Started By
Message
re: Which school in the SEC would you send your children?
Posted on 7/5/12 at 3:09 pm to Pigimus Prime
Posted on 7/5/12 at 3:09 pm to Pigimus Prime
quote:
How can experience at one university and not the other drive anything but feelings, which I argue are irrelevant. Why do we have rankings? Is it just to make some universities arbitrarily look good and others bad?
Of course we can cherry pick colleges/departments from any university and say it is better here than there. I am talking across the board. Look at things like faculty salaries, grant money, publications, and graduate placement. These things, along with reputation (occasionally) are usually interacted in some way to come up with the rankings. The Carengie rankings are quite broad and only categorically distinguishable. Arkansas has not been VH for very long by the way. We have to look beyond that. I admit as a general rule, few doctoral programs outside of VH are worth attending. There are, as you point out, exceptions to this.
Check these out (I left off the typical US News rankings because they are known to be quite subjective):
MUP
A&M Endowment
ARWU
NSF
AAU - Also a broad category, but much narrower than VH
There are others, but I think we can see that rankings are not just some group of elites coming up with arbitrary lists. Things can be measured and ordered. Are they all meaningless with respect to quality of education? If the question had been where we could send kids for degree X, then maybe we could pick more subjectively. As long as we are talking in general terms then we have to go with the evidence we have. Feelings, hearsay, and knowing people are simply not good enough to produce an informed answer.
I continue to maintain that all schools in the SEC can produced fine graduates, as can all schools in the Sun Belt. When we get down to brass tacks though, something separates some schools from others. I cannot see how one could argue that universities that produce more scholarly output to their respective fields, have more financial support, better job placement, and more difficult admission standards are not superior places to be educated.
Again, I am going off of personal experience. I weigh personal experiences far beyond some ranking system.
But while we are on the topic, yes, I think many of the ranking systems that exists are largely arbitrary and mainly exist to create some sort of competition between schools and to garner attention to whatever ranking system is being observed. What really makes one school "better" than another? The faculty? What if one school has world-renowned professors and they all suck terribly at teaching, while your local community college has teachers with few accolades, but excel at relating to the student and teaching them the material? Which school is "better"? What if one school has small classes, but the professor spends little time after class helping students, while a classroom of 70 have a professor that commits every night and weekend to tutoring and answering questions? Which school is "better"? How about average income after graduation? Several of you Aggies have opently admitted that your networks play a large part in why Aggie grads make good money. But what does that have to do with your school, and more importantly, the education you received? Just because you were able to secure a job more easily than someone from, says, Mississippi State, does that mean that you "learned" more while at school? If anything, it seems like it would inhibit some people's desire to learn since they feel they can get a job either way.
I'm sorry, but the process of learning has way too many wrinkles to it to be simply categorized and ranked. Whatever environment and faculty challenge and inspire their students to learn and apply what they have learned entails being a top-tier university. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Obviously most rankings are going to have A&M in front of Arkansas and most other SEC schools as well. They also are MASSIVE so they are going to have a lot more research spending, endowment, etc. You can keep hanging your hat on that but it really doesn't make much of a difference to me.
I am not trying to argue that. I simply said the education you get at Arkansas is extremely similar in terms of quality as it is at Texas A&M, Georgia Tech, etc. Since research kept being brought up, I also mentioned that I never had a problem with my experience with research at Arkansas, despite being lower "ranked" than A&M.
2
Posted on 7/5/12 at 3:20 pm to bpfergu
So are Arkansas kids equivalent to Harvard grads as well? With all those arbitrary rankings and networking that is superior to Arkansas, but when it comes down to it... The overwhelming majority of kids from Texas that go to Arkansas couldn't get in to A&M or tu. Do you deny that?
Posted on 7/5/12 at 3:29 pm to TeLeFaWx
This isn't my argument but..
Depends. Undergraduate Harvard students actually have no finance classes, just economic theory. Read my post on the page before, my work is a bunch of Ivy Leaguers plus me and a few others. HBS actually teaches you very little about business, but it gives you the best political education you can possibly find (and you could argue that is business). I think a student should be judged on themself and solely themself, has nothing to do with the university they went to.
I would deny that, a large majority of the Dallas kids I went to school with came to Arkansas because it was either a family thing or they had friends that came a few years before. A few got accepted to UT and A&M, but yes they were the exception. Had no bearing on how job ready they were, just a bearing on the alumni networks they got to work through.
quote:
So are Arkansas kids equivalent to Harvard grads as well?
Depends. Undergraduate Harvard students actually have no finance classes, just economic theory. Read my post on the page before, my work is a bunch of Ivy Leaguers plus me and a few others. HBS actually teaches you very little about business, but it gives you the best political education you can possibly find (and you could argue that is business). I think a student should be judged on themself and solely themself, has nothing to do with the university they went to.
quote:
The overwhelming majority of kids from Texas that go to Arkansas couldn't get in to A&M or tu. Do you deny that?
I would deny that, a large majority of the Dallas kids I went to school with came to Arkansas because it was either a family thing or they had friends that came a few years before. A few got accepted to UT and A&M, but yes they were the exception. Had no bearing on how job ready they were, just a bearing on the alumni networks they got to work through.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 3:32 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
So are Arkansas kids equivalent to Harvard grads as well? With all those arbitrary rankings and networking that is superior to Arkansas, but when it comes down to it... The overwhelming majority of kids from Texas that go to Arkansas couldn't get in to A&M or tu. Do you deny that?
I don't know because I've never worked with or did research with any Harvard graduates. Strictly comparing Texas A&M graduates and my experiences with them up to this point, I can see no advantage in terms of knowledge gained between attending the two universities.
Also, I don't know anything about the Texas kids that go to Arkansas, nor do I care. You are making the assumption that just because Texas A&M may be more selective than Arkansas that they do a better job of educating their students. Sorry, I don't deal with assumptions. I fully believe that if one is devoted to learning that they will receive equal education at both, and this conclusion has been reaffirmed on a daily basis throughout my career and graduate work.
Simply put, you aren't going to change my mind on the topic. The only thing that will change my mind is when I experience several A&M graduates that are leaps and bounds more knowledgeable than me and other Arkansas graduates that I've worked/researched with. Up to this point that hasn't been the case. DWI.
This post was edited on 7/5/12 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 7/5/12 at 3:39 pm to bpfergu
quote:
Again, I am going off of personal experience. I weigh personal experiences far beyond some ranking system.
But while we are on the topic, yes, I think many of the ranking systems that exists are largely arbitrary and mainly exist to create some sort of competition between schools and to garner attention to whatever ranking system is being observed. What really makes one school "better" than another? The faculty? What if one school has world-renowned professors and they all suck terribly at teaching, while your local community college has teachers with few accolades, but excel at relating to the student and teaching them the material? Which school is "better"? What if one school has small classes, but the professor spends little time after class helping students, while a classroom of 70 have a professor that commits every night and weekend to tutoring and answering questions? Which school is "better"? How about average income after graduation? Several of you Aggies have opently admitted that your networks play a large part in why Aggie grads make good money. But what does that have to do with your school, and more importantly, the education you received? Just because you were able to secure a job more easily than someone from, says, Mississippi State, does that mean that you "learned" more while at school? If anything, it seems like it would inhibit some people's desire to learn since they feel they can get a job either way.
I'm sorry, but the process of learning has way too many wrinkles to it to be simply categorized and ranked. Whatever environment and faculty challenge and inspire their students to learn and apply what they have learned entails being a top-tier university. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Obviously most rankings are going to have A&M in front of Arkansas and most other SEC schools as well. They also are MASSIVE so they are going to have a lot more research spending, endowment, etc. You can keep hanging your hat on that but it really doesn't make much of a difference to me.
I am not trying to argue that. I simply said the education you get at Arkansas is extremely similar in terms of quality as it is at Texas A&M, Georgia Tech, etc. Since research kept being brought up, I also mentioned that I never had a problem with my experience with research at Arkansas, despite being lower "ranked" than A&M.
I have personal experience as well, but I hesitate to say that my own experience is a superior metric to many, much more objective, rankings. Moreover, my personal experiences only extend to three universities. This is the same argument that leads people to believe their religion is better than the other.
Again, I am with you on the quality of classroom instruction part. But if that remains somewhat equal across universities, that it is still rational to maximize gain by attending a university with more to offer in the outcomes we have mentioned Ad nauseum above.
So the only reason that A&M is ahead in rankings is because of size, which you argue is a hinderance to education? Let me bring in some personal experience since that is so valued around here. My department has 53 tenure track positions and 21 lecture/non-tenure positions. We have around 975 majors. This produces a nice, small ratio for faculty to students. Arkansas has 21 faculty including 3 that are visiting. I do not know their number of majors, but the ratio is likely not much better if at all. On the graduate side, we have 48 graduate students with all of them on the same fully-funded package. None teach, and if we did (Arkansas expects students to teach and do research) the teaching ratio would be even better for undergraduates. Arkansas has around 25 graduate students and only 9 of them are fully funded. More than half receive no funding whatsoever. We place 85% of our students in tenure track academic jobs with around half of those being H/VH research jobs. The rest typically go into some government agency or private firm. The program at Arkansas has never placed anyone in an academic job outside the state, and that leaves a pool of jobs that I am sure you can admit are less than stellar. Since they do not publish placement records nobody really knows where all the other students end up. I know I met one working at Dillards in Rogers...(not a business/sales Ph.D. or anything close)...he seemed to be quite disappointed and discouraged me from attending graduate school at all.
That is what I mean when I talk about research. Faculty advising students so their research makes a contribution and so they get a job. This takes good faculty and lots of money.
I think we are in agreement when it comes to classroom instruction at the undergraduate level. There is more to the equation than that, and the distinction I made in my first post (which you disagreed with) was for graduate school.
This post was edited on 7/5/12 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 7/5/12 at 3:49 pm to Pigimus Prime
quote:
I don't know because I've never worked with or did research with any Harvard graduates. Strictly comparing Texas A&M graduates and my experiences with them up to this point, I can see no advantage in terms of knowledge gained between attending the two universities.
Also, I don't know anything about the Texas kids that go to Arkansas, nor do I care. You are making the assumption that just because Texas A&M may be more selective than Arkansas that they do a better job of educating their students. Sorry, I don't deal with assumptions. I fully believe that if one is devoted to learning that they will receive equal education at both, and this conclusion has been reaffirmed on a daily basis throughout my career and graduate work.
Simply put, you aren't going to change my mind on the topic. The only thing that will change my mind is when I experience several A&M graduates that are leaps and bounds more knowledgeable than me and other Arkansas graduates that I've worked/researched with. Up to this point that hasn't been the case. DWI.
Come on, you do deal in assumptions. You are assuming that your personal experience is superior to numerous quantified metrics and collections of expert opinion. You also seem to be making assumptions about the relationship between intellect, knowledge, and ability to get a quality education. History is about with geniuses with little breadth in knowledge, people who know many things but cannot solve simple problems, and highly educated idiots.
For the record:
IQ + Education > Education
If the education is the same at two universities the students with higher IQs should be better off in the long run. This is why admission standards matter. Also, iron sharpens iron. Let us assume (I know you don't deal in these, but bear with us that do) we have one teacher who teaches the same exact thing every semester/quarter. Student group A has a mean standardized test score of the 60th percentile. Student Group B has a mean standardized test score of the 90th percentile. Which group would you rather learn with? Which group is better off in the end?
Posted on 7/5/12 at 3:54 pm to Pigimus Prime
Exactly.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 3:55 pm to Pigimus Prime
quote:
I have personal experience as well, but I hesitate to say that my own experience is a superior metric to many, much more objective, rankings. Moreover, my personal experiences only extend to three universities. This is the same argument that leads people to believe their religion is better than the other.
Again, I am with you on the quality of classroom instruction part. But if that remains somewhat equal across universities, that it is still rational to maximize gain by attending a university with more to offer in the outcomes we have mentioned Ad nauseum above.
So the only reason that A&M is ahead in rankings is because of size, which you argue is a hinderance to education? Let me bring in some personal experience since that is so valued around here. My department has 53 tenure track positions and 21 lecture/non-tenure positions. We have around 975 majors. This produces a nice, small ratio for faculty to students. Arkansas has 21 faculty including 3 that are visiting. I do not know their number of majors, but the ratio is likely not much better if at all. On the graduate side, we have 48 graduate students with all of them on the same fully-funded package. None teach, and if we did (Arkansas expects students to teach and do research) the teaching ratio would be even better for undergraduates. Arkansas has around 25 graduate students and only 9 of them are fully funded. More than half receive no funding whatsoever. We place 85% of our students in tenure track academic jobs with around half of those being H/VH research jobs. The rest typically go into some government agency or private firm. The program at Arkansas has never placed anyone in an academic job outside the state, and that leaves a pool of jobs that I am sure you can admit are less than stellar. Since they do not publish placement records nobody really knows where all the other students end up. I know I met one working at Dillards in Rogers...(not a business/sales Ph.D. or anything close)...he seemed to be quite disappointed and discouraged me from attending graduate school at all.
That is what I mean when I talk about research. Faculty advising students so their research makes a contribution and so they get a job. This takes good faculty and lots of money.
I think we are in agreement when it comes to classroom instruction at the undergraduate level. There is more to the equation than that, and the distinction I made in my first post (which you disagreed with) was for graduate school.
You seem to be primarily focusing on graduate work and research, and I'm primarily talking about undergraduate and what you actually learn in the classroom. You need to remember that the only absolute I have maintained through this is that, from personal experience, the "stuff" learned at both schools appear to be close enough so as to not be discernible by me or my colleagues.
My research at the UofA was undergraduate exclusively, so priorities are going to be different. I wasn't concerned with tenures, nor having school paid for because I never intended on going to graduate school at the UofA. However, I never had a problem receiving funding for my projects or getting assistance from both the academic side as well as the sponsor side. Again, I speak only from personal experience and what I know about.
I'm not going to argue that A&M has a larger research community and has a better network. In fact, I agreed with this. However, for the umpteenth time, this isn't what I'm trying to argue. I am talking about the knowledge gained. Not faculty size. Not endowment. Not ability to get a job after graduating. None of that.
If I could go back I would have specified undergraduate so as to avoid confusion. However, the classes I have taken so far at Georgia Tech are not noticeably different than those from the UofA. We will see how the research compares when I delve deeper into that.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 4:02 pm to Pigimus Prime
quote:
History is about with geniuses with little breadth in knowledge, people who know many things but cannot solve simple problems, and highly educated idiots
I suppose it's my Arkansas education but this sentence makes about as much sense as 987asdfjh asd;akdf asldka a;zkeioasnfd aoea;sdkrf.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 4:05 pm to Pigimus Prime
quote:
Come on, you do deal in assumptions. You are assuming that your personal experience is superior to numerous quantified metrics and collections of expert opinion. You also seem to be making assumptions about the relationship between intellect, knowledge, and ability to get a quality education. History is about with geniuses with little breadth in knowledge, people who know many things but cannot solve simple problems, and highly educated idiots.
For the record:
IQ + Education > Education
If the education is the same at two universities the students with higher IQs should be better off in the long run. This is why admission standards matter. Also, iron sharpens iron. Let us assume (I know you don't deal in these, but bear with us that do) we have one teacher who teaches the same exact thing every semester/quarter. Student group A has a mean standardized test score of the 60th percentile. Student Group B has a mean standardized test score of the 90th percentile. Which group would you rather learn with? Which group is better off in the end?
If you want to call hands-on experiences an "assumption" then so be it. We'll agree to disagree on that one.
Also, please show how I made an assumption on the "relationship between intellect, knowledge, and ability to get a quality education". I am curious to see how you are going to mold my words to try to prove this.
It's really weird discussing things with you Aggies on here. I make a simple statement and you think I'm trying to challenge how smart you are, or your standardized test scores, or your endowment size, etc. You seem to be a really insecure bunch.
Honestly, I don't really care who I learn with. Engineering knowledge has nothing to do with how smart people around you are. Last time I checked the laws of thermodynamics don't have a special disclaimer that recommends that you learn it around people that are at least in the 90% percentile in terms of intelligence.
Despite my continuous attempts, I really don't think you are going to be able to understand what I am trying to say here, which is fine.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 4:08 pm to piggilicious
quote:
I suppose it's my Arkansas education but this sentence makes about as much sense as 987asdfjh asd;akdf asldka a;zkeioasnfd aoea;sdkrf.
Yeah it's a pretty random thing to say.
I'm just glad that the Aggies I work with on a daily basis aren't this cocky! Or at least they hide it well.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 4:46 pm to bpfergu
Texans in general are very arrogant and cocky. That is why the most successful program in the state is probably the most arrogant and cocky program in the nation. Being a Texan is a multiplier effect for cockiness.
The only reason Aggies aren't more cocky than we are is because
A: We get beat a lot (which sometimes doesn't matter to Texans- look how we celebrate the Alamo).
B: Except in things most people don't care about we on average do worse than the other big school in the state- kinda like how a millionaire is rich in a Wal-Mart, but is the poors at a billionaire convention.
It is like God forces a section of Texas to take a huge humility pill constantly. Before we were big it was the Oilers doing the same job.
But if we EVER do good in something most people care about (like football) Lord help everyone in our path as we will be intolerable. It will be bad, Arky has nothing on us. frick the flagship, we will act like we are the whole fricking army!
On this subject you see hints of that Texan arrogance, as academics is the one thing people do care about that A&M does well at.
And I will say in general Texans have a bit of right to be a little arrogant, much like a Bama fan in football. I have been to every SEC state and Texas's best is only rivaled by parts of Florida. The Texan cockiness has rubbed off on me too as when I go back to New Orleans or Mississippi I annoy the shite out of my family by complaining about how much worse it is there than Texas.
The only reason Aggies aren't more cocky than we are is because
A: We get beat a lot (which sometimes doesn't matter to Texans- look how we celebrate the Alamo).
B: Except in things most people don't care about we on average do worse than the other big school in the state- kinda like how a millionaire is rich in a Wal-Mart, but is the poors at a billionaire convention.
It is like God forces a section of Texas to take a huge humility pill constantly. Before we were big it was the Oilers doing the same job.
But if we EVER do good in something most people care about (like football) Lord help everyone in our path as we will be intolerable. It will be bad, Arky has nothing on us. frick the flagship, we will act like we are the whole fricking army!
On this subject you see hints of that Texan arrogance, as academics is the one thing people do care about that A&M does well at.
And I will say in general Texans have a bit of right to be a little arrogant, much like a Bama fan in football. I have been to every SEC state and Texas's best is only rivaled by parts of Florida. The Texan cockiness has rubbed off on me too as when I go back to New Orleans or Mississippi I annoy the shite out of my family by complaining about how much worse it is there than Texas.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 4:59 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Lord help everyone in our path as we will be intolerable.
No offense to you b/c you seem okay but several of your brethren I find intolerable now. It's one thing being cocky but combine cocky and dickhead and it's just not a cool combo. I don't even think most of them are trying to troll either.
I expected to like the aggies more than mizzou as I have a cousin currently in school at a&m but it's turned out to be the complete opposite.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 5:03 pm to blacknblu
Would happily send
Auburn
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
Ole Miss
Alabama
Mississippi State
Would send
South Carolina
LSU
Kentucky
Tennessee
UGA
Would discourage from attending
Florida
Texas A&M
Missouri
Auburn
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
Ole Miss
Alabama
Mississippi State
Would send
South Carolina
LSU
Kentucky
Tennessee
UGA
Would discourage from attending
Florida
Texas A&M
Missouri
Posted on 7/5/12 at 5:21 pm to blacknblu
quote:
Florida
My oldest just got accepted into UF's College of Engineering. So I'll say Florida for sure.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 5:25 pm to bayou2003
quote:
People talk down Arkansas but I promise you an Arkansas grad will easily get a good job in this area (Tulsa, KC, STL, Memphis, OKC, Dallas etc). Depends on where you want to live at and how good you nail your interview.
And I'm sure a Louisiana-Lafayette, SELA, McNeese St, LSU, grad would easily get a job in Baton Rouge or New Orleans over a Mizzou, Arkansas, KU, grad.
Nothing I said suggested that any of this could not, or does not happen.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 5:29 pm to bpfergu
quote:
You can keep dry-humping your arbitrary rankings and rubbing yourself at night over your better network, but I am going off of personal experience and this obviously will trump all else for me.
I'm sure you would have this opinion if Arkansas had higher academic rankings across the board.
I'm just stating facts about academic rankings. Id you don't attribute any validity to that, that's your issue.
This post was edited on 7/5/12 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 7/5/12 at 5:29 pm to FincAg11
quote:
Nothing I said suggested that any of this could not, or does not happen.
I was referring to others on this board that continually down Arkansas when it comes to the US News rankings. This is my first time seeing a TAMU person say something about Arkansas. It's usually the other SEC schools making fun of Arkansas.
Posted on 7/5/12 at 5:31 pm to bayou2003
Send- Vandy, LSU, Georgia
Posted on 7/5/12 at 5:37 pm to FincAg11
Lots of douchy aTm folks in this thread. Y'all are giving yourselves a bad repuation for those like myself who initially had no issue with the school. Now I just think you're all a bunch of figs
This post was edited on 7/5/12 at 5:38 pm
Page 9 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News