Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Agree OP. I always laugh when people from Dummy State say how it doesn't make a difference. Of course it does.
I bet you that this is OP chiming in to agree with herself.![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.
Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.
Just my experience if it is interesting.
You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.
People this is just a rando prof from a program nobody cares to get into.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am a professor with a PhD. I clearly use my advanced degree. I get asked where I went to undergrad at least as much as where I went to grad. Anecdotal of course, but in my experience a grad degree doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad experience. It also doesn't erase the relevance of your undergrad network. I have opportunities that result from both places and would say each has been equally important. Not to mention that the top notch research environment for my undergrad really prepared me for grad school in a way that others didnt have.
Now as an admissions officer I prefer applicants with less stellar GPAs from top schools than near 4.0s from less great schools (although big state schools are an exception for locals). I find students from top schools have more drive, better communication skills and higher expectations for themselves than students from less prestigious places.
Just my experience if it is interesting.
You are making a huge mistake by excluding students from lesser known schools with near perfect GPA's. You are, in essence, discriminating against poorer students. My daughter attends a lesser known school and is, frankly, brilliant. She has nearly a 4.0, is in an honors program and would be an unbelievable asset in any field she chooses. The reason she is at the school where she is studying is because she received a substantial merit scholarship to attend and we cannot afford to pay $70,000/year for a 1st tier school. I am absolutely disgusted by your attitude.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.
I always take these with a grain of salt.
I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).
In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.
Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.
Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.
How is not getting into a top college "luck of the draw"?
Ask all the 4.5 kids with perfect SATs that did not get in.
Let me explain it to you this way.
There are X amount of spaces in Tier 1 colleges, there are 100*X students who are qualified. You don't know that the X kids have a whole lot of luck on their side? or are you of the false notion that the X kids "worked harder" than the other kids?
I don't agree that notion is false. The admissions committee may have made some very fine distinctions between the 95 kids who did not get in and the 5 who did, but nonetheless those 5 had some merit that the 95 lacked. They did not just put 100 names in a jar and draw 5.
Anonymous wrote:Agree OP. I always laugh when people from Dummy State say how it doesn't make a difference. Of course it does.
Anonymous wrote:What tools is he referring to to catch up? Research, mentors? Why would a student at a "Tier 4" school with a 4.0 need to "catch up?" What does he mean by catch up anyway? This doesn't make any sense.
"...graduates of a Tier 1 college with a grad degree from a Tier 1 to 3 school earns on average $185,695 a year, a Tier 3 to 4 college graduate with a Tier 1 graduate degree earns on average only $133,236."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.
I always take these with a grain of salt.
I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).
In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.
Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.
Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.
How is not getting into a top college "luck of the draw"?
Ask all the 4.5 kids with perfect SATs that did not get in.
Let me explain it to you this way.
There are X amount of spaces in Tier 1 colleges, there are 100*X students who are qualified. You don't know that the X kids have a whole lot of luck on their side? or are you of the false notion that the X kids "worked harder" than the other kids?
I don't agree that notion is false. The admissions committee may have made some very fine distinctions between the 95 kids who did not get in and the 5 who did, but nonetheless those 5 had some merit that the 95 lacked. They did not just put 100 names in a jar and draw 5.
I agree. However, many of the kids who were not chosen were most likely just as qualified and had the same if not more ability than the kids who were admitted.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.
I always take these with a grain of salt.
I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).
In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.
Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.
Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.
How is not getting into a top college "luck of the draw"?
Ask all the 4.5 kids with perfect SATs that did not get in.
Let me explain it to you this way.
There are X amount of spaces in Tier 1 colleges, there are 100*X students who are qualified. You don't know that the X kids have a whole lot of luck on their side? or are you of the false notion that the X kids "worked harder" than the other kids?
I don't agree that notion is false. The admissions committee may have made some very fine distinctions between the 95 kids who did not get in and the 5 who did, but nonetheless those 5 had some merit that the 95 lacked. They did not just put 100 names in a jar and draw 5.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Shrugs.
I always take these with a grain of salt.
I went to an Ivy undergrad and an Ivy grad (my grad program was one of the top ranked in its field).
In my field I have met many very accomplished people who did not go to top colleges. And have met many more very successful people who also didn't go to top colleges.
Despite my undergrad's reputation I've never felt there was much of a networking benefit. Everyone already expected you to go to grad/professional schools, and even if you joined the workforce after graduation you were still expected to get a MBA or MPP down the road.
Does it bother you to know that there are many more people who did not go to "top colleges" that are being underpaid simply due to the back luck of the draw. Like google just realized University of California graduates and Harvard graduates are equally good computer programmers, but for years they refused to recruit from UofC and complained about lack of a workforce in the US.
How is not getting into a top college "luck of the draw"?
Ask all the 4.5 kids with perfect SATs that did not get in.
Let me explain it to you this way.
There are X amount of spaces in Tier 1 colleges, there are 100*X students who are qualified. You don't know that the X kids have a whole lot of luck on their side? or are you of the false notion that the X kids "worked harder" than the other kids?
I don't agree that notion is false. The admissions committee may have made some very fine distinctions between the 95 kids who did not get in and the 5 who did, but nonetheless those 5 had some merit that the 95 lacked. They did not just put 100 names in a jar and draw 5.