Prestigious State Colleges/Universitites?

[Anonymous]

Re: GMU I have no doubt that a lot of that has to do, as a poster noted up thread, with all of the second gen kids staying close to home persuing majors that will lead to high paying degrees.

While I personally have no problem with that, job preparation and high salary are not the only reasons for higher education, as anyone who attended a liberal arts school can attest.

[Anonymous]

Yeah that double major in history and psychology from that fancy now $60K a year liberal arts college got me LOTS of job offers. NOT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the fact remains that if you're looking at your child's true chances of getting into a school there are also plenty of schools that are just as good. Super selective schools are super selective for a lot of reasons. US News rankings significantly weight alumni contributions which is why institutions with either large alumni endowments or cultures of even minimal giving on a per student basis will rank higher.

Furthermore, word of mouth and "perceived" selectivity and quality of education are important in perpetuating a recurring high ranking. The reality is that the faculty at most lower first tier AND second tier institutions come from first tier national institutions and liberal arts colleges.

Finally, it is expensive to recruit students. mature institutions have a cultural and educational fit they are looking for. Many kids who apply are academically capable of the work, but fit is a black art, and it's easier to home in on that during the recruitment process than to attempt to retain a student.

I honestly agree with you. Except for a few schools in certain fields I believe the vast majority of 'tier one' and 'tier two' schools will offer a more than adequate education. I also agree that 'fit' at a school is very important. School is what you make of it. What bothers me is the GMU boosters who seem to need to tear down other schools to feel better about their school; It's like they have an inferiority complex. It probably shouldn't grate on me but it does, and I didn't even go to any of the schools mentioned on this thread!

[Anonymous]

I'm doing pretty well with my English and Women's Studies degree from a now 56k school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: What bothers me is the GMU boosters who seem to need to tear down other schools to feel better about their school; It's like they have an inferiority complex. It probably shouldn't grate on me but it does, and I didn't even go to any of the schools mentioned on this thread!

I hear you. I have no dog in the fight re GMU. I actually went to another of the schools for my graduate degree but that's neither here nor there, it was because GMU didn't have the program. I didn't want to relocate.

I think there is still an inferiority complex over the fact that Mason was originally a Virginia satellite campus and then became its own institution but something of a joke much later. It wasn't known outside of the region except for in some programs until the Final Four.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the fact remains that if you're looking at your child's true chances of getting into a school there are also plenty of schools that are just as good. Super selective schools are super selective for a lot of reasons. US News rankings significantly weight alumni contributions which is why institutions with either large alumni endowments or cultures of even minimal giving on a per student basis will rank higher.

Furthermore, word of mouth and "perceived" selectivity and quality of education are important in perpetuating a recurring high ranking. The reality is that the faculty at most lower first tier AND second tier institutions come from first tier national institutions and liberal arts colleges.

Finally, it is expensive to recruit students. mature institutions have a cultural and educational fit they are looking for. Many kids who apply are academically capable of the work, but fit is a black art, and it's easier to home in on that during the recruitment process than to attempt to retain a student.

I honestly agree with you. Except for a few schools in certain fields I believe the vast majority of 'tier one' and 'tier two' schools will offer a more than adequate education. I also agree that 'fit' at a school is very important. School is what you make of it. What bothers me is the GMU boosters who seem to need to tear down other schools to feel better about their school; It's like they have an inferiority complex. It probably shouldn't grate on me but it does, and I didn't even go to any of the schools mentioned on this thread!

The GMU boosters (and there are many on this thread because I made only one comment) are not tearing down other schools. They are responding because 23?43, 21:44, 22:26 and 12:34 all made positive comments about looking into GMU. Then 23:43 (second) 12:10, 12:50 and 9:14 made laughing, insulting, uneducated responses. The GMU "boosters" as you call them, are people who apparently have been on campus, know of it's enormous success and are trying to set the record straight. If anything, the positive people were much more kind in their comments than were the insulting anti-GMU people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the fact remains that if you're looking at your child's true chances of getting into a school there are also plenty of schools that are just as good. Super selective schools are super selective for a lot of reasons. US News rankings significantly weight alumni contributions which is why institutions with either large alumni endowments or cultures of even minimal giving on a per student basis will rank higher.

Furthermore, word of mouth and "perceived" selectivity and quality of education are important in perpetuating a recurring high ranking. The reality is that the faculty at most lower first tier AND second tier institutions come from first tier national institutions and liberal arts colleges.

Finally, it is expensive to recruit students. mature institutions have a cultural and educational fit they are looking for. Many kids who apply are academically capable of the work, but fit is a black art, and it's easier to home in on that during the recruitment process than to attempt to retain a student.

I honestly agree with you. Except for a few schools in certain fields I believe the vast majority of 'tier one' and 'tier two' schools will offer a more than adequate education. I also agree that 'fit' at a school is very important. School is what you make of it. What bothers me is the GMU boosters who seem to need to tear down other schools to feel better about their school; It's like they have an inferiority complex. It probably shouldn't grate on me but it does, and I didn't even go to any of the schools mentioned on this thread!

The GMU boosters (and there are many on this thread because I made only one comment) are not tearing down other schools. They are responding because 23?43, 21:44, 22:26 and 12:34 all made positive comments about looking into GMU. Then 23:43 (second) 12:10, 12:50 and 9:14 made laughing, insulting, uneducated responses. The GMU "boosters" as you call them, are people who apparently have been on campus, know of it's enormous success and are trying to set the record straight. If anything, the positive people were much more kind in their comments than were the insulting anti-GMU people.

Thanks for destroying this thread with your GMU propaganda.

Re: salary - Strayer U has Higher average starting salary than Yale for undergrads. That is because it has a higher number of adult students. Va tech has a higher starting salary than Amherst, but no one is claiming they are better, more prestigious, or selective. The fact remains that GMU is not a top tier public university according to virtually all ranking sources. Accordingly, it is not relevant to this discussion.

[Anonymous]

No GMU propaganda here. 21:40 Your beef should be with those posters who had positive things to say about GMU (23:13; 21:44: 22:26; 12:30; 12:34) only be me met with derision and laughter. 21:40 claimed the GMU boosters were "trying to tear down other schools". They weren't - there were simply responding to the previous negative posts and correcting them where it was clear they were erroneous. A lot has happened on that campus in the last ten years. Go read the wikipedia page on George Mason since you seem to think someone is dishing out propaganda. Have you ever been on the campus? Tour? Did you know they get contracts from the Dulles Corridor companies for engineering and computer science work that actually pays the kids for their work even before they graduate? That GMU just signed on within the last year to a Scotland exchange program for computer science? Of course it is not yet a top tier public university. The thread went off tangent starting with 23:43, which may have been a joke for all I know. And what does Amherst have to do with anything? This was supposed to be about public universities. The simple fact is that GMU is rated no. 1 for up and coming universities and that can't be disputed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No GMU propaganda here. 21:40 Your beef should be with those posters who had positive things to say about GMU (23:13; 21:44: 22:26; 12:30; 12:34) only be me met with derision and laughter. 21:40 claimed the GMU boosters were "trying to tear down other schools". They weren't - there were simply responding to the previous negative posts and correcting them where it was clear they were erroneous. A lot has happened on that campus in the last ten years. Go read the wikipedia page on George Mason since you seem to think someone is dishing out propaganda. Have you ever been on the campus? Tour? Did you know they get contracts from the Dulles Corridor companies for engineering and computer science work that actually pays the kids for their work even before they graduate? That GMU just signed on within the last year to a Scotland exchange program for computer science? Of course it is not yet a top tier public university. The thread went off tangent starting with 23:43, which may have been a joke for all I know. And what does Amherst have to do with anything? This was supposed to be about public universities. The simple fact is that GMU is rated no. 1 for up and coming universities and that can't be disputed.

Please, Mr "no dog in this fight". Nothing you have stated differentiates GMU from similar institutions such as ODU or Radford.

Ranking as up and coming does not imply ascendancy. Ask Former #1 deans in this category from such luminaries and TAMU-PAC and Nove Southeastern

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GMU is rating no. 1 "up and coming" university in the United States. The last Dean spent 12 years building state-of-the art buildings and dorms. GMU is on the cutting edge of STEM departments so its graduates get jobs.

It is no longer a commuter college which someone was referring to. Over 9,000 students live in the dorms. It is the largest university in the Virginia system (33,000 students, 12,000 of which are Ph.D. or Masters students) and has become much harder to get into than VT, JMU or CN. Go look. It's very impressive. I was surprised. The State legislature is pumping a lot of money into GMU because of its position on the Dulles Tech Corridor. GMU's graduates get jobs.

GMU's graduate schools are definitely top-notch, but I think its reputation as an undergraduate institution leaves something to be desired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm doing pretty well with my English and Women's Studies degree from a now 56k school.

what did you wind up doing?

[Anonymous]

^^ I'd like to know that too. There were many articles and also some threads here last week about the English major giving you the least value return on your investment.

And of course the hiring market for English majors is so much worse than it was when I was in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ I'd like to know that too. There were many articles and also some threads here last week about the English major giving you the least value return on your investment.

And of course the hiring market for English majors is so much worse than it was when I was in college.

I had figured probably an attorney, which also has a hiring market that's much worse than when I was in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GMU is rating no. 1 "up and coming" university in the United States. The last Dean spent 12 years building state-of-the art buildings and dorms. GMU is on the cutting edge of STEM departments so its graduates get jobs.

It is no longer a commuter college which someone was referring to. Over 9,000 students live in the dorms. It is the largest university in the Virginia system (33,000 students, 12,000 of which are Ph.D. or Masters students) and has become much harder to get into than VT, JMU or CN. Go look. It's very impressive. I was surprised. The State legislature is pumping a lot of money into GMU because of its position on the Dulles Tech Corridor. GMU's graduates get jobs.

GMU's graduate schools are definitely top-notch, but I think its reputation as an undergraduate institution leaves something to be desired.

Not really. GMU MBA is probably ranked dead last among the DC area programs

[Anonymous]

Wrong. From wiki: Mason's school of Management has graduate programs for the Master of Business Administration degree (MBA) with a wide variety of concentrations/specializations, an Executive Master of Business Admin, Degree (EMBA); A master of Science in Accounting (MSA), a joint MBA/MSA degree and a Master of Science in Technology Management degree.

Maon's part time program ranked no 49. out of 217 schools with another 56 additionally not ranked. In other words it ranked no. 47 out of 273. Mason's Executive Management Program is ranked 59 out of 75. U.S. News & World report. And bear in mind, this is a very young program.