Is it safe to go to Hofstra? (Hempstead, Stony Brook: lawyer, job market)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great news!, does anyone still watch the Islanders? , much less listen to them?
If you're going to spend 120k+ for a TV/Radio major, might as well go to Tisch(NYU) though the folks who go there have an "easy" reputation.
Hofstra is overpriced for the money, Adelphi is no better. Get bigger bang from the SUNY's per dollar spent, save your money for grad school. The way things are shaping up in the economy, todays's college degree is the equivalent of yesterday's high school degree.
What live broadcasting do they allow students to do with professional sports teams at Stony Brook?
What live broadcasting do they allow students to do with professional sports teams at Stony Brook?
You missed the part about "saving your money for grad school" - a college degree today short of becoming an engineer is becoming outdated and the equivalent of yesterday's Studebaker". Save your hard-earned dollars or LOANS for grad school.
Everyone want's to believe their John or Janey is going to be the next star broadcaster, but if you have 150 in the major, just how many do you think will be actually broadcasting a NY Islanders game? All 150? are there even that many games played at home? Or is "blowing" the horn when the goal is scored count as part of the "internship" experience? I'll take my cup of coffee to go, after you make me 1500 copies of "Get your Islanders tickets now" and put them under every car's windshield in the Hofstra parking lot.
You missed the part about "saving your money for grad school" - a college degree today short of becoming an engineer is becoming outdated and the equivalent of yesterday's Studebaker". Save your hard-earned dollars or LOANS for grad school.
Everyone want's to believe their John or Janey is going to be the next star broadcaster, but if you have 150 in the major, just how many do you think will be actually broadcasting a NY Islanders game? All 150? are there even that many games played at home? Or is "blowing" the horn when the goal is scored count as part of the "internship" experience? I'll take my cup of coffee to go, after you make me 1500 copies of "Get your Islanders tickets now" and put them under every car's windshield in the Hofstra parking lot.
Completely agree, and alluded to this is my previous post.
I'm a huge advocate for a well rounded liberal arts education. On the professional side though, it's really all about networking. Media internships are extraordinarily competitive. Students get them based on the relationship their school has with the media companies. These relationships are almost always established via alumnae or adjunct professors who are also actively working in the industry. I worked in TV news production for almost 20 years in NYC, and didn't encounter Hofstra students or adjuncts very often - so, I'd highly recommend looking into what types of relationships the school has to the big NYC media companies to anyone looking into a school for internships.
I'd also look into what types of internships those students get. Media companies take GREAT advantage of interns and often use them as supplemental unpaid admin staff. It's not worth the internship (and it's not going to make an impact on a resume) if you're shuffled to an accounts payable department doing admin work, nor is it worth it if your in a production studio assisting PA's doing gofor work.
My company (one of the big 3 network news divisions) runs a regular summer program with Hunter College where students actually work closely with a news production team (including the corespondent, producer, and editor) and essentially produce a professional segment by the end of their internship - something that really stands out on a reel. Only 4 or so students from Hunter's Media Studies Department are selected for this, so bear in mind that internships are also very competitive within school departments. Several of the students have gone on to very promising careers. While on paper Hofstra might be a "better" school with a nicer campus - a little research reveals that Hunter offers media students some amazing opportunities and is really at the heart of the NYC media world. Several industry leaders are adjuncts there. It's also cheap and you can save money for grad school!
I'd also add that several of the more expensive private schools (especially Tisch and Syracuse) have similar relationships. I also highly recommend the Center for Communication (Center for Communication - Home) as a great resource for college students looking to break into the industry.
You missed the part about "saving your money for grad school" - a college degree today short of becoming an engineer is becoming outdated and the equivalent of yesterday's Studebaker". Save your hard-earned dollars or LOANS for grad school.
Everyone want's to believe their John or Janey is going to be the next star broadcaster, but if you have 150 in the major, just how many do you think will be actually broadcasting a NY Islanders game? All 150? are there even that many games played at home? Or is "blowing" the horn when the goal is scored count as part of the "internship" experience? I'll take my cup of coffee to go, after you make me 1500 copies of "Get your Islanders tickets now" and put them under every car's windshield in the Hofstra parking lot.
I didn't know that you were either broadcasting or making photocopies. With all of the evidence you've shared, you've made a compelling argument for avoiding studying what you like at the undergraduate level, and at a pricier school. Most convincing is the comparison between Hofstra and any other school that is cheaper; evidently, price is all that matters. If so, send your kids to a CC.
I didn't know that you were either broadcasting or making photocopies. With all of the evidence you've shared, you've made a compelling argument for avoiding studying what you like at the undergraduate level, and at a pricier school. Most convincing is the comparison between Hofstra and any other school that is cheaper; evidently, price is all that matters. If so, send your kids to a CC.
Since you're chock full of ideas what to major in, why don't you share with the board where all the paying jobs (with $$) are too?
If price is all that matters, send your kids to a CUNY - you will be better off financially and academically for it. However, if you want your kid to swill at the bar and experience biology through STD's - then by all means, take DeadPool's recommendation.
As with any public versus private decision, compare the student-to-faculty ratio. Privates are usually much smaller. Because nearly all state schools are also research institutions, the emphasis is taken away from instruction, and is placed on research production. That is one of the reasons attending these schools is less expensive (though their prices are growing quickly), because the professors are almost universally required to pursue external research grant funding. One might say that public schools, then, expose students to more world class researchers. The problem with that generalization is that it isn't true. Harvard, Rice, Bowdoin, Swarthmore, for example, tout smaller class sizes and amazing professors. Their classes are small, and they place a heavy emphasis on undergraduate instruction. Few privates use graduate students to teach their classes; Hofstra doesn't use graduate students in classes at all.
Saving your money for graduate school is pretty idiotic, in my opinion. Most programs worth their salt will, for a student worth his or hers, pay them outright to attend their graduate program. They also afford them a stipend on which to live. There are exceptions, such as medical and law schools - but these are vocation-related. They are revenue generators for universities. Schools of education and schools of nursing, and business are similar in that respect; they make money. Medical and law school will pay for themselves because of the income one can expect. Nursing, ed, and business are less likely to pay off. One should have left undergraduate fit to teach. The graduate level ed schools exist either to retool the returning student who didn't graduate with an ed. degree, or to teach administrators or to belch out MAs so that teachers can jump a pay grade. Nursing is similar. MBAs should be paid for by your employer; they often help to pay for evening classes. Where they don't, pay incentive is often offered, which would help make pursuing an MBA make more sense.
As with any public versus private decision, compare the student-to-faculty ratio. Privates are usually much smaller. Because nearly all state schools are also research institutions, the emphasis is taken away from instruction, and is placed on research production. That is one of the reasons attending these schools is less expensive (though their prices are growing quickly), because the professors are almost universally required to pursue external research grant funding. One might say that public schools, then, expose students to more world class researchers. The problem with that generalization is that it isn't true. Harvard, Rice, Bowdoin, Swarthmore, for example, tout smaller class sizes and amazing professors. Their classes are small, and they place a heavy emphasis on undergraduate instruction. Few privates use graduate students to teach their classes; Hofstra doesn't use graduate students in classes at all.
As with any public versus private decision, compare the student-to-faculty ratio. Privates are usually much smaller. Because nearly all state schools are also research institutions, the emphasis is taken away from instruction, and is placed on research production. That is one of the reasons attending these schools is less expensive (though their prices are growing quickly), because the professors are almost universally required to pursue external research grant funding. One might say that public schools, then, expose students to more world class researchers. The problem with that generalization is that it isn't true. Harvard, Rice, Bowdoin, Swarthmore, for example, tout smaller class sizes and amazing professors. Their classes are small, and they place a heavy emphasis on undergraduate instruction. Few privates use graduate students to teach their classes; Hofstra doesn't use graduate students in classes at all.
I think your reasoning is sound, but your argument very idealistic. You don't go to school to "learn." You go to school to get a job. A college education is a signaling effect, telling employers that you are an intelligent, and thus worthy, candidate for the job opening. Just like when a women wears a tight, low cut, and short red dress. This is another signaling effect.
Don't focus on the class size or faculty to student ratio, focus on the job placement rate compared to similar schools. A school that doesn't tout it's placement rate isn't worth paying top dollar for. A degree gets you your first job, it's up to you after that. All things being equal for the OP, go to the cheapest school. Most people that choose expensive universities, when you get deep into their rational, choose that school because of their own insecurities and their belief that an expensive school will make up for their own weaknesses. Don't fall for this! Your daughter will thank you 20 years from now when she doesn't have student loans to pay for.
I think your reasoning is sound, but your argument very idealistic. You don't go to school to "learn." You go to school to get a job. A college education is a signaling effect, telling employers that you are an intelligent, and thus worthy, candidate for the job opening. Just like when a women wears a tight, low cut, and short red dress. This is another signaling effect.
Don't focus on the class size or faculty to student ratio, focus on the job placement rate compared to similar schools. A school that doesn't tout it's placement rate isn't worth paying top dollar for. A degree gets you your first job, it's up to you after that. All things being equal for the OP, go to the cheapest school. Most people that choose expensive universities, when you get deep into their rational, choose that school because of their own insecurities and their belief that an expensive school will make up for their own weaknesses. Don't fall for this! Your daughter will thank you 20 years from now when she doesn't have student loans to pay for.
At the risk of seeming overly contentious, the very finest schools don't tout their job placement rates. Schools that tout their ability to place in jobs are the DeVrys and ITTs of the academic world. The very finest schools are, for the most part, Liberal Arts schools. Look at the mission statements from just about any long lasting brick and mortar academic institution, and job placement is not cited as a purpose for their existence. The purpose is to solve problems.
The notion of pursuing a job through an education comes from the GI Bill people who returned from WWII. It always existed with law schools and med schools, but you don't study these things as an undergraduate. At the undergraduate, you are liberally educated - broadly educated. You read the great books and introduced to the rigors of science (objective study of the universe). Essentially, what you get from studying these things are the raw tools to think critically and to know your place in history.
There was a terribly interesting piece in The Atlantic about 4 years ago explaining that the people heading the most successful business firms in the US come mostly from Ivy League schools, and come out of the Liberal Arts (e.g., philosophy, English, history). These people are smart, can write, think critically, problem solve, and take instruction particularly well - they are good model followers. Most end up with MBAs, but that's not where they start off.
Student/teacher ratio means a lot. I've taught at institutions with an 11/1 ratio and at a state flagship school with caps near 40 in the smaller classes; some mass classes had as many as 400 students in them. You learn in the latter environments only if you are sharp, trained, and inclined to concentrating. I think many community colleges, for the money, are superior (particularly in the first two years of schooling) to many state research AND teaching schools. You attend an above average liberal arts institution with a small teacher/student ratio, and your child almost HAS to learn - or else the culture of the place runs them out. The culture is entirely different in these institutions.
Anyway, share your thoughts about colleges. I like learning from others, until they start calling names and insulting me. Then it's not as much fun anymore.
At the risk of seeming overly contentious, the very finest schools don't tout their job placement rates. Schools that tout their ability to place in jobs are the DeVrys and ITTs of the academic world. The very finest schools are, for the most part, Liberal Arts schools. Look at the mission statements from just about any long lasting brick and mortar academic institution, and job placement is not cited as a purpose for their existence. The purpose is to solve problems.
This has changed drastically in the past 10 years. The rise of the US News has made schools highly conscious of their placement rates, as it is a key measurement in their rankings. And, no matter their external stance, they all care their positioning in the eyes of the public. It's odd that you would say that the finest schools are Liberal Arts schools, then go on to quote the Ivy Leagues. The Ivy League schools are far from what I would consider liberal arts schools. Yes, they do graduate students with liberal arts degrees, but this is a ever shrinking and small portion of their undergraduate degrees.
Quote:
The notion of pursuing a job through an education comes from the GI Bill people who returned from WWII. It always existed with law schools and med schools, but you don't study these things as an undergraduate. At the undergraduate, you are liberally educated - broadly educated. You read the great books and introduced to the rigors of science (objective study of the universe). Essentially, what you get from studying these things are the raw tools to think critically and to know your place in history.
The notion of pursuing a job through education is much older than the GI Bill. Most of the "elite" schools were built to provide seminary educations and produce preachers and clergy. Harvard, the very oldest of our institutions, was founded to train Congregationalist and Unitarian clergy. Schools like Harvard were the original vocational schools in the United States. The focus on vocational schools was around in 1862 when the federal government passed the Morrill Acts. Thus, setting up vocationally specific universities within the United States. Setting up Land Grant institutions like Cornell and MIT. Again, the schools set up by the Land Grant bills were to improve education in a particular industry, agriculture.
Quote:
There was a terribly interesting piece in The Atlantic about 4 years ago explaining that the people heading the most successful business firms in the US come mostly from Ivy League schools, and come out of the Liberal Arts (e.g., philosophy, English, history). These people are smart, can write, think critically, problem solve, and take instruction particularly well - they are good model followers. Most end up with MBAs, but that's not where they start off.
I don't know about an article 4 years ago by the Atlantic, but a 2005 CEO study showed that only 9% of all Fortune 500 CEOs had a Liberal Arts degreee. This pales in comparison to the 20% in Engineering, 15% in Business Admin, and 11% in Economics.
The quest for a Great Books or Liberal Arts degree is disappearing at an alarming rate. Actually, CNBC has done more than a few very interesting pieces on the lack of interest in degrees in English, History, Philosophy and like degrees. Students can't justify paying the current price for an education that is inferior at yielding employment.
Quote:
Student/teacher ratio means a lot. I've taught at institutions with an 11/1 ratio and at a state flagship school with caps near 40 in the smaller classes; some mass classes had as many as 400 students in them. You learn in the latter environments only if you are sharp, trained, and inclined to concentrating. I think many community colleges, for the money, are superior (particularly in the first two years of schooling) to many state research AND teaching schools. You attend an above average liberal arts institution with a small teacher/student ratio, and your child almost HAS to learn - or else the culture of the place runs them out. The culture is entirely different in these institutions.
Anyway, share your thoughts about colleges. I like learning from others, until they start calling names and insulting me. Then it's not as much fun anymore.
I would agree with you that a smaller class is more conducive to learning, creative thinking, and just an overall better academic environment. It's just a question of what your trying to get out of your experience. Most students, I'm sorry to say, are not going to college to be enlightened. They are going because they know it leads to a higher quality of living.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, much less listen to them? 
Didn't know of the dichotomy
However, if you want your kid to swill at the bar and experience biology through STD's - then by all means, take DeadPool's recommendation. 
