lolwut? Mont. Class of One?

Koggit

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1120ap_odd_class_of_one.html?source=mypi

"Greenwood had a few classmates before high school, but his last remaining classmate moved to Utah during freshman year. He took some classes alone his senior year while sharing others with juniors at the school."

So... for the past four years he's been the only person in his grade? He mentions that in many of his classes he was the only student.

http://www.opheim.k12.mt.us/

"Congratulations to the Senior Class of 2008" lol

But seriously, maybe sometimes a child should be left behind. His high school education has cost tax payers several times as much as the average college education.

Also: damn that kid's ugly.
 
"Finally got my edumacation, Ma. Ah-yuck!!"
redneck.jpg
 
I bet he could actually get into some damn sweet schools just by luck of being in such a low pop town.

On his college application, he'd look like a complete superstar. First in his class, president of every extracurricular, valedictorian... and he could write his personal statement about his talk with the Gov. at his graduation, admissions eats that shit up. Seriously, he has been handed so much application gold. Too bad he's wasting it.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Yep because if it ain't Yale or Harvard, it's shit![/QUOTE]

All schools were not created equal. It doesn't need to be ivy league, but third tier? C'mon, there's a big difference in the education received at a tier 3 versus a tier 1, and he could get into tier 1 with his application (although whether he'd deserve it or not would be questionable since he had zero competition).

Tier 1 Schools

Baylor University
Boston College
Boston University
Brigham Young University-JReuben
Columbia University
Cornell University
Duke University
Emory University
Fordham University
George Mason University
George Washington University
Georgetown University
Harvard University
Indiana University–Bloomington
New York University
Northwestern University
Ohio State University (Moritz)
Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Stanford University
University of Alabama
University of Arizona (Rogers)
University of California (Berkeley)
University of California (Davis)
University of California (Hastings)
University of California (Los Angeles)
University of Chicago
University of Colorado (Boulder)
University of Connecticut
University of Florida (Levin)
University of Georgia
University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign)
University of Iowa
University of Kentucky
University of Maryland
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
University of Minnesota (Twin Cities)
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
University of Southern California
University of Texas (Austin)
University of Utah (S.J. Quinney)
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin (Madison)
Vanderbilt University
Wake Forest University
Washington and Lee University
Washington University in St. Louis
William and Mary Law School
Yale University
Click to expand...

Plenty of choices (u of wa ftw).
 
[quote name='Koggit']All schools were not created equal. It doesn't need to be ivy league, but third tier? C'mon, there's a big difference in the education received at a tier 3 versus a tier 1, and he could get into tier 1 with his application (although whether he'd deserve it or not would be questionable since he had zero competition).



Plenty of choices (u of wa ftw).[/quote]
Admissions people would see through his bullshit.
 
[quote name='Koggit']All schools were not created equal. It doesn't need to be ivy league, but third tier? C'mon, there's a big difference in the education received at a tier 3 versus a tier 1, and he could get into tier 1 with his application (although whether he'd deserve it or not would be questionable since he had zero competition).



Plenty of choices (u of wa ftw).[/QUOTE]

Dude, where did you get that list? I've heard that University of Georgia isn't that great. I'm also guessing your school is on that list. Anyway, back on topic, it's possible that his SAT scores weren't that great, which would hold him back from getting into a "Tier 1" anyway.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Dude, where did you get that list? I've heard that University of Georgia isn't that great. I'm also guessing your school is on that list. Anyway, back on topic, it's possible that his SAT scores weren't that great, which would hold him back from getting into a "Tier 1" anyway.[/QUOTE]

Just Google "tier 1 colleges," the list was one of the first results. I think it came from U.S. News & World Report. You'll find several different tier 1 lists but they're all roughly the same.

I don't know anything about University of Georgia but according to its wiki page it's ranked 20th among public universities and 58th overall, not too bad. That "tier 1" list I posted has 52 schools (I think, I didn't count too precisely) so University of Georgia probably barely made it.
 
I don't even know why they bother having a school that size. Looking at the website, with last year's pictures, there were 6 seniors, 1 junior, 11 sophmores, 3 freshmen and 4 8th grades. 25 students total
 
[quote name='Koggit']Just Google "tier 1 colleges," the list was one of the first results. I think it came from U.S. News & World Report. You'll find several different tier 1 lists but they're all roughly the same.

I don't know anything about University of Georgia but according to its wiki page it's ranked 20th among public universities and 58th overall, not too bad. That "tier 1" list I posted has 52 schools (I think, I didn't count too precisely) so University of Georgia probably barely made it.[/QUOTE]

I'm just curious because there are some glaring omissions on that list, MIT being the main one. I'm sure somehow that falls under tier 1.:)

Another quick question, why is this in the vs. forum?
 
[quote name='docvinh']I've heard that University of Georgia isn't that great. [/QUOTE]


You heard incorrectly. While UGA had more lax standards several years ago, it's actually a very hard school to get into now. 3.5GPA and a 1400(old system) SAT is now seen as minimum requirements to actually get in. They have a good business program, and a very good international affairs program. Not to mention their turf management program (you laugh, but it's a very well paying job).

Do they have the academics of a Harvard? No. But they are coming close to matching the academic reputation of places like Georgia Tech.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I'm just curious because there are some glaring omissions on that list, MIT being the main one. I'm sure somehow that falls under tier 1.:)
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's an odd list. The "best" of the rankings is the US News and World Report ones.

MIT is # 7 in this years list (2008--rankings based on 2005 data)

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php

List in the top 50% of schools, with other lists being Tier 3 (the next 25%) and Tier 4 (the bottom 25%).

But I still like their rankings since my Doctoral program has been ranked #1 the past several years. :D

[quote name='docvinh']
Another quick question, why is this in the vs. forum?[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing it's because he was trying to play up the angle of wasteful education spending, which got lost by his dig on lower tier schools which has derailed the thread. :D

As for that, I went to a tier 3 school for undergrad, and still got in the aforementioned top doctoral program in my field, so I think the tiering is overrated. What really matters is whether the school has a good program in your major. Even third tier university can have highly regarded schools with in them.
 
School rankings are mainly based on reputation and faculty prestige and don't always correlate with the overall quality of one's education. It's not like the Princetons of the world have a monopoly on cutting edge research, nor do they necessarily have the best teachers... remember, professors get prestigious positions based on the perceived quality of their research and ability to get funding, and not on the basis of their teaching skills...

If you are applying to non-competitive graduate programs, the undergrad you go to doesn't matter much. However, if you want to get into top tier medical schools or law schools, coming from a prestigious undergrad does give you an advantage and consequently a greater margin for error (i.e., you may still be accepted despite a bit lower GPA/MCAT/LSAT). However, you can still get into competitive top tier graduate programs from less prestigious schools as long as your numbers and rest of your application are exceptional.
 
Bullshit.

It's not about the faculty, it's about the students. Good schools attract good students. The more selective university, the stronger your peers, the more you learn.

For the most part, professors teach what you can find in books. They just make it easier to understand the books. Every now and then you'll learn something that isn't in the book -- but it's still typically academic. Peers teach everything else. Go to a tier 3 and watch as a fourth of the class skips the day after a holiday because they're hungover. Watch as they cram the day before an exam and forget it all the day after the final.

The education received at a tier 3 is not equivalent to the education received at a tier 1, but it has very little to do with the faculty or school resources.
 
Learning from your peers?... maybe when it comes to life lessons, but in many fields it would amount to the blind leading the blind... and I would bet you could find a group of smart and motivated people at any school ranked in the top 100. As you can probably guess, there are people who choose their undergrad based mainly on geographic considerations and there are people who have insane numbers but lack the "well-rounded" BS parts of the application that most top institutions like...
 
Again, it depends on the department for your major. There are crappy departments in tier one universities and excellent departments in tier three schools.

And he's right about the faculty research and publication rate really driving these rankings. As mentioned above, my doctoral program is ranked number 1, but I wouldn't say the quality of education in the class room is all that great. The senior faculty area all among the most famous people in their areas of research, but they buy out a lot of classes and thus don't teach much, and only about half of them are worth a damn in the class room.

It's just the nature of the beast. I'm going into academia when I'm done, and I don't give two shits about teaching. I'm doing it for the freedom to set my own research agenda rather than going to a research firm and doing other people's research.

So the rankings don't always correlated that well with the type of education you'll get. Yes, the IVY league schools are going to be better, and so are some other cream of the crop.

But I don't think some of the further down state universities are any better than some other state universities that are in tier 3--particularly if you want to get down to specific deparments rather than whole universities.

I get your point on students, but quite frankly most classes aren't very based around student interaction anyway. It's do reading, listen to lectures, write a paper and pass some tests. There are exceptions of course, but that's the way it goes for the most part.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Bullshit.

It's not about the faculty, it's about the students. Good schools attract good students. The more selective university, the stronger your peers, the more you learn.

[/QUOTE]


Bullshit right back.

If your professors don't have a good reputation, be it from students or peers, you aren't going to go there. Period.

It's college. Who fucking cares who you go with?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']
If your professors don't have a good reputation, be it from students or peers, you aren't going to go there. Period.
[/QUOTE]


Well, that really only applies to grad school for the most part. How many high school kids actually look up specific professor's, their reputations etc?

At most they look at the rankings stuff. But I'd say the majority go based on geography (can only afford state school), interest in sports teams, going to parents alma maters, going to same school as friends etc. etc.

And honestly, it's fine. As long as you do well, make good grades etc. you'll be fine in you're career, grad school etc at any tier 1 or tier 3 (should be 2 since they don't have a 2nd tier). Excpetions being if you're set on going to a top med school or law school--as where you went can bias you favorably there.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Bullshit.

It's not about the faculty, it's about the students. Good schools attract good students. The more selective university, the stronger your peers, the more you learn.

For the most part, professors teach what you can find in books. They just make it easier to understand the books. Every now and then you'll learn something that isn't in the book -- but it's still typically academic. Peers teach everything else. Go to a tier 3 and watch as a fourth of the class skips the day after a holiday because they're hungover. Watch as they cram the day before an exam and forget it all the day after the final.

The education received at a tier 3 is not equivalent to the education received at a tier 1, but it has very little to do with the faculty or school resources.[/QUOTE]

Eh, I don't know about this. I will agree that the caliber of student is possibly better due to higher standardized scores, but it usually is a small part of the equation. My friend who went to the same undergrad I did, ended up at Wash U in St. Louis for cognitive psych. I feel that at the undergrad level, your education is what you make of it, unless you happen to be taking engineering or something along that route. I would say that you are making some pretty rash generalizations about both "tier 1" and "tier 3" schools. I also agree with dmaul that it different departments are better for different things. Just as an example, I would say going to Harvard for a business degree is much more helpful than going to say, John Hopkins in Baltimore. Both are fine schools, but have different focuses.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, that really only applies to grad school for the most part. How many high school kids actually look up specific professor's, their reputations etc?

At most they look at the rankings stuff. But I'd say the majority go based on geography (can only afford state school), interest in sports teams, going to parents alma maters, going to same school as friends etc. etc.

And honestly, it's fine. As long as you do well, make good grades etc. you'll be fine in you're career, grad school etc at any tier 1 or tier 3 (should be 2 since they don't have a 2nd tier). Excpetions being if you're set on going to a top med school or law school--as where you went can bias you favorably there.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. When I was going to get a civil engineering degree, I quieried some local companies and did a little research from previous students at Georgia Tech. I found out that students who graduated from SPSU were hired just as much as GT grads, and the courseload was probably 2x more intense. I figured if I was going to get the same job with the same pay, why do double the work?
 
I know some do research. I was just saying I think that's the exception to the rule. I'm sure research is much more common among the top whatever percent of each class as those people care more about grades, prestige etc.

But the majority of students don't do that kind of research.

Hell I picked my undergrad on:

-Being a life long fan of WVU sports since there are no pro sports teams close to home.
-WVU being the number 1 party school the year I was deciding.
-Needing to go somewhere in state for financial reasons.

And I did ok in high school, GPA around 3.3. I just didn't really care about going somewhere prestigious etc., nor did any of my friends. But definitely the people vying for valedictorian etc. did as they were always talking about struggling to choose where to apply, worriying about getting in etc.

Though I don't mean to imply either that only the best students research the decision just that they are probably more likely to.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']

It's college. Who fucking cares who you go with?[/QUOTE]

As someone who transferred to a highly selective tier 1 from a community college, I do -- I care who I go to school with, having gone to from a school with party-obsessed bums to a school with inquiring minds. I also know quite a few people (nearly everyone I went to high school with) who go to UL Lafayette, a crappy fourth tier public university... the students seem no different there than it was at the community college.

Instruction doesn't really matter. The material is in the book either way, whether you have a good prof or not. You learn the same thing anywhere. Peers make the difference in your education, which damn well should extend far beyond what you're being graded on.

If you don't gain intellectual maturity from being surrounded by intelligent, dedicated people. . . well, somethings wrong.

[quote name='dmaul1114']It's do reading, listen to lectures, write a paper and pass some tests.[/QUOTE]

That's the academic part. Like I said, that's all in the book. Everything else you learn is from your peers. I thought I stated that clearly, but I guess not since it seems BigT misunderstood as well.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
Instruction doesn't really matter. The material is in the book either way, whether you have a good prof or not. You learn the same thing anywhere. Peers make the difference in your education, which damn well should extend far beyond what you're being graded on.

If you don't gain intellectual maturity from being surrounded by intelligent, dedicated people. . . well, somethings wrong.

That's the academic part. Like I said, that's all in the book. Everything else you learn is from your peers. I thought I stated that clearly, but I guess not since it seems BigT misunderstood as well.[/quote]

For me, having dedicated peers has always been nice plus, but I don't feel like I developed intellectual maturity because of them... Heck, I knew how to be motivated back in high school and had a GPA closer to 5 than to 4 (because of AP/honors classes) and an SAT of ~1500/1600 (yeah, I know... not too great, but I took it cold with no prep ;)). I ended up turning down some selective private schools and just went to my regional University of California school... full scholarship meant no student loans... the school was ranked only around # 40 among US undergrad institutions, but I still managed to get into a top 10 med school in a very desireable location and so did quite a few of my friends from that school...

I do see your point about Community college or lower 4th tier, but that's a pretty big drop off from the top 100 or so undergradute schools (at those, I'd think you could do fine at all of them given the right amount of effort).
 
[quote name='Koggit']
Instruction doesn't really matter. The material is in the book either way, whether you have a good prof or not. You learn the same thing anywhere.

That's the academic part. Like I said, that's all in the book. Everything else you learn is from your peers. I thought I stated that clearly, but I guess not since it seems BigT misunderstood as well.[/QUOTE]

That's not true all the time. If you have a good professor, lecture won't overlap with the textbook reading much. It will fill in the holes and give you more knowledge.

Hell, I already said I didn't care much about my teaching and for the course I'm teaching this summer I'm still putting effort into the lectures I'm preparing now to not just recover stuff in the book.

You have to hit the basics so they grasp the general picture, but after that I'll lecture more on research, my own work etc. etc. rather than the simple stuff in the textbook.

You also are making bad comparisons--of community college and a crappy (your term) tier 4 school to tier one schools. No one has said Tier 1's one blow those out of the water.

We've talked about tier 3 schools (the 50-75% quartile) and how many departments in these schools are excellent.

I do agree students can make a difference. I've learned a good bit from my peers in grad school. Under grad not so much. School has always came easy to me, so I didn't really do anything other than go to class, party a lot, study a little and graduate with a 3.7.

The school part of grad school hasn't been much harder (only my dissertation to go) but peers (and especially the professor I work with) have been a big help in getting the research and politcal side of academia down.

So I guess it varies by what you need/want for school that will help effect whether your peers have an impact, or whether you need to be at a top tier place to learn and succeed. If you're very self motivated and school comes easy to you, a solid tier 3 will do you fine. If you're not that way, then maybe having more dedicated peers helps reinforce the need to bust your ass.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i am happy knowing I went to a Tier 1 school[/quote]

P.I.T.T.! P.I.T.T. LETS GO PITT!!

But seriously, tell everyone why you're really happy. (psst...Ikohn can reproduce asexually.)
 
[quote name='Koggit']As someone who transferred to a highly selective tier 1 from a community college, I do -- I care who I go to school with, having gone to from a school with party-obsessed bums to a school with inquiring minds. I also know quite a few people (nearly everyone I went to high school with) who go to UL Lafayette, a crappy fourth tier public university... the students seem no different there than it was at the community college.

Instruction doesn't really matter. The material is in the book either way, whether you have a good prof or not. You learn the same thing anywhere. Peers make the difference in your education, which damn well should extend far beyond what you're being graded on.

If you don't gain intellectual maturity from being surrounded by intelligent, dedicated people. . . well, somethings wrong.



That's the academic part. Like I said, that's all in the book. Everything else you learn is from your peers. I thought I stated that clearly, but I guess not since it seems BigT misunderstood as well.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. There's so much wrong I can't highlight them on on a phone.

There are some things that you go strictly by a book. Those are things you don't really need to go to college for. There are so many more things that are actually taught by the professor, because the brand new edition of a book you bought ten days ago is already either outdated or irrelevant. IA is an outstanding example. I know after 9/11, our course on Int'l Foreign Policy was pretty much just moderated discussion for the rest of the semester. With any static courses like History of the World Part 1 (it's good to be the king, sure. Outside of relatively minor discoveries, the content is going to be about the same.

So no, the way you wrote it, it's incorrect. The professor plays a huge role in what and how you learn something. Medical coding? I wouldn't have near the understanding I do if it wasn't for feedback and clarification.

If you just had to read the books to learn the material, everyone would have a degree.

My peers have had zero impact on what I've learned. The only way my peers had any inpact on what I studied was my CPE course, where it was merely 50 minutes of conversation twice a week. Unfortunately, that was pre-9/11. I've consistently been the smartest, though not always best, student in my studies. My peers had no impact on anything that I've done, at least academically. They only really impacted in social settings. Hell, in some situations they barely speak. And I'm not talking about the 200-student HIST 101 class I'm sure most of us are familiar with.

Everything that's happened to me positively in college, I brought upon myself, with help of the professors. There's infinitely more impact by peers outside the classroom.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']School has always came easy to me, so I didn't really do anything other than go to class, party a lot, study a little and graduate with a 3.7.

. . .

So I guess it varies by what you need/want for school that will help effect whether your peers have an impact, or whether you need to be at a top tier place to learn and succeed. If you're very self motivated and school comes easy to you, a solid tier 3 will do you fine. If you're not that way, then maybe having more dedicated peers helps reinforce the need to bust your ass.[/QUOTE]

I mean no disrespect at all (I think it's awesome that you're going for your doctorate), but I think we view our undergrad a bit differently. I'd find a 3.7 unacceptable, especially if I had free time.

I suppose different majors are different, also. I'm a physics/electrical engineering double major -- the physics kids are fairly laid back, but the electrical engineering kids spend as much time on campus as I do. I, like my friends, try to get as high of a GPA as possible because the best internships and summer research positions are all extremely competitive.

But none of that is really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about intellectual curiosity, inquiry, skepticism, critically evaluating events and information... at a good school, surrounded by good minds, you will learn much more than the academic material presented in class. I'm not saying your peers are going to teach you what's in the book, I'm saying they'll teach you everything else.

Although many people (like Cochese) don't seem to care about learning, only getting their degree. But I guess that's why they're not at a tier 1. And illustrating my point, I wouldn't want to be around people with that mindset (doesn't care about knowledge).
 
Yeah, the tiers don't really mean shit. The stories I hear from the engineering programs at Michigan AA and Dearborn only confirm this. I mean, when you can't have classes that aren't curved to the point of a C- being a 50%, there's something wrong there. Add in the fact that many of the later classes aren't offered at night as often as they are at Wayne State, and I'm actually kinda glad I go there.

It's also important to note that the wideness of a school's acceptance policy seems to correlate with its ranking, i.e. high-ranking schools tend to only admit a very elite group of students vs. low-ranking schools allowing a much broader range. Now, given the fact that performance in high school does seem to be a good predictor of success in college, having a wider acceptance policy will likely lead to bad numbers in many of the categories, as you're going to have a good percentage of drop-out (my engineering classes seem to shrink every semester, for example, and they're almost never offered more than once a semester). There's also probably going to be more people entering bullshit programs, like sociology, psychology, etc., who aren't going to make much after graduating, which will also impact some of the numbers. Just as an example, I got paid $17.20/hour working at DTE as a co-op last semester (this is actually a low rate for a senior. Usually we get $20 or more, but it was my first co-op/internship). I know liberal arts majors with bachelor degrees who have gotten offers from $30,000-$35,000.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I mean no disrespect at all (I think it's awesome that you're going for your doctorate), but I think we view our undergrad a bit differently. I'd find a 3.7 unacceptable, especially if I had free time.

I suppose different majors are different, also. I'm a physics/electrical engineering double major -- the physics kids are fairly laid back, but the electrical engineering kids spend as much time on campus as I do. I, like my friends, try to get as high of a GPA as possible because the best internships and summer research positions are all extremely competitive.

But none of that is really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about intellectual curiosity, inquiry, skepticism, critically evaluating events and information... at a good school, surrounded by good minds, you will learn much more than the academic material presented in class. I'm not saying your peers are going to teach you what's in the book, I'm saying they'll teach you everything else.

Although many people (like Cochese) don't seem to care about learning, only getting their degree. But I guess that's why they're not at a tier 1. And illustrating my point, I wouldn't want to be around people with that mindset (doesn't care about knowledge).[/QUOTE]
See, the only problem I have with this is that you're saying pretty much anyone at a tier 3 school is pretty much a waste of life, which is certainly not true. Like I said, I had plenty of intelligent friends who were also extremely competitive with their GPA's and possessed intellectual curiousity. Perhaps at your previous third tier school you had a bad experience, I don't know, but you're coming off as a little full of yourself just because you happen to go to a school with a subjective high ranking. I'm not saying you shouldn't be proud of your accomplishments, but just because you go to a bigger name school doesn't really mean you suddenly become better then everyone else. I'm also curious to know what school you go to, since you haven't mentioned that.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I mean no disrespect at all (I think it's awesome that you're going for your doctorate), but I think we view our undergrad a bit differently. I'd find a 3.7 unacceptable, especially if I had free time.

I suppose different majors are different, also. I'm a physics/electrical engineering double major -- the physics kids are fairly laid back, but the electrical engineering kids spend as much time on campus as I do. I, like my friends, try to get as high of a GPA as possible because the best internships and summer research positions are all extremely competitive.

But none of that is really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about intellectual curiosity, inquiry, skepticism, critically evaluating events and information... at a good school, surrounded by good minds, you will learn much more than the academic material presented in class. I'm not saying your peers are going to teach you what's in the book, I'm saying they'll teach you everything else.

Although many people (like Cochese) don't seem to care about learning, only getting their degree. But I guess that's why they're not at a tier 1. And illustrating my point, I wouldn't want to be around people with that mindset (doesn't care about knowledge).[/QUOTE]

You're ridiculous. If you don't learn anything, your degree means jack shit. You'll get fired from your job within six months. I find it obtuse to think that because I don't interact with the other students that much, that I do not care about knowledge, or do not have any. I find it even more fascinating that you believe you'll gain more knowledge about your field, the workplace, the world from people who have the same or less knowledge than you do. Sure, you'll find many different ways of approaching and solving problems, but to say you get everything that's not in the book from your classmates? Who are at best 22 and have never really done anything with their lives except to possibly pad their resumes? Who's going to give you advice about getting a job in your field? The students? Afterall, you did say everything else you get from the students.

I think that your[/I] experience shows that you get a lot out of your fellow students, but having attended many more institutions at varying levels, I can tell you that what you are getting out of college is not the standard.

Or maybe I didn't go to a liberal enough college, where we should have all sat around the bonfire sharing with each other how the world worked. Because of course at that age, you know how it does.

Tiers mean shit to the workforce. It's all about what you know, and unfortunately, who you know. Now if one of these classmates has an inside track to a job and is taking you along with them, then fine. My wife graduated from Emory with a BSN. She doesn't receive extra pay for having attended there. It didn't help her in her job search for her first job, and means even less to subsequent jobs.

You know what 25% of the score is for USN&WR? Reputation. I can tell you that it certainly does not compromise 25% of your pay, or 25% of you getting a job. Where you went to school, especially in your second or third career move, really means little. Unless of course your were valedictorian at MIT, or something.

If I were you I would take very little stock in this Tier 1 vs other Tiers debate, or rankings.
I think this is a nice little write-up on how the system is flawed.
 
You seem to view a bachelor's as a professional (technical) degree. Which it is not. All you talk about is gaining the skills necessary for your career, and landing a job with acceptable pay.

You think those fine arts electives are to make you a better engineer? You think those social science electives are to make you a better engineer? You think when you apply for anything (job, internship, scholarship, grad school) they want a list of extracurriculars because they've made you a better engineer?

If you were going to culinary school, or even getting your juris doctorate -- any professional program -- I'd understand your view. But a bachelor's degree is not a professional degree. Your undergraduate study is to make you a well-rounded, better person, and your peers play an enormous role in that.



For example, a friend of mine is a botany major. He and I are part of a 4-person volunteer group that collects data (water quality and stream flow) on a local creek. There's another group that studies the macroinvertebrates in the creek. We aren't doing it for credit or anything to put on any application -- it isn't even official in the eyes of the school, we just have an agreement with an environmental science professor to use his equipment once a week. From those two groups, over the past six months (about 4 hours a week), I have learned a lot about chemistry and biology, two subjects that I will never take a class in. The knowledge and experience has directly affected my eating habits and choice of household chemicals, by bringing an understanding that I would have otherwise spent my life without.

You don't strike me as the type of person who would be interested in a project like this because it doesn't help you with your career, and that's why I wouldn't want to go to school surrounded by people like you. I want to go to school with people who have a deep passion for inquiry, seeking to share knowledge... and those people are typically attracted to higher ranked schools. Case in point, you avoided Georgia Tech because it was more work and you get the same job. I'd much rather go to school with people who choose more work (learning more) despite the fact that they get the same job.
 
I think what you are missing is that you can get those kind of experience at good departments in decent tier 3 schools. It's probably harder at the crappy tier 4 school you mentioned, or the community college you started at.

But there's not a lot of difference between the lower ranked tier 1 schools (i.e. those in the 40-50 percentile) and the good tier 3 schools (say those in teh 50-60 percentile) and even less when you factor in that there are crappy departments in tier 1 schools and great departments in tier 3. The tier 1 has a better average quality of department across the board, but that doesn't mean that everyone of their degree programs in every department are better than any in tier 3 schools.

Factor in the flaws with the rankings systems (see the link above) and you can see how we all think you're making too much out of the rankings. On top of coming across as a pompous ass talking a lot of shit when you started out at a fucking community college.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think what you are missing is that you can get those kind of experience at good departments in decent tier 3 schools. It's probably harder at the crappy tier 4 school you mentioned, or the community college you started at.

But there's not a lot of difference between the lower ranked tier 1 schools (i.e. those in the 40-50 percentile) and the good tier 3 schools (say those in teh 50-60 percentile) and even less when you factor in that there are crappy departments in tier 1 schools and great departments in tier 3. The tier 1 has a better average quality of department across the board, but that doesn't mean that everyone of their degree programs in every department are better than any in tier 3 schools.

Factor in the flaws with the rankings systems (see the link above) and you can see how we all think you're making too much out of the rankings. On top of coming across as a pompous ass talking a lot of shit when you started out at a fucking community college.[/QUOTE]

Damn Dmaul, your posts have gotten a lot nastier lately! I don't even me this post in particular really.

I remember when you always used to be like Switzerland, with posts along the lines of "Well I can see both ways but my opinion is that..." and I often chimed in with a QFT (usually against fanboyism as it related to owning a wii and a 360.)

Lately though your posts seem more adversarial, and um...nasty. Maybe you've been spending too much time in the vs. threads?

Either way, I LIKE IT!:applause:
 
[quote name='Koggit']You seem to view a bachelor's as a professional (technical) degree. Which it is not. All you talk about is gaining the skills necessary for your career, and landing a job with acceptable pay.

You think those fine arts electives are to make you a better engineer? You think those social science electives are to make you a better engineer? You think when you apply for anything (job, internship, scholarship, grad school) they want a list of extracurriculars because they've made you a better engineer?

If you were going to culinary school, or even getting your juris doctorate -- any professional program -- I'd understand your view. But a bachelor's degree is not a professional degree. Your undergraduate study is to make you a well-rounded, better person, and your peers play an enormous role in that.



For example, a friend of mine is a botany major. He and I are part of a 4-person volunteer group that collects data (water quality and stream flow) on a local creek. There's another group that studies the macroinvertebrates in the creek. We aren't doing it for credit or anything to put on any application -- it isn't even official in the eyes of the school, we just have an agreement with an environmental science professor to use his equipment once a week. From those two groups, over the past six months (about 4 hours a week), I have learned a lot about chemistry and biology, two subjects that I will never take a class in. The knowledge and experience has directly affected my eating habits and choice of household chemicals, by bringing an understanding that I would have otherwise spent my life without.

You don't strike me as the type of person who would be interested in a project like this because it doesn't help you with your career, and that's why I wouldn't want to go to school surrounded by people like you. I want to go to school with people who have a deep passion for inquiry, seeking to share knowledge... and those people are typically attracted to higher ranked schools. Case in point, you avoided Georgia Tech because it was more work and you get the same job. I'd much rather go to school with people who choose more work (learning more) despite the fact that they get the same job.[/QUOTE]
Why can't you do this at a tier 3 school? You just need to find people as passionate as you are at your school, that's all. Like I've continually said, maybe you just had a crappy experience at your first school, and you're letting it color your opinion about all other schools in general. Not all the people at tier 3 schools want to party and drink. Actually, I know for a fact that they still party and drink at tier 1 schools too. It's all about the people you choose to be around.
 
I resent all this talk about partying and drinking meaning you don't take school seriously. I drank and smoked (not tobacco) my face off in undergrad and still did quite well save my freshman year (1.8 then a 2.5, but MAN did I have fun!)

It's the dedication to preparation that really matters. Well...that and what I consider to be the most important factor to succeding in college, and I'll let you in on the secret: TAKE CLASSES YOU LIKE!!! There is no better way to get a shitty grade than to take a class you hate and there is not better way to get a fantastic grade than to take a class you like.

As far as professional schools go, and I'm just speaking about lawschools b/c they're the only ones I'm familiar with, the rank of the school is important. Yes, they're hard to rank and there is a lot of debate about the ranking system, but they do matter. Still, they only really matter (1) when you're applying, (2) when you're there, and (3) when you're applying for your first job. 5 years into your work experience, nobody gives a shit about what school you went to, they care about what you can do.
 
[quote name='Koggit']So there's a difference between tier 1 and 4, but not tier 1 and 3? Okay, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.[/QUOTE]

Again the US New rankings Tier 1 is the top 50% and Tier 3 is the next 25% with Tier 4 being the bottom 25%.

How much difference is there between a tier one school that's in the 49th percentile and a tier three that's in the 51st percentile? Maybe you weren't ware that there's not a 2nd Tier and thus think the difference between the lower end first tier schools and the higher 3rd tier is so great?

I mean sure the top ten, twenty or whatever tier one schools are going to be better, but not all tier 1 schools are automatically leaps and bounds better than all tier 3 schools.

Also, do you not get the point about the need to look at specific departments? I tier three school may have a top program in a certain major that is much better than that same major in a lot of tier 1 schools. The rankings are for overall university's, but that doesn't mean a tier three might have a better say Journalism (or whatever other major you want to look at) school than a lot of tier 1s).

The most important thing is going somewhere that has good faculty in your area of study. Both because you'll learn more from having good professors that do more than lecture out of the textbook. And to get to your point, having good faculty in your particular major will attract better students to your program.

The rankings are useful in helping decide between schools, but they shouldn't be the only criteria one uses, and probably not even the main one.
 
The reality is that the school that you go to does matter even though it probably shouldn't matter half as much as it does. Going to an Ivy league School or a school of similar rank definitely offers more opportunities than going to a non-Ivy school especially if you plan to do graduate work or pursue an advanced degree like an MD or JD.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You seem to view a bachelor's as a professional (technical) degree. Which it is not. All you talk about is gaining the skills necessary for your career, and landing a job with acceptable pay. [/QUOTE]

Right now, that's all I need. I'm here to learn what it takes to get a job and advance my career.

You think those fine arts electives are to make you a better engineer? You think those social science electives are to make you a better engineer? You think when you apply for anything (job, internship, scholarship, grad school) they want a list of extracurriculars because they've made you a better engineer?
Click to expand...

Everything I've taken, with the exception of tennis, has been to further my education and my eventual career. Spanish. Public speaking. Geography (IA), GIS (IA)...they've all had a purpose. The point of college is not to go fuck around and have a good time. It's meant to be a stepping stone to the next phase of your life.

If you were going to culinary school, or even getting your juris doctorate -- any professional program -- I'd understand your view. But a bachelor's degree is not a professional degree. Your undergraduate study is to make you a well-rounded, better person, and your peers play an enormous role in that.
Click to expand...

I had that. It was called high school. Sorry yours sucked, and didn't give you all of these things before you started college.


For example, a friend of mine is a botany major. He and I are part of a 4-person volunteer group that collects data (water quality and stream flow) on a local creek. There's another group that studies the macroinvertebrates in the creek. We aren't doing it for credit or anything to put on any application -- it isn't even official in the eyes of the school, we just have an agreement with an environmental science professor to use his equipment once a week. From those two groups, over the past six months (about 4 hours a week), I have learned a lot about chemistry and biology, two subjects that I will never take a class in. The knowledge and experience has directly affected my eating habits and choice of household chemicals, by bringing an understanding that I would have otherwise spent my life without.
Click to expand...

It may not have anything to do with your career, but he is a botany major. What he is doing is helping him either better understand things or learn something new. Does this not fit in with the job skills portion?

You don't strike me as the type of person who would be interested in a project like this because it doesn't help you with your career, and that's why I wouldn't want to go to school surrounded by people like you. I want to go to school with people who have a deep passion for inquiry, seeking to share knowledge... and those people are typically attracted to higher ranked schools. Case in point, you avoided Georgia Tech because it was more work and you get the same job. I'd much rather go to school with people who choose more work (learning more) despite the fact that they get the same job.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in it because I'm not a botany major. I could give a shit about botany. I found GIS extremely interesting, and thought if I went through with it I could make a career out of it. It wasn't a portion of my IA major, but it did count towards my electives.

I chose higher education because I wanted to do something with my life, and learn about some basic things (core), but to mainly learn what I wanted to do. Perhaps I found things interesting to me very early, and didn't see the point in screwing around. Every day spent in college is either money well-spent, or money wasted. I chose to make it money well-spent.

I choose to spend extra time either with my family or helping others. And by helping others, I don't mean my bosses for doing 2x the work for the same pay. It's just not bright.
 
If at all possible, one should strive to go to a tier 1 school and preferably somewhere in the top 100 on this list: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php
But it is possible to get a good education at lower ranked institution. However, on your resume or CV, you just write down your school name and major, so a 2.5 from Princeton yields a much better result than a 4.0 from San Diego State ;) (no offense to any Aztecs).

From a medical school standpoint, it would be difficult to get into an American Allopathic Medical School if you're not coming from one of these top 100 colleges or from one of the top liberal arts schools in the nation. Secondly, one should look for schools that have large established research departments in biological sciences: Most of the big names have this as do most of the University of California Schools.

People can correct me if I'm wrong, but for law school, your application is basically LSAT>GPA>School reputation>Rest of your app (unless you have done something truly extraordinary). You can pretty much use grids (of GPA vs. LSAT score) published by schools to see your chance of being accepted at a school with a reasonable degree of certainty...

For med school, it's a bit more complicated, since you have to go through interviews and admissions committees tend to focus on a lot of different factors together: It is still probably MCAT>GPA~research experience>volunteer experience>rest of app. Still, when you have 6000 people applying for 100 spots, admissions committees often make some arbitrary decisions to narrow the field (in theory you could probably field 500-1000 pretty similar and well qualified candidates). That said, for schools in California, I'd recommend at least a 3.75 GPA and an MCAT score preferably in the top 5th percentile.

The problem with med schools is that they are pretty much all competitive. If you don't make it, you have to resort either to going to the Caribbean (and living in a 3rd world shit hole) or going the Osteopathic (D.O.) route, both of which carry some degree of stigma and will limit/make more difficult your future career choices.
 
[quote name='dopa345']The reality is that the school that you go to does matter even though it probably shouldn't matter half as much as it does. Going to an Ivy league School or a school of similar rank definitely offers more opportunities than going to a non-Ivy school especially if you plan to do graduate work or pursue an advanced degree like an MD or JD.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone's disputing that. The biggest problem is that tier 1 is too big, it shouldn't be the top 50% of schools as there's really no difference between some of the large state universities that are in the 40-50 percentile and those in the 50-60 percentile that get designated as Tier 3.

Of course there's a big difference between the Ivy League schools and other very high ranked schools and those 50-60 percentile schools.

But even then, it really only matters if you're wanting to go to med school or something else super competitive. Like I said, I went to a tier 3 school with a good Journalism program and got into the Top ranked program in Criminology for my Masters and Ph D. So it's not crucial in many disciplines as long as you have a high GPA, decent GRE (or whatever test for your field) and very strong letters of reccomendation.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
But even then, it really only matters if you're wanting to go to med school or something else super competitive. Like I said, I went to a tier 3 school with a good Journalism program and got into the Top ranked program in Criminology for my Masters and Ph D. So it's not crucial in many disciplines as long as you have a high GPA, decent GRE (or whatever test for your field) and very strong letters of reccomendation.[/quote]

Even in medicine, the rank of your Undergrad institution stops mattering after you start med school (unless you have some great school on your CV that may raise some eyebrows during an interview...). After that, residency applications are based on the reputation of your med school (and lots of other random crap :D). Your undergrad GPA becomes a distant memory...
 
I love how there's been post after post discrediting the rankings, but then Koggit keeps bringing it up. Good job, dumbass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top