<p>As a Harvard alum, I would request to please not drag Harvard into this chest thumping contest. </p>
<p>H is already too busy with its fight for world domination with Yale and Stanford.</p>
<p>And as a point of reference, Harvard collaborates with universities all over the globe, including universities in first and third world countries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL… what? :x Where did any of this come from?</p>
<p>Aside from your being clinically insane, for the record, my perspective isn’t from the “outside”: I’m currently a student. :D</p>
<p>Good luck,</p>
<p>Tim</p>
<p>at this rate the thread will be closed . -____-</p>
<p>From Kmazza’s post one can calculate that the state of California is providing support of over $23,000 for each of the 4300 students at UC Merced while the average CSU student receives about $6,000 in state support. Think what the CSUs, many of which are already better universities than UC Merced, could accomplish if there was anything approaching parity in state funding of UC students and CSU students.</p>
<p>“I could run down a list of pros and cons, and I’ve no doubt others here will do that for you, but in short, a UC is just much, much better than a CSU, particularly if you plan on a graduate program or beyond.”</p>
<p>By your oversimplified logic a apple is ‘better’ than an orange. Besides the fact that many who attended a CSU went on to UC for grad school.</p>
<p>More specifically on the undergrad level, but if one does not plan on doing research, writing towards contributing to UC’s holdings, mission and goals and are just going to college to get a ‘job’ then you are wasting tax dollars in the eyes of California taxpayers dollars attending a UC in the first place. Higher education is not a right or meant to be an expenditure, it is investment and contract. People who merely want to attend a UC for perceptual prestige and self entitled reasons and are not participating in how the contract is legally specified are taking up space and have become a burden on the entire states budget. </p>
<p>Plus just as flwgrl mentioned, a healthy majority of UC funding, mostly out of necessity comes private Industry investors because are research institutions. The ugly truth about job losses in the UC system are over exaggerated because many really did deserve to be fired and wish there was more leverage to really clean house. If only more Californians’ spent as much time and interest in how California, the political infrastructure, the state budget, and the education system works as much as the time they invest into TV, video games, and petty squabbling, the state of California would not be in as bad a mess as it is today IMO. There is so much misinformation out there that people take on face value without ever applying critical thinking which has become the emphasis over the failed self esteem education agenda.</p>
<p>OCTOBER 8, 2010!!!
Restoration to the CSU Budget
The 2010-11 state budget restores $199 million to the CSU which serves to back-fill part of a “one-time cut” of $305 million to the CSU’s 2009-2010 general fund base.</p>
<p>Funding for Enrollment Growth
The budget also provides $60.6 million for enrollment growth across the 23-campus system. Due to severe budget cuts over the previous two years, the CSU was forced to reduce enrollment by approximately 40,000 students since 2008 to align with available funding. On Sept. 27, the CSU announced it would admit up to approximately 30,000 new students for the winter and spring 2011 terms and this additional support will be used to fund that enrollment growth.</p>
<p>The CSU will also receive $106 million in one-time ARRA federal stimulus funding which will be used to help CSU meet its payroll. In turn, CSU will use monies from state support and student fee revenues previously set aside for payroll to admit new students and restore courses that were previously cut due to budget reductions</p>
<p>The UC system is primarily for students that learn HOW TO learn and think, actually study and research not UC students who thinks they deserve a good grade when did mediocre minimal work. </p>
<p>“Many students come in with the conviction that they’ve worked hard and deserve a higher mark,” Professor Grossman said. “Some assert that they have never gotten a grade as low as this before.”</p>
<p>He attributes those complaints to his students’ sense of entitlement.</p>
<p>“I tell my classes that if they just do what they are supposed to do and meet the standard requirements, that they will earn a C,” he said. “That is the default grade. They see the default grade as an A.”</p>
<p>A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, found that a third of students surveyed said that they expected B’s just for attending lectures, and 40 percent said they deserved a B for completing the required reading.</p>
<p>“I noticed an increased sense of entitlement in my students and wanted to discover what was causing it,” said Ellen Greenberger, the lead author of the study, called “Self-Entitled College Students: Contributions of Personality, Parenting, and Motivational Factors,” which appeared last year in The Journal of Youth and Adolescence.</p>
<p>Professor Greenberger said that the sense of entitlement could be related to increased parental pressure, competition among peers and family members and a heightened sense of achievement anxiety.</p>
<p>*****This was written 2 months ago in regards to the Catholic who thought teens drink and have sex not from boredom or urges but because they all suffer from low self esteem.</p>
<p>Twenty years ago, a California state document was flying off the shelves. “Toward a State of Esteem” was the final report of the California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility. That body shut down in 1990, but Californians have good reason to look back.</p>
<p>Then-Assemblyman John Vasconcellos, a San Jose Democrat, authored AB 3659, which established the task force in 1986. In his vision, self-esteem was the key to problems such as violence, crime, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, teenage pregnancy, academic failure, recidivism, and child and spousal abuse.</p>
<p>In a Nov. 28, 1990, letter to legislators, Vasconcellos described self-esteem as a “social vaccine” against dysfunction. It also “provides us a vision for developing our human capital to make America competitive again,” and is the “key to community, especially to realizing our promise as a multicultural democracy.”</p>
<p>“Self-esteem is the best budget balancer, by far,” Vasconcellos wrote, “serving both to increase productivity and taxes, and to reduce human needs for public support and services.” An attachment to the letter, “Self-Esteem: a Profound Revolution,” touted “a revolution of faith: faith in ourselves and in our own innate capacities.”</p>
<p>But some task force members had doubts.</p>
<p>David Shannahoff-Khalsa, a researcher in neuroscience, told the Los Angeles Times that the final report was “propaganda” and its recommendations “simplistic and misleading. They could have been written by a group of sixth-graders.”</p>
<p>“Self-esteem was never shown to play a causative role in the six social problems the task force studied,” Shannahoff-Khalsa told the Times. “The report is a massive effort to mislead people. There’s no basis for what is written in it.”</p>
<p>Critics took the self-esteem movement as confirmation of California goofiness, and Garry Trudeau lampooned the task force mercilessly in his Doonesbury comic strip. That did not stop “Toward a State of Esteem” from becoming the best-selling state document of all time, at 60,000 copies. More than 40 of California’s 58 counties formed self-esteem task forces.</p>
<p>Twenty years later, one is hard-pressed to find any evidence that the task force solved any social problem. With a current deficit of $19 billion, it certainly did not prove “the best budget balancer, by far,” as Vasconcellos claimed. But his vaunted “revolution” did have negative fallout, most apparent in education.</p>
<p>As John Leo of U.S. News and World Report noted, the self-esteem evangel was “on a collision course with the growing movement to revive the schools academically.” Further, “to keep children feeling good about themselves, you must avoid all criticism and almost any challenge that could conceivably end in failure.”</p>
<p>Timmy thus advances to the next grade even though he has not mastered the material. That is why, even though “social promotion” was outlawed in 1998, more than half the incoming freshmen at some California State University campuses still need remedial math and English. “Toward a State of Esteem” may be forgotten, but it is not gone.</p>
<p>Californians are suckers for utopian hucksterism. That is not to deny true self-esteem, a byproduct earned through achievement and responsible living. Nor is it to deny a need for task forces and commissions.</p>
<p>Last year, for example, the bipartisan Commission on the 21st Century Economy made sensible recommendations to reform the tax code and help California escape the boom-and-bust cycle. The Legislature, unfortunately, failed to follow through.</p>
<p>The lesson should be clear. California legislators need to implement common-sense reforms based on facts, and reject those based on fantasy. If that shift fails to come about, the road for the Golden State leads steadily downward.</p>
<p>Well, since the crazy train is apparently preparing to leave the station with the mayor of crazytown on board, I guess I’ll make a few parting comments:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t oversimplifying anything, particularly since I operationally defined the term “better” with a series of specific facts. The notion that “many who attended a CSU went on to UC for grad school,” aside from being a completely useless statement by itself, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I said – and still claim – that the UC system is “better” than the CSU system. More resources, better access to cutting-edge researchers and their research, much more challenging entrance requirements, superior curricula with few exceptions, a statistically significant disparity in lifetime earning potential – the list goes on.</p>
<p>Those are not beliefs or notions or abstract ideas or something I pulled out of a crackerjack box. Those are facts. It doesn’t matter – nor do I care – that some assemblymen passed some bill in 1965 allocating some resources to places that they shouldn’t have that led to some butterfly effect causing a disparity in quality between the two institutions. As of right now, October 13th, 2010, they’re facts. Deal with it, crazy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry that you feel that many students within the UC system don’t belong there. I don’t know whether you had a really bad college experience or got denied somewhere and have a grudge or whatever your issue is – I genuinely feel bad, and I hope you eventually come to terms with it. It’s very sad to witness.</p>
<p>I’m sorry that you feel many people attending the UC system are a “burden” on the CA taxpayer, but the vast majority of those people have worked hard to be there – they earned their admittance to college. Unfortunately, this is America, and in America, we decide our own destinies. If somebody isn’t taking full advantage of the college that he/she attends, that’s their prerogative – it isn’t your call to make. Deal with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m… not really sure what any of this means or what any of it has to do with the discussion here. We’re all sorry that CA is in such a dire economic situation, but… firing a bunch of college professors in the UC system isn’t the answer in the non-crazy world. And for the record, you should look into just how many professors in the UC system are nobel laureates, nevermind how much of our finest, most cutting-edge research is a direct result of their efforts. Sorry if that bothers you.</p>
<p>Finally, you posted a bunch of wacky stuff about the growing sense of entitlement among college students in the UC system. Rather than go into any long-winded back and forth with you on that point, I’d simply suggest to you that those studies seem to be on to something, but they apply across the academic board: that is, you see the same uptick in the sense of entitlement in UC students as you do, say, in Community College student populations. So… if you were trying to further impugn UC students, which seems to be your bag here for whatever reason, you’ve failed.</p>
<p>I’m proud of the UC that I attend. I’ve worked very, very hard to be here, and I won’t apologize for that. Good luck and godspeed.</p>
<p>“I wasn’t oversimplifying anything, particularly since I operationally defined the term “better” with a series of specific facts.”</p>
<p>So where are these prior specific facts? </p>
<p>“I could run down a list of pros and cons, and I’ve no doubt others here will do that for you, but in short, a UC is just much, much better than a CSU, particularly if you plan on a graduate program or beyond.”</p>
<p>I still don’t see any facts, only opinions are you supposedly went to a UC who theoretically should know basic logic and fallacies already</p>
<p>“that the UC system is “better” than the CSU system. More resources, better access to cutting-edge researchers and their research, much more challenging entrance requirements, superior curricula with few exceptions, a statistically significant disparity in lifetime earning potential – the list goes on.”</p>
<p>Could have fooled me. Lets examine these facts.
More Resources- like what? libraries you most likely never visit except to use the computer?</p>
<p>better access to cutting-edge researchers and their research - HA, for an undergrad!?? At UC’s many undergrad classes are taught by TA’s or Instructors that prefer teaching over researching. Please back up your claim and tell us what research projects you were a part of and who you worked with. Anyone with internet today can go to a UC website and gain access to research papers, do you?</p>
<p>much more challenging entrance requirements - oooohhhh a year of foreign language that can be waived if completed in high school or basic test, now that is challenging!!! Maybe you should update your stats but doubt you are a researcher in any shape or form.</p>
<p>-a statistically significant disparity in lifetime earning potential - Really now, prove it or do your own research study on it. What is even more interesting in California is that many working class people do much better than an average student like yourself. </p>
<p>-the list goes on- actually it looks like the list of ‘facts’ ended there</p>
<p>Once again more BIRGing, CORFing, and BSing with little substance to back your statements</p>
<p>Man, you really -do- hate the UC system, don’t you? :X That’s so fascinating to me. I’m really curious to know what happened to you to make you so bitter, but it’s none of my business. If you want to share your experience, I’m all ears… seriously very curious. Anyway, to address your post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Err, you address the facts that I listed in your own post, dude. Like… right below this. I’m not sure why you’re confused. :X Let me help you out:</p>
<p>“More resources, better access to cutting-edge researchers and their research, much more challenging entrance requirements, superior curricula with few exceptions, a statistically significant disparity in lifetime earning potential – the list goes on.”</p>
<p>Does that help? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aw see? They were there all along. :P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, uhh, yeah, the library is one of the resources I was talking about – the intra-UC system, in particular – but I usually only go there to either study or to do some offline research. I’ve got a couple laptops myself. But that’s just one of the resources I was referencing. Direct access to professors doing cutting-edge research, who can provide direction and references going forward, more robust social and academic programs and opportunities, etc. Frankly, I’m not sure you’d find anybody else on this forum who’d argue against the notion that the UC system has more resources than the CSU system, and I’m not quite sure why you’re trying to do that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, gosh, I can’t speak for everyone, but I very rarely have any of my classes taught by TA’s – they’re mostly around on exam days. All of my professors are very approachable and interested in their students. I’m working on a massive research proposal that I’ve shared with several professors so far, although it’s still preliminary. They’ve expressed a pointed interest in my ideas and have offered a wealth of constructive feedback. The fact that I’m a lowly undergrad doesn’t seem to phase them. Does that help clarify things for you? Hope so. As for their research, yeah, I usually go online to read the papers – have to, in some cases. But on top of that, the professors are more than happy to discuss their work with interested students. It’s a great environment, actually – you should think about attending.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhhh, well, actually, the foreign language requirement is just one small facet of the UC entry requirements. I was talking about GPA and overall applicant profile, but… if you wanna key in on something relatively trivial, that’s cool too. And I’m not sure what you mean by “update my stats”… are you saying that the UC and CSU systems are relatively equal in terms of admission rates? If so, I can’t really help you, because that’s, well, crazy, but… perhaps you can look at the numbers again? Not really sure what to say to you here on that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s cool… not to knock anybody, but I’m not really an average student or I wouldn’t have been admitted to the UC that I’m attending, but… maybe you’re defining average in a different way? Maybe you can clarify this or something? As for “many working class people” do better than an “average students”… what does that mean exactly? You aren’t making much sense. No offense, but you’re just not very coherent. You just seem to be really angry about something and keen on typing that anger away without giving much though to what you’re communicating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking strictly in terms of the temporal succession of events, the list does technically have to end somewhere. :x I mean, I didn’t say “the list goes on to infinity.” I said “the list goes on.” It’s kind of an English colloquialism. Does that help?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re easily my favorite member of this forum. <3 I love how crazy you are and I’d love to buy you a beer. :X Heh.</p>
<p>I just saw from your profile that you’re 39 years old, kmazza. I think something happened to you a long time ago that either prevented you from going to college, made you have a really unpleasant college experience, or made you really resent educated people.</p>
<p>Do you want to talk about it? I’m not trying to be a jerk here… just very curious as to why a 39 year old would come to these boards and go on such a crusade against the UC system. I’d love to talk about what happened to you if you’re open to it. Feel free to talk here or send me a private message.</p>
<p>I think what Kmzzaa is trying to say is that while the average UC student has a lot more resources potentially available to them such as numerous libraries and far more opportunities to do research than a CSU student, many UC students do not utilise these resources while a highly motivated CSU student could make optimal use of what library facilities are available and take advantage of the limited opportunities that are available for research. The quality of an undergraduate education is probably determined more by what the individual student puts into it than the school he or she attends. The Calculus textbook that my son is using at CSU Sacramento is exactly the same text that is used at U.C. Berkeley for students majoring in the physical sciences and engineering and the textbook for Calculus based Physics used at CSU Sacramento is generally considered to be more rigourous than the one used at U.C. Berkeley for the first year. There is no reason why a CSU student with a good intellect and who wants it bad enough can not graduate with a BS in fields like Geology or Physics with proficiency in those subjects equal to that of someone who earned their BS at a UC.</p>
<p>While not nearly as numerous as in the UCs, there are still students that for some reason or another ended up at a CSU who are every bit as intelligent as the smartest students in the UCs and if they aggressively pursue even the limited opportunities open to them in the CSUs will learn just as much as their UC counterparts at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>nice one gtorrent, I smellz ad hominem</p>
<p>@Lemaitre</p>
<p>Bravo! Well said. I am glad an real adult finally stepped in put out the flames and personal attacks. </p>
<p>My following question is solely for mutually respectful discussion and not to denigrate ANYONE:</p>
<p>I am curious about 1 anomaly. The previous writer has pointed out that UC system having superior resources at every level, and better educational opportunities; thus concluding that UC graduates receiving a substantially better education and higher earning power over the course of a career. </p>
<p>I can accept that line of logic on paper, but then how do we explain Cal Poly SLO graduates having the third highest earning power (only behind Cal, and UVA) and tied with UCLA and UCSD? This is over the course of 1 and 10 years mark. </p>
<p>So how did UCD, UCI, UCSB, UCSC, UCR, and UCM with superior funding all lagged behind a CSU?</p>
<p>@Lemaitre: You’re absolutely right, and well said. But what you’re saying isn’t contradictory to what I was saying – it’s peripheral. Surely an education is in no small part what a student puts into it, whether UC, CSU, or self-study. My point, though, is that in general, the UC has more for students to reach for should they be inclined to reach. I’m certain your son will do incredibly well at CSU Sacramento, which many of my friends attended as well, but the fact is that he’d probably have more resources available to him were he at a UC.</p>
<p>@nero: First of all, it’s Tarrant, not Torrent. Second, what you smell is not ad hominem, but Gucci Envy™ – they were giving out free samples at the mall.</p>
<p>@ickglue: I’m not sure why that’s anomalous to you. Since you read my posts, I’m sure you already know that when talking about superior curricula, I caveated my comments with “few exceptions.” One such exception is the engineering curriculum at Cal Poly SLO. Other such exceptions exist… but the key word there is exception.</p>
<p>@GTarrant</p>
<p>As you know Cal Poly is not only consist of engineering school, unlike Harvey Mudd. It also has agriculture, architecture, science, and liberal arts, just like all the other mid-tier UCs, UCLA and UCSD. CP graduates’ earning lead is not calculated based on CP’s engineering graduate earnings alone. It is based on the university’s overall graduates’ average earnings over time. </p>
<p>So given it is a school to school comparison, and all of the mid-tier UCs in questions and UCLA and UCSD all have engineering schools, hence the whole idea that engineering somehow pulled up the overall average up can’t be the basis for CP’s third place finish. </p>
<p>And this is the reason why I consider it an anomaly.</p>
<p>Perhaps someone here (anyone??) can shed some light on this.</p>
<p>Its not an anomoly, Cal poly grads make more cuz they are engineers, and yes there are other majors but really, its an engineering school. The uc’s however, are more well rounded and would outrank SLO in most categories</p>
<p>keep in mind, I never discredited Cal Poly SLO’s engineering program. Heck, my father majored in engineering over at SLO when he was around my age.</p>
<p>keep in mind, I NEVER said that you couldn’t be successful if you went to a mid tiered UC.
I simply said that employers don’t look at them as favorably. If you network aggressively and maintain a solid GPA you can get a great job from nearly anywhere given that YOU are competent… in an environment where your peers are from top private schools, you’ll be considered the exception, the kid from UCX or CSUX. They won’t care so much that you have a high GPA when they refer to you(that will help you get an interview though). UCB and UCLA are top 20-25 schools, a lot of places are aiming for top 10 and consider top 20, so UCLA is a natural cutoff for many when it comes to on-campus recruiting.</p>
<p>keep in mind that this would be at the most competitive of jobs, for something like teaching it doesn’t matter where you go, low cost is optimal and if you intend to go to grad school, lower is better for the sake of GPA inflation.</p>
<p>@0rganicGreenTea of UCSB</p>
<p>Sorry, I don’t want to be harsh, but that’s just an intellectually sloppy and non-cogent argument. </p>
<p>Here are my critique of your attempt at the argument:</p>
<p>1) Any university with a predominately large engineering school will place high on the earning scale. </p>
<p>ergo, CP is engineering therefore it naturally placed higher than all UCs except for UCSD and UCLA. </p>
<p>By your logic, engineering-centric Cal Poly Pomona, SJSU would have placed very high, and should naturally placed near or above many mid-tier UCs. They aren’t ranked that high. Why?</p>
<p>On the private school side, Harvey Mudd/MIT/Caltech should have beaten Dartmouth hands down because Harvey Mudd/MIT/Caltech are all engineering/research science, while Dartmouth is a general university. And yet, Dartmouth is #1 overall. Why?</p>
<p>Also, this ranking is US wide, there are plenty of Tech public universities (Virginia, Georgia, Texas) that are all very engineering heavy, they should have ranked higher or close to the mid-tier UCs as well. But they didn’t. Why ?</p>
<p>Even if your argument is cogent, then how did UCSD (not a large engineering school) and UCLA (mid-size? engineering school) tie with Cal Poly?</p>
<p>This also begs the question, if UCSD and UCLA matched Cal Poly in earnings, is UCSD and UCLA inherently superior to its peer UCs? (Can this question undermines the earlier assertion that all UCs are equal??)</p>
<p>How did Berkeley ended up number 1, they aren’t just a giant engineering school like CP? By the way, I love Cal and UVA, so I think they have both earned their lofty positions. </p>
<p>2) UCs are more well rounded, and therefore it would outrank SLO in the other categories</p>
<p>I have no idea whether Cal Poly’s other majors will outrank/match/lag UCs’ other majors earning powers (except for Cal Poly’s architecture). But I bet you have no empirical data supporting your opinion either. So that’s just speculation from you. </p>
<p>But given 75% of Cal Poly is consist of non-engineering majors, it is reasonable to assume, they affected heavily (assumed adversely given its a CSU) the overall average earning number of the overall Cal Poly student body. </p>
<p>So if CP non-engineering majors are earning less (a lot less?) than the mid-tier UCs, how did Cal Poly end up in third place, given non-engineering is 75% of the weighting in this calculation and would have severely dragged down the overall ranking?</p>
<p>My point is NOT to argue Cal Poly is superior, that’s just a non-sense chest thumping, too childish, and a waste of time. I simply DON’T care to argue that. I am indifferent with your opinion the all UCs are better than CSUs.</p>
<p>My point is to explore how a supposedly underfunded, limited research academic institution (a state college no less!!) of this type outgunned its superior counterparts in long term graduate earnings?</p>
<p>And this is an anomaly !! </p>
<p>This brings us to the the serious hypothesis that I like to explore: </p>
<p>Does this example somehow undermines the thesis that superior funding and resources at all levels yield superior graduates with superior long term earnings?</p>
<p>OR </p>
<p>Is is alluding to the idea that even with limited capital, if the capital is efficiently allocated and deployed, it will yield superior long term graduate results?</p>
<p>Nah GT mate, this has nothing to do with me hating the UC system or students, just the s.nob elitist mentality that some people think their school is the best just because they attend. Plus it’s really not that difficult for an average California HS student to get into a UC so that doesn’t impress me very much. I’ve already been accepted to many UC’s, CSU’s, LAC’s including Cornell but have already lived and worked in NYC and upstate and rather move and attend a college in Australia or Canada if ever was going to leave Cali.</p>
<p>My issue with not attending a UC is I think they charge too much now compared to 5 - 10 years ago and I’m shooting for a scholarship that pays at LEAST half my tuition which I am determined, intelligent and shrewd enough to get my way with. If not for only a few grand more I could attend UBC, still get financial aid/work study and be certified in Canada, the British Commonwealth AND the US which would make such an investment worthy. I’ve already completed over 300 units and certified in a bunch of computer stuff and as a Library Tech typically earning at least a grand a week in assisting students researching to support myself through college so do see their study habits or lack there of.</p>
<p>Like hell am I going to go 10’s of thousand dollars in debt nor am I going to pay lots of money for classes I can take for practically nothing. I already know colleges are a business that market their institutions and sucker lots of students and parents. Really, the only thing I’m behind in is my math which is too bad since I love Chem and Physics. As far as theoretical book knowledge I already exceed many UC students and would be bored say taking Anthropology at UCB than say CSU Chico’s program. There are just as many UC as CSU programs that just wouldn’t be challenging to me for what I want to do.</p>
<p>Even though Engineers like to think everything revolves around them and the engineering department, colleges in general have strengths and weaknesses because that is the way the education system is set up. I’d be much more challenged going to Cal Polys Soil Science/Earth Science program which is one of the best even over most UC’s. If I’m dolling out the dollars, I’m very adamant that I get to choose the classes I want that benefit me, especially when I know more about what employers and state or accredited commissions want than any counselor and the majority of instructors. As I’ve mentioned on this thread, a bachelors degree is primarily meant to prep students for the state exam and certification if one wants to make a 6 figure salary. I plan on pounding out two years and using school to merely do the work as I focus and prep myself for the state exam which is not easy. If one is not doing that they are in many ways wasting their time in college and could be better served doing some apprentice program. </p>
<p>As far as my age, I must admit that many people my age IMO are boring ass sell outs and stiffs that would rather watch TV then go out and raise some hell. My mom was a SF flower child that prohibited me from watching TV and made me read and do art and sent me to Cambridge for my formal education. I’ve lived and grown up around some of the most educated people but have also met people with fancy degrees who were classified imbeciles and met country folk that had more intelligence and common sense. </p>
<p>I admit that I like to debate and try my best to do so with integrity instead of ad hominem attacks. Since many don’t honor the rules of argumentation I had to join debate teams and state competitions so could ruthlessly crush weak arguments where the opponent can’t insult, downplay with straw men, falsities or elusively try to slip away like a snake in the grass when were losing. To me its all in good fun to get people to think and be more honest but am not one to suffer at the hands of fools. I find it amusing when people on the internet think I’m angry or upset when I laugh at most things in life and just have a rather dry sense of humor. </p>
<p>I accept you offering me a beer but it better not be any of that ghetto 40 garbage or watered down mule P_iss. I’ve been harvesting plus brewing me own beer for years so it better be hearty with some bite not that flat tasting flavorless or fruity yuppie krap k.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd beat Dartmouth in undergrad, paalleeassee! I’ve met many more intelligent students coming out of undergrad Dartmouth than ones in undergrad at Stanford or Harvard even. As far as high paying employers, they would rather hire Caltech kids over those that went to an overpriced LAC or UC or CSU. A large number of CalPoly science and engineering undergrads compete more with Caltech undergrads for jobs more than UC undergrads in earnings. Just because a school has more money or funding doesn’t mean its better beyond maintaining the facade of prestige so they can gouge students and parents. Even nearly half the undergrads at Stanford are generally average in intelligence but had parents who had money, legacy or political pull. These ridiculous myths propagated by Sine Nobiltate students is not only amusing but makes little difference unless you are going into high finance or politics. Even the popularity of UCLA was more marketing and a gained reputation from sports over their undergrad. I’ve lived and worked in and around all these schools for years and aware what goes on so you aren’t going to get me to buy which school and student body is better by some number ranking game like the majority of other people here.</p>
<p>PayScale took their 1.2 million users to create a survey to determine which colleges’ graduates have the highest starting median salary and highest mid-career median salary. Harvey Mudd College landed in 4th place; Dartmouth College, meanwhile, had the highest mid-career salary for the second year in a row.</p>
<p>It’s important to note that the survey’s data is a bit skewed because the pool of respondents is not randomized. The data is limited to users who self-reported their income online.</p>
<p>PayScale only included respondents whose highest degree was a bachelors, which counts out lawyers, doctors and other jobs that require an advanced degree.</p>
<p>The top 5 for mid-career median salaries were:</p>
<ol>
<li>Dartmouth (Ivy League) $129,000</li>
<li>MIT (Engineering) $126,000</li>
<li>Harvard University (Ivy League) $126,000</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd College (Engineering) $125,000</li>
<li>Stanford University (Engineering) $124,000</li>
</ol>
<p>Top 5 Starting Median Salary:</p>
<ol>
<li>Loma Linda University (Private) $71,400</li>
<li>MIT (Engineering) $71,100</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd College (Engineering) $71,000</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology (Engineering) $69,700</li>
<li>Stanford University (Engineering) $67,500</li>
</ol>