Reply to When you say t50...

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "When you say t50..."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.[/quote]

Why would that be used for U.S. UNDERGRADUATE education?  They are largely research rankings.[/quote]

If I am trying to determine the top colleges and universities, why would I only look at undergraduate education to determine top schools?  Last I checked, cutting edge research was a key component of academia.

The argument is, sure the University of Washington advanced using AI to predict protein folding that will speed the development of new medicines, but they have larger Biology 101 classes than Wake Forest.  U of W is a much more impactful university than Wake, by far.[/quote]

Yes, that is exactly what you should look at, nothing more. How well does the school prepare a student over the first degree cycle. If you want to rank schools on research strength that is great, but it is not pertinent to undergraduate education.

At the undergraduate level, engineering, CS, accounting....they are all trades. You'll learn the same basic curriculum at any of them. ABET certified engineering programs all basically teach the same.

There is a reason that SLACs put a far greater proportion of their students into top B schools, Law schools, and PhD programs. They build a better product at the undergraduate level.[/quote]

Having kids require grad school because they can’t get great jobs from undergrad sounds like failure to me.

You need to learn the difference between learning and training.

[/quote][/quote]

You are confused. It’s not that LAC students can’t get great jobs after their undergrad study. Plenty do. It’s that they often have higher expectations than just a good paying job, so go to grad school to qualify for the jobs which require the most education, often after a short break from school where they work in a job that prioritizes preparation for grad school over immediate financial rewards. That’s not for everyone, and that’s fine.  [/quote]

Not confused at all…especially when you make things up.

Know too many underemployed Swat and Haverford grads that had to attend grad school because their immediate options sucked.

Not all SLACs are equal…hence why CMC and Harvey Mudd grads as examples are able to productively enter the workforce on day 1.
[/quote]

You aren't confused, you are just dim.

Going to grad school is playing the long game. I understand that you don't really understand it. The result is becoming engineers, CS majors, and accountants; rather than taking the learning path which educates you for the C-suite. Mudd is a neat little school in it's niche but I really don't understand your obsession with CMC. It's a great LAC with results and training similar to other top SLACs. It's results aren't any different than the others.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics