In Cali the JC, Cal St and UC faculty have the same lower division curriculum, STEM labs, mid terms, and finals. Grading teams from the JC, Cal St, and UC cross check each others tests and labs.
cope and seethe. the underclassman engineering coursework for Berkeley EECS is NOT the same as the underclassmen coursework for Santa Monica College.
i think i am understating my experience. beyond my little masters thing, i have served on scholarship committees for an organization i am in, picking who gets the money. my boss has me look at resumes and talk to potential hires as kind of a second interview. i review and rank outside consultants for my department boss to engage. the fallacy conservatives seem to be operating under is we have infinite time to sit down with every applicant and discover how brilliant and knowledgable they are. ergo schools don't matter. ergo objective resume items are overrated.
the reality is you run through resumes looking for who stands out, with the idea that x amount of people will get an interview. you have to impress me on paper to get talked to personally. you need to stand out relative to the next guy in the pile. if your premise is you'll bs me when we talk, you won't talk to my boss or i unless you impress us on paper as one of the top few candidates. and you won't get endless time to present some scripted presentation how bright you are, on your terms. we will set the terms and ask what we want to know. a lot of what we want to see is how we get along, or explain resume holes. the conservative premise seems to be hiring people have an infinite amount of time to chat about how brilliant you secretly are despite your resume. we don't have that time. if your resume doesn't objectively impress me in some way you don't get to the end to talk to the boss.
The smartest kids don't waste their time piling up HS honors - mostly a matter of hard work - and focus on developing themselves.
They don't need to go to the "best" school because they're already the best at learning, regardless of where they are. There is no inherent advantage to the elite schools to justify the cost; they are for prestige.
this is nonsense. the quality of education provided at an ivy is superior. period. i have done a semester at one.
you're also getting dangerously close to suggesting the sign of the best and brightest is they have accomplished nothing, which verges on scientific nihilism and the end of talent evaluation. i get conservatives want to believe joe schmo can be the brighter guy. and rarely, maybe they are. after years of making themselves expert. but there are no short cuts to being the bright one in the room. and the bright one in the room usually manifests some sort of signal. grades. tests. achievements. inventions.
to put it in running terms it's the people who were several seconds of a walkon time but want to tell me they will walk on and make the team next year.
personally my concern with this mentality is it's subject to corruption. it's saying we can toss out the objective ways we distinguish who to give a job and just go with the gut. that then can easily be diverted into hiring friends, family, someone who slides an envelope under the table. no, if you want on my TF team, what actual times did you run this year. if you want my job, how are you better than the next guy.
i mean the reality i have lived is when i tacked on a master's employers perked up. people can act like degrees are unnecessary. maybe on some abstracted, start anew planet. but in reality if everyone applying has x degree the way you get the job is x+y. or to have gone to a better school for x. we can pretend otherwise but it's not how hiring reality works.
1) Could you try that again? In English this time
2) While it was painful (your writing is beyond atrocious), I did eventually untangle that spaghetti plate full of words. The only conclusion to be drawn is that you have no idea whatsoever as to what you are talking about.
In Cali the JC, Cal St and UC faculty have the same lower division curriculum, STEM labs, mid terms, and finals. Grading teams from the JC, Cal St, and UC cross check each others tests and labs.
cope and seethe. the underclassman engineering coursework for Berkeley EECS is NOT the same as the underclassmen coursework for Santa Monica College.
the departments get together to write the same course materials in california. even lmu, usc, cal tech, usf, mudd, oxy, uop, USD, sometimes participate often. decades ago we re-wrote exams from University Physics and Thomas Calculus. Now we create new exams each semester/quarter.
The smartest kids don't waste their time piling up HS honors - mostly a matter of hard work - and focus on developing themselves.
They don't need to go to the "best" school because they're already the best at learning, regardless of where they are. There is no inherent advantage to the elite schools to justify the cost; they are for prestige.
meh. there are such things as graduation rates. routinely you will have schools with similar entering class quality but different outcomes. it can be tested and you can compare school A to B and C on retention. it's not as simple as GIGO (or the inverse).
the subject here is the smart kids, not the overall schools or classes.
The best talent is self-driven and doesn't bother with the arduous hoop-jumping HS kids are put through. So they are already outside any mass metrics, if and when they start college.
And it doesn't matter where they go. All schools surround such a person with more than enough material for them to fully educate themselves within a few years. This is truer every year as the internet globalizes information.
Is it shameful to attend CC when all your friends graduated from HS and attend 4-year colleges?
Are you trying to imply that Hobbs is all brawn and no brains (IQ)??? Does going to a CC like Nick Symmonds means he has an inferior IQ to college kids from Yale and Harvard? Well maybe Hobbs has greater EQ and SQ (spiritual/moral quotient) in the making? Also works like that, the low IQ kids go on to become pastors and elders in a local church, though not all the time.
Perhaps Hobbs is destined, even with lower IQ than college kids, to have greater spiritual and moral intelligence?
Food for thought here....what do you think is Jakob Ingebrigsten's IQ? 110? And Hobbs 90-100?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Symmonds isn't that dumb though. He sounds smart enough albeit a little more given to the lusts of his flesh and eyes the way I see him! The otherworldly smart guys really do not give in to the lusts of their flesh and eyes. My view of Symmonds is due to his well known trysts at world championships with Maggie Vessey the American 800m champion of previous era? Real smart guys just don't do such trysts you know?
I agree with you about Jakob. However I believe Jakob has untapped potential in terms of IQ. I do truly believe all the energy used to develop his aerobic engine and muscle fibers could have gone instead into developing a mind of Physics and Mathematics like Michael Faraday and the like! There is something very nerdy and geeky about Jakob that lends very well to the mind of an engineer or scientist and in another world without distance running he should be a Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics lol!!
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
You are delusional if you think that the difference in courses between CCs and Stanford has anything to do with the materials, professors, teaching methods or curriculum. The only meaningful difference is in the innate intelligence of the students.
Stanford admits far more intelligent students (on average). Stanford graduates far more intelligent students (on average). What value do you think Stanford adds for the individual?
no, actually, usually the professor will have a more impressive academic background at an ivy than a state school, and in my experience the ivy school will speed through the basics focused on at state, and in fact begin teaching the next level or tricky stuff. conversely a teacher at an easier school to get in may feel duty bound to tailor to the audience ("dumb it down"). which you don't have to do when everyone showing up has a 1500-1600 SAT.
you're also neglecting the networking and how far the degree travels. whether it's fair or not there is some degree of self perpetuating where people from a particular ivy may hire more of their alums. kind of like people want to play for the college ranked #1. and then sorry but colorado might be a big deal if you stay there, but less so if you go to any other state. i guarantee you yale does not have the same regionality issue.
to be fair, i think some folks at a colorado would hack an ivy just fine. there is a venn overlap. but when you are hiring someone if you start playing the "well but don't they all kind of overlap" game you'd never hire anyone. so people treat phi beta kappa or rhodes as meaning something. yale vs. colorado as meaning something.
I get what you’re saying here, I really do. But the premise of this thread isn’t community college versus Ivy. The premise of the thread is community college for a couple years, presumably THEN transferring to a state flagship school. Is the tradeoff worth it versus paying full go for a four year university? To which I would say yes, because college is becoming a ridiculously expensive endeavor, apparently the only economic sector that experiences non-stop inflation:
It also depends on what the individual kid is trying to accomplish. Investment banking, consulting? Sure, go to Ivy-plus. Graduate school? Doesn’t really matter if you went to CC, then state school, as long as you did well and got into a more prestigious graduate school.
For most families, the cost and the debt is the primary decision point. To go Ivy or even a solid liberal arts school with no financial aid is going to cost $350,000+ all in. That is a dumb decision for an English major who has no idea what they want to do and may opt to teach, for example. Not to pick on an individual school, because you could pick any of the top 30 LA schools, but if a kid has to pay full go at Colorado College, for example, to the tune of $360,0000 and decides to major in biology, is that a good decision?
It’s not at all shameful, and, frankly, it’s very smart and tactical for a lot of people, as others have attested to here. The cost of college has gone up by a ridiculous, exorbitant amount, and the trade offs are debatable unless one can literally get into a top 20 school and get the network. Think about when you went to college. How many of your friends knew what they were doing those first two years or even after they graduated, if they graduated? I’m guessing only a handful.
I sat my kids down early and told them I would pay for the equivalent of our in-state flagship institution. If they wanted private or out of state, that was fine, but they’d have to fund the rest on their own via academic or athletic scholarships or loans. No reason to overpay for an undergraduate degree. My oldest took it to heart and got a huge merit scholarship at a reputable, private school in the southeast, and she’s thriving. My youngest wants to be a nurse, so no reason to go out of state for that, but our local community college has a five-semester RN program, which can be finished out at a later date to the BSN. If she went that route, she could live at home, work, and save money. The tuition and fees would set her back about $8000 per year. Honestly, for some kids with no clue what they want to do, that’s a no-brainer.
Community college is a means to an end, a way to grow up some and not pay the, frankly, insane cost of college for a couple years. For an otherwise flailing, partying sociology, communication studies, or exercise science major, among others, it’s the smarter way to go. And a lot of success depends on you and your efforts. You can take the most from community college if you dedicate your efforts. I personally love to study, and I always try to do my best. It's not easy because it's complicated, and I have a lot of tasks and so on. And from time to time, I use this service https://edubirdie.com/pay-for-research-papers when I need some help, I understand that I can't finish the task myself. And I know that writing skills are important, and I do my best to improve them.
I agree with you. Community colleges are not as bad as people can think. And it's indeed a smart move to go there and then continue (or not) education somewhere else. There are professions which don't require being a student for four years in the best university. Also, a lot of students have no idea what to do in life, so what is the point of going to a prestigious uni, paying a lot of money and then dropping out because it's not something you like?
I went to JUCO out of HS because I got full scholarship for running. I turned down partial academic money at our state flagship and walk on status at an NAIA school to see if I could run and advance out of JUCO. My JUCO was a bit unique in that it had been the state mining school before becoming a JUCO. And it was way rural.
Had classes of 10 to 30 and had some of the best instructors I ever had in science and math. Students were mostly poor kids from around the area (except athletes) so most of them weren't exactly Harvard level... but it was great.
Went to state University after that. Was in classes that had grad students teaching us. The students were wealthier and came from better HS but the instruction wasn't as high level as that of the JUCO.
3
0
my name is in the acknowledgments of a doctoral thesis
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
Fill out a review to be entered into a drawing to win a free pair of shoes.
