clk 500 or SC430

bob shiftright said:

No. Not horrified. Amazed. This was already discussed over at "some other board", the choice given was a Volvo S60R and 4 years at U. Maryland vs. an old Volvo 850 and 4 years at Vanderbilt.

Yeah, Maryland won! (I'm not suggesting Maryland is a bad school, it's not. You can obtain a FINE education at U. MD. I'm just saying based on my own state U. experience there is a lot more attention given to the students at the "elites". One can easily get "lost" in a large state U. system. Hence, the poorer graduation rate. And if you don't graduate, there's no graduate or professional school, so it's the next 40 years as an assistant manager at Wal Mart. Depressing.) :nervous:

Click to expand...

Oddly, I'd say this is the most controversial and arguable of all of Bob's posts, in history.

Which covers quite a bit of ground.

I went to one of the "elites," and at that time (long long ago ) to a great extent it was what Bob says. But I understand it ain't necessarily so any more, based on stats that I've seen (e.g. in those US News & World Report issues). I hope those stats are misleading but I have a feeling they're not.

And I think the poorer graduation rates at the state schools are more due to other factors. Like:

(1) Different types of students to begin with
(2) Lesser cost, so lesser pressure to stick with it
(3) More transferring out of those schools to other schools

BTW.....I would like to believe that regardless of the stats (and actual facts), students who want very much to get the closer attention and smaller classes can do it, just about anywhere, by picking a certain amount of certain kinds of courses and going about things in certain ways. Don't know if it's true, but it certainly was in my day. I had many more small classes than most other people, and even in the huge courses, I had a lot of contact with whomever, when I felt like it. And I liked how the big courses meant that you could miss classes with impunity when you felt like it, which also helped my education a great deal -- no joke.

larchmont said:

Oddly, I'd say this is the most controversial and arguable of all of Bob's posts, in history.

Which covers quite a bit of ground.

I went to one of the "elites," and at that time (long long ago ) to a great extent it was what Bob says. But I understand it ain't necessarily so any more, based on stats that I've seen (e.g. in those US News & World Report issues). I hope those stats are misleading but I have a feeling they're not.

And I think the poorer graduation rates at the state schools are more due to other factors. Like:

(1) Different types of students to begin with
(2) Lesser cost, so lesser pressure to stick with it
(3) More transferring out of those schools to other schools

BTW.....I would like to believe that regardless of the stats (and actual facts), students who want very much to get the closer attention and smaller classes can do it, just about anywhere, by picking a certain amount of certain kinds of courses and going about things in certain ways. Don't know if it's true, but it certainly was in my day. I had many more small classes than most other people, and even in the huge courses, I had a lot of contact with whomever, when I felt like it. And I liked how the big courses meant that you could miss classes with impunity when you felt like it, which also helped my education a great deal -- no joke.

Click to expand...

University of MD isn't the pushover it used to be. I applied there as my "backup" school, and got in with no problem. These days...well, I'm not so sure. I probably could get in, but I bet the odds are against it. See? I can't even end a sentence correctly. Looks like tech school for me!

larchmont said:

And I liked how the big courses meant that you could miss classes with impunity when you felt like it, which also helped my education a great deal -- no joke.

Click to expand...

LOL!! Never thought about it that way. I, on the other hand, went to a very small school -- 1200 students total. I had a 300-level bio class (since I was a bio major) that had a grand total of 8 students enrolled, all seniors. It was a M-W-F class that started at 7:50 am. It was only a matter of time before only one person showed up for class, and it happened to me. To make it even funnier, I thought the prof would just cancel class.

Nope.

He walked in, looked at me (he was also my advisor), said, "Light class today, huh?" and started teaching.

Then...he starts asking questions, phrased like this: "Can anyone here tell me one of the functions of the liver?" Mind you, I'm the only person sitting in the room. He scans the whole room for a volunteer, so I raise my hand. "Yes, Mr. Ferguson, what exactly is a function of the liver?"

"Um", I say, looking around, "to detoxify contaminants of the blood stream."

"Correct!! What kind of contaminants?"

"Um, like alcohol."

"Correct again!!"

I'm pretty sure he knew why seven of the eight class members were missing. :festive: :drool: :tard:

larchmont said:

Oddly, I'd say this is the most controversial and arguable of all of Bob's posts, in history.

Which covers quite a bit of ground.

I went to one of the "elites," and at that time (long long ago ) to a great extent it was what Bob says. But I understand it ain't necessarily so any more, based on stats that I've seen (e.g. in those US News & World Report issues). I hope those stats are misleading but I have a feeling they're not.

And I think the poorer graduation rates at the state schools are more due to other factors. Like:

(1) Different types of students to begin with
(2) Lesser cost, so lesser pressure to stick with it
(3) More transferring out of those schools to other schools

BTW.....I would like to believe that regardless of the stats (and actual facts), students who want very much to get the closer attention and smaller classes can do it, just about anywhere, by picking a certain amount of certain kinds of courses and going about things in certain ways. Don't know if it's true, but it certainly was in my day. I had many more small classes than most other people, and even in the huge courses, I had a lot of contact with whomever, when I felt like it. And I liked how the big courses meant that you could miss classes with impunity when you felt like it, which also helped my education a great deal -- no joke.

Click to expand...

I attended a small LAC myself. My college roomate's father was a dept. chairman and dean at a certain large but elite university in Ithaca, NY known for it's football team. It wasn't lack of brains that made him decide not to attend as an undergraduate. He went on to grad school there. So I mean I don't think that the large Ivys like Cornell or U of P necessarily give the kind of individual attention given at the small liberal arts colleges. I did receive one graduate degree from a state U and it was definitely a good experience (and a bargain), but the school was a small one within a large university system. I was pretty much horrified by some of the stories I heard about the undergraduates' experiences.

If you start to "disappear" at one of the "elites" they'll go and find you and sit you down with a counsellor. (For $40k I'd HOPE so!) At State U? I doubt the grad student teaching the 400 student intro class gives a ####, it's just one less exam for him to grade.

As for your reasons for the poor State U graduation rates: #1) the "elites" seem to bend over backwards to encourage diversity in the student body #2) since the "elites" usually guarantee that they'll meet 100% of financial need, the net cost is probably less than a State U. for most families #3) if the State U. experience is so good, why the need to transfer???

To move the argument to a more personal level, I think the choice of 4 years at State U. plus a Porsche vs. 4 years at one of the "elites" would have been a poor choice for my own kid. Your own opinion may be different.

BTW, by "elites" I mean the real elites; the Ivys, the surviving sisters, and the top 10-12 universities and 10-12 LACs on everyone's list. As for the utility of the cost of a private second-tier or third-tier college vs. a State U. I think that's an entirely different calculus. Depending on a variety of factors, not the least of which is the kid.

bob shiftright said:

.....BTW, by "elites" I mean the real elites; the Ivys, the surviving sisters, and the top 10-12 universities and 10-12 LACs on everyone's list.....

Click to expand...

Thanks for the definition. I guess that means I rate.
I was expecting some Harvard or Yale tard to come in and say that wasn't really an "elite" school.

As for the rest of Bob's post, I could argue it some more, but no.

OK, OK, what the hey.

I disagree with those rebuttals to my 3 reasons for the lower grad rates at state schools. So here's my surrebuttal (good word).

1. Even with the "diversity," usually it's a lot less "diversity" (in many respects) than at the state schools. And anyway IMO that's the least of it.

2. Despite the supposed policy of meeting all financial need, I don't think it's true that the cost winds up being less at the elites. I would imagine that Bob knows more about this than I do, but......my very very strong impression is that the formulas and criteria for determining "need" don't really provide for the full actual need in most cases. If they did, then what about all those stories of poorer kids who have to turn down their acceptances to Princeton or Brown in favor of their local schools, because they couldn't afford it? I know that oftentimes in these stories, the "lower" school is some other private school that throws all kinds of money at the student, not a state school -- but still, doesn't that prove the point? Because in any event the kids aren't making a profit on the deal, they're just having their costs covered (star athletes excepted of course ) which means that the schools they have to turn down AREN'T really covering the costs.

QED. Thank you very much.

3. Your answer changes the subject. But I forgive you.


BTW in case any of the rest of y'all are wondering, LAC means liberal arts college. Took me a while to get it myself. :nod: