IU or JMU?

[Anonymous]

JMU OOS seems like a sub-optimal choice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JMU OOS seems like a sub-optimal choice

So do many state flagships. But people do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JMU OOS seems like a sub-optimal choice

I guess you should tell all those happy OOS parents on the JMU Parents FB page.

[Anonymous]

IU has twice as many students as JMU, almost twice as many majors, almost twice as many academic staff, a vastly larger endowment, and a number of nationally ranked programs. It's also considered an R1 major research university and is a member of the 70-member American Association of Universities (neither of which groupings JMU belongs to). The undergraduate education at IU is universally ranked higher than JMU by all the ranking systems (it's not close -- USNWR ranks IU/B #73 and JMU #124 among national universities). Which isn't to say that there aren't smart students who get a good education and have a great time at JMU too. But as educational institutions, the two schools aren't in the same league, and not just in terms of stadium capacity. If in-state cost isn't a consideration, and assuming that most people want to invest four years of time and tuition getting the strongest possible education with the strongest possible post-graduate returns, IU would be the obvious choice, unless there was some special factor not cited here that would increase or decrease the relative appeal of one of the two universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IU has twice as many students as JMU, almost twice as many majors, almost twice as many academic staff, a vastly larger endowment, and a number of nationally ranked programs. It's also considered an R1 major research university and is a member of the 70-member American Association of Universities (neither of which groupings JMU belongs to). The undergraduate education at IU is universally ranked higher than JMU by all the ranking systems (it's not close -- USNWR ranks IU/B #73 and JMU #124 among national universities). Which isn't to say that there aren't smart students who get a good education and have a great time at JMU too. But as educational institutions, the two schools aren't in the same league, and not just in terms of stadium capacity. If in-state cost isn't a consideration, and assuming that most people want to invest four years of time and tuition getting the strongest possible education with the strongest possible post-graduate returns, IU would be the obvious choice, unless there was some special factor not cited here that would increase or decrease the relative appeal of one of the two universities.

IU is bigger and better ranked, sure. How exactly does that translate to a better education at IU for the average undergraduate student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IU has twice as many students as JMU, almost twice as many majors, almost twice as many academic staff, a vastly larger endowment, and a number of nationally ranked programs. It's also considered an R1 major research university and is a member of the 70-member American Association of Universities (neither of which groupings JMU belongs to). The undergraduate education at IU is universally ranked higher than JMU by all the ranking systems (it's not close -- USNWR ranks IU/B #73 and JMU #124 among national universities). Which isn't to say that there aren't smart students who get a good education and have a great time at JMU too. But as educational institutions, the two schools aren't in the same league, and not just in terms of stadium capacity. If in-state cost isn't a consideration, and assuming that most people want to invest four years of time and tuition getting the strongest possible education with the strongest possible post-graduate returns, IU would be the obvious choice, unless there was some special factor not cited here that would increase or decrease the relative appeal of one of the two universities.

IU is bigger and better ranked, sure. How exactly does that translate to a better education at IU for the average undergraduate student?

Stronger students, better national reputation, more opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IU has twice as many students as JMU, almost twice as many majors, almost twice as many academic staff, a vastly larger endowment, and a number of nationally ranked programs. It's also considered an R1 major research university and is a member of the 70-member American Association of Universities (neither of which groupings JMU belongs to). The undergraduate education at IU is universally ranked higher than JMU by all the ranking systems (it's not close -- USNWR ranks IU/B #73 and JMU #124 among national universities). Which isn't to say that there aren't smart students who get a good education and have a great time at JMU too. But as educational institutions, the two schools aren't in the same league, and not just in terms of stadium capacity. If in-state cost isn't a consideration, and assuming that most people want to invest four years of time and tuition getting the strongest possible education with the strongest possible post-graduate returns, IU would be the obvious choice, unless there was some special factor not cited here that would increase or decrease the relative appeal of one of the two universities.

IU is bigger and better ranked, sure. How exactly does that translate to a better education at IU for the average undergraduate student?

Stronger students, better national reputation, more opportunities.

How does better national reputation enhance undergraduate education? What specific opportunities are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

IU is bigger and better ranked, sure. How exactly does that translate to a better education at IU for the average undergraduate student?

Uh, because the undergraduate rankings (like in USNWR) specifically rank the quality of education that undergraduates receive. The higher ranked schools have more/better (per capita) resources for their students; they attract stronger students; and the outputs (the benefits for graduating students) are better. In general and on average, Harvard provides a better education for undergraduates than Boston University; Boston University provides a better education for undergraduates than Indiana; Indiana provides a better education for undergraduates than UVM; and UVM provides a better education for undergraduates than JMU (which in turn provides a better education for undergraduates than CNU, etc). Some people on DCUM go crazy making hair-splitting distinctions between schools ranked #20 and #21, or #30 and #32, but it's equally silly to pretend that the rankings - and significant gaps between them - don't bear any relationship to the quality of undergraduate education being offered at different institutions. Sure, a very very small number of people might actually gain more educationally from a couple of years at community college rather than at Princeton, but those are exceptions not the norm or average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

IU is bigger and better ranked, sure. How exactly does that translate to a better education at IU for the average undergraduate student?

Uh, because the undergraduate rankings (like in USNWR) specifically rank the quality of education that undergraduates receive. The higher ranked schools have more/better (per capita) resources for their students; they attract stronger students; and the outputs (the benefits for graduating students) are better. In general and on average, Harvard provides a better education for undergraduates than Boston University; Boston University provides a better education for undergraduates than Indiana; Indiana provides a better education for undergraduates than UVM; and UVM provides a better education for undergraduates than JMU (which in turn provides a better education for undergraduates than CNU, etc). Some people on DCUM go crazy making hair-splitting distinctions between schools ranked #20 and #21, or #30 and #32, but it's equally silly to pretend that the rankings - and significant gaps between them - don't bear any relationship to the quality of undergraduate education being offered at different institutions. Sure, a very very small number of people might actually gain more educationally from a couple of years at community college rather than at Princeton, but those are exceptions not the norm or average.

Where can quality of education or resources for students be found in the formula? https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IU has twice as many students as JMU, almost twice as many majors, almost twice as many academic staff, a vastly larger endowment, and a number of nationally ranked programs. It's also considered an R1 major research university and is a member of the 70-member American Association of Universities (neither of which groupings JMU belongs to). The undergraduate education at IU is universally ranked higher than JMU by all the ranking systems (it's not close -- USNWR ranks IU/B #73 and JMU #124 among national universities). Which isn't to say that there aren't smart students who get a good education and have a great time at JMU too. But as educational institutions, the two schools aren't in the same league, and not just in terms of stadium capacity. If in-state cost isn't a consideration, and assuming that most people want to invest four years of time and tuition getting the strongest possible education with the strongest possible post-graduate returns, IU would be the obvious choice, unless there was some special factor not cited here that would increase or decrease the relative appeal of one of the two universities.

Outcomes (Avg. Salary):
JMU School of business - $76K (https://www.jmu.edu/cob/prospective-students/polishing-performance.shtml)
Kelly - 74K (https://kelley.iu.edu/recruiters-companies/undergrad/statistics/salary-statistics/index.html)

Don't seem that different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

IU is bigger and better ranked, sure. How exactly does that translate to a better education at IU for the average undergraduate student?

Uh, because the undergraduate rankings (like in USNWR) specifically rank the quality of education that undergraduates receive. The higher ranked schools have more/better (per capita) resources for their students; they attract stronger students; and the outputs (the benefits for graduating students) are better. In general and on average, Harvard provides a better education for undergraduates than Boston University; Boston University provides a better education for undergraduates than Indiana; Indiana provides a better education for undergraduates than UVM; and UVM provides a better education for undergraduates than JMU (which in turn provides a better education for undergraduates than CNU, etc). Some people on DCUM go crazy making hair-splitting distinctions between schools ranked #20 and #21, or #30 and #32, but it's equally silly to pretend that the rankings - and significant gaps between them - don't bear any relationship to the quality of undergraduate education being offered at different institutions. Sure, a very very small number of people might actually gain more educationally from a couple of years at community college rather than at Princeton, but those are exceptions not the norm or average.

UVM and JMU are nowhere near the same ranking - it's odd that you would say UVM "provides a better education for undergraduates than JMU" when UVM is ranked 133 and JMU is ranked 124. You've just contradicted yourself.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IU has twice as many students as JMU, almost twice as many majors, almost twice as many academic staff, a vastly larger endowment, and a number of nationally ranked programs. It's also considered an R1 major research university and is a member of the 70-member American Association of Universities (neither of which groupings JMU belongs to). The undergraduate education at IU is universally ranked higher than JMU by all the ranking systems (it's not close -- USNWR ranks IU/B #73 and JMU #124 among national universities). Which isn't to say that there aren't smart students who get a good education and have a great time at JMU too. But as educational institutions, the two schools aren't in the same league, and not just in terms of stadium capacity. If in-state cost isn't a consideration, and assuming that most people want to invest four years of time and tuition getting the strongest possible education with the strongest possible post-graduate returns, IU would be the obvious choice, unless there was some special factor not cited here that would increase or decrease the relative appeal of one of the two universities.

Outcomes (Avg. Salary):
JMU School of business - $76K (https://www.jmu.edu/cob/prospective-students/polishing-performance.shtml)
Kelly - 74K (https://kelley.iu.edu/recruiters-companies/undergrad/statistics/salary-statistics/index.html)

Don't seem that different.

Probably has a lot to do with the COL of where graduates work. 75k goes farther in Indianapolis, Cleveland and Chicago than it does in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IU has twice as many students as JMU, almost twice as many majors, almost twice as many academic staff, a vastly larger endowment, and a number of nationally ranked programs. It's also considered an R1 major research university and is a member of the 70-member American Association of Universities (neither of which groupings JMU belongs to). The undergraduate education at IU is universally ranked higher than JMU by all the ranking systems (it's not close -- USNWR ranks IU/B #73 and JMU #124 among national universities). Which isn't to say that there aren't smart students who get a good education and have a great time at JMU too. But as educational institutions, the two schools aren't in the same league, and not just in terms of stadium capacity. If in-state cost isn't a consideration, and assuming that most people want to invest four years of time and tuition getting the strongest possible education with the strongest possible post-graduate returns, IU would be the obvious choice, unless there was some special factor not cited here that would increase or decrease the relative appeal of one of the two universities.

Outcomes (Avg. Salary):
JMU School of business - $76K (https://www.jmu.edu/cob/prospective-students/polishing-performance.shtml)
Kelly - 74K (https://kelley.iu.edu/recruiters-companies/undergrad/statistics/salary-statistics/index.html)

Don't seem that different.

Probably has a lot to do with the COL of where graduates work. 75k goes farther in Indianapolis, Cleveland and Chicago than it does in DC.

75k is even better in Richmond, Raleigh and Charlotte, where a lot of JMU grads work.

[Anonymous]

Have a nursing student at JMU and very happy with the school but it seems early to rule out other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody outside of the DMV has heard of JMU.

This is NOT true.

Actually it is true. Before we moved to DC 35 years ago, we had never heard of JMU. I"m from the south and my spouse grew up on the East Coast. We both knew of Indiana but not JMU.

The UI campus and Bloomington are gorgeous. It is a wonderful school as are many in the mid-west. Iowa, Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas and Kansas State have great campuses.

Show of hands. How many of you have actually spent any time in "fly over" country. I would guess very few.

DCUM posters scoff at anything that isn't IVY or top 25. It is ridiculous.

Kansas State's Planning Program is headed by an MIT Grad. There are a number of professors who have degrees from Ivys, in the program, and can connect students to their former classmates. Small school, easy to get into, and top connections = bragging rights for some lucky grad.