Anonymous wrote:Before I came to Virginia, I'd never even heard of UVa, much less JMU or GMU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And people do care where you got your degree especially at top companies and academia.

People in academia care where you get your degree, but 99% their caring about this is evaluating where you did your PhD and postdoc. Undergrad doesn't really matter that much. I see faculty candidates all the time who went to regional schools for their undergrad and then Caltech/Berkeley/Harvard whatever for PhD who are plenty competitive. I don't know that there is any particular edge to the person who attended a more prestigious school even when you have two candidates, say, where one went to Harvard for undergrad and the other went to, say, a SUNY school but both went to Caltech for their PhD--at that point it's going to depend on their graduate record (publications, rec letters, etc.) and whether or not they are the right fit for the department.

Not true. Graduate admissions committees DO care where you did your undergrad. You are more likely to get into a highly competitive grad program if you went to a high prestige / highly competitive undergrad school (in other words, not GMU or JMU).

Yes, there are exceptions, but if you are planning on an academic career you'd better go prestige school all the way.

So, let's figure this out Professsor Boy. The average 4 years at an "elite" institution will run you in today's dollars around $250K. If you are lucky to get aid, maybe you'll $120 - $150K. Assume Mommy and Daddy pay one third and you borrow another third you owe around $40,000. Then add another six years of this and being conservative you run up the tab another $30K. So, now after six years of being a non-producing member of society engaging largely in intellectual masturbation, you go out to look for a job and competing for a $40K - $60K job at JMU or CNU or some other "no name" school. Meanwhile, I graduated from that very same school where you now work with little to no debt, worked for four years, went back for a master's degree and now make close to $100K. I wonder who was smarter.

If you are in academia and have never had real work business experience, you don't understand that 99.9 percent of those you work with do not care about your degree. They care about what you can do and what value you add to the organization.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And people do care where you got your degree especially at top companies and academia.

People in academia care where you get your degree, but 99% their caring about this is evaluating where you did your PhD and postdoc. Undergrad doesn't really matter that much. I see faculty candidates all the time who went to regional schools for their undergrad and then Caltech/Berkeley/Harvard whatever for PhD who are plenty competitive. I don't know that there is any particular edge to the person who attended a more prestigious school even when you have two candidates, say, where one went to Harvard for undergrad and the other went to, say, a SUNY school but both went to Caltech for their PhD--at that point it's going to depend on their graduate record (publications, rec letters, etc.) and whether or not they are the right fit for the department.

Not true. Graduate admissions committees DO care where you did your undergrad. You are more likely to get into a highly competitive grad program if you went to a high prestige / highly competitive undergrad school (in other words, not GMU or JMU).

Yes, there are exceptions, but if you are planning on an academic career you'd better go prestige school all the way.

So, let's figure this out Professsor Boy. The average 4 years at an "elite" institution will run you in today's dollars around $250K. If you are lucky to get aid, maybe you'll $120 - $150K. Assume Mommy and Daddy pay one third and you borrow another third you owe around $40,000. Then add another six years of this and being conservative you run up the tab another $30K. So, now after six years of being a non-producing member of society engaging largely in intellectual masturbation, you go out to look for a job and competing for a $40K - $60K job at JMU or CNU or some other "no name" school. Meanwhile, I graduated from that very same school where you now work with little to no debt, worked for four years, went back for a master's degree and now make close to $100K. I wonder who was smarter.

If you are in academia and have never had real work business experience, you don't understand that 99.9 percent of those you work with do not care about your degree. They care about what you can do and what value you add to the organization.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And people do care where you got your degree especially at top companies and academia.

People in academia care where you get your degree, but 99% their caring about this is evaluating where you did your PhD and postdoc. Undergrad doesn't really matter that much. I see faculty candidates all the time who went to regional schools for their undergrad and then Caltech/Berkeley/Harvard whatever for PhD who are plenty competitive. I don't know that there is any particular edge to the person who attended a more prestigious school even when you have two candidates, say, where one went to Harvard for undergrad and the other went to, say, a SUNY school but both went to Caltech for their PhD--at that point it's going to depend on their graduate record (publications, rec letters, etc.) and whether or not they are the right fit for the department.

Not true. Graduate admissions committees DO care where you did your undergrad. You are more likely to get into a highly competitive grad program if you went to a high prestige / highly competitive undergrad school (in other words, not GMU or JMU).

Yes, there are exceptions, but if you are planning on an academic career you'd better go prestige school all the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you serious? I went to JMU. I am not from Virginia and there were tons of kids from NJ and NY there. We also had numerous West Coast kids too. Of course it's primarily kids from VA but you have to be joking if you think only people from VA have heard of it.

+1
My son is currently a student at JMU and his housemates are from CT, MD, Ohio, and VA. Lots of out-of-state kids there.

I went there in the 1980s. Have to say this thread is amusing-almost like someone has an axe to grind against James Madison.

Seems odd. Never had any problem with name recognition with my alma mater in Philadelphia main line suburbs for what it's worth. JMU is viewed as a pretty good school by most folks here....although a lot of folks mistake it as a private school.

+1...FYI for Business it ranks as one of the top 25 business undergrads in the nation www.businessweek.com

By the way "unknown" James Madison and "unknown" rival U of Richmond will be ESPNs Game Day this Saturday....

Really? I thought JMU played Div 3? Not a knock; it's a great school (yes I heard of it growing up in WV) but didn't think it has much in the way of sports...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And people do care where you got your degree especially at top companies and academia.

People in academia care where you get your degree, but 99% their caring about this is evaluating where you did your PhD and postdoc. Undergrad doesn't really matter that much. I see faculty candidates all the time who went to regional schools for their undergrad and then Caltech/Berkeley/Harvard whatever for PhD who are plenty competitive. I don't know that there is any particular edge to the person who attended a more prestigious school even when you have two candidates, say, where one went to Harvard for undergrad and the other went to, say, a SUNY school but both went to Caltech for their PhD--at that point it's going to depend on their graduate record (publications, rec letters, etc.) and whether or not they are the right fit for the department.

Not true. Graduate admissions committees DO care where you did your undergrad. You are more likely to get into a highly competitive grad program if you went to a high prestige / highly competitive undergrad school (in other words, not GMU or JMU).

Yes, there are exceptions, but if you are planning on an academic career you'd better go prestige school all the way.

Are you the arrogant "prestige only" poster that we've all been mocking? If so, what you're saying is utter B.S. It's been noted over and over that many JMU grads (and probably GMU as well) go on to top grad schools. You're clearly full of yourself and your career in academia, but interestingly, most people have no desire to go down that path.

If you are a JMU grad, you are a poor advertisement for them based on your lack of reading comprehension.

Note the bolded "more likely" and "there are exceptions" qualifiers. Yes, some JMU and GMU grads have gone to top grad schools. But if you think they are equally likely to do so as, say, Stanford or Ivy grads, then you are deeply stupid and mistaken.

Most people have no desire to go down the academic path. Good! There are too many people in it already, and that's why it is very, very hard to get a full-time, tenured job these days. But if you do go down the academic path, you had better have a high-prestige graduate degree -- and a high-prestige undergrad degree will help you to get that. Hate it all you want, that is the simple reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe this is field dependent, because in top tier STEM fields, where you went to undergrad is extremely secondary to graduate admissions compared to your undergraduate research experience, your letters of recommendation, whether you have published, whether you have won nationally competitive awards (Goldwater, for example), and your academic record.

You are much more likely to do significant undergraduate research, get powerful letters of recommendation from recognized names in the field, get published, and win awards, if you attend a prestige undergrad school. Again, there are exceptions, but if you want to go into academia in any field, you are foolish not to attend the most prestigious undergrad program you can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And people do care where you got your degree especially at top companies and academia.

People in academia care where you get your degree, but 99% their caring about this is evaluating where you did your PhD and postdoc. Undergrad doesn't really matter that much. I see faculty candidates all the time who went to regional schools for their undergrad and then Caltech/Berkeley/Harvard whatever for PhD who are plenty competitive. I don't know that there is any particular edge to the person who attended a more prestigious school even when you have two candidates, say, where one went to Harvard for undergrad and the other went to, say, a SUNY school but both went to Caltech for their PhD--at that point it's going to depend on their graduate record (publications, rec letters, etc.) and whether or not they are the right fit for the department.

Not true. Graduate admissions committees DO care where you did your undergrad. You are more likely to get into a highly competitive grad program if you went to a high prestige / highly competitive undergrad school (in other words, not GMU or JMU).

Yes, there are exceptions, but if you are planning on an academic career you'd better go prestige school all the way.

Are you the arrogant "prestige only" poster that we've all been mocking? If so, what you're saying is utter B.S. It's been noted over and over that many JMU grads (and probably GMU as well) go on to top grad schools. You're clearly full of yourself and your career in academia, but interestingly, most people have no desire to go down that path.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe this is field dependent, because in top tier STEM fields, where you went to undergrad is extremely secondary to graduate admissions compared to your undergraduate research experience, your letters of recommendation, whether you have published, whether you have won nationally competitive awards (Goldwater, for example), and your academic record.

You are much more likely to do significant undergraduate research, get powerful letters of recommendation from recognized names in the field, get published, and win awards, if you attend a prestige undergrad school. Again, there are exceptions, but if you want to go into academia in any field, you are foolish not to attend the most prestigious undergrad program you can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And people do care where you got your degree especially at top companies and academia.

People in academia care where you get your degree, but 99% their caring about this is evaluating where you did your PhD and postdoc. Undergrad doesn't really matter that much. I see faculty candidates all the time who went to regional schools for their undergrad and then Caltech/Berkeley/Harvard whatever for PhD who are plenty competitive. I don't know that there is any particular edge to the person who attended a more prestigious school even when you have two candidates, say, where one went to Harvard for undergrad and the other went to, say, a SUNY school but both went to Caltech for their PhD--at that point it's going to depend on their graduate record (publications, rec letters, etc.) and whether or not they are the right fit for the department.

Not true. Graduate admissions committees DO care where you did your undergrad. You are more likely to get into a highly competitive grad program if you went to a high prestige / highly competitive undergrad school (in other words, not GMU or JMU).

Yes, there are exceptions, but if you are planning on an academic career you'd better go prestige school all the way.