Here is a list of Virginia's universities broken up into tiers:

Tier 1
-UVA
-W&M

Tier 2
-VT
-Richmond
-W&L
-JMU

Tier 3
-Mary Washington
-GMU
-Hampton
-VCU
-VMI
-ODU
-Mary Baldwin
-R&M
-Hampden-Sydney
-Marymount

Tier 4
-Shenandoah
-Bridgewater
-Ferrum
-Longwood
-Norfolk State
-Liberty
-NOVA
-Hollins
-Sweet Briar
-Roanoke College

Tier 5
-CNU
-Virginia State
-Virginia Union
-UVA Wise
-Radford

NOTE: For-Profit institions (UNV,ECPI, UoP left off)

Switch Liberty and CNU.

Arguably on target, just seems like you have some anti-CNU bias. It seems more like a "Tier 3" school. If you're going to a Tier 3 school, VCU seems like the one that the students really love.

What about Strayer?

University of Richmond would be Tier 1. Their law school isn't the most prestigious, but undergraduate programs are top notch. Not to mention it cost over $200,000 for a four year degree there.

Here we go again.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> University of Richmond would be Tier 1. Their law
> school isn't the most prestigious, but
> undergraduate programs are top notch. Not to
> mention it cost over $200,000 for a four year
> degree there.


How much one pays does not guarantee quality.

Go Spiders! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > University of Richmond would be Tier 1. Their
> law
> > school isn't the most prestigious, but
> > undergraduate programs are top notch. Not to
> > mention it cost over $200,000 for a four year
> > degree there.
>
>
> How much one pays does not guarantee quality.


Exactly. People drop $100 grand at UoP and end up with a useless degree and piles of debt.

Or they spend a ton of money on no name little colleges in Pennsylvania, which is chock full of them and yes I realize we're talking about Va. schools but I'm using Pa. as an example, when they could have spent the same amount at name school with a quality education.

Real life example: I had a relative of who went to some little ass college in Pa and paid exactly the same amount I paid for a school that is nationally known (academics, research, and sports) and provides a high quality education. When I have mentioned her school to other people the ONLY ones who recognize the name are people FROM Pa. but I have yet to EVER meet anyone who was unfamiliar with my college. And we paid almost exactly the same amount. I have a six figure salary and a cool job, she works as a part-time contractor trying to scrounge up work.

Go Spiders! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > University of Richmond would be Tier 1. Their
> law
> > school isn't the most prestigious, but
> > undergraduate programs are top notch. Not to
> > mention it cost over $200,000 for a four year
> > degree there.
>
>
> How much one pays does not guarantee quality.





No, but Richmond is still top notch. It's considered a Southern Ivy.

W&L is much better than U of R. Its level 1 with W&M and UVA.

U of R:
Admissions Data (2012):

Percent of Applicants Admitted: 30%
What Are Your Chances? (from Cappex.com)
GPA, SAT and ACT graph for Richmond
Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile
SAT Critical Reading: 580 / 700
SAT Math: 620 / 720
SAT Writing: 590 / 690

W&L:
Admissions Data (2012):

Percent of Applicants Admitted: 19%
GPA, SAT and ACT graph for Washington and Lee
What Are Your Chances? (from Cappex.com)
Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile
SAT Critical Reading: 650 / 740
SAT Math: 650 / 740
SAT Writing: 640 / 730

W&L is significantly more selective and tougher to get into....

Replace Radford with ODU and thats about right.

http://admissions.richmond.edu/studentprofile/academics.html


Admitted Student Academic Profile

The University of Richmond practices a holistic, highly selective admission process, so numbers are only one piece of the puzzle. The following ranges are not predictors of admission, nor do they account for all academic factors (such as rigor of curriculum, high school context, etc.); they simply reflect the middle half of students admitted to the Class of 2017, from the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile.

Percentile 25% 75%
Unweighted Core GPA: 3.54 3.94
SAT Critical Reading: 630 720
SAT Math: 650 740
SAT Total (1600): 1300 1440
SAT Writing: 630 730
SAT Total (2400): 1950 2160
ACT: 30 33

Don't forget Appalachian School of Law! http://www.asl.edu/

....or Shenandoah University!

Who can forget Emory & Henry?

Regent University in Virginia Beach, founded by Pat Robertson. Often considered the Ivy League of the Christian right.
Attachments:

eesh should have made this thread, OP you left out a lot

Tiber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're going to a Tier 3 school, VCU
> seems like the one that the students really love.




VCU has strong engineering programs, and their art school is one of the largest on the East Coast.

Ferrum College....in the middle of nowhere.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2014 11:56PM by eesh.

Missing from this conversation is the ranking of disciplines within a college.

UVA may be superior to Tech but its undergraduate architecture program is not even in the top 10 whereas Tech is #5.

JMU is more of a tier 2 school

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> University of Richmond would be Tier 1. Their law
> school isn't the most prestigious, but
> undergraduate programs are top notch. Not to
> mention it cost over $200,000 for a four year
> degree there.

They are close but I don't consider them Tier 1, average SAT scores are 3-4% lower than W&M and UVA.

Randolph Macon, anyone?

T2 REALLY? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JMU is more of a tier 3 school


Tier 3*

typo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> T2 REALLY? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JMU is more of a tier 3 school
>
>
> Tier 3*

They have better business and political science schools than every tier 2 school on that list.

JMU was tier 2 15-20 years ago

its gone to crap lately

For engineering, anything agriculture-related, vet medicine, and architecture, there are only two tiers:

1. Va Tech

2. Everywhere else

VT is the best place to go if you want to be shot by a depressed Korean

GMU does not belong in the same tier as most of the schools in Tier 3. Maybe Tier 2.2.

GMU and Mary Washington are Tier 2. ODU is Tier 4.

So Longwood's on the same tier as a community college and a school that teaches Young Earth Creationism? Definitely Tier 3.

yourmom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
ODU is Tier
> 4.


+1

You forgot Patrick Henry College, fatass.

The Congressman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You forgot Patrick Henry College, fatass.


Leave the OP alone fagot

I'm not sure of the purpose of this, but I'll play along.

- W&L should be above Richmond and, arguably above VT, in Tier 2

- JMU should be in Tier 3

- Tier 5 is essentially the "why did you bother" or "diplomas not worth the money they're printed on" tier. CNU does not belong in that tier. It should be near the top of Tier 4.

- Radford should be at the top of Tier 5

- Liberty should be near the bottom of Tier 5, below VS and VU, and just above UVA Wise

The funny thing about UVA Wise is that it used to be the junior college to UVA. I don't know why they changed into a four year university. Now the only junior college in Virginia (not the same as community college) is William and Mary's Richard Bland College.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here we go again.

There's a glitch in the matrix.

All these JMU and GMU people with inferiority complexes.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> University of Richmond would be Tier 1. Their law
> school isn't the most prestigious, but
> undergraduate programs are top notch. Not to
> mention it cost over $200,000 for a four year
> degree there.

URI is private. The tuition cost isn't directly comparable to public universities for the sake of prestige. GWU costs over $200K, and they're considered a mid-tier college.

eLester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GWU costs over $200K, and they're
> considered a mid-tier college.




GWU is a lot higher than mid-tier. They may not be as selective or prestigious as Georgetown, but give them more credit.

eLester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > University of Richmond would be Tier 1. Their
> law
> > school isn't the most prestigious, but
> > undergraduate programs are top notch. Not to
> > mention it cost over $200,000 for a four year
> > degree there.
>
> URI is private. The tuition cost isn't directly
> comparable to public universities for the sake of
> prestige. GWU costs over $200K, and they're
> considered a mid-tier college.

For Jews who couldn't get into Ivys or MYU.

Half of the time I think these threads are started by someone trying to feel better about where their kid is going.

Wait until you kid graduates and see how they pan out. A great school can produce a loser and vice versa.

screw polytech and making energy and turning a dime

i want to be on the board of visitors or teach about finding energy funded by ? in the future. that's what everyone in the 1990's did - run for the unionized gov jobs gov gold

why shouldn't i do the same ?

electrical workers union used to work building private industry and gov thigns (more private)

and were paid (with age) more than "gov servants" (back then gov jobs were near lowest on totem pole)

--------------------------
in the 1980's before Clinton unionized gov workers and tripled pay ...

you didn't have to pay to go to school for union jobs and sometimes were paid for attending classes

---------------------------
so you want to be $40k (and rising) debt out of school wiht no job and find out obama printed money in DC and used it to get whitey and you can't get hired

good luck with facism and communism

i'll be fighting for my rights in the mean time

P36py Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> electrical workers union used to work building
> private industry and gov thigns (more private)
>
> and were paid (with age) more than "gov servants"
> (back then gov jobs were near lowest on totem
> pole)
>
> --------------------------
> in the 1980's before Clinton unionized gov workers
> and tripled pay ...
>
> you didn't have to pay to go to school for union
> jobs and sometimes were paid for attending
> classes
>
> ---------------------------
> so you want to be $40k (and rising) debt out of
> school wiht no job and find out obama printed
> money in DC and used it to get whitey and you
> can't get hired
>
> good luck with facism and communism
>
> i'll be fighting for my rights in the mean time


You seriously don't even understand what Fascism or Communism are. You're just using big words to sound smart.

Buddah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait until you kid graduates and see how they pan
> out. A great school can produce a loser and vice
> versa.


Very true.

This!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Buddah Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wait until you kid graduates and see how they
> pan
> > out. A great school can produce a loser and
> vice
> > versa.
>
>
> Very true.

When was the last time DeVry produced somebody on Wall St. or a Scientist?

Which Virginia university has the best "Victim Studies" department? I'd like to get into a Gender Studies (Man-Hating) or African-American Studies (Whitey-Hating) major. I know with a degree in either, I'll get a good job in the Obama administration.

Ranking in Area of Study Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which Virginia university has the best "Victim
> Studies" department? I'd like to get into a
> Gender Studies (Man-Hating) or African-American
> Studies (Whitey-Hating) major.



That would be VCU on both counts. You can get a BA in Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies; as described by the program:

Learning outcomes

Upon completing this program, students will know and know how to do the following:

- Be conversant in feminist epistemology

- Analyze through a feminist lens the social, cultural, artistic, literary, historical, economic, political and scientific forces and accomplishments that shape the lived experiences of women and people of diverse sexualities and genders

- Display a working knowledge of online databases and library resources requisite to conducting contemporary and archival research

- Analyze data, refute bias and exercise informed judgment in problem-solving related to the lives of diverse people and to issues of social justice


http://www.pubapps.vcu.edu/bulletins/prog_search/?did=20530

You can also get an African American Studies degree from VCU:


http://www.pubapps.vcu.edu/bulletins/prog_search/?did=20518


Learning outcomes

Upon completing this program, students will know and know how to do the following:


- Define Black experiences across the African Diaspora.

- Document and measure Black experiences across the African Diaspora.

- To interpret Black experiences across the African Diaspora.

- To affirm and validate Black experiences across the African Diaspora.

typo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> T2 REALLY? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JMU is more of a tier 3 school
>
>
> Tier 3*

There are a few things which cause JMU to skew upwards. First it seems to be the school of choice for NoVa kids who did well enough to merit admission to UVa or W&M, but who were kept out by the NoVa quotas (which these schools deny having). Second, like Richmond it has a very good business program. Third, it is cheap so you have kids choosing to go there over more expensive Tier 3 schools.

Other comments:

These rankings only work for Virginia schools. I have yet to meet someone who could honestly say they were accepted to Harvard, Stanford or Chicago, yet decided to go to UVa because it was a better school.

Washington & Lee is definitely Tier 1. It is essentially the William & Mary of private schools in Virginia.

Virginia Tech should probably be in Tier 1.5. It is better than other tier 2 schools but not as well thought of overall as the tier 1 schools.

Tier 3 may be a good overall evaluation of those schools. However some do have individual programs that are among the best in the state. I am not sure why Marymount merits a tier 3 status.

Mason needs an * next to our tier 3 ranking to denote that we've been ranked as a top up and coming school for 30 years running. Since 1985 we've leaped from the bottom of tier 3 right up to the top.

Ranking in Area of Study Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which Virginia university has the best "Victim
> Studies" department? I'd like to get into a
> Gender Studies (Man-Hating) or African-American
> Studies (Whitey-Hating) major. I know with a
> degree in either, I'll get a good job in the Obama
> administration.


Perhaps you can learn to be a better troll

tiers are like tiaras

just because you wear a tiara doesn't mean you have class

just because you can read history books well doesn't mean you will have a good life

the less popular schools with the higher SAT bands don't rank because they don't have football, they have ugly school mascots, they are located in less desired geographic areas ...

people with high GPAs may not rank high in life because their self esteem is tied to a number, they are too busy reading to be social, they are insufferably arrogant, they are judgemental

WM does not have an engineering college.

getting a high GPA in sociology from UVA will be enough to get a job at McDonald's until you can save enough for grad school.

Unless a graduate goes in engineering/accounting or something specific to a degree, it doesn't really matter what the major is...a career is 35-40 years, college is 4.

What needs to be demonstrated is the ability to read and write well, and the best indicator of that is a GPA.

A smart person in college (regardless of degree) will be a smart person later, and easy to teach early in their career.

Why a selective college matters is that it does show pedigree. The assumption is that if a kid goes to a highly selective school, they did well in high school, and were surrounded in college by the better students, thus, a more competitive environment.

To put it the other way, if a kid didn't do well in high school, and then, didn't do well in college (regardless of subject), when life is relatively "easy", why would a potential employer think they will all of the sudden flip the switch and become quick learners, when life gets tougher and more competitive?

Sure, there are examples here and there of academic underachievers that go on to do well in their careers, but the smart money is on hiring those kids that could handle what was put in front of them in high school and college.

I don't agree, pedigree has no place in today's market.

Are you currently employed? Where the heck do you work?

Kids who read well and have high GPA's in liberal arts from a "top tier" school are UNEMPLOYED!!!! They are all standing in the substitute teaching line.

Kids with high GPA's are not automatically teachable. The whole new generation are a bunch of entitled spoiled brats and the kids who were indulged in enrichment activities to pump up the GPA and play soccer well are among the most arrogant and un-teachable because everything is beneath them.

They need the work to be spoon fed to them, they have attention spans of ants, they complain if historical information isn't readily available online, they can't talk to people because they don't like to use the phone.

They think they should be in management the day they enter the workplace. I would hire a hard working, humble kid with a lower GPA over a top tier pedigree brat.

^ You sound like someone with whom I wouldn't normally agree, but...I agree.

disagree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't agree, pedigree has no place in today's
> market.
>
> Are you currently employed? Where the heck do you
> work?
>
> Kids who read well and have high GPA's in liberal
> arts from a "top tier" school are UNEMPLOYED!!!!
> They are all standing in the substitute teaching
> line.
>
> Kids with high GPA's are not automatically
> teachable. The whole new generation are a bunch
> of entitled spoiled brats and the kids who were
> indulged in enrichment activities to pump up the
> GPA and play soccer well are among the most
> arrogant and un-teachable because everything is
> beneath them.
>
> They need the work to be spoon fed to them, they
> have attention spans of ants, they complain if
> historical information isn't readily available
> online, they can't talk to people because they
> don't like to use the phone.
>
> They think they should be in management the day
> they enter the workplace. I would hire a hard
> working, humble kid with a lower GPA over a top
> tier pedigree brat.


Yep, currently employed, have been for the past 20 years since graduating.

Majored in liberal arts from a "top" university.

As to your idea that you "would hire a hard working, humble kid with a lower GPA over a top tier pedigree brat", well, sure...if you were hiring low end spectrum people, like mail-room types, etc., and of course, who said anything about hiring brats, except you?

You hire who you want.

As for me, I'll hire good kids who went to good colleges, who worked hard, and are well rounded.

There are plenty of those, and they tend to do better than kids who didn't do well in school.

The previous 8 years of school work shows that "smart" kids catch on and learn faster than kids from lesser schools, and therefore, would catch on faster and be able to learn more in the first few years of employment.

Heck, I'd probably hire a "smart" brat over a "dumb" brat, as well...and believe me there are plenty of dumb brats too.

Try your idea with say, Goldman Sachs...march a "nice" dummy from some low rate U in there, vs. some smart, good kid from a top university, and see who they hire.

Again, nobody said anything about hiring brats (except you) and there are plenty of good kids at top universities to choose from for HIGHER entry level positions.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I have facts about the new grads and their employment potential.

We have hired grads from "top" schools and they do not learn quickly.

We do not hire people with liberal arts degrees because don't have any skills or knowledge that we need. Their resumes are thrown out.

opinion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> I have facts about the new grads and their
> employment potential.
>
> We have hired grads from "top" schools and they do
> not learn quickly.
>
> We do not hire people with liberal arts degrees
> because don't have any skills or knowledge that we
> need. Their resumes are thrown out.



Like I said before, alot depends on what exactly you are hiring for.

Of course you wouldn't hire an english major for an engineering job, regardless of what tier school they went to. Or, maybe YOU would, but I sure wouldn't.

To your idea that kids from top schools "need the work to be spoon fed to them, they have attention spans of ants", well, if in fact this is true (sounds like a sweeping, opinion based generalization to me, but, for the sake of your argument, I'll go along with it here), then, the kids from lesser schools must really have problems with this stuff. Frankly, my experience has been, and it seems logical to me, that kids from top schools are able to focus better, and seek out resources better than kids who don't do as well in school...thus achioeving higher grades. What reasons do you give for kids in high school and college not doing well? Certainly, those traits couldn't translate well into a challenging job, could they?

Sure, maybe a dummy with the "gift of gab" who is wildly aggressive might do better at some cold-calling type sales job (I know plenty who are), and then again, like I said before, it depends on what you hiring for.

Now, to your statement that you "have hired grads from "top" schools and have found they do not learn quickly", I suppose that could be true if you are teaching someone to fold boxes (whereby the grad from a top school just isn't challenged enough to want to learn), but again, if you are hiring for a high paying job, a challenging job, you must be hiring the wrong people from those top schools if you have found that kids who were underachievers for the last 8 or so years do better than smart kids.

Again, try your idea with a Wall Street firm. March some lovable dummy up there with say, an economics degree, vs. some kid from say UVa or even Princeton (both top schools) with an econ degree and see who they hire. I'd bet it would be more than 90% percent...probably close to 100%, since most Wall Street firms are very selective as to which schools they even bother interviewing from.

So, let's put it this way...if you were only interested in hiring a kid with a science based degree, or engineering degree...would you hire a good kid from a lower end unversity, or would you hire a good kid from a higher end university?

Now, I'll be honest with you, if I had an engineering job that needed a $30,000 a year person when market for that job was say, $60,000, I might be tempted to hire a lower end kid thinking I could keep them around for a while.

But, if we're talking amarket based salary, you would really hire a dummy over a smart, good kid? Really?

Your argument wrongly asserts that all kids from top schools are bad kids, and that simply isn't true. There are good and bad kids throughout, and I would say the work habits that get kids into good schools are far superior than the work habits of those kids who go to lesser schools. How could that be otherwise? Logically?

If it has been your experience that hiring kids from lower end schools is better, the job you are hiring for must not be very high end (in other words, not attractive to graduates of top schools), or you are not doing a very good job of seeking out the right candidates from top schools.

no sirreee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> disagree Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't agree, pedigree has no place in today's
> > market.
> >
> > Are you currently employed? Where the heck do
> you
> > work?
> >
> > Kids who read well and have high GPA's in
> liberal
> > arts from a "top tier" school are UNEMPLOYED!!!!
>
> > They are all standing in the substitute
> teaching
> > line.
> >
> > Kids with high GPA's are not automatically
> > teachable. The whole new generation are a
> bunch
> > of entitled spoiled brats and the kids who were
> > indulged in enrichment activities to pump up
> the
> > GPA and play soccer well are among the most
> > arrogant and un-teachable because everything is
> > beneath them.
> >
> > They need the work to be spoon fed to them,
> they
> > have attention spans of ants, they complain if
> > historical information isn't readily available
> > online, they can't talk to people because they
> > don't like to use the phone.
> >
> > They think they should be in management the day
> > they enter the workplace. I would hire a hard
> > working, humble kid with a lower GPA over a top
> > tier pedigree brat.
>
>
> Yep, currently employed, have been for the past 20
> years since graduating.
>
> Majored in liberal arts from a "top" university.
>
> As to your idea that you "would hire a hard
> working, humble kid with a lower GPA over a top
> tier pedigree brat", well, sure...if you were
> hiring low end spectrum people, like mail-room
> types, etc., and of course, who said anything
> about hiring brats, except you?
>
> You hire who you want.
>
> As for me, I'll hire good kids who went to good
> colleges, who worked hard, and are well rounded.
>
> There are plenty of those, and they tend to do
> better than kids who didn't do well in school.
>
> The previous 8 years of school work shows that
> "smart" kids catch on and learn faster than kids
> from lesser schools, and therefore, would catch on
> faster and be able to learn more in the first few
> years of employment.
>
> Heck, I'd probably hire a "smart" brat over a
> "dumb" brat, as well...and believe me there are
> plenty of dumb brats too.
>
> Try your idea with say, Goldman Sachs...march a
> "nice" dummy from some low rate U in there, vs.
> some smart, good kid from a top university, and
> see who they hire.
>
> Again, nobody said anything about hiring brats
> (except you) and there are plenty of good kids at
> top universities to choose from for HIGHER entry
> level positions.

I can tell by your grammar and lack of correctly applied logic that you are hardly investment banking material.

How is the mail room at your "big fish, small pond" anyway?

investment banking = biggest welfare program in the world

Didn't say I was an investment banker.

I don't know why anyone who read what I wrote above would think that I did.

But I didn't.

You are also incorrect in your idea that I am a big fish in a small pond.

I am, in fact, a big fish in a big pond.

With an english degree from a top university.

You see, whilst my school mates were struggling through the basics of high school coursework (all while living at home, with mommy and daddy paying the bills), I excelled, because I paid attention, studied, and did what was required, and more...and then, while I went off to a top university, and was surrounded by smart, competitive people, those kids that struggled in high school went off to colleges where they competed with other similarly situated students (that is, not too bright).

So, I had to not only push myself to get into that college, but during college, to keep up, since I was surrounded by smarter people.

And that work ethic, and ability to master what was put in front off me, paid off during the interview process and early in my career.

I'm sorry if that might be offensive to you, or you can't understand it.

central planning 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> investment banking = biggest welfare program in
> the world


Spoken like a true class warfare libtard.


Got any facts to back that up?

Didn't think so. Turd.

Yeah...welfare program.

Those slack asses from Princeton, Harvard, Yale, laying around in $2000 suits just collecting welfare checks and helicoptering to their $5,000,000 beach houses on the Hamptons.

Welfare indeed.

my opinion is logical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> opinion Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are entitled to your opinion.
> >
> > I have facts about the new grads and their
> > employment potential.
> >
> > We have hired grads from "top" schools and they
> do
> > not learn quickly.
> >
> > We do not hire people with liberal arts degrees
> > because don't have any skills or knowledge that
> we
> > need. Their resumes are thrown out.
>
>
>
> Like I said before, alot depends on what exactly
> you are hiring for.
>
> Of course you wouldn't hire an english major for
> an engineering job, regardless of what tier school
> they went to. Or, maybe YOU would, but I sure
> wouldn't.
>
> To your idea that kids from top schools "need the
> work to be spoon fed to them, they have attention
> spans of ants", well, if in fact this is true
> (sounds like a sweeping, opinion based
> generalization to me, but, for the sake of your
> argument, I'll go along with it here), then, the
> kids from lesser schools must really have problems
> with this stuff. Frankly, my experience has been,
> and it seems logical to me, that kids from top
> schools are able to focus better, and seek out
> resources better than kids who don't do as well in
> school...thus achioeving higher grades. What
> reasons do you give for kids in high school and
> college not doing well? Certainly, those traits
> couldn't translate well into a challenging job,
> could they?
>
> Sure, maybe a dummy with the "gift of gab" who is
> wildly aggressive might do better at some
> cold-calling type sales job (I know plenty who
> are), and then again, like I said before, it
> depends on what you hiring for.
>
> Now, to your statement that you "have hired grads
> from "top" schools and have found they do not
> learn quickly", I suppose that could be true if
> you are teaching someone to fold boxes (whereby
> the grad from a top school just isn't challenged
> enough to want to learn), but again, if you are
> hiring for a high paying job, a challenging job,
> you must be hiring the wrong people from those top
> schools if you have found that kids who were
> underachievers for the last 8 or so years do
> better than smart kids.
>
> Again, try your idea with a Wall Street firm.
> March some lovable dummy up there with say, an
> economics degree, vs. some kid from say UVa or
> even Princeton (both top schools) with an econ
> degree and see who they hire. I'd bet it would be
> more than 90% percent...probably close to 100%,
> since most Wall Street firms are very selective as
> to which schools they even bother interviewing
> from.
>
> So, let's put it this way...if you were only
> interested in hiring a kid with a science based
> degree, or engineering degree...would you hire a
> good kid from a lower end unversity, or would you
> hire a good kid from a higher end university?
>
> Now, I'll be honest with you, if I had an
> engineering job that needed a $30,000 a year
> person when market for that job was say, $60,000,
> I might be tempted to hire a lower end kid
> thinking I could keep them around for a while.
>
> But, if we're talking amarket based salary, you
> would really hire a dummy over a smart, good kid?
> Really?
>
> Your argument wrongly asserts that all kids from
> top schools are bad kids, and that simply isn't
> true. There are good and bad kids throughout, and
> I would say the work habits that get kids into
> good schools are far superior than the work habits
> of those kids who go to lesser schools. How could
> that be otherwise? Logically?
>
> If it has been your experience that hiring kids
> from lower end schools is better, the job you are
> hiring for must not be very high end (in other
> words, not attractive to graduates of top
> schools), or you are not doing a very good job of
> seeking out the right candidates from top schools.



Typical liberal arts, missing the point.

Wall street takes their pick of Penn grads, UVa is bottom of the barrel.

$30K Engineering jobs don't exist.

Jack the Wack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> With an english degree from a top university.
>
> You see, whilst my school mates....



Did that top-notch English degree teach you to write in British English?

Your point was Wall Street takes more Penn Grads than UVa?

Well, then, I absolutely missed that.

And, I would say if that was your point, you are probably correct, then.

Gosh, I wonder how I missed that.

Strayer

ITT Tech

University of Phoenix

U Va

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jack the Wack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > With an english degree from a top university.
> >
> > You see, whilst my school mates....
>
>
>
> Did that top-notch English degree teach you to
> write in British English?


No. It did teach me to read it, though.

I thought I'd try it here.

Go Spiders! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Strayer
>
> ITT Tech
>
> University of Phoenix
>
> U Va


Oh, hell. Now you're just being silly.

my opinion is logical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, to your statement that you "have hired grads
> from "top" schools and have found they do not
> learn quickly", I suppose that could be true if
> you are teaching someone to fold boxes (whereby
> the grad from a top school just isn't challenged
> enough to want to learn), but again, if you are
> hiring for a high paying job, a challenging job,
> you must be hiring the wrong people from those top
> schools if you have found that kids who were
> underachievers for the last 8 or so years do
> better than smart kids.

The skills it takes to get into a good school and do well there are not necessarily the same as the skills it takes to succeed in your chosen business or profession when you get out. Some of the more successful professionals I've known over the years were mediocre students who went to lower ranked schools. That said, unless you have good HR people who are really willing to get to know the job applicants, it is a gamble.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> my opinion is logical Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Now, to your statement that you "have hired
> grads
> > from "top" schools and have found they do not
> > learn quickly", I suppose that could be true if
> > you are teaching someone to fold boxes (whereby
> > the grad from a top school just isn't
> challenged
> > enough to want to learn), but again, if you are
> > hiring for a high paying job, a challenging
> job,
> > you must be hiring the wrong people from those
> top
> > schools if you have found that kids who were
> > underachievers for the last 8 or so years do
> > better than smart kids.
>
> The skills it takes to get into a good school and
> do well there are not necessarily the same as the
> skills it takes to succeed in your chosen business
> or profession when you get out. Some of the more
> successful professionals I've known over the years
> were mediocre students who went to lower ranked
> schools. That said, unless you have good HR
> people who are really willing to get to know the
> job applicants, it is a gamble.


From an earlier post:

"Sure, there are examples here and there of academic underachievers that go on to do well in their careers, but the smart money is on hiring those kids that could handle what was put in front of them in high school and college."

Liberal Voice. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> central planning 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > investment banking = biggest welfare program in
> > the world
>
>
> Spoken like a true class warfare libtard.
>
>
> Got any facts to back that up?
>
> Didn't think so. Turd.


Why are you so defensive about it though? Is he not entitled to his own opinion w/o being called names?

And no, I"m not defending him at all, because that statement is retarded.

^ "The skills it takes to get into a good school and do well there are not necessarily the same as the skills it takes to succeed in your chosen business or profession when you get out."

Like it or not, that is so true. Communication skills, creativity, flexibility and - most importantly - common sense are not necessarily taught (or at least learned) - in college.

Field of Study Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For engineering, anything agriculture-related, vet
> medicine, and architecture, there are only two
> tiers:
>
> 1. Va Tech
>
> 2. Everywhere else


Talk to anyone hiring Engineering grads and they would rank VMI grads above Tech or anyone else. Say what you will about VMI but those kids are prepared to succeed when they come out.

Jack the Wack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I am, in fact, a big fish in a big pond.
>
> With an english degree from a top university.

Too bad English Degree from a Top University is still worth less than a Business or Engineering Degree from a Bottom University

yep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From an earlier post:
>
> "Sure, there are examples here and there of
> academic underachievers that go on to do well in
> their careers, but the smart money is on hiring
> those kids that could handle what was put in front
> of them in high school and college."

First, you missed the caveat in my post. Second, it isn't the "smart money" but rather the "safe and easy money". If you are in HR hiring investment bankers you don't have to do as much work up front to justify hiring someone from Harvard, Yale, Penn or Williams. If the candidate you recommended doesn't work out, it is less likely to come back on you.

EngineerHR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talk to anyone hiring Engineering grads and they
> would rank VMI grads above Tech or anyone else.
> Say what you will about VMI but those kids are
> prepared to succeed when they come out.

Chances are you are hearing that from VMI graduates. They have no problem pushing their own, which is something to consider when choosing a college.

Recruiter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too bad English Degree from a Top University is
> still worth less than a Business or Engineering
> Degree from a Bottom University

I seldom say this...but...

WRONG!

Attending top university will give you access to contacts and opportunities that you simply may not get at many lower level universities.

How old are you all?

The workplace has changed drastically in the past 10 years.

The workforce has changed drastically in the past 15 years.

The STEM fields are filled with non-white and they are kicking the butts of white people. White people tend toward the liberal arts, which is fine, but right now there are limited job openings for those degrees. Is the point of going to college to get a job or is it to pursue an advanced education? Is the education worth it if no one rewards it with a salaried position? It is a personal choice.

Investment banking, Wall St, Mutual Fund Managers are in a different ballgame and the only way to those jobs are through a top notch colleges. The average spongy Fairfax County kid who won a trophy after every soccer season is not wall street material and wall street is probably not that kid's career goal.

Engineering is a different animal. Everyone passed the curriculum, majority who work in this area passed the licensing exam, some like office work, some like construction work, all have aptitude, all are not equal learners. Of all the Virginia schools, VT produces a large amount of good engineers. WM produces no engineers so telling an engineering student that he/she is attending a lower tier school will make you sound like a fool. UVa engineers tend to be nerdy throughout their careers, this trait is better is some career paths, not so good in others.

Arguing about liberal arts colleges is a first world problem. Many bright new graduates from top schools do not have marketable degrees. Many are going back to graduate school to become teachers. Having a degree from a top school on the teacher track would be beneficial but there are never guarantees. There are some really bad teachers who went to UVa because they thought teaching was below them but they couldn't get non-teaching jobs with a bachelors degree.

Recruiter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jack the Wack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I am, in fact, a big fish in a big pond.
> >
> > With an english degree from a top university.
>
> Too bad English Degree from a Top University is
> still worth less than a Business or Engineering
> Degree from a Bottom University


Not really. Engineers start out hot, but are soon capped if they stay in engineering and don't go into management or sales...engineers (and accountants, legal, finance) work for management...sales people, good ones, are the life blood of any organization, and are compensated accordingly.

Who makes more? A dumb, rainmaking attorney, or a smart attorney who doesn't generate business?

Who makes more? A staff accountant, for say, a real estate firm, or sales people (some of which make in the millions)?

Who makes more in an association? An accountant, or, membership director?

The people who bring in revenue, and then management, make the money. Heck...in many smaller operations, IT, accounting, payroll, HR...are outsourced.

Business majors CAN start out hot as well, maybe have an easier time getting hired, but if you're smart and can learn the particulars of your industry in the first few years of working, then you can catch up and level it off thereafter, regardless of your major.

For example, many sales type operations (most every business, even non-profits, is in fact a sales operation...no revenue, no business) hire smart, polished graduates to sell...and learn the business...after a while, these people move up into management, and accountants, finance, and legal usually report to them in a typical org chart, and thus, make less than the sales people, and management.

The real money is made by getting the product or service SOLD, not by bean counters or legal folks, although these people are important. And that is not to say they don't go into management, either. Some do. Some don't. They don't have the personality, maybe, or, they like what they do.

Just speaking real life experience, of which I have 25 years.

Sales? What are you selling?

This is a government centric area, most companies bid on government contracts for services the government needs. There are no industries (factories) in this area making any products to be sold. Defense contracting has been reduced and those proposals are bid as well. The only players in face to face sales are related to pharmaceutical and retail.

Most view sales people as bullshitters. A good lawyer does not report to a bullshitter. There is steady work for lawyers, plenty of DUI's, plenty of divorces, plenty of needs for legal services. People avoid legal firms that need to sell their services, their work and reputation should speak for itself.

Engineers do not cap out in all fields. Experienced technical engineers are worth a lot of money. A sales type person would be eaten alive in a room of engineers and would never make it into management.

Hard to compare salary to position. Some management positions require 60-80 hours a week which could translate into a lower hourly rate if measuring straight compensation without additional benefits. Some people have friends and family and will gladly let a bullshitter think he is smarter.

Everybody knows that the most underrated university in Virginia is Liberty.

uncertain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sales? What are you selling?
>
> This is a government centric area, most companies
> bid on government contracts for services the
> government needs. There are no industries
> (factories) in this area making any products to be
> sold. Defense contracting has been reduced and
> those proposals are bid as well. The only players
> in face to face sales are related to
> pharmaceutical and retail.
>
> Most view sales people as bullshitters. A good
> lawyer does not report to a bullshitter. There is
> steady work for lawyers, plenty of DUI's, plenty
> of divorces, plenty of needs for legal services.
> People avoid legal firms that need to sell their
> services, their work and reputation should speak
> for itself.
>
> Engineers do not cap out in all fields.
> Experienced technical engineers are worth a lot of
> money. A sales type person would be eaten alive
> in a room of engineers and would never make it
> into management.
>
> Hard to compare salary to position. Some
> management positions require 60-80 hours a week
> which could translate into a lower hourly rate if
> measuring straight compensation without additional
> benefits. Some people have friends and family and
> will gladly let a bullshitter think he is smarter.


EVERYTHING is sold in this area...including services of all types...legal, accounting, consulting, engineering, lobbying, public relations, advertising. commercial real estate services, construction, etc.

That a good lawyer does not report to a salesperson is probably true, because to be a good lawyer you are most likely a good salepsperson (AKA rainmaker). You can be a brilliant attorney, but unless you are bringing in business, you ain't gonna be around too long, or at least, make too much money, unless you are "famed" and the firm can push you and publicize you.

And of course, products made by factories located in other jurisdictions are also sold here.

Government contracting is HUGELY sales driven.

Don't think of the selling that goes on at higher levels as someone cold-calling to sell long distance services or someone knocking on doors selling office supplies (although it might be noted that I know someone in the latter making around $175K...not huge money compared to top DC attorneys, lobbyists, or commercial real estate people that are typically north of $500k, but good money nonetheless.)

The competition for business particularly at higher levels, where the money can be HUGE, is fierce.

Selling is done at these levels, but it isn't like cold calling type stuff...it is schmoozing, networking, box-at-the-stadium, industry event type stuff.

I know plenty of out of work or low level attorneys who burnt out of being the low man on a team, working crappy hours for a rainmaking attorney, or working crappy cases like traffic stops.

Sure, business at a high level might be won on "reputation", but believe me, that rep is not a passive creation...cultivating and publicizing a reputation at a high level is an example of salesmanship at a high level, and is nearly a full time job in itself.

There is no way JMU is a tier 2 school, it's a division 2 school anyways. In no universe is it in tier two. Whatever way you categorize that.

Attractive women it's top notch. Known nation wide? No chance.

NOVA is a local gem,got my ticket stamped in two years for what I wanted to do now I'm golden and zero dept.Nothing against higher education,but keep it real.

everything is sold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> uncertain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sales? What are you selling?
> >
> > This is a government centric area, most
> companies
> > bid on government contracts for services the
> > government needs. There are no industries
> > (factories) in this area making any products to
> be
> > sold. Defense contracting has been reduced and
> > those proposals are bid as well. The only
> players
> > in face to face sales are related to
> > pharmaceutical and retail.
> >
> > Most view sales people as bullshitters. A good
> > lawyer does not report to a bullshitter. There
> is
> > steady work for lawyers, plenty of DUI's,
> plenty
> > of divorces, plenty of needs for legal services.
>
> > People avoid legal firms that need to sell
> their
> > services, their work and reputation should
> speak
> > for itself.
> >
> > Engineers do not cap out in all fields.
> > Experienced technical engineers are worth a lot
> of
> > money. A sales type person would be eaten
> alive
> > in a room of engineers and would never make it
> > into management.
> >
> > Hard to compare salary to position. Some
> > management positions require 60-80 hours a week
> > which could translate into a lower hourly rate
> if
> > measuring straight compensation without
> additional
> > benefits. Some people have friends and family
> and
> > will gladly let a bullshitter think he is
> smarter.
>
>
> EVERYTHING is sold in this area...including
> services of all types...legal, accounting,
> consulting, engineering, lobbying, public
> relations, advertising. commercial real estate
> services, construction, etc.
>
> That a good lawyer does not report to a
> salesperson is probably true, because to be a good
> lawyer you are most likely a good salepsperson
> (AKA rainmaker). You can be a brilliant attorney,
> but unless you are bringing in business, you ain't
> gonna be around too long, or at least, make too
> much money, unless you are "famed" and the firm
> can push you and publicize you.
>
> And of course, products made by factories located
> in other jurisdictions are also sold here.
>
> Government contracting is HUGELY sales driven.


interesting points here. always thought government contracting was in accordance with procurement regulations that required low bidding.

so to tie back to the original conversation of ranking the state universities, paper ranking based on GPA and SAT of the student body doesn't really matter since universities don't offer confer degrees in schmoozing. success in this realm is a combination of academic intelligence, personality, and enjoyment of after hours professional socializing.

central planning 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> investment banking = biggest welfare program in
> the world

Their main trading partner is now official government institutions whose main interest is not necessarily making a trading profit but propping up the economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/buying-up-the-planet-outo_b_5516392.html

central planning 201 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> central planning 101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > investment banking = biggest welfare program in
> > the world
>
> Their main trading partner is now official
> government institutions whose main interest is not
> necessarily making a trading profit but propping
> up the economy.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/buying-u
> p-the-planet-outo_b_5516392.html


Just come out and admit that you hate Capitalism.

>
> interesting points here. always thought
> government contracting was in accordance with
> procurement regulations that required low bidding.
>
>
> so to tie back to the original conversation of
> ranking the state universities, paper ranking
> based on GPA and SAT of the student body doesn't
> really matter since universities don't offer
> confer degrees in schmoozing. success in this
> realm is a combination of academic intelligence,
> personality, and enjoyment of after hours
> professional socializing.


Well put on both points, and yes, you are correct, government contracting is indeed driven by low bidding...but there are indeed subtleties to the process, and those subtleties do closely resemble selling...the process is not always so sterile.

Flip through a military aviation magazine, for example...there are "ads" for military airplanes (jet fighters, tankers, cargo planes), and other such equipment costing millions of dollars apiece. If the process was so sterile, why would these manufacturers even bother with advertising? Are these ads targeted to consumers like you and I, where we might say, gee, that F-22 would look sweet in my driveway, and I've got $200 million laying around? Of course not.

Because it does still require public relations, selling, influence, etc...and so it is important that these manufacturers publicize these products in a positive fashion to ALL who might be involved with the process...for example, senator X, whose district includes the plant where the plane will be built...it pays to have him familiar with this plane, and all of the sudden, he is pushing all his buttons to get this plane "procured"...and thus, built in his district where he is now a hero for bringing jobs, etc., and gets re-elected.

No, it is not a matter of the procurement team looking at these magazines, and saying, gee...look at this F-22...I didn't even know those things existed...let's buy a bunch of those, because of this cool ad. But, it doesn't hurt if they are familiar with a product they are reviewing, though.

Again, this is a "high end" marketing and selling campaign, much different than cold-calling and door knocking sales than some people think of as the only "sales" possible.

And so, just as these multi-million dollar items have print and other media sales campaigns associated with them, they also have high-end, sophisticated people as part of these teams...involved in a sophisticated selling process (not knocking on doors with a salesman's sample box, mind you), and making a lot of $$$ doing so.

How do I know this?

Because I studied history in college, and I paid close attention to the development of the military-industrial complex in America since the beginning of the 20th century. I studied writings by such folks as Smedley Butler, and studied the development and procurement process of military equipment in the post World war II, cold war era.

And, I took courses in mechanical engineering, when my liberal arts studies allowed me to do so...just to know some basics and understand the complexity of that world...which is indeed very complex.

I paid attention to current events on the hill.

You can get a good education out of anything, or, you can say, I studied history in college, and all I learned was things like the fall of the Roman Empire...what the hell am I gonna do with that?

Professional socializing is but a small part of it. Being educated, understanding the world and the players and what is important to them is a bigger part. Being cultured and/or polished, or perhaps just appearing polished, is very important, when trying to work in this world.

Higher tier colleges are more competitive by their very nature...one must compete with smarter and perhaps more motivated people to keep up.

Back to sales, many people tend to oversimplify sales and think of it only through their lens and experience...which may be getting on the phone and trying to get somebody to change their long distance service, or going door-to-door trying to sell some product. There is nothing wrong with those type of sales at all, and indeed there is good money to be made.

However, there is a higher end sale, whereby it is more influence, connecting dots, and consists of subtelties beyond cold-calling.

And understand, where there are millions of dollars involved, it will be very competitive...and there will be some form of sales, and people paid very well to work these processes...usually pretty dam smart people.

Richmond is definitely Tier 1.

No way Richmond is tier one. And JMU is like tier three. Maybe even four.

anujtharakan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richmond is definitely Tier 1.




Yep, they are a Southern Ivy after all.

Blessed are the murderous.

The only two schools that are a household name across the country are UVA and VT. W&M and W&L are both great and more selective than VT, but have little name recognition outside this area - much like the dozens of small "elite" schools from Pennsylvania to Maine. All other schools in the commonwealth are just a checkbox for employers whose govt contracts require staff to have some kind of college degree. In those cases, Radford gets the box checked just the same as Richmond, but at a far lower price point. In the end, however, it's the student that matters much more than the school. Hell, even Longwood has some very successful grads, while UVA has plenty of failed, unemployed do-nothings.

JMU is best known for hot girls that will suck your dick at some apparent party. They're not well known for any particular thing outside of virginia give me a break. Is it a better school than liberty? Yes. Is it better known I doubt. Who the hell east of Virginia even knows JMU exists? There's no reason too, other than maybe being that school that's bifurcated by a big highway.

franklin mews Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who the hell east of Virginia even knows JMU exists?




East of Virginia? You have a small piece of Maryland and the state of Delaware. After that, it's just water.....

Prob an inartful way of saying overseas

Ranking universities is like ranking automobiles. Does a two-door, two-seat convertible rank above a spacious sedan? Maybe to some, but not to others.

The U.S. News rankings are meaningless. Small-minded idiots rely on them rather than using braincells to learn about what each school has to offer. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of ways to rank schools. U.S. News arbitrarily chooses one method.

Anyone with a brain could easily pick a ranking scheme that puts, for example, JMU way above Harvard. So go ahead and worry about U.S. News rankings if you're a total moron and insecure about yourself. Otherwise, get off your lazy ass, do some research to figure out which is best for you and yours, and don't worry about how mental midgets react.

deez Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prob an inartful way of saying overseas




Is inartful even a word? That's like saying irregardless.

Al Einstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ranking universities is like ranking automobiles.
> Does a two-door, two-seat convertible rank above a
> spacious sedan? Maybe to some, but not to others.
>
>
> The U.S. News rankings are meaningless.
> Small-minded idiots rely on them rather than using
> braincells to learn about what each school has to
> offer. There are literally hundreds, if not
> thousands, of ways to rank schools. U.S. News
> arbitrarily chooses one method.
>
> Anyone with a brain could easily pick a ranking
> scheme that puts, for example, JMU way above
> Harvard. So go ahead and worry about U.S. News
> rankings if you're a total moron and insecure
> about yourself. Otherwise, get off your lazy ass,
> do some research to figure out which is best for
> you and yours, and don't worry about how mental
> midgets react.


So if given the opportunity, you'd send your kid to ITT Tech over Harvard?

Interesting...