Youngest daughter to the taters...

[coolcock2001]

The Honors College used to be a major emphasis at South Carolina, but it's really fallen off. They used to always rank in the top 3-4, but they've fallen. Of the three major rankings online, I only see South Carolina listed on help-to-study's at #10. At that same time, Clemson's is #2 on National University Honors, #3 on Prep Scholar's, and #3 on Help to Study. My understanding is that some of the prominent professors at South Carolina who were involved in the Honors College left and the school puts less emphasis on it than it did 10 years ago (which is a shame, because it was an excellent draw). Clemson seems to have given the Honors' College Director a blank check (I don't know if you've seen the pretty incredible Residential College they built there for them). But the Honors College at South Carolina is still good, I just think more emphasis should be placed on it.

I think the business school is probably the best in the state. But from my dealings with corporations in my line of work, it seems that your undergrad business schools means very, very little unless you went to an Ivy or Stanford or similar. That was my point when I mocked the international business degree. The reason only a handful of schools offer it is because it provides little value. International corporations (or consulting, accounting, or investment banks) do not care about undergrad unless it's something they can wave in front of clients (like a Harvard degree). Outside of that, it's all about an MBA. And I think MBA's for the most part are not worth it, as they're insanely expensive and it seems that all the major corporations target the M7. South Carolina might have a decent business school, but it's not an M7. So if you want to be an entrepreneur, learning from others successful will serve you far better than an MBA.

I don't think that's just perception, unless you're saying that it was just perception but has now materialized as a real thing because schools have pumped it as super prestigious. Looks like South Carolina's average weighted incoming GPA is a 4.0 and SAT is 1270. Clemson's is 4.43 and 1320. Furman is 4.04 and 1309. Wofford and South Carolina are equal.



My bad. I thought Alabama was better than Auburn.



Yeah, that makes sense. My personal belief is that too many people are pushed into 4 year colleges. They take out massive, high interest rate student loans (average graduate of colleges in the US has $40,000 of debt) for degrees that do not necessarily make them more marketable in the professional world (obviously, STEM degrees are valuable, as are nursing, but humanities degrees have questionable value, and I say that as someone who studied history).

But here are my thoughts. First, if a kid has tremendously high grades (top 1-3 in their class and 1500+ SAT) and can get into a super elite school, they should. It doesn't matter what you study at many of those schools, six figure jobs will be thrown at you and you'll have far better chances applying to top graduate schools. And while I frown at prestige, it does open doors and build credibility. If that's tough, which is was for me, and they want to get a 4 year degree, they should go to the one that fits their needs best for as cheaply as possible. Your son played it brilliantly. That's an ideal scenario, as would a full ride to any other top state school in SC (also, congrats to your daughter, that's a huge accomplishment).

But for those who can't go to a four year college for cheap, I think it's worth considering a trade school. South Carolina does have some great trade schools, and being a mechanic/welder/associate in nursing, etc. is a great job. I hate that our society by and large treat those as second-class fields.



Care to point out what was inaccurate? The objective metrics don't lie. You may disagree about where South Carolina's priorities should be in post-secondary education, but that doesn't go to the content of my post.

This is way off. We are #1 public honors college. Heavy emphasis on it. Quality has improved last few years if anything

info on Honors rankings: https://www.sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2020/11/11_schc_best.php#.YBQYzqQ8IWN

 

[coolcock2001]

What is she studying OP? Unless it’s agriculture or engineering we can probably do better. To each their own though; an education is a wonderful thing to get. I’m glad to know there’s Gamecock fans on their campus because I certainly see enough tiger paws on ours

 

[JeffTweedyFan]

What matters is that they go where the curriculum meets their needs. My son grew up Tater as did my daughter. My son had a full academic ride to USC which fitted his needs academically better then Clemson. He decided that he wanted to be “all in” and became a Gamecock. My daughter got turned around too. She just got her degree in December.

Anybody hiring?

What's her degree in?

 

[JeffTweedyFan]

My daughter has narrowed her choices to UNC, NC State and Tater Tech in that order. USC didn't even make the final cut. SMH

My niece has somehow decided she wants to go to UNC. She's only a sophomore so hopefully she changes her mind.

 

[coolcock2001]

My niece has somehow decided she wants to go to UNC. She's only a sophomore so hopefully she changes her mind.

If she gets a scholly more power to her! Please send a nice garnet Carolina sweatshirt for her to wear

 

[coolcock2001]

It almost has that "high school connection" feel to it

You nailed it. That’s Clemson to a T in my mind

 

[TigerRoar8]

Smart people realize a national championship in football does not equal the best education they can get. Not that the two couldn't coincide, but it's highly unlikely.

So you are saying that Clemson's success on the national stage in football has nothing to do with a massive increase in applications? If you get an education from Clemson or South Carolina, it is going to be considered a high quality education. My point was that if you are a high school senior making a decision on where you want to attend college and you got it narrowed down to 2 or 3 similar schools in academics, somewhere that has winning athletics, which translates to fun, a happy culture, etc., can't hurt that schools chances. Academics is obviously a huge part in a college decision but there is way more that goes in to it than just that.

 

[TigerRoar8]

Not sure where your application data comes from. Last year, CU had 29,070 applications and South Carolina had 30,778. Clempson's average SAT and ACT scores are slightly better than USC. Clempson enrolled 3,932 freshman and USC enrolled 5,848. Carolina is a bigger university with the ability to enroll more students thus their averages are slightly lower.

Now, this years higher ed data will be historically very skewed as student behavior will show major changes due to COVID that will probably "right" itself over the next few years.

One key part of this is the academic school make up of both universities. They are VERY different. Over 50% of CU's incoming freshman class was science and engineering majors. The breadth of majors offered as well as the depth of more liberal arts majors offered at Carolina will naturally shape their freshman class very differently. Also a part of this is USC's enrollment is 20% minority. Which, as a flagship public university, is extremely important.

Someone mentioned marketing....I think USC has shown dramatic improvements in marketing and recruitment of the university. I know several folks that work in USC admissions and they are considered national leaders in the field.

Also, South Carolina has 56 nationally ranked academic programs and 12 top 25 graduate programs. It has #1 program rankings for undergraduate international business, graduate international MBA, Exercise Science PhD and the #1 public college Honors College and ranked #1 for first year undergradute experience.

I do agree at the end of the day they are very different schools when students are looking for "fit". When I was at Carolina, I had lots of friends at Clempson (grew up in the upstate) and most were bored to death there. Their weekend trips to Columbia to escape the boredom were fun at first but got old after awhile.

A faculty member posted it from a recent email from the President of the University.
You make very good points. There is no doubt South Carolina is a top school to attend. Never doubted that or deny it. My point was that the success in Clemson Football has definitely resulted in more interest, publicity, etc. which in turn results in a higher number of applicants for Clemson.

 

[cfbfan15]

Agree. My daughter is a jr. at USC Honors and it has been a great experience. The quality of students appears impressive to me and I believe she has gotten a great education. While I’m sure there is room for improvement there are a number of highly ranked programs

Legit question, what is the difference in the Honors college, and the rest of the school?

 

[Petsites Rooster]

The Honors College used to be a major emphasis at South Carolina, but it's really fallen off. They used to always rank in the top 3-4, but they've fallen. Of the three major rankings online, I only see South Carolina listed on help-to-study's at #10. At that same time, Clemson's is #2 on National University Honors, #3 on Prep Scholar's, and #3 on Help to Study. My understanding is that some of the prominent professors at South Carolina who were involved in the Honors College left and the school puts less emphasis on it than it did 10 years ago (which is a shame, because it was an excellent draw). Clemson seems to have given the Honors' College Director a blank check (I don't know if you've seen the pretty incredible Residential College they built there for them). But the Honors College at South Carolina is still good, I just think more emphasis should be placed on it.

I think the business school is probably the best in the state. But from my dealings with corporations in my line of work, it seems that your undergrad business schools means very, very little unless you went to an Ivy or Stanford or similar. That was my point when I mocked the international business degree. The reason only a handful of schools offer it is because it provides little value. International corporations (or consulting, accounting, or investment banks) do not care about undergrad unless it's something they can wave in front of clients (like a Harvard degree). Outside of that, it's all about an MBA. And I think MBA's for the most part are not worth it, as they're insanely expensive and it seems that all the major corporations target the M7. South Carolina might have a decent business school, but it's not an M7. So if you want to be an entrepreneur, learning from others successful will serve you far better than an MBA.

I don't think that's just perception, unless you're saying that it was just perception but has now materialized as a real thing because schools have pumped it as super prestigious. Looks like South Carolina's average weighted incoming GPA is a 4.0 and SAT is 1270. Clemson's is 4.43 and 1320. Furman is 4.04 and 1309. Wofford and South Carolina are equal.



My bad. I thought Alabama was better than Auburn.



Yeah, that makes sense. My personal belief is that too many people are pushed into 4 year colleges. They take out massive, high interest rate student loans (average graduate of colleges in the US has $40,000 of debt) for degrees that do not necessarily make them more marketable in the professional world (obviously, STEM degrees are valuable, as are nursing, but humanities degrees have questionable value, and I say that as someone who studied history).

But here are my thoughts. First, if a kid has tremendously high grades (top 1-3 in their class and 1500+ SAT) and can get into a super elite school, they should. It doesn't matter what you study at many of those schools, six figure jobs will be thrown at you and you'll have far better chances applying to top graduate schools. And while I frown at prestige, it does open doors and build credibility. If that's tough, which is was for me, and they want to get a 4 year degree, they should go to the one that fits their needs best for as cheaply as possible. Your son played it brilliantly. That's an ideal scenario, as would a full ride to any other top state school in SC (also, congrats to your daughter, that's a huge accomplishment).

But for those who can't go to a four year college for cheap, I think it's worth considering a trade school. South Carolina does have some great trade schools, and being a mechanic/welder/associate in nursing, etc. is a great job. I hate that our society by and large treat those as second-class fields.



Care to point out what was inaccurate? The objective metrics don't lie. You may disagree about where South Carolina's priorities should be in post-secondary education, but that doesn't go to the content of my post.

Yes, my son now laments that he did not apply to some of the more prestigious schools. He was recruited by some high academically ranked DII schools for football but decided to stay at home in the end. I was shocked at the tuition to some of those places! It worked out well though. He went to UT in Austin for his masters and is currently working in the administration there while he ponders where to go for his PHD. Was accepted to Stanford program but cost of living was so high that he decided on Austin instead.

 

[Petsites Rooster]

What's her degree in?

Criminal Justice and sociology. It is tough out there for these kids looking for work in these days of COVID.

She was going to continue working at USC after graduation but her contract was cut. Lots of layoffs and furloughs going on at the school. She managed one of the COVID dorms this year for the University while she was finishing her last semester and is featured on several videos on the school's website over the past few years.

 

[NMB Dave]

It’s interesting that we put so much stock into the sports at a university we choose to study at. Don’t get me wrong, sports played a huge role in me choosing to go to Carolina, but sports had zero effect on the education I received.
Maybe it’s because I was a science major, but most of my professors couldn’t care less how our teams performed. In my four years I literally only had 1 or 2 professors even mention how the teams were doing during class.

Obviously though from the student life aspect, a school’s teams usually have a lifelong effect on a student.

 

[TheReelEss]

So you are saying that Clemson's success on the national stage in football has nothing to do with a massive increase in applications?

No, I'm saying smart people don't go to a school just because they are good in a sport, unless they play that sport. I did say thee two could conceivably coincide.

 

[AsTheCockCrows]

I have 3 daughters and my middle one, who will be 12 in March, claims to be a Tater Tech fan, despite the fact that she never watches any football. She is just doing it because she knows it annoys me. Problem is, her mamma, who is a huge LSU fan and from Louisiana and her aunts buy her Tater Tech shirts all the time. I, a major Gamecock fan, have to watch her meandering through the house with those urange crap tshirts and such on. Aggravates me to death. I am not sure your background and beliefs but one of my major concerns for the years to come is that fact that so many kids from strong Christian backgrounds and families go off to college and come back complete atheists because the professors do everything that they can to destroy the kids faith. I KNOW that goes on at USC and would bet it goes on at Tater Tech as well. Honestly, I think I would prefer my girls go somewhere like Chas. Southern.

 

[USC2USC]

A faculty member posted it from a recent email from the President of the University.
You make very good points. There is no doubt South Carolina is a top school to attend. Never doubted that or deny it. My point was that the success in Clemson Football has definitely resulted in more interest, publicity, etc. which in turn results in a higher number of applicants for Clemson.

Yea, I agree with you 100% on the athletics piece. USC saw app increases during the several 11-2 runs by SOS and after the Final Four. I work in higher ed and have looked at some data on this. In most cases, yield on these increased applications is relatively low. Meaning, students were intrigued to add a school to their existing list because of sports they are watching on TV but at the end of the day, few chose to actually attend that school. Its good for a brag point, as it seems the CU Prez took advantage of, but at the end of the day it may have very little impact on freshman class size or averages.

 

[1982cock]

Legit question, what is the difference in the Honors college, and the rest of the school?

From what I know; student population within honors are highly motivated.
Broader course selection:
Supposedly have some of the better ;professors but I’m not sure about that;
Her workload I believe is more demanding;
As a stem major she has been privy to research internship opportunities

those are some of the things as a parent I’ve noticed. We have been pleased overall

 

[gamecock1999]

So there is one ranking system that has South Carolina highly ranked. I was wrong about that. I don't think you can just ignore all the others though and give the one you think helps you the most. So we've got 4 separate rankings, two of which have USC Honors in the top 10, one at #10, and then the one the Honors uses for advertising. But just out of curiosity, I looked into the one they're using.

It was founded by this guy named John Willingham. If you've never heard of him, that's fine. He's not an academic and his career was as some county's "Elections Administrator" in Texas. There are significant problems with his methodology (like it heavily focuses on whether Honors students are graduating at a significantly higher rate than the regular student body (not sure why it should be a reward when half of the metric is the rest of the student body doing poorly) and focuses on overall size of the honors college (you do better with him if your honors college is less selective, which is counterintuitive to the idea of an Honors College to me, hence why the Bing Honors College at Stanford or the Peake Honors Program at UVA do poorly in his rankings).

But most importantly, Willingham's does not actually rank schools. He hates rankings, as he says they "presume a perfection that they cannot meet." Rather, he puts schools in chunks, with 10-15 honors colleges getting his highest rating each year. And it's random, he doesn't look at every school every year (he always seems to make sure UT is in there though) and changes up his methodology. His website even says "That a program is included DOES NOT mean the program is among the “top programs in the country,” though many of them surely are. Each year we select a somewhat different group of programs to review." (emphasis in original).

USC isn't lying when they say USC Honors is ranked #1 by this guy (and it's a good marketing tool). But its more that they're tied for #1 with a bunch of other honors colleges. But the schools that received his highest rating the last time he looked at them were: Arizona State, CUNY, Florida Atlantic, Kansas, Penn State, South Carolina, UT Austin, Clemson, Georgia, Houston, Ole Miss, Texas Tech, and UCF. So all those can claim to be #1 in this "ranking." When you take away accomplishments by the school as a whole, he gives you a list of CUNY, Penn State, South Carolina, and UT Austin, and UT Chattanooga. Interestingly, only 4 of those 13 ranked schools are considered top 100 schools (Penn State, UT Austin, Clemson, and Georgia), South Carolina is the 5th highest ranked school at ~120, and most do not not sniff the top 200 in rankings (so you can see the impact that disparity factor plays).

Since you’re apparently getting paid by Clemson, what is the methodology of the ones you mentioned? Help to Study doesn't say, couldn’t find National University Honors, and Prep Scholar seems to be the opinion of Ashely Suffle Robinson (PhD in 19th century English Lit). In fact, they guy you attempt to undermine has a pretty good takedown himself of these up and comers if I can get the link right: https://publicuniversityhonors.com/category/national-rankings/ Further, he clearly puts USC honors in a higher tier than Clemson.

Even still, I would have no problem myself saying Clemson’s HC is a perfectly great place for a kid to go to school, which is something that you and many Tigers seem unwilling to say when it comes to USC. But as has been said, USC educates a lot more undergrads than Clemson. Chop off the lower third of USC’s class and I imagine the student quality is the same. Ultimately, students can and routinely do excel from either school. IMHO the only thing that keeps either from approaching the UNC UVA type level is that SC has lagged NC and VA in economic opportunity and population.

 

[TheReelEss]

I have 3 daughters and my middle one, who will be 12 in March, claims to be a Tater Tech fan, despite the fact that she never watches any football. She is just doing it because she knows it annoys me. Problem is, her mamma, who is a huge LSU fan and from Louisiana and her aunts buy her Tater Tech shirts all the time. I, a major Gamecock fan, have to watch her meandering through the house with those urange crap tshirts and such on. Aggravates me to death. I am not sure your background and beliefs but one of my major concerns for the years to come is that fact that so many kids from strong Christian backgrounds and families go off to college and come back complete atheists because the professors do everything that they can to destroy the kids faith. I KNOW that goes on at USC and would bet it goes on at Tater Tech as well. Honestly, I think I would prefer my girls go somewhere like Chas. Southern.

My sister in law did this with my daughter and took her for ice cream on campus. Pissed me off until I realized my daughter couldn't care less about clemson, USC or even football. Now she wears rock group t shirts. I make sure she listens to the bands she wears.

 

[SparkleCity]

I have 3 daughters and my middle one, who will be 12 in March, claims to be a Tater Tech fan, despite the fact that she never watches any football. She is just doing it because she knows it annoys me. Problem is, her mamma, who is a huge LSU fan and from Louisiana and her aunts buy her Tater Tech shirts all the time. I, a major Gamecock fan, have to watch her meandering through the house with those urange crap tshirts and such on. Aggravates me to death. I am not sure your background and beliefs but one of my major concerns for the years to come is that fact that so many kids from strong Christian backgrounds and families go off to college and come back complete atheists because the professors do everything that they can to destroy the kids faith. I KNOW that goes on at USC and would bet it goes on at Tater Tech as well. Honestly, I think I would prefer my girls go somewhere like Chas. Southern.

It does indeed happen at USC and not only religion. Have a family member recently graduated from USC and I don't even recognize them anymore.

 

[atl-cock]

Hahaha, that's fair. I was mainly focused on the South, but you're right. I highly doubt they sniff the top 10. Though if you move Harvard, MIT, Amherst, Tufts, Brandeis, BU, and BC to most states, they'd take over the top spots.

But for the most part, there's no excuse. We've got a bad brain drain in our state, and we really should be improving the colleges to try to slow that down. It's even worse with professional schools. I've heard of people getting in Harvard law but not getting any serious scholarships to South Carolina law.

The Honors College at USC was establish over 40 years ago in an attempt to slow the brain drain.

 

[TigerRoar8]

Yea, I agree with you 100% on the athletics piece. USC saw app increases during the several 11-2 runs by SOS and after the Final Four. I work in higher ed and have looked at some data on this. In most cases, yield on these increased applications is relatively low. Meaning, students were intrigued to add a school to their existing list because of sports they are watching on TV but at the end of the day, few chose to actually attend that school. Its good for a brag point, as it seems the CU Prez took advantage of, but at the end of the day it may have very little impact on freshman class size or averages.

Makes sense. I would be interested to see how the data looks when comparing the applications with actual acceptance and enrollment numbers for incoming freshmen classes.

 

[Bear_Rooster]

Shoot to me a 2 hr drive from home is a commute.

I’m sure it is, based on where you live. I was in San Diego years ago for training. I enjoyed the area, but the driving was a headache. I will say that drivers out there were more willing to let you on/off the interstate than they are on I85 here.

 

[gamecock1999]

You are aware I've been on this site for over 11 years. I've made thousands of posts (though I delete old ones). I root hardcore for South Carolina. So you're barking up the wrong tree there. Academically (and athletically to some degree), I want the state of South Carolina to succeed. I love the state and want it to be successful against all the others. I don't dislike any school in SC, and want them all to be academically strong. And I definitely don't think South Carolina is a bad school. I've said the Honors College is strong multiple times. I told one guy here his son had the perfect route getting a full ride to South Carolina. That's awesome. And people do excel from both schools. But I don't think it's a bad thing to want both schools to improve even more.

Maybe the economic opportunity is a factor, though I would say both Greenville and Charleston are surpassing any NC city right now (Charlotte's facing challenges with a lot of banks wanting to leave). Population is more interesting. It's true both are about twice the size of South Carolina. But look at North Carolina. Right now, Duke, Davidson, UNC, and Wake Forest are all clearly more prestigious than Clemson or Furman. NC State and Elon are on par with those two. I don't think it's crazy for our top schools to compete with Wake and UNC. I think slowing down the brain drain is a big part of that. You're right, SC is a small state. But you can do well if you can keep the best and brightest in state. Texas has a law where the top 6% of students in the state can go to any school they want in Texas. Georgia has the Zell Miller Grant which allows their top students to go to school for close to free. We could repackage the Palmetto Fellowship to do the same thing. The professional and graduate schools also need to stop yield protecting top in-state students (if a student has extremely good grades and test scores, South Carolina often will either waitlist them or offer them little to no financial aid, because they think there's no point in tying up that money if the student will likely bail. I really liked South Carolina graduate school but couldn't go there because it was cheaper to leave the state and go elsewhere. If I had a test score that was much lower, they would have given me a full-ride. The same happened to a number of my friends). But this is obviously a large policy discussion which is tough to have a sports forum.

I wouldn't call that a good takedown. It comes off as someone who's upset that other rankings have emerged and its bad for his business. But I wasn't trying to create a dialogue about his methodology, that was just an aside, that his so called "methodology" are fundamentally at-odds with what makes an honors college an honors college. My bigger point was, as he says in the link you provided, that he doesn't actually rank schools. It is disingenuous to claim to be #1 when there is no #1. And to be fair, one of the rankings he's critiquing is made by Andrew Belasco, who is far, far more qualified to rank schools (He's an Ivy-educated PhD in Education who's widely published and is a fellow of the Association for Institutional Research. You know, compared to the dude who self-publishes his own stuff and has no qualifications other than organizing an election in some random Texas County).

Well, the guy you think is so great ranks both USC and Clemson in the top 50. He says Clemson’s HC average SAT is 1500 and USC has a range of 1460 to 1530 so that seems equivalent. Although he also says Clemson’s school is 25% smaller so, once again, USC is definitely just as good on the upper end if not better. It also says USC requires nearly twice as many honors credits than Clemson and an honors thesis, which Clemson does not.

In any event, one thing I can say for certain is that it is generally not good for your career to be a close minded Clemson cultist. You actually have to get along with people and give them their due when it is deserved.

 

[GMClemson33]

I know three young men now from MP that went to Moo U due to majors. All THREE remain USC FANS, even though they have CU degrees. My oldest son is a USC Grad, and my youngest and only daughter graduated in 2020 from USC. Middle son went to C of C, but is huge Gamecock fan. I am blessed lol

WB and ML the initials of two of those?

 

[JeffTweedyFan]

If she gets a scholly more power to her! Please send a nice garnet Carolina sweatshirt for her to wear

That would probably be the only way she could go there! I told her she could go there for grad school if she wanted (she wants to be a doctor) but she should stay in state for undergrad. I would just hate for her to miss out on all that lottery money. I know if the lottery scholarships had been available when I went to school I probably would've chosen a different school.

 

[riskycock]

Mine went to Clemson as well just because they offered more money. Good news is my Daughter still wears Garnet on Gameday. Nothing will ever change her 18 years of following the good guys.

 

[purenonsense]

Not sure where I went wrong.
The oldest is a junior at Carolina though.

what is her declared major ?

 

[purenonsense]

Out of high school she was accepted to the USC Business school. But didn’t want to attend a “large school” like her sister.
She never even applied to Clemson. Visited Lander and said this is it.
Then at Christmas she said there was nothing to do at Lander.
Fast forward to now and she has been accepted to Clemson. I hate to tell her but Clemson is a smaller town than Greenwood. But her roommates are also going so there’s that.

Well, Clemson is better than Lander , so there is that , too.

 

[gamecock1999]

You're not very bright, are you? I don't think I complimented Clemson at all there. I think I was critical of both for not pushing to join UVA and UNC. It's not healthy to always see bad guys behind every bush. I was saying that the guy doesn't rank honors programs at all, so it's not accurate to say he ranks USC honors college #1. I do know that Clemson does require an honors thesis, but I don't know about the honor credits thing.

If you won’t admit that USC still has a very good honors college, and as good if not better than Clemson, then I’m certainly brighter than you on the topic at hand.

 

[silverspur4life]

Not sure where I went wrong.
The oldest is a junior at Carolina though.

How is she getting there and who is buying her food and clothes? No way I will pay for a dang thing if mine head there.

 

[PabloSC]

What if she meets and falls in love with a tater....then has little tater grandchildren...oh the humanity!

Yep,
You are being setup for a lifetime of frustration. Oh wait, you're a Gamecock fan, so you are well adjusted to that lifestyle.

 

[CockofEarle]

Not sure where I went wrong.
The oldest is a junior at Carolina though.

Men, my sympathy.......would have liked to have mine gone to an all women’s school.......like a nunnery!!
Get ready for thanksgiving dinner😕

 

[1982cock]

It's a great honors college. I never said it wasn't. You've completely lost track about what the conversation was about. I originally just said that there's little reason for the flagship university of a state to lag behind schools like Furman and Wofford in prestige/rankings. Someone responded about the Honors College, and I said the emphasis has dropped off from what it was 10 years ago and that Clemson has been putting more emphasis on it in recent years than it had in the past (but NEVER said Clemson's was better). After that, when people countered by linking South Carolina's honors college saying they were #1, which I showed was inaccurate as the one "ranking" they were using openly says he does not rank schools. Our particular conversation has just gotten increasingly narrow due to your nitpicking that you've lost track of the original conversation.

I'll openly say Clemson and Carolina's honors colleges are both fine programs that will give a great education, and I see no evidence that either is better than the other. Both schools have very close admissions requirements (I'd guess they're within 10 SAT points of each other based on Clemson's median and South Carolina's range). But honestly, I only discussed honors colleges because that and the dumb International Business program were some people's rebuttals to me. Honors Colleges provide an arguably more rigorous education (I loved my own honors classes in college). But I don't think it helps anyone on the job market or in the prestige game. Even if it's super selective, it doesn't really help out on a resume. The average Clemson/South Carolina honors student would be competitive for admission at Duke or Vanderbilt (ignore the scholarship considerations, which I already said should be a heavy point of consideration). But no one is going to say the two of them have top honors colleges so the degree is more impressive than Duke or Vandy. Because of that simple fact, I don't believe honors colleges will have any significant impact on preventing brain drain (only improving the schools' reputations as a whole will). So I really had very little desire to discuss them.

Just curious- what is your issue with the “dumb international business program.”
No, I’m not an IB major but this never really struck me as a useless degree as you seem to to think. Serious question

 

[SHillTIger]

Not sure where I went wrong.
The oldest is a junior at Carolina though.

She will be fine. She will still be your daughter when shes finished😂. At least you know you raised an independent thinker who doesnt follow the pack.😁 It works both ways. My cousin has been a Clemson fan his entire life but went to Carolina for the Pharm.D. program.

 

[USC2USC]

No problem. My issues with it are from a completely utilitarian, pragmatic perspective. I'm not saying you won't learn anything valuable as an IB major. I'm sure you will even if some disagree. I learned a ton from my own college classes (though they did not make me particularly marketable). But post-secondary educations are both designed as a time for you to be educated, and to earn a marketable degree to prepare for life after college.

So, here's the issue. The IB major is designed for students who want to specialize in international business, obviously. Now, international businesses are extremely difficult to create as an entrepreneur, for again, obvious reasons. So, ultimately, the route to getting into that sector is to get a job at a company that's already established. Now, most international corporations have very few management positions available at any given time, and they're not typically designed as entry-level positions. That's why you see so many people upset because jobs want experience that those people can't get. It's a nasty cycle (you need experience, so you apply for jobs, but you can't get said jobs without experience). So, for entry level positions, you're ultimately looking at major consulting, accounting, and analytical firms, or at investment banks.

Unfortunately, the market is glutted in those jobs. Every year, there are roughly 400,000 graduates of undergraduate business programs and 100,000 MBAs. This is a link explaining the issue here. This is a problem with business degrees in general. Business majors have an 8.2 times higher rate of being underemployed, which is higher even than drama. Even MBAs largely struggle. It's common knowledge in the business school ranks that you will have to struggle in interviews if you do not attend one of the M7 business schools. It's just an insanely competitive field because there are very few job openings and tons of graduates. The IB programs takes this to a whole new level, because it focuses in on even more competitive jobs than business at large.

The competition for these cream of the crop international business jobs is brutal, and virtually all of those jobs require an MBA, since it's simple supply and demand. For those jobs that do not require an MBA, they are quickly snapped up by graduates of elite schools, because these firms can show off shiny credentials to clients who care about that. You can't do the same with South Carolina's degree without some lengthy explanation that South Carolina ranks first in the USNWR ranking for international business degrees out of the ~25 schools to offer an undergraduate concentration in said degree. Clients just want the Harvard or Wharton graduate. You may say there aren't that many Harvard graduates, but there aren't many of those jobs either.

Based on all that, it should come as no surprise that 48% of graduates from South Carolina's business school are unemployed at graduation (I wish there was an independent survey which looked at underemployment statistics, as schools manipulate employment statistics to make themselves look better (they send out cards to fill out and a high proportion of unemployed graduates are unwilling to admit it so don't return the cards. And pure employment rate doesn't account for whether someone is actually employed in full-time employment in their field).

So, in essence, my complaint is that the IB program prepares students for a field that the program's degree largely doesn't qualify them for. I am very critical of universities charging so much for degrees in the first place and plunging graduates into tens of thousands of dollars of high-interest, nondischargeable debt. It's even worse when the degree doesn't help them get into the field they want to get into.

Related to your last point, maybe you should point some of your criticism at state legislatures that have so dramatically cut state funding for higher education to create much of the cost increases you have seen.

 

[USC2USC]

I definitely do point criticism at them. But just because there are problems there, doesn't mean schools should have carte blanche to create degrees that make it worse.

I am clear on your point I just think its odd you single out the USC international business undergrad program as an example when the facts don't back that up. And I think your reasonings have a lot of assumption built in.

The most recent graduate data from the Darla Moore School of business for undergraduates from the International Business major show 86% of grads seeking employment (some are headed to grad school) obtained a job within 3 months at an average starting salary of $65,493 with an average signing bonus of $5,000. Remember, the median household income in SC is currently $52,306. Popular employers in the class were Coca Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Price Waterhouse Coopers, JP Morgan Chase, Amazon, Bank of American, Merrill Lynch, BMW and Boeing.

Now tell me who on here wouldn't be thrilled with their kid coming out of undergrad making $65K a year?? That salary combined with the relative low cost on in-state tuition and sounds like this degree at UofSC is a very strong value.

These Carolina-Darla Moore grads are doing very well.

 

[USC2USC]

First of all, you're again missing the forest for the trees in nitpicking. My point was never that the degree was completely worthless. It's not. I personally don't think business degrees as a whole are worthwhile (which is supported by experts and by statistics), but my point was far more simple. An international business degree comes with the presumption that you are being prepared for and will be employable in the field of international business. And yet for most international business jobs, you cannot get them with an undergraduate degree. That was the entirety of my criticism about the IB program, and you are so defensive, that you keep missing my broader point.

That said, I will respond to the rest of your post. I already pointed out the flaws with that employment statistic. 1. That employment number came from self-reported surveys. The Business School did not report the response rate (which I always find sketchy), but unemployed graduates are far less likely to return their surveys and report that they're unemployed. 2. A raw employment number doesn't account the number of graduates who are actually employed in the field of international business, which is why they went to school. This was a big issue for the law school. For years, South Carolina law claimed to have something like 98% of graduates employed 9 months after graduation. However, Law School Transparency came along and found that that only about 65% of graduates were employed in full-time legal jobs (don't get me wrong, that's not a terrible number. Many schools had significantly worse inflation.)

The same problems exist with the salary data, but you can be assured that that survey had a significantly lower response rate. You can see similar issues with any self-reported survey, because people with perceived poor outcomes are less likely to respond for various reasons. I would be shocked if the employment rate or salary are actually close to those provided numbers, which is why I said I'd love to see an independent employment study done, as that's where you find the truth.

Total cost of attendance for an in-state student is roughly $106,000. So to get that degree, students take on close to six figures of high-interest, non-dischargeable debt and lose four years of salary due to opportunity costs (yes, some students will be scholarshipped, but we have to consider value from a non-discounted perspective). Based on current student loan interest rates, a graduate with those student loans will pay $13,500 a year for 10 years to pay it off. Let's be extremely generous and say the average business school grad makes $60,000 (I suspect it's closer to 50). After student loans, that salary is $46,500. The average starting salary for an associates degree holder in SC is $43,800 after accounting for the average cost of attendance of a technical school in our state (though some like RNs make far more). Not a very big difference for the first 10 years of their career, especially when you consider the ~$90,000 in opportunity costs the business school graduate lost over the Associate's Degree.

Now, maybe you can respond with the fact that there's more upward mobility in the field of business than a technical field. And maybe that's right. But again, upward mobility for a company like Price Waterhouse Coopers will require an advanced degree, probably an MBA or JD. Which leads us back to my previous complaints.

I'd be thrilled with my kid doing any job as long as they enjoy it. But $65,000 isn't a number that boggles my mind, especially considering the costs involved in getting that salary.

Ok, points taken but we will never agree on this....which is cool.

I do find the college cost scenario you outlined disingenuous. It is an absolute worst-case scenario where a student is literally borrowing the entire cost of attendance. For almost all students, this is not the case. For most students, there is a variety of programs included in their financial plan made up of "free money".....Pell Grants, university-funded scholarships, external scholarships, state grants like the Life/Hope and Palmetto Fellows scholarships, Federal Work Study, etc. Also, parents should feel responsible (where possible) to save some amount to contribute out of pocket towards the cost in the form of tuition payment to the school or a monthly payment plan. All of these things reduce the amount of borrowing students do. Carolina admission data for the International Business undergraduate major is selective which means admitted students have exemplary academic credentials meaning they are even more likely to be scholarship and state grant recipients.

Also, US DOE College Scorecard data for USC overall shows that less than half of Carolina students participate in the federal loan program. Also, shows only 5-10% of USC parents participate in the federal parent PLUS loan program. The data points out that for Carolina students participating in loan programs (less than half the students enrolled), their average debt at graduation is between $12K and $27K.

Also, I think most would very much disagree with your last thought on salary. A STARTING average salary of $65K for a 22-ish year old right out of undergrad in a relatively poor state is very strong. I believe the Darla Moore jobs report clarifies that over 90% of students surveyed completed and returned it.

 

[F-86F]

All depends on which UMass your talking about.
UMass Amherst is rate # 66 in National Universities

Do they still have witch trials in Massachusetts?

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Do they still have witch trials in Massachusetts?

Yes
https://www.tripadvisor.co.nz/ShowU...9521250-Cry_Innocent-Salem_Massachusetts.html

 

[USC2USC]

It's not disingenuous at all. You brought up the value of the degree, not me. If you want to work that out, you need to consider what the non-discounted cost of attendance is. You can't skate around the cost of attendance by saying that parents should pay for the kid to go to school or the kid should do work-study. That's an immature approach. The Life/Hope/Palmetto Fellows are not big scholarships and wouldn't have a tremendous impact on total cost of attendance (instead of $140,000 total cost of attendance after repayment, it's $117,000 with the PF). But you seem to base almost your entire argument on parents paying for their kid's college education: ie: paying out of pocket, taking out plus loans in their name, etc. Who's paying doesn't impact the actual price tag the school has put on their degree. As for whether parents have a responsibility to pay their kid's college tuition, that's a decision every family has to make for themselves. Your opinion on whether or not they have that responsibility is just that, an opinion.

I don't see this 90% plus response rate anywhere. Care to share it? Turns out I found the response rate. The Darla Moore jobs report actually says the response rate for the Business School as a whole was 50.62% (page 2). They also openly admit that one independent self-reported study (which again has flaws and is likely inflated) shows students make less than Moore says they do. But I like how you take umbrage with my using the school's actual price and say its disingenuous when you make up the response rate to make it sound good. https://www.sc.edu/study/colleges_s...cm/200820_undergraduate_majorreport20_web.pdf

I'd be very curious to see where you got this admissions data from. According to their own site, it seems that you just have to get accepted by the school at large and only if the business program fills up, do they determine seats based on academic qualifications. But it seems you're likely to be accepted with a 3.25 GPA from other programs, which is a fine GPA, but not "exemplary."

But ignoring the fact that the actual salary is decidedly not $65,000. You say starting, but haven't proven me wrong that upward mobility in the company is limited without a graduate degree. Again, if someone's happy with their job, their salary isn't important. If they only want money, it's a matter of perspective whether $65,000 minus whatever loans you might have and opportunity costs, is worthwhile. To some people, including myself 15 years ago, that's an eye-popping amount of money. Others would be disappointed with that salary. Everything's a matter of perspective.

You're obviously a business student who is upset with the criticism I level at the IB program. But it's not a personal attack at all. You're obviously very smart, and I'm sure most of the business students are. If that's the route you want in life, more power to you. My only complaint lies with the school. You tell a 16 year old that they can enroll in the #1 international business program in the nation and stay in state near family. It's natural that they would think this program would (a) teach them all they need to know to succeed in international business and (b) give them the credentials to get employed there. I have no doubt the school does an okay job at (a). But I strongly believe it doesn't do a good enough job at (b). I have seen honors graduates of that program strike out with the kinds of business that offer entry-level international business jobs while I've seen terrible students from unrelated majors get hired because their diploma says Cornell or similar on it.

Well, first of all I am not a student.....far from it. Nor was I a business major in undergrad or grad. I thought I saw a different % for response rate and if I was wrong, I was wrong. Still your assumption that folks who don't respond are unemployed may be true, may not be true. Its speculation.

"I am very critical of universities charging so much for degrees in the first place and plunging graduates into tens of thousands of dollars of high-interest, nondischargeable debt. It's even worse when the degree doesn't help them get into the field they want to get into."

You said you didn't bring up value of the degree. I think that is exactly what you did in the statement above.

I don't see how you can discuss value without considering the actual sticker price students pay. The US Dept of Education data I pointed to from the College Scorecard shows that USC graduates take on relatively small amounts of debt with the majority not participating in federal loan programs and very few parents participating in the federal parent PLUS loan program. My reference to the family contribution was in no way saying parent savings should be used to cover the entire cost of attendance, but pointing to the fact that some contribution from family savings as an individual piece of several pieces of a financial plan to attend school is an effective tool to reduce borrowing. The data I see shows that only roughly half of American families save for college expenses at all.

Regardless, we both have strong opinions on the subject and wont see eye to eye. Basically, as a Carolina grad, I was initially defending USC's #1 ranked international business program which I see as a good investment for students who can get admitted. And yes, I view the value of a college education as being many things in addition to how much you make after graduation.