I mean people put a lot of emphasis on getting into well known colleges, but when it comes down to it, does it really matter? Can a community college be that bad?
Does it really matter what college you go to?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Depends on what you're going to do. You don't drop the dough for a marketing degree at a college that specializes in education. It depends on what others in your job field have too, if you're entering a career where the majority of workers graduated from top schools then yes it does matter. If your career is highly specialized it matters.
But if you're looking to go for something general like marketing or education or English you have a broader spectrum to choose from since many schools have decent programs for those types of fields.
No but It depends on your learning style and what you want to get a degree in (i.e. doctor etc etc) .......Community colleges/ private colleges are a LOT smaller in the amount of students per classroom....Which means you have the ability to ask questions, interact with classmates...basically it includes tons and tons of communication. In a university which has a ridiculous amount of people.....your class takes place in a auditorium with 200+ students, the teacher doesn't give a crap who you are (you are refereed to as a number), or when you come to class. Your expected to come in, sit down, take notes, and take the exams. So no it does not matter how well known the school is. PS: Community colleges are great. Idk why you are thinking they are bad. In recent studies it is proven that community college students do better than university students.I mean people put a lot of emphasis on getting into well known colleges, but when it comes down to it, does it really matter? Can a community college be that bad?
Tauruslink
Very much so. You wouldn't go to Cal Tech to major in English, now would you? :P
I know that's a fairly extreme example, but you get the idea :P.
It doesn't matter where you go for undergrad. If your GPA is high along with doing whatever other activities, you'll be good for getting into a good grad school, which does actually matter for a lot of occupations.
Let me put it this way, my dad went to San Jose St. for undergrad, but went to Stanford for his Masters in Engineering. As far as community colleges go, they're perfectly fine as long as you transfer. I'm assuming you're going into undergrad so just focus on doing well wherever you go.
Yes, it does matter. If you want a position at a big company right out of college for example, investment banking companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley heavily recruits from the top schools with top economics/business departments (Ivy League schools, Stanford, Northwestern, University of Chicago, etc). I know someone who graduated from the Wharton School of Business from the University of Pennsylvania (Alma Mater of Donald Trump) and basically didn't even need to seek a job as the companies came to campus to hire students directly. You are also more likely to have more and better connections at a more prestigious college due to the more affluent backgrounds of the students.
Also those prestigious univerisites often have top graduate schools. If you go there for undergraduate studies, the chances of getting into their graduate school increases dramatically as you are a legacy.
Some employers, like ExxonMobil, don't really hire people who go to decent schools, and, when they do, they take only the cream of the crop. They usually hire from places like Duke, Stanford, and Rice. And they pay very well.thepwninatorMaybe for graduate school, but I'd rather take someone who went to an okay undergrad school (like University of Alabama or University of South Carolina) and went to Duke or MIT for graduate than someone who went to Harvard for undergrad but an okay graduate school.
[QUOTE="thepwninator"]Some employers, like ExxonMobil, don't really hire people who go to decent schools, and, when they do, they take only the cream of the crop. They usually hire from places like Duke, Stanford, and Rice. And they pay very well.RyuHayabusaXMaybe for graduate school, but I'd rather take someone who went to an okay undergrad school (like University of Alabama or University of South Carolina) and went to Duke or MIT for graduate than someone who went to Harvard for undergrad but an okay graduate school.
The chances of someone going to Harvard for undergrad and then going to Harvard for graduate studies is much higher than someone who attends a state university then Harvard for graduate studies. Also legacy applicants and those who attend prestigious undergrad colleges have a higher chance of getting into prestigious graduate schools.
Maybe for graduate school, but I'd rather take someone who went to an okay undergrad school (like University of Alabama or University of South Carolina) and went to Duke or MIT for graduate than someone who went to Harvard for undergrad but an okay graduate school.[QUOTE="RyuHayabusaX"][QUOTE="thepwninator"]Some employers, like ExxonMobil, don't really hire people who go to decent schools, and, when they do, they take only the cream of the crop. They usually hire from places like Duke, Stanford, and Rice. And they pay very well.TheWalrusBeast
The chances of someone going to Harvard for undergrad and then going to Harvard for graduate studies is much higher than someone who attends a state university then Harvard for graduate studies. Also legacy applicants have a higher chance of getting into them.
No, it isn't. Stanford for one loves taking people who were not part of their undergrad program. Legacy is highly overrated. The only way it matters is if you actually know a professor VERY well and he personally wants you to come back.[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"][QUOTE="RyuHayabusaX"]Maybe for graduate school, but I'd rather take someone who went to an okay undergrad school (like University of Alabama or University of South Carolina) and went to Duke or MIT for graduate than someone who went to Harvard for undergrad but an okay graduate school. Renegade_Fury
The chances of someone going to Harvard for undergrad and then going to Harvard for graduate studies is much higher than someone who attends a state university then Harvard for graduate studies. Also legacy applicants have a higher chance of getting into them.
No, it isn't. Stanford for one loves taking people who were not part of their undergrad program. Legacy is highly overrated. The only it matters is if you actually know a professor VERY well and he personally wants you to come back.Actually legacies at Ivy League schools has always been pretty big, not so much for non-ivy league schools. If you are in charge of admissions and you have to pick someone either from Stanford undergrad with a 3.7 or a community college with a 3.8, chances are the former is more likely to get in than the latter.
No, it isn't. Stanford for one loves taking people who were not part of their undergrad program. Legacy is highly overrated. The only it matters is if you actually know a professor VERY well and he personally wants you to come back.[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"][QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
The chances of someone going to Harvard for undergrad and then going to Harvard for graduate studies is much higher than someone who attends a state university then Harvard for graduate studies. Also legacy applicants have a higher chance of getting into them.
TheWalrusBeast
Actually legacies at Ivy League schools has always been pretty big, not so much for non-ivy league schools. If you are in charge of admissions and you have to pick someone either from Stanford undergrad with a 3.7 or a community college with a 3.8, chances are the former is more likely to get in than the latter.
Not true, and Stanford is not IVY league for one. First of all someone wouldn't apply to Stanford from a community college but from a 4 year university. There are many factors that go into admission aside from GPA such as MCATs, LSATs, community service, interviews, overseas work etc. Sure if someone has the EXACT same resume except for the school, that person might have a better chance, but it is not at all guaranteed. If the guy from a "worse" university shows the other kid up in the interview for example, why shouldn't he be picked? Like I said legacy is overrated. I've seen this happen multiple times, and like I posted earlier, my dad is also proof.[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]No, it isn't. Stanford for one loves taking people who were not part of their undergrad program. Legacy is highly overrated. The only it matters is if you actually know a professor VERY well and he personally wants you to come back.Renegade_Fury
Actually legacies at Ivy League schools has always been pretty big, not so much for non-ivy league schools. If you are in charge of admissions and you have to pick someone either from Stanford undergrad with a 3.7 or a community college with a 3.8, chances are the former is more likely to get in than the latter.
Not true, and Stanford is not IVY league for one. First of all someone wouldn't apply to Stanford from a community college but from a 4 year university. There are many factors that go into admission aside from GPA such as MCATs, LSATs, community service, interviewss, overseas work etc. Sure if someone has the EXACT same resume except for the school, that person might have a better chance, but it is not at all guaranteed. If the guy from a "worse" university shows the other kid up in the interiew foor example, why shouldn't he be picked? Like I said legacy is overrated.I didn't say Stanford was an Ivy. I was referring to Harvard on my previous post. Yes someone from a state school can get in with an excellent resume. However, someone from a top 25 undergrad school is more likely to have that kind of resume and opportunities than someone from a normal state schools. Thus the chances of someone from a prestigious college getting in is much higher.
Of course legacy as a label isn't everything. But you could have made excellent connections as an undergrad. My dad is also proof (UChicago undergrad, UChicago for grad).
I'd concern yourself only with where you want to do your Masters and Doctorate training, because you're going to need one or both. Graduating from college in this day and age(regardless of the institution) is pretty muchthought ofas the equivalent of graduating from High School. Especially, in the professional community. A Bachelor of anything degree does not guarantee a job and there's a good chance that it never will again.
However, when it comes to college try to stay away from community colleges unless you can transfer early to a betterschool nearby or you'rea decent student and guaranteed a Masters level training position after graduation. Don't waste your money on private schooling. I hadabsolutely no debtcoming out of college at a state school where my educationwas unequaled in practically the entire region. That combined with one year ofMasters training and four years of medical school is enough school for anyone.
A bad example of poordecision making when it comes to schooling are thoseindividuals that chose to go to a private school andend up with$70-$100,000 in debtbefore ever entering a professional level school.That combined with the average cost of medical school ($150,000 or so) can end up making a person feel quite overwhelmed.
Not true, and Stanford is not IVY league for one. First of all someone wouldn't apply to Stanford from a community college but from a 4 year university. There are many factors that go into admission aside from GPA such as MCATs, LSATs, community service, interviewss, overseas work etc. Sure if someone has the EXACT same resume except for the school, that person might have a better chance, but it is not at all guaranteed. If the guy from a "worse" university shows the other kid up in the interiew foor example, why shouldn't he be picked? Like I said legacy is overrated.[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
Actually legacies at Ivy League schools has always been pretty big, not so much for non-ivy league schools. If you are in charge of admissions and you have to pick someone either from Stanford undergrad with a 3.7 or a community college with a 3.8, chances are the former is more likely to get in than the latter.
TheWalrusBeast
I didn't say Stanford was an Ivy. I was referring to Harvard on my previous post. Yes someone from a state school can get in with an excellent resume. However, someone from a top 25 undergrad school is more likely to have that kind of resume and opportunities than someone from a normal state schools. Thus the chances of someone from a presitigious college getting in is much higher.
Brand name can only take you so far, and is completely blown out of proportion for undergrad. Just because if one goes to a top 25 school it doesn't guarantee anything if you don't have substance. The only way it helps is if that student has everything to show for it. Regardless of which school you go to, you need an epic resume regardless to get into a good grad school. All legacy does for you is put your resume in a different pile which is why I'm telling the TC he has nothing to worry about since it's true.. My dad is also proof (UChicago undergrad, UChicago for grad).Your dad obviously had substance then. I'm saying that the brand name only kicks in after that.TheWalrusBeast
[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"] Not true, and Stanford is not IVY league for one. First of all someone wouldn't apply to Stanford from a community college but from a 4 year university. There are many factors that go into admission aside from GPA such as MCATs, LSATs, community service, interviewss, overseas work etc. Sure if someone has the EXACT same resume except for the school, that person might have a better chance, but it is not at all guaranteed. If the guy from a "worse" university shows the other kid up in the interiew foor example, why shouldn't he be picked? Like I said legacy is overrated.
Renegade_Fury
I didn't say Stanford was an Ivy. I was referring to Harvard on my previous post. Yes someone from a state school can get in with an excellent resume. However, someone from a top 25 undergrad school is more likely to have that kind of resume and opportunities than someone from a normal state schools. Thus the chances of someone from a presitigious college getting in is much higher.
Brand name can only take you so far, and is completely blown out of proportion for undergrad. Just because if one goes to a top 25 school it doesn't guarantee anything if you don't have substance. It only helps if that student has everything to show for it. Regardless of which school you go to, you need an epic resume regardless to get into a good grad school. All legacy does for you is put your resume in a different pile which is why I'm telling the TC he has nothing to worry about since it's true.Of course you won't get anywhere with just brand name. But the kids that go to these colleges often are more motivated and hardworking and thus the chances of them having better resume are higher as well. You won't survive long if you aren't. Legacices do play a role. Harvard's acceptance rate for legacies are three times higher than non-legacies. But if TC is already an outstanding student who attends his state school, it doesn't mean he won't get in for sure if he works hard. If he works his butt off and get great internships and build his resume, it is totally possible.
Brand name can only take you so far, and is completely blown out of proportion for undergrad. Just because if one goes to a top 25 school it doesn't guarantee anything if you don't have substance. It only helps if that student has everything to show for it. Regardless of which school you go to, you need an epic resume regardless to get into a good grad school. All legacy does for you is put your resume in a different pile which is why I'm telling the TC he has nothing to worry about since it's true.[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"][QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
I didn't say Stanford was an Ivy. I was referring to Harvard on my previous post. Yes someone from a state school can get in with an excellent resume. However, someone from a top 25 undergrad school is more likely to have that kind of resume and opportunities than someone from a normal state schools. Thus the chances of someone from a presitigious college getting in is much higher.
TheWalrusBeast
Of course you won't get anywhere with just brand name. But the kids that go to these colleges often are more motivated and hardworking and thus the chances of them having better resume are higher as well. You won't survive long if you aren't. Legacices do play a role. Harvard's acceptance rate for legacies are three times higher than non-legacies. But if TC is already an outstanding student who attends his state school, it doesn't mean he won't get in for sure if he works hard.
Why would those kids be more motivated? Getting a high GPA in HS is nothing like in college. If anything someone who goes to a "chumpy" college could have a chip on his shoulder or isn't wealthy enough to go to a top school. Sorry, but I'm not buying that argument that just because one goes to a prestigious undergrad school he/she will be more motivated by default. What you're saying about Harvard may be true, but again, if you work hard regardless of what undergrad school you go to, you will go to a good grad school including possibly Harvard.[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"] Brand name can only take you so far, and is completely blown out of proportion for undergrad. Just because if one goes to a top 25 school it doesn't guarantee anything if you don't have substance. It only helps if that student has everything to show for it. Regardless of which school you go to, you need an epic resume regardless to get into a good grad school. All legacy does for you is put your resume in a different pile which is why I'm telling the TC he has nothing to worry about since it's true.Renegade_Fury
Of course you won't get anywhere with just brand name. But the kids that go to these colleges often are more motivated and hardworking and thus the chances of them having better resume are higher as well. You won't survive long if you aren't. Legacices do play a role. Harvard's acceptance rate for legacies are three times higher than non-legacies. But if TC is already an outstanding student who attends his state school, it doesn't mean he won't get in for sure if he works hard.
Why would those kids be more motivated? Getting a high GPA in HS is nothing like in college. If anything someone who goes to a "chumpy" college could have a chip on his shoulder or isn't wealthy enough to go to a top school. Sorry, but I'm not buying that argument that just because one goes to a prestigious undergrad school he/she will be more motivated by default. What you're saying about Harvard may be true, but again, if you work hard regardless of what undergrad school you go to, you will go to a good undergrad including possibly Harvard.You would need a lot more than just a good GPA and that's an understatement. You have to be motivated in nearly every aspect to get accepted. Also those colleges give a lot of financial aid with their massive endowment and often meet full need. In fact it may even be cheaper for some families to attend those schools than their state school. Of course there is nothing wrong with attending state schools, most people do and most people who succeed come from there. But there are benefits for getting into a big name school. I also never refuted your last statement.
Yeah you need community service and SAT scores, but again it doesn't compare to the work you do in college, it's not even remotely close. All I'm saying is that to get into a good grad school you need an epic resume regardless, and the undergrad name isn't going to make a difference by itself if at all. The person who goes to a good undergrad might endup with say a 3.67 while one who goes to a less prestigious one may end up with a 3.8 or so. Another example say they both have 3.8 GPAs, but the one who went to a lower ranking college did work outside the country. The brand name isn't going to make a difference then, which is why the TC shouldn't be concerned, especially if he's contemplating going to a community college for 2 years. I'm not disputing your point that legacy matters, but I think you're highly overestimating its worth.You would need a lot more than just a good GPA and that's an understatement. You have to be motivated in nearly every aspect to get accepted. Also those colleges give a lot of financial aid with their massive endowment and often meet full need. In fact it may even be cheaper for some families to attend those schools than their state school. Of course there is nothing wrong with attending state schools, most people do and most people who succeed come from there. But there are benefits for getting into a big name school. I also never refuted your last statement.
TheWalrusBeast
Yeah you need community service and SAT scores, but again it doesn't compare to the work you do in college, it's not even remotely close. All I'm saying is that to get into a good grad school you need an epic resume, and the undergrad name isn't going to make a difference by itself if at all. The person who goes to a good undergrad might endup with say a 3.67 while one who goes to a less prestigious one may end up with a 3.8 or so. Another example say they both have 3.8 GPAs, but the one who went to a lower ranking college did work outside the country. The brand name isn't going to make a difference then, which is why the TC shouldn't be concerned, especially if he's contemplating going to a community college for 2 years. I'm not disputing your point that legacy matters, but I think you're highly overestimating its worth.[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
You would need a lot more than just a good GPA and that's an understatement. You have to be motivated in nearly every aspect to get accepted. Also those colleges give a lot of financial aid with their massive endowment and often meet full need. In fact it may even be cheaper for some families to attend those schools than their state school. Of course there is nothing wrong with attending state schools, most people do and most people who succeed come from there. But there are benefits for getting into a big name school. I also never refuted your last statement.
Renegade_Fury
You would need a lot more than just good SAT and community service hours. A 3.67 from a school like MIT is a lot better than a 3.8 from say the University of Montana. In fact a 3.67 would be excellent especially since grade inflation is less prominent. If you were to take 100 students from MIT and 100 students from a state school, the former will almost always have more student involvement than the latter (excluding UVA, Berkeley or Michigan). TC shouldn't be concerned and big name schools may not even be the right schools for him but there are benefits of attending a prestigious college.
Yeah you need community service and SAT scores, but again it doesn't compare to the work you do in college, it's not even remotely close. All I'm saying is that to get into a good grad school you need an epic resume, and the undergrad name isn't going to make a difference by itself if at all. The person who goes to a good undergrad might endup with say a 3.67 while one who goes to a less prestigious one may end up with a 3.8 or so. Another example say they both have 3.8 GPAs, but the one who went to a lower ranking college did work outside the country. The brand name isn't going to make a difference then, which is why the TC shouldn't be concerned, especially if he's contemplating going to a community college for 2 years. I'm not disputing your point that legacy matters, but I think you're highly overestimating its worth.[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
You would need a lot more than just a good GPA and that's an understatement. You have to be motivated in nearly every aspect to get accepted. Also those colleges give a lot of financial aid with their massive endowment and often meet full need. In fact it may even be cheaper for some families to attend those schools than their state school. Of course there is nothing wrong with attending state schools, most people do and most people who succeed come from there. But there are benefits for getting into a big name school. I also never refuted your last statement.
TheWalrusBeast
You would need a lot more than just good SAT and community service hours. A 3.67 from a school like MIT is a lot better than a 3.8 from say the University of Montana. In fact a 3.67 would be excellent especially since grade inflation is less prominent. If you were to take 100 students from MIT and 100 students from a state school, the former will almost always have more student involvement than the latter (excluding UVA, Berkeley or Michigan). TC shouldn't be concerned and big name schools may not even be the right schools for him but there are benefits of attending a prestigious college.
I'm just summarizing. Yeah, there is more like round square and so on, but I don't see the point in listing that, since what I wrote earlier is still true. A 3.67 im comparison to a 3.8? Someone who had a 3.8 GPA along with all the other credentials will not have anything stopping him or her from being accepted. Getting good numbers at a prestigous schools is one thing, but getting something like a 3.67 will not guarantee you anything alone, especially with what all these top grad schools want.[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"] Yeah you need community service and SAT scores, but again it doesn't compare to the work you do in college, it's not even remotely close. All I'm saying is that to get into a good grad school you need an epic resume, and the undergrad name isn't going to make a difference by itself if at all. The person who goes to a good undergrad might endup with say a 3.67 while one who goes to a less prestigious one may end up with a 3.8 or so. Another example say they both have 3.8 GPAs, but the one who went to a lower ranking college did work outside the country. The brand name isn't going to make a difference then, which is why the TC shouldn't be concerned, especially if he's contemplating going to a community college for 2 years. I'm not disputing your point that legacy matters, but I think you're highly overestimating its worth.
Renegade_Fury
You would need a lot more than just good SAT and community service hours. A 3.67 from a school like MIT is a lot better than a 3.8 from say the University of Montana. In fact a 3.67 would be excellent especially since grade inflation is less prominent. If you were to take 100 students from MIT and 100 students from a state school, the former will almost always have more student involvement than the latter (excluding UVA, Berkeley or Michigan). TC shouldn't be concerned and big name schools may not even be the right schools for him but there are benefits of attending a prestigious college.
I'm just summarizing. Yeah, there is more like round square and so on, but I don't see the point in listing that, since what I wrote earlier is still true. A 3.67 im comparison to a 3.8? Someone who had a 3.8 GPA along with all the other credentials will not have anything stopping him or her from being accepted. Getting good numbers at a prestigous schools is one thing, but getting something like a 3.67 will not guarantee you anything alone, especially with what all these top grad schools want.What if you got those credentials and went to MIT instead? Wouldn't that be advantageous compared to a normal state school? Most students at schools like MIT are not just smart, they are also involved in many extracurricular activities and leadership positions to even get in. Most state schools only require a average GPA and test score. Thus the chance of someone coming from MIT with those credentials is much higher.
Well what I'm thinking of doing, is going to community college for two years, then transferring to a 4 year uni for the remaining two years. This is for undergrad btw.
Edit: I want to do this in order to save money.
I'm just summarizing. Yeah, there is more like round square and so on, but I don't see the point in listing that, since what I wrote earlier is still true. A 3.67 im comparison to a 3.8? Someone who had a 3.8 GPA along with all the other credentials will not have anything stopping him or her from being accepted. Getting good numbers at a prestigous schools is one thing, but getting something like a 3.67 will not guarantee you anything alone, especially with what all these top grad schools want.[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
You would need a lot more than just good SAT and community service hours. A 3.67 from a school like MIT is a lot better than a 3.8 from say the University of Montana. In fact a 3.67 would be excellent especially since grade inflation is less prominent. If you were to take 100 students from MIT and 100 students from a state school, the former will almost always have more student involvement than the latter (excluding UVA, Berkeley or Michigan). TC shouldn't be concerned and big name schools may not even be the right schools for him but there are benefits of attending a prestigious college.
TheWalrusBeast
What if you got those credentials and went to MIT instead? Wouldn't that be advantageous compared to a normal state school? Most students at schools like MIT are not just smart, they are also involved in many extracurricular activities and leadership positions to even get in. Most state schools only require a average GPA and test score. Thus the chance of someone coming from MIT with those credentials is much higher.
No dude that's not it. If you have the credentials and have the GPA then it matters, which is what I've said in an earlier post. Top grad schools want both, and if someone from a lower rated school has those, he or she will have the better chance of getting in. Getting into an undergrad school is completely different than going into grad. For example, yesterday there was a topic about a guy who was getting all A's at HS, but is getting thrashed at his top university. If you come out with an average GPA, there was no point in going there. It sucks, but that's how it works. You need GPA along with everything else.Yeah, do it if that's what you truly want. I'm telling you right now that adjusting will be tough, but know you will have a better chance in getting to a top university. Anyway, I'm sure you've seen my posts in other topics before. :PWell what I'm thinking of doing, is going to community college for two years, then transferring to a 4 year uni for the remaining two years. This is for undergrad btw.
Edit: I want to do this in order to save money.
Tauruslink
Go to a college that is correct for your major, of course.
Just because yougo to an inexpensive school dosen't mean you can't be the Validictorian of your class...
The college you attend isn't too important, what IS IMPORTANT = apply yourself to learning while there.
[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"] I'm just summarizing. Yeah, there is more like round square and so on, but I don't see the point in listing that, since what I wrote earlier is still true. A 3.67 im comparison to a 3.8? Someone who had a 3.8 GPA along with all the other credentials will not have anything stopping him or her from being accepted. Getting good numbers at a prestigous schools is one thing, but getting something like a 3.67 will not guarantee you anything alone, especially with what all these top grad schools want.
Renegade_Fury
What if you got those credentials and went to MIT instead? Wouldn't that be advantageous compared to a normal state school? Most students at schools like MIT are not just smart, they are also involved in many extracurricular activities and leadership positions to even get in. Most state schools only require a average GPA and test score. Thus the chance of someone coming from MIT with those credentials is much higher.
No dude that's not it. If you have the credentials and have the GPA then it matters, which is what I've said in an earlier post. Top grad schools want both, and if someone from a lower rated school has those, he or she will have the better chance of getting in. Getting into an undergrad school is completely different than going into grad. For example, yesterday there was a topic about a guy who was getting all A's at HS, but is getting thrashed at his top university. If you come out with an average GPA, there was no point in going there. It sucks, but that's how it works. You need GPA along with everything else.I think you misread. I said that having amazing resume in addition to graduating from a prestigious college with great GPA is more impressive than the same with a state university. Was he getting "trashed" with a 3.6 instead of a 4.0? That is ahrdly getting trashed. If he is getting a 2.0, then obviously the school wasn't the right one for him. I can bet a 3.6 GPA from MIT which has little grade inflation is harder to get and more impressive than a 3.8 from a state university.
[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Yeah, do it if that's what you truly want. I'm telling you right now that adjusting will be tough, but know you will have a better chance in getting to a top university. Anyway, I'm sure you've seen my posts in other topics before. :P Haha yes I have. Yeah, basically I feel that doing this makes more sense. Thanks for the tips!Well what I'm thinking of doing, is going to community college for two years, then transferring to a 4 year uni for the remaining two years. This is for undergrad btw.
Edit: I want to do this in order to save money.
Renegade_Fury
No dude that's not it. If you have the credentials and have the GPA then it matters, which is what I've said in an earlier post. Top grad schools want both, and if someone from a lower rated school has those, he or she will have the better chance of getting in. Getting into an undergrad school is completely different than going into grad. For example, yesterday there was a topic about a guy who was getting all A's at HS, but is getting thrashed at his top university. If you come out with an average GPA, there was no point in going there. It sucks, but that's how it works. You need GPA along with everything else.[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]
[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
What if you got those credentials and went to MIT instead? Wouldn't that be advantageous compared to a normal state school? Most students at schools like MIT are not just smart, they are also involved in many extracurricular activities and leadership positions to even get in. Most state schools only require a average GPA and test score. Thus the chance of someone coming from MIT with those credentials is much higher.
TheWalrusBeast
I think you misread. I said that having amazing resume in addition to graduating from a prestigious college with great GPA is more impressive than the same with a state university. Was he getting "trashed" with a 3.6 instead of a 4.0? If he is getting a 2.0, then obviously the school wasn't the right one for him. I can bet a 3.6 GPA from MIT which has little grade inflation is harder to get and more impressive than a 3.8 from a state university.
If that's what you meant, I already said that in maybe my first post or so. Anyway, I don't know what his case was. I was just using that to show just because one is in a top university it doesn't necessarily mean that person will automatically have a good GPA. Hell, I have had to raise my game far beyond what it used to be here at Cal, so I know what it takes personally. You can bet all you want, but I've seen friends and family who have had a higher GPA along with the goods, get in none of those top 25 schools while coming out of Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, and Cornell. On the flip side, I've seen those coming from a less prestigious background getting into those top schools. The only time brand names come into play is if the resumes are similar, not when the difference is between 3.6 in comparison to virtually all A's.[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"][QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Yeah, do it if that's what you truly want. I'm telling you right now that adjusting will be tough, but know you will have a better chance in getting to a top university. Anyway, I'm sure you've seen my posts in other topics before. :P Haha yes I have. Yeah, basically I feel that doing this makes more sense. Thanks for the tips! No problem, just make sure you're really sure about it. People will give you weird faces once you transfer over, but as long as you're sure of yourself you'll be fine. Just don't ever doubt yourself is the best advice I can give you. :)Well what I'm thinking of doing, is going to community college for two years, then transferring to a 4 year uni for the remaining two years. This is for undergrad btw.
Edit: I want to do this in order to save money.
Tauruslink
[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"] No dude that's not it. If you have the credentials and have the GPA then it matters, which is what I've said in an earlier post. Top grad schools want both, and if someone from a lower rated school has those, he or she will have the better chance of getting in. Getting into an undergrad school is completely different than going into grad. For example, yesterday there was a topic about a guy who was getting all A's at HS, but is getting thrashed at his top university. If you come out with an average GPA, there was no point in going there. It sucks, but that's how it works. You need GPA along with everything else.
Renegade_Fury
I think you misread. I said that having amazing resume in addition to graduating from a prestigious college with great GPA is more impressive than the same with a state university. Was he getting "trashed" with a 3.6 instead of a 4.0? If he is getting a 2.0, then obviously the school wasn't the right one for him. I can bet a 3.6 GPA from MIT which has little grade inflation is harder to get and more impressive than a 3.8 from a state university.
If that's what you meant, I already said that in maybe my first post or so. Anyway, I don't know what his case was. I was just using that to show just because one is in a top university it doesn't necessarily mean that person will automatically have a good GPA. Hell, I have had to raise my game far beyond what it used to be here at Cal, so I know what it takes personally. You can bet all you want, but I've seen friends and family who have had a higher GPA along with the goods, get in none of those top 25 schools while coming out of Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, and Cornell. On the flip side, I've seen those coming from a less prestigious background getting into those top schools. The only time brand names come into play is if the resumes are similar, not when the difference is between 3.6 in comparison to virtually all A's.Yes I was always saying if the resume was similar. I merely stated the GPA as I was saying I would take it from MIT over the 4.0 from the University of Guam. I've seen a lot of those who ended up at lesser graduate schools too but going too a good college has its benefits.
[QUOTE="TheWalrusBeast"]
[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"] No dude that's not it. If you have the credentials and have the GPA then it matters, which is what I've said in an earlier post. Top grad schools want both, and if someone from a lower rated school has those, he or she will have the better chance of getting in. Getting into an undergrad school is completely different than going into grad. For example, yesterday there was a topic about a guy who was getting all A's at HS, but is getting thrashed at his top university. If you come out with an average GPA, there was no point in going there. It sucks, but that's how it works. You need GPA along with everything else.
Renegade_Fury
I think you misread. I said that having amazing resume in addition to graduating from a prestigious college with great GPA is more impressive than the same with a state university. Was he getting "trashed" with a 3.6 instead of a 4.0? If he is getting a 2.0, then obviously the school wasn't the right one for him. I can bet a 3.6 GPA from MIT which has little grade inflation is harder to get and more impressive than a 3.8 from a state university.
If that's what you meant, I already said that in maybe my first post or so. Anyway, I don't know what his case was. I was just using that to show just because one is in a top university it doesn't necessarily mean that person will automatically have a good GPA. Hell, I have had to raise my game far beyond what it used to be here at Cal, so I know what it takes personally. You can bet all you want, but I've seen friends and family who have had a higher GPA along with the goods, get in none of those top 25 schools while coming out of Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, and Cornell. On the flip side, I've seen those coming from a less prestigious background getting into those top schools. The only time brand names come into play is if the resumes are similar, not when the difference is between 3.6 in comparison to virtually all A's.Yes I was always saying if the resume was similar. I merely stated the GPA as I was saying I would take it from MIT over the 4.0 from the University of Guam. I've seen a lot of those who ended up at lesser graduate schools too but not because they went to a good school for undergrad. There is nothing to lose and many benefits if you go to a prestigious school and can handle the work.
You and I probably would, but that's not how they necessarily do things. Those suits don't care how much more we have to suffer, just as long as we have the numbers. Yeah, I'm not definitely not saying they don't have benefits, but only that it won't matter if your resume is anything less than stellar.Yes I was always saying if the resume was similar. I merely stated the GPA as I was saying I would take it from MIT over the 4.0 from the University of Guam. I've seen a lot of those who ended up at lesser graduate schools too but going too a good college has its benefits.
TheWalrusBeast
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment