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][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]

Which is more likely…

The top grad schools keep accepting alumni from these schools into their ultra-selective programs attended by tomorrow’s leading experts across most fields because those students  could only get jobs that “sucked” after college and the grad schools (apparently unlike their own less educated undergrad officials) don’t know how to evaluate ability…

…or….

The top grad schools keep accepting these alumni because their academic programs and work experience in jobs after college makes them the most qualified candidates for these ultra-selective programs?

You don’t seem to understand that top students will often use the gap between college and grad school on jobs better for learning specific skills relevant to grad programs than for immediate earning power because they have their eyes on a longer term prize.  
[/quote]

Well then all these SLAC alums would be so wealthy…except they aren’t for the most part.

Hence, why when looking at the undergraduate schools of CEOs, PE folks hedge fund folks, tech founders, etc., these SLACs are poorly represented on a percentage and nominal basis.

So what’s this “longer term prize” you are pulling out of your ass?[/quote]

So you don’t know those with a grad degree make on average over 20% more over their lifetime than those without? Or you don’t know the schools we are talking about having much higher than average grad school placement rates across all degree levels/types? Or you don’t know that College Scorecard measures earnings too soon after graduation to capture those grad degree boosts?

Not that everyone does or should prioritize earnings above all else; some would rather be an expert in their field or pursue a career of public service or have a certain lifestyle or whatever. But if we are looking at large numbers and not relying on anecdotes of the neighbor’s kids, grad degree recipients do already out-earn those that stop after undergraduate study. If you think that’s going to trend towards favoring less education with advances in AI and an increasingly skilled global workforce, you aren’t paying attention. [/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