Slashdot Mirror

An average student would have a 1083 SAT score. So we're talking about a slightly below average student in both SAT and GPA. I don't think many who are well below average would be seriously interested in college in the first place. Especially when you can do a 400 SAT (absolute minimum score - you got your name right and nothing else) and have a 3.15 GPA and qualify.

You're just bitter that I don't want to pay your college loans....

Let me give you a small bit of advice.

First, go to a community college for your first two years. Live with your parents. Work part time at any job. You won't be a CEO and it won't be glamorous, but college isn't about making you feel special.

Second, go to an instate college. Preferably go to a college in the city your family lives in.

Third, go into a field that you can legitimately say will improve your earning ability.

And as far as making shit up...

I live in Seattle, here are the facts for this area:

Seattle Central Community College, quarterly tuition for in state student with 16 credits: $1224.00. (From here: http://seattlecentral.edu/registration/tuition.php)

University of Washington, total annual tuition for transfer students: $11,340. (From: http://admit.washington.edu/Paying/Cost#freshmen-transfer)

Top ten college majors: (From: http://www.princetonreview.com/college/top-ten-majors.aspx)

6) English Language and Literature
8) Communications Studies/Speech Communication and Rhetoric
9) Political Science and Government

Sorry, but the demand for English Language and Literature does not justify even $10,000/yr in debt, let alone $20,000+/yr. Compare the list of top majors with this list of top earning majors http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2073703,00.html and tell me again that I'm making shit up.

And there are lots of jobs out there, they're just jobs that you apparently think you are above. Stop being such an elitist asshole and recognize that any work is better than no work and that no one is above doing any type of job.

Speaking as a U.S. Navy veteran myself, the military is not the key to a quality college education. The GI Bill provides barely enough to get you through a state school, but for many people only private institutions provide the studies they seek. You'll also get nothing done while in the military, unless you are incredibly lucky and stationed in the right place

That depends what how much you contribute, for how long you contribute, and whether or not you take college classes while in the military. While I was in the Army stationed at Ft Benning, GA I took one class that was taught by a professor at Troy University for which Troy University gave credit. At the tyme it was considered one of the best in the Southeast and still is. The one problem I had with it was that you had to have the money up front to pay tuition, books, and fees once you got out.

"The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as 'What shall I do tomorrow?' and 'What job shall I take?'"

It has always been my contention that advertising has its own uncanny valley, where the best advertising is either not advertising (real, honest, incidental product endorsement ... which is getting very rare) or something that is apparent as advertising. Anything too close to "reality" is going to fall in that valley and breed this kind of cynicism.

This is a problem for advertisers, as the conclusion or argument of an ad used to simply be "buy me," but in the current digital age it has resorted to simply "watch me." (Listen to the "Commercial Bowl" episode from the Princeton Review LSAT Podcast for a good review of this principle. In order to be seen, the ad must not seem like an ad. Unfortunately, or maybe even ironically, the less it looks like an ad the more it is likely to be viewed with skepticism and cynicism.

What's the solution? Some might argue product placement or something like it, something inseperable from the content. This solves the "watch me" problem, but not the cynicism problem. Perhaps the solution is simply to go back to "this show brought to you by brand x thingamabobs." Be open about it, get people to want your product based on the art you support. That's one approach.

I'm interested to see where advertising goes in the next decade or two. It's almost certain to look nothing like what we are used to today.

Third from the bottom?
Do some research kid!

http://www.msubillings.edu/caer/quality_rankings_o f_education_in.htm

http://www.princetonreview.com/footer/testingTeste rs.asp

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name= fte/smartstates/smartstates

Ignorant people give the pro-choice movement a good case for abortion. ;)

I knew there was a reason why I went to the University of Dayton! And it wasn't for the beer!

Most of the time they are talking about the ranknings put out by the Princeton Review

It's not "America's Most Connected Campuses."
It's just the "connectedness" of The Princeton Review's "The Best 357 Colleges."
These schools are selected based on The Princeton Review's "high opinion" of these particular schools.
http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/ar ticles/find/rankingsFAQ.asp
Forbes.com's article title is both misleading and irresponsible.

As a reference, look here. It's done all the time. Very many government contractors have some clearance. Many companies won't even hire you if you can't get a clearance (such as not a citizen.) If you can get one but don't have any yet, not a problem - work on something else while the papers are in motion.

Additionally, and as someone else has pointed out before, UT Austin does not make up 90% of the city. Austin, TX has almost a quarter of a million square miles, according to this site, whereas UT Austin only has 0.5 square miles associated with it, according to this site (you can do the unit conversion from acres to square miles yourself).

I'd rather know about the money I'll be making five to ten years into the job.

Princeton Review - ranks on such important catagories as "most weed" and "most hard liquor"

You would be surprised at what they rank schools on. At princetonreview.com you can find out all kinds of stuff. Which schools are the most/least politically involved, best/worst administration, most hippies, most jocks, drinking school, reefer school, nerdiest schools, you name it.

Of course it's all done by student survey unlike USNews which is done by staff/faculty I believe. You get to see the top five schools for each category unless you register but at least it's free.

And there are some interesting things on the list... for example, one of the biggest problems I had with my former graduate school: TA's teaching upper level courses. And my former school is on that list.

Bah...

Princeton Review has their rankings out and there is no fee. Find out which schools are the party and non-party schools.

You can see it here. Same colleges different order. ;)

OK, a couple points of contention:

"They do this to filter out the poor. The rich automatically have an advantage in that they are usually trained for the SAT..."

One might say that college in general sort of "filters" out the poor. One could argue that parents who pay for tutors, not just for SATs, and buy fancy calculators, etc... give their children advantages in school and in college. They can also afford to send their child to ballet school, summer football camps, and a ton more extra curriculars than a poor student and enhance their chances of getting into school.
However, most colleges these days are willing to recognize the fact that poorer students don't get as many opportunities, so instead many admission standards aren't based on accomplishments, but on the opportunities presented and how the student took advantage of them. I'm not trying to say that rich students don't have any advantage - but its not incredibly difficult for a hardworking person, regardless of financial background, to get into college.

Second:

"If I decide to take it now and I score a 1500, perhaps I would get accepted into Harvard a bit sooner, but you'll end up in the same spot if you get good grades, keep a 3.5 or above GPA, do well in your classes for a consistant period of time and you can transfer into Harvard. Its also cheaper this way."

Getting in, via a transfer method, may be easier for some people than taking the SATs it is strictly speaking not cheaper. Many Ivy League schools, or even remotely pretigious schools have fairly strict requirements on transfer credits. An example is at my school, Harvey Mudd, one transfer Engineering major from UT Austin had completed three years, but due to transfer credits not going in his favor (and the Engineering curriculum here at Mudd is extremely rigorous) he still has at least 2 more years here - for a total of 5 years in college. UT Austin may be cheaper per year, but if you have to take 3 years of class to qualify for two years at Harvey Mudd, then it might even be a financial burden.

Third:

"SATs are useless, people should be judged by their grades, their merit, not some score on a test which could be a fluke, or which they could have used their money to train themselves for."

SATs aren't the sole admissions standard for any college - in fact most colleges are putting less and less weight on SAT scores. It is also possible to make up for low SAT scores by having strong extracurriculars or writing an interesting or good personal statement/essay. What the SATs are useful for is providing a *rough* gauge of academic potential. It's incredibly rough though. But when you think about it, its needed. Many schools go through thousands and thousands of applications, and in many cases admit only a couple hundred. SAT scores allow admission offices a fairly good way to establish a sort of minimum for prospective students. Getting a 1600 won't guarantee admission at any of the more competitive institutions (MIT, Harvard, or any of the Service Academies like West Point or Annapolis). Its only one of many things that are considered.

Fourth:
"Alot of people train hard for the SATs, get into Harvard or Yale, and drop out, mainly because they dont know how to work hard, they just know how to pass tests."

A lot of what college is, is taking lots of tests. They're not all standardized tests, but they're still tests. Its inevitable that you're going to have to take quite a few high-pressure tests in college (finals are next week!). The SAT is a good measure of how you will do under pressure. If you can train for a test, that means you can train to take a physics final or if you train for the SAT II writing test, it will show aptitude for that essay test in English class. And not that many people drop out of Yale (I'm not sure about Harvard), as there's a 95% graduation rate within 6 years - source here.