Does UT have the same reputation as Harvard in Texas? (Rice: best schools, salary)

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Nerdlord

This is true and I agree with it. But that's not what you originally said.

THIS is what your initial premise was (since you seem to have forgotten)


You made no mention of majors or costs or "mid-tier" UCs. You made a blanket statement that employers are more interested in graduates from SLO or Pomona than Stanford or Berkeley. This is just patently false and I called you out on it. How are you not following this?

If you want to move the goal posts and change your statement I don't really care. I can only read what your posts say not what you "mean"

It's not that hard to figure out. Local employers know that cal poly slo and Pomona grads can hit the ground running because the curriculum is very practical and technical. That's why they're highly regarded by employers in the stem fields. The schools are a better bargain. Last I read Santa Clara U a local Jesuit private university fed a lot of its grads into Silicon Valley. So it's not only elite or bust.

I don't know why you thought to disparage the Cal Polys? I assumed you knew that they are tech schools?

[TheOverdog]

Lots of UT students in West Campus living in luxury apartments and driving luxury cars that it's quite maddening.

All colleges have a collection of students like that. For some it's larger and for others it's smaller, but they all have it.

And to say that UT is not Harvard is not a disparagement of UT or of Harvard but rather a misunderstanding of what position they each hold.

If California has the best public education system, why are so many of their people and businesses leaving the state

Well, because actually not many are leaving in terms of people or businesses - it's hugely exaggerated. California was pretty close to tops in the nation in 2015 and 2016 in job growth.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html

[Westerner92]

Based on the strengths and sizes of the various undergrad programs, it's pretty clear that UT and Harvard have different priorities, but both schools are elite and well-rounded enough that you can do whatever you put your mind to at either university. Neither name would ever limit you with whatever goals you had in mind. Once you get into the top 100 or so universities in the US, school rankings and reputations largely become a pissing match of no pragmatic value. Like others have said, though, Rice is much better suited for the "Harvard of Texas" title.

[Nerdlord]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

It's not that hard to figure out. Local employers know that cal poly slo and Pomona grads can hit the ground running because the curriculum is very practical and technical. That's why they're highly regarded by employers in the stem fields. The schools are a better bargain. Last I read Santa Clara U a local Jesuit private university fed a lot of its grads into Silicon Valley. So it's not only elite or bust.

I don't know why you thought to disparage the Cal Polys? I assumed you knew that they are tech schools?

You're right, it's not hard to figure out. You posted a statement. It was wrong. I pointed that out. You went super hostile mode as usual.


I never disparaged Cal Poly. Go read through every single post on this thread and show me where I "disparaged" either school.

You are just an extremely defensive individual that reads everything as being a personal attack on your social standing instead of being objective. I understand it's due to your insecurity and this is one of the reasons you failed to thrive in LA, but honestly it's not a big deal. Many people who have more insight than you do can actually teach you something you don't know. Instead of immediately rejecting them maybe you should try and learn from them.

I have dozens extremely close friends and relatives who have gone to:

UCSD
UCLA
Berkeley
UCSB
UCI
USC
Cal Poly Pomona
Pomona
Claremont Mckenna
Harvey Mudd
Stanford
Caltech
Redlands


I know the which of my friends went to each one. I've visited the campuses. I know what jobs each of them got. I know their relative GPAs and SAT scores. I applied to half the schools on that list. I know which I got accepted to, which ones I was waitlisted from, which ones I was denied. The parents of my classmates and friends are professors at Caltech, Claremont, Cal Poly Pomona, USC, etc. I talk with them, I listen, I hear what they have to say about the faculty, the student body, the administration, the politics. I know more about this than you do. So once again this statement you made:

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

The curriculum at most flagship state schools are less theoretical and more practical. Here in CA, employers are more likely to jump at a recent grad from Cal Poly either SLO or Pomona than someone from Stanford or Berkeley.

Is complete crap and you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Nerdlord

You're right, it's not hard to figure out. You posted a statement. It was wrong. I pointed that out. You went super hostile mode as usual.


I never disparaged Cal Poly. Go read through every single post on this thread and show me where I "disparaged" either school.

You are just an extremely defensive individual that reads everything as being a personal attack on your social standing instead of being objective. I understand it's due to your insecurity and this is one of the reasons you failed to thrive in LA, but honestly it's not a big deal. Many people who have more insight than you do can actually teach you something you don't know. Instead of immediately rejecting them maybe you should try and learn from them.

I have dozens extremely close friends and relatives who have gone to:

UCSD
UCLA
Berkeley
UCSB
UCI
USC
Cal Poly Pomona
Pomona
Claremont Mckenna
Harvey Mudd
Stanford
Caltech
Redlands


I know the which of my friends went to each one. I've visited the campuses. I know what jobs each of them got. I know their relative GPAs and SAT scores. I applied to half the schools on that list. I know which I got accepted to, which ones I was waitlisted from, which ones I was denied. The parents of my classmates and friends are professors at Caltech, Claremont, Cal Poly Pomona, USC, etc. I talk with them, I listen, I hear what they have to say about the faculty, the student body, the administration, the politics. I know more about this than you do. So once again this statement you made:

Is complete crap and you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

You're still not getting this and probably won't considering you keep writing about elite schools like an image obsessed kid. You said the Cal Polys are a waste of time and you would never consider going to them because they are not "elite". That's disparaging the schools as being beneath you or anyone considering a good school.

Now you can brag about how you know more than I do about such and such schools and have buddies in all the high places, that doesn't change the fact that the Cal Polys are viewed by many local employers in CA as great schools with practical and technical curriculum. I didn't mean that Stanford or Berkeley were lesser than the former or that employers wouldn't hire Berkeley grads. I was saying the schools are very well known for their practical take that there are employers who would more than likely choose a Cal Poly SLO grad over the more theoretically focused Berkeley grads if they're looking for students who can hit the ground running.

All you did was kept bragging about elite this or elite that as if that makes so much of a difference and how you have buddies that went to this or that school. I was saying that it's not go elite or bust. I was saying kids have other options, good bargains and come out with great jobs. Cal Poly SLO and Pomona are some of those choices. I don't know why you flipped out and started screaming elite elite elite.

And how is saying, "it's not that hard to figure out", being super hostile??? Aren't you the one that is being an overly sensitive diva and firing back with ad-hominem attacks?

[Yellow pool of piddle]

Originally Posted by TheOverdog

All colleges have a collection of students like that. For some it's larger and for others it's smaller, but they all have it.

And to say that UT is not Harvard is not a disparagement of UT or of Harvard but rather a misunderstanding of what position they each hold.


Well, because actually not many are leaving in terms of people or businesses - it's hugely exaggerated. California was pretty close to tops in the nation in 2015 and 2016 in job growth.
If California's a 'bad state for business,' why is it leading the nation in job and GDP growth? - LA Times

So, you are claiming that businesses and Californians are not leaving the state then? They must have lowered taxes. Good for them. Perhaps for the first time in history, the rich will have to pay, five year plans will work, and government will actually manage to do something other than obliterate the world with weapons of mass destruction.

[Campeador]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

You're still not getting this and probably won't considering you keep writing about elite schools like an image obsessed kid. You said the Cal Polys are a waste of time and you would never consider going to them because they are not "elite". That's disparaging the schools as being beneath you or anyone considering a good school.

Now you can brag about how you know more than I do about such and such schools and have buddies in all the high places, that doesn't change the fact that the Cal Polys are viewed by many local employers in CA as great schools with practical and technical curriculum. I didn't mean that Stanford or Berkeley were lesser than the former or that employers wouldn't hire Berkeley grads. I was saying the schools are very well known for their practical take that there are employers who would more than likely choose a Cal Poly SLO grad over the more theoretically focused Berkeley grads if they're looking for students who can hit the ground running.

All you did was kept bragging about elite this or elite that as if that makes so much of a difference and how you have buddies that went to this or that school. I was saying that it's not go elite or bust. I was saying kids have other options, good bargains and come out with great jobs. Cal Poly SLO and Pomona are some of those choices. I don't know why you flipped out and started screaming elite elite elite.

And how is saying, "it's not that hard to figure out", being super hostile??? Aren't you the one that is being an overly sensitive diva and firing back with ad-hominem attacks?

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." (Abraham Lincoln)

Radiolibre: we all have topics we don't know much about. In such cases, most just stay quiet, recognizing that it is a good time to listen, and learn.

Heed the Delphic Oracle: Know Thyself (and your limits).

[ScoPro]

Hook'em Horns!

[TheOverdog]

They must have lowered taxes.

Actually they raised taxes and minimum wages. Taxes are way down the list of reasons that anyone would move anywhere, behind possible economic opportunities and a well-educated workforce to take advantage of them. Except in the minds of insane people.

Taxes pay for these universities we are arguing about the quality of.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Campeador

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." (Abraham Lincoln)

Radiolibre: we all have topics we don't know much about. In such cases, most just stay quiet, recognizing that it is a good time to listen, and learn.

Heed the Delphic Oracle: Know Thyself (and your limits).

California State University puts price on education - Mercury News

Employers seem to like Cal Poly students a lot. I've even heard that some employers like Cal Poly students a little more (than Berkeley students, for example), because of the learn by doing thing. Of course, not everyone might feel this way, but I feel like practical knowledge is our strength compared to universities that focus more on theory.

https://m.reddit.com/r/cscareerquest...t&compact=true

Second, while UCLA may be more brand-recognizable for employers outside of California, I can assure you that Cal Poly - SLO has just as much prestige within the state. As you said, it's a very practical, hands-on curriculum and the graduates tend to be ready for the planning world and can, for the most part, hit the ground running. I know this is certainly the case for me; however, I would assume a large part of that an internship I've had since starting the program in a nearby city. Either way, there has been a lot of overlap between my internship and school curriculum so I think that speaks to the practicality of the school.

http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=43608

Ok I'm posting the typical discussions you'd find about the Cal Polys online. One quote is from a software engineer and the other is from an urban planner. Both highly regarded programs among employers. The typical outlook is that cal poly students learn hands on and their studies are more practical and their students hit the ground running.

That's all my point was about. That employers might prefer the hands on approach to the Cal Poly curriculum and want their grads. It was never to say that Berkeley and Standord grads don't get hired or are inferior programs.

What other things have been said to the contrary other than the other poster just knows people that attended those schools and claims to have gone through the admissions process?

Are you going to actually offer a rebuttal?