OT: University/College Questions Part IV

[Mathradio]

It's funny that people talk about university rankings AND undergrad programs at the same time.

I've got news for you guys, undergrad doesn't matter. Research does.

I'm not talking about the real world, I'm talking about how the rankings are established.

So yeah, in Canada it's TO, McGill, UBC etc.

You think Stanford or MIT are great because of the undergrad programs?

As I've said before, undergrad is important, but for very different reasons from research. If you had an "undergrad-only" ranking, that would look vastly different and some research schools would not look so great in the undergraduate respect. Some of the schools with the best undergraduate programs are, in fact, devoid of graduate programs (the five schools I usually refer to as SWAMP are prime examples, here understood as Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and Pomona).

That is not to say that research-intensive institutions can't have good undergraduate programs (Stanford, MIT are great for both undergrad and research although they are by no means the best for undergrads) but most schools can't have it both, and IIRC UIUC is one of the most horrible universities at conciliating undergraduate education and research, at least as far as physics is concerned (and UTexas-Austin for pure mathematics).

Here's an anecdote, of an acquaintance of mine who went to the University of Illinois (thereafter referred to as UIUC), which you would think is very respectable. We were doing a homework set in grad school, moderately challenging. She said she was frustrated that she couldn't solve all the problems, I asked why... she told me that in her entire undergrad she had never seen any problem she couldn't solve immediately, previously her entire experience had been about just sitting down and solving everything immediately, to complete all homework sets in an hour or two.

If this description of UIUC is correct, it's not nearly as challenging as a physics undergrad from any one of Quebec's PhD-granting physics departments. Because the French-language undergraduate physics programs are about as challenging as McGill's physics honors degree (this statement came from a professor who took graduate students from both French-language undergrad programs in Quebec and McGill, and where they came from didn't seem to make a difference, as long as they were Quebec-educated).

I can't imagine Minnesota or Ohio State being much better than UIUC as far as undergraduate education is concerned, and yet, if I ended up attending either school, I would TA for a while.

Research is of greater fundamental importance than undergraduate education, but regardless of that, it betters undergraduate education. If you're serious about learning you'll benefit from having world leaders around. If you're one of those people who hates classes and whines about too many readings, then it's wasted on you regardless and the whole discussion is moot.

Then again, research can only better undergraduate education so much.

I would not say that research is of greater fundamental importance than undergraduate education; you may conduct the best research around, but if you can't adequately prepare your undergraduates to actually conduct it further down the road, or for the job market, a school will only do so much for the world.

 

[Brainiac]

Not naivete, wisdom. Let me know if you need something clarified.

I've been through the school system, one cegep, then one university where I had three majors at various points, then another university for graduate schools. When l finished my PhD I was ranked one of the top ~8 among the hundreds who finished that year. Now I'm in a different university in a third country for a prestigious postdoc.

This is all great and prestigious and all. I've been around too.

Sorry to break it to you, but nobody cares about your PhD thesis.

I wrote mine in one month, it was really not that good. My advisor really tried to slow me down so that I would stay around a little longer. Told him to suck it because I had a job coming up and already published something like 5 peer-reviewed papers and it's all that counts really.

Back in the 1800s and early 1900s, theses were a little more relevant because that's how research was published. But nowadays? It's peer-reviewed papers and nothing else. The real point of writing the thesis is because the boss might want you to stay around a little longer, help with teaching and training etc. Nobody read these, really. I've been on thesis committees and most of the time, I was the only guy that read the actual thing.

Just for fun I've put a few completely ridiculous easter eggs in mine. Of the 7 guys on my committee, only one noticed.

I have a very strong understanding of the system. The biggest problem, no doubt, is the low maturity and low aptitude of the continent's 18 year olds.

Cute, I said the exact same thing when I was a postdoc! At some point I realized that dumbness is spread out pretty evenly among the different age groups. It's been like this forever, not about to change.

If you come out of McGill or UdeM with nothing to show for it, then you *probably* need to look in the mirror.

Agreed. But then again, there's many problems with that. In a lot of fields, a bachelor's degree is worth less than the paper it's printed on and even grad students are not always paid and won't have much in terms of job prospects.

Some programs are for general culture. I'm fine with this, but let's not pretend it's otherwise.

And then, you've got some fields where the whole grad program is completely Pejorative Slured. Engineering is usually OK, applied maths, computer science, business/economy etc. You'll find a job with that, no problem.

But then you've got, for example, biology departements where one prof. is supervising 50 or 60 grad. students. No way they all find a job. A professor in biology should supervise 5 grad students at a time, not 50. They're doing it that way because it's the cheapest way to get the research going in the short-term.

I once met a engineering professor who wasn't paying his students. He always had a bunch of chinese or indian kids coming in each year, willing to pay huge scolarship fees in order to work for free just to get a degree. His grant money was all going into lab equipment. And the scholarship fees were basically keeping the department afloat.

Unnaceptable? Well, I did bring the issue to the head of department and I'm now sort of persona non grata with them.

These guys are all about business, and that business has nothing to do with education.

I sort of look at that from the outside and I just can't help but think that the whole thing is highly hypocritical and grossly inefficient in the long term.

 

[Mathradio]

But then you've got, for example, biology departements where one prof. is supervising 50 or 60 grad. students. No way they all find a job. A professor in biology should supervise 5 grad students at a time, not 50. They're doing it that way because it's the cheapest way to get the research going in the short-term.

The only way a professor supervises this many students is if he is the lead investigator in a large-scale project involving multiple professors, each with their own set of graduate students (often to the tune of 4-6 apiece).

No way a professor is going to directly advise 50-60 grad students; directly advising 8 is already problematic (cue that astronomy professor at Georgia State some grad student quoted at school)...

 

[Brainiac]

The only way a professor supervises this many students is if he is the lead investigator in a large-scale project involving multiple professors, each with their own set of graduate students (often to the tune of 4-6 apiece).

No way a professor is going to directly advise 50-60 grad students; directly advising 8 is already problematic (cue that astronomy professor at Georgia State some grad student quoted at school)...

That's the point. He's not doing his job of directly advising the students. And the students are doing the lab work (mostly monkey business) to decode whatever genome is the subject of attention at the moment. Absolutely no creativity.

 

[DAChampion]

Sorry to break it to you, but nobody cares about your PhD thesis.

Sorry to break it to you, but a lot of people care actually. The contents are widely read and widely cited, and led to prestigious offers on three different continents.

I wrote mine in one month, it was really not that good. ... Just for fun I've put a few completely ridiculous easter eggs in mine. Of the 7 guys on my committee, only one noticed.

That's why you have little to show for your education. You didn't value your schooling when you were there, so naturally it was a waste of time.

My advice to anybody, if you don't value your education, go do something else.

=Brainiac;89351565The real point of writing the thesis is because the boss might want you to stay around a little longer, help with teaching and training etc.

Most advisers are happy to see their students graduate. It's considered a sign of success.

The real point of writing these is for the student to write them, literally. It's not for other people to read, it's for one person to parse his/her thoughts and to collect them in a coherent manner. If nobody ever reads the thesis but then the writer goes on to live a productive life using what he learned writing the thesis, then it's a successful thesis.

I once met a engineering professor who wasn't paying his students. He always had a bunch of chinese or indian kids coming in each year, willing to pay huge scolarship fees in order to work for free just to get a degree. His grant money was all going into lab equipment. And the scholarship fees were basically keeping the department afloat.

Unnaceptable? Well, I did bring the issue to the head of department and I'm now sort of persona non grata with them.

These guys are all about business, and that business has nothing to do with education.

That's nice. I and most (re: all) of my friends avoided applying to any program that didn't pay a living wage.

One guy I know was getting a PhD in physics or engineering (I forget) at McGill. His adviser wouldn't even buy him a laptop, this was aside from the low wage. So, he left for the private sector.

 

[DAChampion]

The only way a professor supervises this many students is if he is the lead investigator in a large-scale project involving multiple professors, each with their own set of graduate students (often to the tune of 4-6 apiece).

No way a professor is going to directly advise 50-60 grad students; directly advising 8 is already problematic (cue that astronomy professor at Georgia State some grad student quoted at school)...

The most I know of anywhere after several years in the system and knowing hundreds of people who went through the system was around 10.

That's the point. He's not doing his job of directly advising the students. And the students are doing the lab work (mostly monkey business) to decode whatever genome is the subject of attention at the moment. Absolutely no creativity.

There's nothing wrong with advising being done by a postdoc on the grant of a professor. I'm co-advising one undergraduate student and one graduate student right now.

A lot of projects are quite complex and involve several distinct mutually interactive parts, so it makes sense that advice would come from multiple sources, it might well be that no one person has the expertise necessary to oversee all of the components. That's called "science".

 

[Brainiac]

Sorry to break it to you, but a lot of people care actually. The contents are widely read and widely cited, and led to prestigious offers on three different continents.

I also had offers. None of these guys read my thesis. They read the papers I published. I had three solid job offers on the table before I even started writing my thesis. You think I'll care about that piece of paper?

My thesis was probably below average at best and the external advisor on my committee offered me a job before my thesis defence. And then I thought, it's like hockey man, best defence is a good offence.

Maybe your specific field is different, but in most fields, publish some papers, and you'll have a job.

That's why you have little to show for your education. You didn't value your schooling when you were there, so naturally it was a waste of time.

I think you're sort of extrapolating or misunderstanding what I'm saying. I don't criticize academia because of a lack of job opportunities. Far from that.

I finished my PhD years ago and I have yet to be unemployed. Actuallly, I have a history of leaving jobs because I usually find better prospects elsewhere.

Even if you're into the sytem (academia), doesn't mean you can't be critical of the system. People in the system usually don't like it, but I couldn't care less. IMO, academia should be the place for self-criticism.

Most advisers are happy to see their students graduate. It's considered a sign of success.

Most advisers couldn't care less about a student graduating or not. Usually they boast about the guy (or gal) that actually found a job in academia. And if you don't see how that is a problem, I won't even try to explain.

The real point of writing these is for the student to write them, literally. It's not for other people to read,

And I thought from your previous comment that thousands of people were going to read your thesis. Like it was important to get a job or something.

You're being a little contradictory there, but I'll let it pass. I was also a little euphoric when I got my Ph.D. Memories...

it's for one person to parse his/her thoughts and to collect them in a coherent manner.

You do that and much more when you publish peer-reviewed papers.

 

[DAChampion]

My thesis was probably below average at best and the external advisor on my committee offered me a job before my thesis defence. And then I thought, it's like hockey man, best defence is a good offence.

You're demonstrating a lot of confusion and ignorance of the system in how you distinguish between a thesis and papers. The thesis is supposed to be predominantly composed of material that would end up in or have ended up in peer-reviewed papers, in my case I took my papers, reformatted the latex, and added an introduction and a conclusion.

From wikipedia, a thesis or dissertation is a document submitted in support of candidature for an academic degree or professional qualification presenting the author's research and findings.

You think I'll care about that piece of paper?

Most sane people do. It's called taking pride in your work. You are someone who doesn't take pride in his work -- ok, whatever.

Most advisers couldn't care less about a student graduating or not.

Incorrect. You've clearly never held a mentorship role of any kind in your life. Let me explain it you: when you advise somebody and you see them grow, you form a bond. You then eventually take pride in their success. That's the human norm.

It's equivalent to the coach of a high school basketball team taking satisfaction as he sees his kids improve throughout the year.

 

[Brainiac]

You're demonstrating a lot of confusion and ignorance of the system in how you distinguish between a thesis and papers. The thesis is supposed to be predominantly composed of material that would end up in or have ended up in peer-reviewed papers, in my case I took my papers, reformatted the latex, and added an introduction and a conclusion.

From wikipedia, a thesis or dissertation is a document submitted in support of candidature for an academic degree or professional qualification presenting the author's research and findings.

But this has nothing to do with the quality or readership of a thesis. If I have to predict the future trajectories of two students, and believe me I had to do that more than once, I'd take the guy with 1 peer-reviewed paper in a top journal but average thesis over the guy with no papers but a great thesis. And it's not even close.

Most sane people do. It's called taking pride in your work. You are someone who doesn't take pride in his work -- ok, whatever.

I did present my ressearch and findings... in peer-reviewed papers. A whole bunch of them. And then a few books. I wrote a bit in the biomedical field and even got cited by the Faculty of 1000. Which cite only the best 2% of all papers published in the field. Actually harder than publishing in Nature or Science. I'm quite proud of that.

But no, just because I criticize academia a little bit, it means I don't take pride in my work.

Listen to you man, you've been molded into thinking that way. In a few years, we're going to lose your contribution to this forum because you'll become a successful (and sleepless) adjunct professor writing grants 80 hours a week.

Incorrect. You've clearly never held a mentorship role of any kind in your life. Let me explain it you: when you advise somebody and you see them grow, you form a bond. You then eventually take pride in their success. That's the human norm.

Thank you for telling me what I did in my life so far.

Actually, I did supervise a few grad students. Each and every one of them graduated and got a job. But one thing for sure is that I never lied to them about the job prospects in their field. And they did appreciate the honesty and made some decisions accordingly.

 

[DAChampion]

If I have to predict the future trajectories of two students, and believe me I had to do that more than once, I'd take the guy with 1 peer-reviewed paper in a top journal but average thesis over the guy with no papers but a great thesis. And it's not even close.

A nice little thought experiment with no basis in reality. On average the people with better papers have better theses. The theses are written from the papers. I'd guesstimate that the correlation is around rho = +0.95.

Listen to you man, you've been molded into thinking that way. In a few years, we're going to lose your contribution to this forum because you'll become a successful (and sleepless) adjunct professor writing grants 80 hours a week.

Most full professors I know work hard but it's a myth that they work harder than people with comparable salaries elsewhere. If you're making $100,000-$200,000/year (plus benefits) in the private sector you're probably putting in more than 9 to 5.

Unless you're a trust fund baby or otherwise similarly fortunate, there's no plausible way for you to be financially successful without putting in a lot of hours.

 

[Brainiac]

A nice little thought experiment with no basis in reality. On average the people with better papers have better theses. The theses are written from the papers. I'd guesstimate that the correlation is around rho = +0.95.

Cause and effect. Good papers cause good thesis, not the other way around.

Most full professors I know work hard but it's a myth that they work harder than people with comparable salaries elsewhere. If you're making $100,000-$200,000/year (plus benefits) in the private sector you're probably putting in more than 9 to 5.

And the keyword is "full". Tenured professors. They say "full professor" because the guys are usually full of themselves. They don't need to work much, they basically can't be fired.

Good luck not doing 80 hours if you're trying to make it to professorship in a major university in the US or any civilized country. I once applied for a professor job in the US and I was told that they would hire 3 guys and keep the most productive one for tenure. No thanks. That's basically 3 years in hell trying to do better than the guy sitting in the office next to yours.

Unless you're a trust fund baby or otherwise similarly fortunate, there's no plausible way for you to be financially successful without putting in a lot of hours.

Academics, the real ones, are not in for the money. That I agree with you is pretty much established knowledge.

What I'm trying to tell you is that these guys with loads of brains and little ambition are certainly not running academia these days. However, academia has become so easy over the years that we now have businessmen and bureaucrats running the whole thing from the inside.

 

[Mathradio]

Good luck not doing 80 hours if you're trying to make it to professorship in a major university in the US or any civilized country. I once applied for a professor job in the US and I was told that they would hire 3 guys and keep the most productive one for tenure. No thanks. That's basically 3 years in hell trying to do better than the guy sitting in the office next to yours.

This is quite common at departments with a graduate program, especially at R1 (or, more accurately, RU/VH) schools, but there's more to academia than RU/VH schools, although the dream job of many a PhD hopeful is, of course, to teach at a major research university as a tenure-track professor.

Perhaps am I misunderstanding how differently do departments without a graduate program operate, but such departments typically put much less emphasis on research productivity, hence less emphasis on getting research grants. The pressures of teaching are there regardless of whether your department offers a graduate degree or not.

For this reason I would rather teach at a department that does not offer a graduate degree; I would still get to do some research, but a senior thesis or summer internships are less cumbersome (even though you can do quite a bit less with these implements vis-à-vis a graduate student) and, hopefully, publish anyway.

 

[DAChampion]

Cause and effect. Good papers cause good thesis, not the other way around.

Given that the thesis is composed of papers that is a tautology, but good of you to acknowledge that your comparison was nonsense.

Academics, the real ones, are not in for the money. That I agree with you is pretty much established knowledge.

They wouldn't be doing it if the salaries were poor. The income needs to be good enough to live an upper-middle class lifestyle. As an obvious example, they need to be able to send their kids to University, which for Americans means saving $200,000 per child by the time they turn 18.

 

[DAChampion]

This is quite common at departments with a graduate program, especially at R1 (or, more accurately, RU/VH) schools, but there's more to academia than RU/VH schools, although the dream job of many a PhD hopeful is, of course, to teach at a major research university as a tenure-track professor.

Perhaps am I misunderstanding how differently do departments without a graduate program operate, but such departments typically put much less emphasis on research productivity, hence less emphasis on getting research grants. The pressures of teaching are there regardless of whether your department offers a graduate degree or not.

For this reason I would rather teach at a department that does not offer a graduate degree; I would still get to do some research, but a senior thesis or summer internships are less cumbersome (even though you can do quite a bit less with these implements vis-à-vis a graduate student) and, hopefully, publish anyway.

I'm more concerned about the long-term health of the system as a whole personally. A lot of senior people are advising me to avoid the United States (for long-term positions) like a plague, there's a credible possibility that the whole university system there, from top to bottom, will stagnate and aggressively be cannibalise by other sectors in society. It's already started if you see some of the ridiculous construction booms on American campuses. Aside from that, funding is drying up from grant-giving agencies, and even the funding being given is not spent in a credible manner.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

They wouldn't be doing it if the salaries were poor. The income needs to be good enough to live an upper-middle class lifestyle. As an obvious example, they need to be able to send their kids to University, which for Americans means saving $200,000 per child by the time they turn 18.

Don't most americans get loans and pay it off after while they work?

 

[DAChampion]

Don't most americans get loans and pay it off after while they work?

There's a huge dispersion in terms of what people do. A lot of people take loans obviously but it's very dangerous to do, I think the typical interest rate is 8% and you can't default.

I'm very fortunate to have grown up in Quebec. University was cheap, I still needed loans and they were available and available at low interest. They're not destroying my life. If I had $200,000 in debt right now at 8% interest, I'm not sure what I'd do.

 

[Mathradio]

From UdeM physics, to have two bachelors or masters graduates try their hand in the US at the PhD level in any given year is an exceptional year (most years end up with no or one applicant to the US, and they invariably apply to at least one Ivy League school, although UPenn, Dartmouth never seemed to be on their lists) and I am the first confirmed case for the 2015 cycle. Because I am following in the footsteps of some Ivy Leaguers, I, too, am applying to Ivies, four of them (UPenn, Dartmouth, Princeton, Columbia, by chronological order of addition to my application list) actually.

I wonder how many tried their hands in the US at the PhD level from McGill in physics... (I suspect many of them, if not most, are honors students, one way or another)

There's a huge dispersion in terms of what people do. A lot of people take loans obviously but it's very dangerous to do, I think the typical interest rate is 8% and you can't default.

I'm very fortunate to have grown up in Quebec. University was cheap, I still needed loans and they were available and available at low interest. They're not destroying my life. If I had $200,000 in debt right now at 8% interest, I'm not sure what I'd do.

In fact, not that many people actually borrow $200k for an education and the ones who do usually borrow that sort of dough to fund a graduate-level, professional education (e.g. law school, med school, dental school), since only 1 in 300 bachelor holders owe $100k and more just for undergrad.

The average student debt is somewhere between $25-$30k, and the average for 2014 graduates, at graduation, is $33k. But I think median debt is more representative of the average Joe who takes out loans to get an undergraduate education than average debt, since average debt is driven up by the few who borrow exorbitant amounts.

And 8% interest rate is par for the private loans course, but most people in the US take out federal loans first, which carry 4.66% interest rate (if taken out for undergrad), or 6.21% (if taken out for grad school in any shape or form).

 

[DAChampion]

From UdeM physics, to have two bachelors or masters graduates try their hand in the US at the PhD level in any given year is an exceptional year (most years end up with no or one applicant to the US, and they invariably apply to at least one Ivy League school, although UPenn, Dartmouth never seemed to be on their lists) and I am the first confirmed case for the 2015 cycle. Because I am following in the footsteps of some Ivy Leaguers, I, too, am applying to Ivies, four of them (UPenn, Dartmouth, Princeton, Columbia, by chronological order of addition to my application list) actually.

I wonder how many tried their hands in the US at the PhD level from McGill in physics... (I suspect many of them, if not most, are honors students, one way or another)

As the US goes, so goes Canada I think.

In fact, not that many people actually borrow $200k for an education and the ones who do usually borrow that sort of dough to fund a graduate-level, professional education (e.g. law school, med school, dental school), since only 1 in 300 bachelor holders owe $100k and more just for undergrad.

The average student debt is somewhere between $25-$30k, and the average for 2014 graduates, at graduation, is $33k. But I think median debt is more representative of the average Joe who takes out loans to get an undergraduate education than average debt, since average debt is driven up by the few who borrow exorbitant amounts.

And 8% interest rate is par for the private loans course, but most people in the US take out federal loans first, which carry 4.66% interest rate (if taken out for undergrad), or 6.21% (if taken out for grad school in any shape or form).

Situation is better than I thought.

 

[Mathradio]

Research is of greater fundamental importance than undergraduate education, but regardless of that, it betters undergraduate education. If you're serious about learning you'll benefit from having world leaders around.

For undergraduates, the greatest benefit of having world leaders around is found in a summer research internship or, whenever applicable, a capstone project. There are other benefits, sure, but the last data I found (Beer and Circus) was that, barring any undergraduate research taking place, the correlation coefficient between research ability and teaching ability was ~0.03-0.05 (or some other figure that suggest that there is little but positive impact)

Situation is better than I thought.

But still worrisome.

 

[DAChampion]

For undergraduates, the greatest benefit of having world leaders around is found in a summer research internship or, whenever applicable, a capstone project. There are other benefits, sure, but the last data I found (Beer and Circus) was that, barring any undergraduate research taking place, the correlation coefficient between research ability and teaching ability was ~0.03-0.05 (or some other figure that suggest that there is little but positive impact)

Those numbers are meaningless. Neither of research ability nor teaching ability can be measured precisely, as such you are correlating two measurements with tremendous errors, which explains why the correlation is low. Errors and low precision have the effect of diffusing correlations and replacing them with noise and scatter.

As a historical example, social scientists used to argue that parental income did not correlate with child income as an adult. You know why? They couldn't find a correlation. It was later demonstrated that the absence of a correlation was due to the difficulty of "measuring" parental income, most people don't know exactly how much their parents made on average over a period of twenty years, so they'd give a rough estimate, and that broke the correlation. When social scientists instead asked something precise, like, "what neighbourhood did you grow up in", and then looked up the median income of that neighbourhood in that time period, the correlation shot up.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Considering doing a MSc in Project Management in England... I dunno if that will help or hurt me in my film production career though. I'm already in my mid20s, I should get the relevant work experience first, no?

Stupid field, it's so unique.

 

[DAChampion]

Considering doing a MSc in Project Management in England... I dunno if that will help or hurt me in my film production career though. I'm already in my mid20s, I should get the relevant work experience first, no?

Stupid field, it's so unique.

I don't know anything about your field, but, I'd recommend getting real work experience beforehand. That's my understanding of degrees like MBAs, they can complement skills and knowledge you already have. Not to sound like a cliche, but the best learning comes from doing and not reading.

You've just done two years (more ???) in school, get some experience under the assumption that you can. If there's a major recession in your field and you can't get work, then maybe that justifies more school.

 

[QuebecPride]

Do you actually have to have work experience to get admitted in Uni? I was looking at Canadian Business programs and once or twice I came across (for example) "Required years of work experience: 2-4". Are those only for MBA's?

Also can't figure out which business school is the best in MTL. Anyone mind shedding some light? People at McGill that I've spoken to say it isn't nearly as weak as people claim it to be. Also open to outside of Quebec and even abroad options.

Université de Sherbrooke's Administration faculté is as good as any other Business faculty in the province IMO. I go there personally, and from talking to students from other Business faculties, the teachers are as competent here as they are at the HEC/McGill/Laval.

UdeS is known for it's 'Coop' program, and now newly added a Bilingual program to compete with what the HEC does. Coop program assures you you'll have three interships(1 for each kind of semester Winter/Summer/Fall). The University is one of the best when it comes to helping students find internships.

To help you chose, I would suggest you to see 'une conseillère en orientation'. I was certain before going to see one that HEC was the way to go for me because of it's Bilingual program and actually thought the Teachers were more competent there, but she praised UdeS really hard and convinced me to go there. Tell her/him what your preferences are, and she/he will help you chose. I don't think there's a Business faculty that is better than the other in Qc when it comes to the Bacc level, but pretty much all of them are different, so seeing someone that knows what its talking about is certainly the way to go.