores reported to UTR before I created my account, but they were there.

 

[wings56]

That is correct. I actually didnt even know I had scores reported to UTR before I created my account, but they were there.

So this is a big to do over a service that's free? Lol

 

[texrunner]

No you don't have to pay to have a rating but you have to pay to look at the rating beyond just a whole number.

I agree with the fact that UTR is good in that it ties in players from different groups and through the UTR tournaments gets players who - for whatever reason- might not be able to travel great distances to get match play. My problem is with people who think it's the be all end all and i especially have an issue with coaches who draw a line at a certain UTR and won't even consider someone below that number. Just like the SAT and ACT (which are becoming more and more obsolete as more schools are making them optional), it is merely one component of the overall person.

wings56, the big to do is over the fact that college recruits feel like if their UTR drops they'll lose a chance to play at a certain school, which could also impact their college choices financially in some cases.

 

[tennisjunky]

Any competition to that CRAP organization called US(R)TA is good for me; R=recreation.

That bloated inefficient and ineffective organization has NOT been a good steward of USA tennis!

 

[Pro Kenneth]

Now apparently there is only a 2 point spread

What is your source? I didn't see that change on the official site.

Trying to view things hypothetically from the point of view of UTR:

The problem is if we count those big upset matches, we have to count the 99% of the time it is a 6-0 -0 blowout, but what predictive value would that have? If we give it any, the vast majority of cases where there is a blow-out, it would inaccurately cause the lower-UTR player to decline, and the higher-UTR player to increase. But why should that happen, when we expect a UTR of 10 to beat one of 7? It would not prove anything we don't know already.

Or perhaps is the thinking that we count those wide-spread UTR difference matches, the higher ranked player will never have anything to gain, he must win 0,0 to maintain his level, and the lower rated player has nothing to lose. But that isn't good for participation, and might hurt the tournament rosters.

In the most theoretically extreme case, a beginner of UTR 2 beats a Spaniard of UTR 16, the upset of a millenium, what good does that result have for predicting future performances? It's a fluke, as would be a lesser but more realistic imbalance. In the example given of the UTR 5.5 beating an 8, every coach in the world would still take the UTR 8 player, upset or fluke or not.

 

[CiscoPC600]

I'm hoping the 2-rating spread is not true. I just had a close tournament match with a guy that's 2.5 higher than me.

 

[MarTennis]

What is your source? I didn't see that change on the official site.

Trying to view things hypothetically from the point of view of UTR:

The problem is if we count those big upset matches, we have to count the 99% of the time it is a 6-0 -0 blowout, but what predictive value would that have? If we give it any, the vast majority of cases where there is a blow-out, it would inaccurately cause the lower-UTR player to decline, and the higher-UTR player to increase. But why should that happen, when we expect a UTR of 10 to beat one of 7? It would not prove anything we don't know already.

Or perhaps is the thinking that we count those wide-spread UTR difference matches, the higher ranked player will never have anything to gain, he must win 0,0 to maintain his level, and the lower rated player has nothing to lose. But that isn't good for participation, and might hurt the tournament rosters.

In the most theoretically extreme case, a beginner of UTR 2 beats a Spaniard of UTR 16, the upset of a millenium, what good does that result have for predicting future performances? It's a fluke, as would be a lesser but more realistic imbalance. In the example given of the UTR 5.5 beating an 8, every coach in the world would still take the UTR 8 player, upset or fluke or not.

OP may be correct. My kid's wins over 2 points of opponent UTR don't appear to be counting. No biggie. He ain't gonna beat a 14 out of the blue any time soon. I will follow up post if he does. lol.

 

[andfor]

OP may be correct. My kid's wins over 2 points of opponent UTR don't appear to be counting. No biggie. He ain't gonna beat a 14 out of the blue any time soon. I will follow up post if he does. lol.

Sweating over rakings is a waste of time. You either win or lose, doesn't get more straightforward. Rankings and ratings are never too far off what the players true ability is.
If folks that worry about rankings (uncrontolables), instead focused on improving what they can such as technique, mental skills, physical skills, conditioning, strength, flexibility, etc. (controllables) the rankings would take care of themselves.

 

[CiscoPC600]

How do you know the match was not counted? It seems from their site they haven't updated their explanation of how matches are calculated. Have you tried contacting them to confirm the fact?

From UTR's website:

"Why don't some of my matches count towards my UTR?
The algorithm excludes matches in which a) a player withdraws before the match starts, b) the match starts but neither player wins at least four games (due to a withdrawal/retirement), or c) there is a UTR difference of more than 2.50 and the higher-rated player wins as expected (i.e., in a blowout). These excluded matches still show up on the player profile but are not used in the rating calculation."


https://universaltennis.freshdesk.c...-understanding-the-algorithm-complete-summary

 

[andfor]

How do you know the match was not counted? It seems from their site they haven't updated their explanation of how matches are calculated. Have you tried contacting them to confirm the fact?

From UTR's website:

"Why don't some of my matches count towards my UTR?
The algorithm excludes matches in which a) a player withdraws before the match starts, b) the match starts but neither player wins at least four games (due to a withdrawal/retirement), or c) there is a UTR difference of more than 2.50 and the higher-rated player wins as expected (i.e., in a blowout). These excluded matches still show up on the player profile but are not used in the rating calculation."


https://universaltennis.freshdesk.c...-understanding-the-algorithm-complete-summary

Sounds reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wings56]

No you don't have to pay to have a rating but you have to pay to look at the rating beyond just a whole number.

I agree with the fact that UTR is good in that it ties in players from different groups and through the UTR tournaments gets players who - for whatever reason- might not be able to travel great distances to get match play. My problem is with people who think it's the be all end all and i especially have an issue with coaches who draw a line at a certain UTR and won't even consider someone below that number. Just like the SAT and ACT (which are becoming more and more obsolete as more schools are making them optional), it is merely one component of the overall person.

wings56, the big to do is over the fact that college recruits feel like if their UTR drops they'll lose a chance to play at a certain school, which could also impact their college choices financially in some cases.

Soooo.....

 

[MathGeek]

From my perspective, no rating system will ever be perfect.

But UTR has some distinct advantages over NTRP:

1. More data. Always better than less data.
2. Less sandbagging. Youths push to earn scholarships. Tourneys grouped in ways that don't have the same level ranges every time. Harder to sandbag even if you wanted to.
3. Opportunity and consideration of play across ages and sexes.

 

[Pro Kenneth]

So what are the implications of even the USTA using UTR to set up tournament seeds? It's seems a strong if reluctant endorsement. So I've heard. Aren't the two systems (NTRP at least) in a bit of competition?

 

[MarTennis]

Any competition to that CRAP organization called US(R)TA is good for me; R=recreation.

That bloated inefficient and ineffective organization has NOT been a good steward of USA tennis!

Hey Coach!

 

[texrunner]

As far as the 2.0 vs 2.5 spread of matches counting, it has definitely changed to consider only matches within a 2.0 range. That's fine if that's how UTR wants to do it, but they should put that on their website and not just change things randomly.

As far as what MathGeek said about more data, that isn't necessarily true. The verified matches have to be sent in from either a tournament director or a coach (in the case of high school matches) and sometimes with USTA unfinished matches don't get recorded because the USTA system has to have a winner. Two of my daughter's matches where she was playing a close with a 9 UTR girl, were called off because of rain and never finished and as as result they aren't part of my daughter's 30 matches. So, no - UTR isn't necessarily accurate.

I suppose what if boils down to for me isn't that i don't necessarily have a problem with UTR, but i have a problem with college coaches who look at it to the exclusion of pretty much everything else, therefore thinking it's the perfect metric for measuring ability.

And because of that, it really gets into the kids' heads. During a warm up at a recent tournament some parents were talking about it and one said they asked their child what they thought when a match wasn't going well. The answer? "What'll this do to my UTR?" Everyone pretty much nodded their heads in agreement. Even my daughter, who used to never care about things like that, has started looking at her UTR regularly.

 

[MathGeek]

No you don't have to pay to have a rating but you have to pay to look at the rating beyond just a whole number.

Not so. I can see my own UTR as 5.09 without having paid. I think the pay feature is needed to see the decimal points of other players' UTRs.

As far as what MathGeek said about more data, that isn't necessarily true. The verified matches have to be sent in from either a tournament director or a coach (in the case of high school matches) and sometimes with USTA unfinished matches don't get recorded because the USTA system has to have a winner. Two of my daughter's matches where she was playing a close with a 9 UTR girl, were called off because of rain and never finished and as as result they aren't part of my daughter's 30 matches. So, no - UTR isn't necessarily accurate.

From the description above, it doesn't seem that these data points are included in your daughter's NTRP calculation either. Nor does this match add any information to your daughter's USTA ranking points. Thus, it is not a counter example to my assertion that the UTR system tends to have more data than the NTRP system.

I suppose what if boils down to for me isn't that i don't necessarily have a problem with UTR, but i have a problem with college coaches who look at it to the exclusion of pretty much everything else, therefore thinking it's the perfect metric for measuring ability.

I often hear similar things about the ACT and SAT with respect to academic opportunities. Yes, just as college admissions offices want the ACT or SAT scores, they don't exclude everything else. Likewise, coaches' requirement to look at UTRs don't mean everything else is excluded. The college coaches I know give some consideration and review to overall playing records, general health and fitness, coachability, player fit in their system, and whether a player is likely to meet and continue to meet the academic requirements of the school.

And because of that, it really gets into the kids' heads. During a warm up at a recent tournament some parents were talking about it and one said they asked their child what they thought when a match wasn't going well. The answer? "What'll this do to my UTR?" Everyone pretty much nodded their heads in agreement. Even my daughter, who used to never care about things like that, has started looking at her UTR regularly.

I see this more as a parenting failure than a coaching failure. Too many parents allow their children to fantasize about tennis scholarships in a way that their lives get out of balance. Many of these same teens would have a better shot at academic scholarships if they applied themselves to academics during after school hours anywhere near as much as they apply themselves to tennis. The state where my own teens played tennis and attend college awards over 100 times as many academic scholarships as athletic scholarships. Yet, hundreds of thousands of students spend 20+ hours a week chasing those athletic scholarships when the academic scholarships are really much more attainable (because there are 100+ times more of them.)

My son watched his UTR, but was really more concerned with his state ranking as determined by USTA match outcomes. Tennis was an important part of his college admissions and scholarship applications, but more for making the case that he was a "well-rounded" student. He's attended a top 30 college on a full academic scholarship.

 

[Badmrfrosty]

Some people look at their 401k and retirement accounts every day and stress whether it went up or down. Some people focus on finding ways to put more in.
Some people worry about what their UTR is going to do because of one game or set. Some people focus on what they did wrong in a match and try to get better.

Maybe we shouldn't blame a number for people's psychological problems.

 

[MarTennis]

As far as the 2.0 vs 2.5 spread of matches counting, it has definitely changed to consider only matches within a 2.0 range. That's fine if that's how UTR wants to do it, but they should put that on their website and not just change things randomly.

As far as what MathGeek said about more data, that isn't necessarily true. The verified matches have to be sent in from either a tournament director or a coach (in the case of high school matches) and sometimes with USTA unfinished matches don't get recorded because the USTA system has to have a winner. Two of my daughter's matches where she was playing a close with a 9 UTR girl, were called off because of rain and never finished and as as result they aren't part of my daughter's 30 matches. So, no - UTR isn't necessarily accurate.

I suppose what if boils down to for me isn't that i don't necessarily have a problem with UTR, but i have a problem with college coaches who look at it to the exclusion of pretty much everything else, therefore thinking it's the perfect metric for measuring ability.

And because of that, it really gets into the kids' heads. During a warm up at a recent tournament some parents were talking about it and one said they asked their child what they thought when a match wasn't going well. The answer? "What'll this do to my UTR?" Everyone pretty much nodded their heads in agreement. Even my daughter, who used to never care about things like that, has started looking at her UTR regularly.

Some people look at their 401k and retirement accounts every day and stress whether it went up or down. Some people focus on finding ways to put more in.
Some people worry about what their UTR is going to do because of one game or set. Some people focus on what they did wrong in a match and try to get better.

Maybe we shouldn't blame a number for people's psychological problems.

Tip: Drag opponents UTR down and savor matchups within the players range. It works. It also 'looks' better on 'paper'.

 

[MarTennis]

Not so. I can see my own UTR as 5.09 without having paid. I think the pay feature is needed to see the decimal points of other players' UTRs.



From the description above, it doesn't seem that these data points are included in your daughter's NTRP calculation either. Nor does this match add any information to your daughter's USTA ranking points. Thus, it is not a counter example to my assertion that the UTR system tends to have more data than the NTRP system.



I often hear similar things about the ACT and SAT with respect to academic opportunities. Yes, just as college admissions offices want the ACT or SAT scores, they don't exclude everything else. Likewise, coaches' requirement to look at UTRs don't mean everything else is excluded. The college coaches I know give some consideration and review to overall playing records, general health and fitness, coachability, player fit in their system, and whether a player is likely to meet and continue to meet the academic requirements of the school.



I see this more as a parenting failure than a coaching failure. Too many parents allow their children to fantasize about tennis scholarships in a way that their lives get out of balance. Many of these same teens would have a better shot at academic scholarships if they applied themselves to academics during after school hours anywhere near as much as they apply themselves to tennis. The state where my own teens played tennis and attend college awards over 100 times as many academic scholarships as athletic scholarships. Yet, hundreds of thousands of students spend 20+ hours a week chasing those athletic scholarships when the academic scholarships are really much more attainable (because there are 100+ times more of them.)

My son watched his UTR, but was really more concerned with his state ranking as determined by USTA match outcomes. Tennis was an important part of his college admissions and scholarship applications, but more for making the case that he was a "well-rounded" student. He's attended a top 30 college on a full academic scholarship.

Tennis is more fun than studying, but I broadly agree. We under estimated the academic scholarship support available. In our case and in sure some others, I'm not sure the grades would be as good without the tennis.

 

[MathGeek]

Tennis is more fun than studying, but I broadly agree. We under estimated the academic scholarship support available. In our case and in sure some others, I'm not sure the grades would be as good without the tennis.

Yes, of course. Tennis can be an important part of a balanced teen life in preparation for college. But it's up to the parents to oversee how that "balance" works. Practicing 20 hours each week hoping for a tennis scholarship while allowing a teen to neglect their academic efforts is simply much less likely to yield college scholarships or adequate preparation for college than practicing/playing 10 hours each week and using the extra 10 hours for academic preparation and studying.

Our parenting principle was simple for teens: work before play. We reckoned studying as work and sports (tennis, Ultimate, shooting, fencing, etc.) as play. The BIG MISTAKE parents make when they fantasize about athletic scholarships is moving sports preparation from the PLAY category into the WORK category. Practicing tennis should not be reckoned as work in the life of a teen.

 

[Badmrfrosty]

Not sure I agree about scholarship stuff. Maybe if you don't care about what school you go to, sure you can get academic scholarships.

I'd rather go to the best school I can get into and if I do that zero chance they are giving me an academic scholarship.

If I can get accepted to Stanford then sure I could probably get a full academic ride to ASU. I'd still go to Stanford.

 

[ClarkC]

Not sure I agree about scholarship stuff. Maybe if you don't care about what school you go to, sure you can get academic scholarships.

I'd rather go to the best school I can get into and if I do that zero chance they are giving me an academic scholarship.

If I can get accepted to Stanford then sure I could probably get a full academic ride to ASU. I'd still go to Stanford.

Are you paying with your own money?

 

[Badmrfrosty]

Are you paying with your own money?

How is it even a question if I'm not? Both places are then free.

You are from Charlottesville. It's a simple question.

Present Value of Future Earnings w/ degree from UVA - PV(Cost of paying for UVA) > Present Value of Future Earnings w VCU degree - 0 (full ride)

 

[bobleenov1963]

How is it even a question if I'm not? Both places are then free.

You are from Charlottesville. It's a simple question.

Present Value of Future Earnings w/ degree from UVA - PV(Cost of paying for UVA) > Present Value of Future Earnings w VCU degree - 0 (full ride)

Going to UVA does not mean you will make more money than someone graduate from VCU, George Mason or James Madison. Where the hell do you get that idea from? My boss didn't graduate from college and now he has people graduated from UVA, Berkley and Stanford reporting to him. It is the networking that is much more important than where you graduate

 

[andfor]

Going to UVA does not mean you will make more money than someone graduate from VCU, George Mason or James Madison. Where the hell do you get that idea from? My boss didn't graduate from college and now he has people graduated from UVA, Berkley and Stanford reporting to him. It is the networking that is much more important than where you graduate

It's the results one produces at work that matters.

Respectfully, a person can not control winning, losing and if brown nosing will work or not. What a person can control is there effort and attitude. If focusing on UTR and rankings that no one has control over take precedence over what you can control, improving physical, technical, tactical and mental strength skills, disappointment awaits in many areas. Forget about the ratings and get out there practice hard and play hard. Chips fall where they will...……..

 

[Badmrfrosty]

Going to UVA does not mean you will make more money than someone graduate from VCU, George Mason or James Madison. Where the hell do you get that idea from? My boss didn't graduate from college and now he has people graduated from UVA, Berkley and Stanford reporting to him. It is the networking that is much more important than where you graduate

PV(Future earnings w/ no college degree) > Present Value of Future Earnings w/ degree from UVA - PV(Cost of paying for UVA) > Present Value of Future Earnings w VCU degree - 0 (full ride)

 

[ClarkC]

PV(Future earnings w/ no college degree) > Present Value of Future Earnings w/ degree from UVA - PV(Cost of paying for UVA) > Present Value of Future Earnings w VCU degree - 0 (full ride)

Every study done about future earnings contradicts the assumptions that people make along these lines. If you can document otherwise, please do so.

In particular, when studied, it turns out these two students have the same future earnings:

Student 1 applies to Harvard, not accepted, applies to highly-rated private school in Northeast that is not an Ivy, gets accepted, goes there.

Student 2 applies to Harvard, not accepted, applies to same highly-rated private school as Student 1, gets accepted, decides to go to UMass instead for a lot less money.

The reason this recent study was performed using these kinds of pairs of students is that they are equal in academic preparation, got accepted and rejected by the same colleges, both had the ambition and confidence to apply to Harvard, etc. The almost-Ivy school had no value added in earnings despite a lot of cost added.

So we get rid of the bogus comparisons of Student A went to Harvard, Student B was thankful to get admitted to Framingham State U., and (surprise!) the Harvard grad ended up making more money.

 

[MathGeek]

Not sure I agree about scholarship stuff. Maybe if you don't care about what school you go to, sure you can get academic scholarships.

I'd rather go to the best school I can get into and if I do that zero chance they are giving me an academic scholarship.

If I can get accepted to Stanford then sure I could probably get a full academic ride to ASU. I'd still go to Stanford.

I often counsel students, "A free BMW is a better deal than a half-price Mercedes" when it comes time to pick a college and all the financial offers are on the table. A full ride to Georgia Tech is better than incurring debt to pay half the costs for MIT or Harvard. (And I'm an MIT grad married to a Harvard grad.) It is a rare case indeed when we can advise a student in good conscience to incur on the order of $100,000 in debt to go to a "better" school when they've already got an opportunity to attend a pretty good school debt free. I'm familiar with both ASU's and Stanford's programs in physics (I'm a Physicist and I was offered a full ride to Stanford), and I would recommend a student intending to major in Physics (and other science and engineering disciplines) to attend ASU debt free rather than borrow $100k+ to attend Stanford.

 

[Badmrfrosty]

I often counsel students, "A free BMW is a better deal than a half-price Mercedes" when it comes time to pick a college and all the financial offers are on the table. A full ride to Georgia Tech is better than incurring debt to pay half the costs for MIT or Harvard. (And I'm an MIT grad married to a Harvard grad.) It is a rare case indeed when we can advise a student in good conscience to incur on the order of $100,000 in debt to go to a "better" school when they've already got an opportunity to attend a pretty good school debt free. I'm familiar with both ASU's and Stanford's programs in physics (I'm a Physicist and I was offered a full ride to Stanford), and I would recommend a student intending to major in Physics (and other science and engineering disciplines) to attend ASU debt free rather than borrow $100k+ to attend Stanford.

Now this is an actual interesting and logical reply. Then, you understand it is all about the spread between X and Y. Is a free yugo/donkey/scooter better than a half priced mercedes? It depends on what you want to do, right. I will always take a free BMW over a half-priced Mercedes that is a layup. GT free? Layup. That is like the question would you go to Stanford and have someone else pay for it or go to ASU on scholarship. It's a non question someone else is paying for both.

I think average student from GT vs MIT or Harvard is way way way closer than Stanford and ASU. Like BMW vs Mercedes or Mercedes vs golf cart. Of course it just depends on what you want to do. If the goal is to get across town go golf cart and debt free. Just know that your resume from ASU goes immediately in the trash at any investment firm that isn't in a stripmall. Try getting a professorship job with a ASU doctoriate vs a Stanford. It will never happen. When you get your doctorate you can only teach at sh***ier schools. You get one from ASU good luck. ASU won't even hire you. They will only hire from better schools. You might not admit that on the internet but you know it is true.

I agree I personally would not want to advise anyone to take on 100k debt. There is only downside for advisor. But, that doesn't mean I don't think it is a positive expected value to take on 100k in debt and go to stanford than go to ASU free.

How fast does an ASU CS degree resume go in the trash compared to Stanford CS degree? If you want to work at Texas Instruments I'm sure it doesn't matter. What if you want to work at a FAANG? And networking... who you know, right. How many high level execs are from ASU in elite firms vs Stanford?

 

[andfor]

Now we’ve whittled down the discussion to less than on percent of students. Anyone dealing with these students on a regular basis has to know that. Good content contributions though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bobleenov1963]

I think average student from GT vs MIT or Harvard is way way way closer than Stanford and ASU. Like BMW vs Mercedes or Mercedes vs golf cart. Of course it just depends on what you want to do. If the goal is to get across town go golf cart and debt free. Just know that your resume from ASU goes immediately in the trash at any investment firm that isn't in a stripmall. Try getting a professorship job with a ASU doctoriate vs a Stanford. It will never happen. When you get your doctorate you can only teach at sh***ier schools. You get one from ASU good luck. ASU won't even hire you. They will only hire from better schools. You might not admit that on the internet but you know it is true.

This is true in principal but it does not apply in the real world because people get jobs through networking and connection. There are two candidates applied for a job at Goldman Sach and candidate A graduated from Stanford and candidate B graduated from ASU. If I do not know either one, I will likely hire candidate A. However, in the real world, things do not work that way. People are hired through people that they know, many times at the tennis courts or golf course. Therefore, while what you said is technically accurate but it is not applicable in the real world.

I agree I personally would not want to advise anyone to take on 100k debt. There is only downside for advisor. But, that doesn't mean I don't think it is a positive expected value to take on 100k in debt and go to stanford than go to ASU free.

This might work for a very few students but for the 99.999% of students, go to ASU for free because it will take a long time to recoup that 100K (after tax) for attending Stanford. Not everyone who goes to Stanford can become Larry Page or Sergey Brin. Again, while your argument is technically correct, not very applicable in the real world.

How fast does an ASU CS degree resume go in the trash compared to Stanford CS degree? If you want to work at Texas Instruments I'm sure it doesn't matter. What if you want to work at a FAANG? And networking... who you know, right. How many high level execs are from ASU in elite firms vs Stanford?

Not everyone who graduated from Stanford wants to work at FAANG and there are people working at FAANG that did not go to Stanford, CMU, CalTech, etc... While I agree with you that where you go to school matter but it matters more if you can play tennis or golf well because those high level execs usually hang out at the country club tennis courts or golf courses. Those guys will definitely hang out with you if you are a good player. Networking can have different meaning, not just graduating from the same school.

 

[MathGeek]

Now this is an actual interesting and logical reply. Then, you understand it is all about the spread between X and Y. Is a free yugo/donkey/scooter better than a half priced mercedes? It depends on what you want to do, right. I will always take a free BMW over a half-priced Mercedes that is a layup. GT free? Layup. That is like the question would you go to Stanford and have someone else pay for it or go to ASU on scholarship. It's a non question someone else is paying for both.

I think average student from GT vs MIT or Harvard is way way way closer than Stanford and ASU.

We have observed many cases of students who are good enough to gain admission to top 10 schools nearly always get a free ride to at least 1 or 2 top 50 schools, but unless they receive a boatload of need-based aid, free rides to top 10 schools are very rare for undergrad. Free ride to top 50 school (including ASU, which is borderline top 50) = free BMW. Top 10 school = half-priced Mercedes.

I think average student from GT vs MIT or Harvard is way way way closer than Stanford and ASU.

Fair enough, but my advice would be the same if the top 50 school was Texas A&M, Ohio State, UNC, or UGA. Perhaps Ga Tech, being closer to top 20 was not the best example.

Try getting a professorship job with a ASU doctoriate vs a Stanford. It will never happen. When you get your doctorate you can only teach at sh***ier schools. You get one from ASU good luck. ASU won't even hire you. They will only hire from better schools. You might not admit that on the internet but you know it is true.

Having been on lots of search committees and also having the inside scoop on many more faculty searches, it's much more complicated than that. I known many cases of PhDs from top 10 schools bypassed in order to hire faculty with PhDs from schools ranked below 40 or 50. Different faculty jobs have a wide variety of requirements. Teaching-focused jobs favor excellence in teaching over PhD reputation. Research-focused jobs value some combination of funding and publication productivity - either of which can be vastly unrelated to the ranking of the PhD institution, especially once a candidate is over a decade out from their PhD. Then there are hires motivated to fulfill diversity goals.

I agree I personally would not want to advise anyone to take on 100k debt. There is only downside for advisor. But, that doesn't mean I don't think it is a positive expected value to take on 100k in debt and go to stanford than go to ASU free.

How fast does an ASU CS degree resume go in the trash compared to Stanford CS degree?

I've never been that close to hiring in the CS field, but I can assure you that is not true in Mechanical Engineering, Physics, or Math.

 

[ClarkC]

Mixing discussion of graduate schools with undergraduate schools adds more confusion than insight. While numerous studies have shown that choice of undergraduate school is not critical to future earnings, every study I am aware of shows that it very much matters where you go for an MBA, M.D., or Ph.D. MBA at top business school vs. MBA at middling school that happens to be nearby? No contest. Ditto for medical schools, etc.

I don't think that is relevant to a tennis board where we are talking about choice of undergraduate schools.