I like my plan best. Joslyn stays home and becomes a Lady Griz, helps Selvig move the program into the top 25 and accompanying NCAA wins, gets her undergraduate degree from UM. Then, after a nice WNBA career, decides to get a Masters at Stanford.
Nah, she would rather be a basketball coach, and what better place to start a coaching career than here at UM.
What the cr@p is wrong with getting a master's in Missoula, GB?
Well SH, nothing is wrong with it per se, but you are apparently missing the pont. Most people get their masters elsewhere so they have exposure to different faculty, etc. Having a Masters from the same place as your undergrad is OK, but all things being equal, the candidate with diversity is going to come out on top each and every time when in competition for a position. The easy thing is to get a business degree, then get your Masters from the same profs you had as an undergrad. Not real challenging for one, and doesn't impress to many search committees either.
My point with the whole Stnaford thing is that it is ranked higher as an institution than any other nationally competitive WBB school.
It doesn't matter what you think about rankings (whether or not they mean anything, or are just), because they are what everybody looks at. That's why schools strive to be highly ranked.
It's like this: We all have problems with the BCS. This team shouldn't be in there, or that team should.... But look who gets to play for the title....
Saying USC is better than Stanford may very well be correct. But if 99% (or even 51%) of people nationwide, including those who do the hiring, disagree, then is USC really better? I don't think so.
For the record, LAGriz, I wish that UCLA and USC were better than Stanford more than probably anyone in the world right now. I'm accepted at the former two for law school, but didn't even apply to the latter because, while my LSAT is 99.4th percentile, my UGPA is a PISS POOR 3.7! That's not good enough for Stanford. Can you believe that?
It doesn't matter what you think about rankings (whether or not they mean anything, or are just), because they are what everybody looks at. That's why schools strive to be highly ranked.
Saying USC is better than Stanford may very well be correct. But if 99% (or even 51%) of people nationwide, including those who do the hiring, disagree, then is USC really better? I don't think so.
WOW. Any school in the top 50 or so in the US is loaded with bright, very talented students. This includes all three schools mentioned here in Stanford, UCLA and USC.
Heck many tier3 schools have brilliant students attending who will do well and compete well in the job marketplace.
Do you really think students from UCLA or USC can't beat out a stanford grad just because of the school name on the diploma ??????
You are beaten before you even start with that attitude.
You can argue that HYPS grads may have a leg up on getting their foot in the door for an interview in a few fields (wall street and a few very top law firms come to mind) but after that the student must perform based on their merits.
After a few years in the marketplace nobody really cares where you graduate from just your track record and job abilities.
For the record, LAGriz, I wish that UCLA and USC were better than Stanford more than probably anyone in the world right now. I'm accepted at the former two for law school, but didn't even apply to the latter because, while my LSAT is 99.4th percentile, my UGPA is a PISS POOR 3.7! That's not good enough for Stanford. Can you believe that?
two things - 'aptitude tests', including the LSAT, are only really worthwhile as predictors of a student's GPA in the FIRST year of post-graduate study. secondly, stanford typically looks for more well-rounded individuals, and very much takes into account 'extra-curriculars' when admitting students, in addition to test scores and gpas. these schools also have huge administrative programs whose sole purpose is to pick students for admittance. did your 3.7 eliminate you from even applying there, or did you decide that on your own???
the second "thing" i would bring up is that while, as alluded to before in this thread, being able to say you graduated from a school like stanford certainly opens doors - however, there are a multitude of factors that go into one's education, and if you pick the right program/adviser, one can get a stellar education from schools that don't have big reputations.
oh, and a third thing is that i never would have guessed that you have such high 'aptitude' scores based on your incessant gonzaga posts... on a griz board.
For the record, LAGriz, I wish that UCLA and USC were better than Stanford more than probably anyone in the world right now. I'm accepted at the former two for law school, but didn't even apply to the latter because, while my LSAT is 99.4th percentile, my UGPA is a PISS POOR 3.7! That's not good enough for Stanford. Can you believe that?
two things - 'aptitude tests', including the LSAT, are only really worthwhile as predictors of a student's GPA in the FIRST year of post-graduate study. secondly, stanford typically looks for more well-rounded individuals, and very much takes into account 'extra-curriculars' when admitting students, in addition to test scores and gpas. these schools also have huge administrative programs whose sole purpose is to pick students for admittance. did your 3.7 eliminate you from even applying there, or did you decide that on your own???
the second "thing" i would bring up is that while, as alluded to before in this thread, being able to say you graduated from a school like stanford certainly opens doors - however, there are a multitude of factors that go into one's education, and if you pick the right program/adviser, one can get a stellar education from schools that don't have big reputations.
oh, and a third thing is that i never would have guessed that you have such high 'aptitude' scores based on your incessant gonzaga posts... on a griz board.
Yeah, LSAT predicts first year grades. And where you get in. And where you get in predicts how you will place. How you place determines your starting point for what you will accomplish. I, for one, would rather start farther ahead than behind. So the LSAT is pretty important.
Stanford Law looks for those with the highest indexes (LSAT/GPA combined using a self-determined formula). All law schools say they look at the "whole individual", but unless one is an underrepresented minority, they all play the numbers game, and only the numbers game.
Yeah, people can make the most of any situation; not anything new there. However, it's a lot easier from a place like HYS. I think all of you are smart enough to agree with that.
Billings_Poke: My 3.7 basically excludes me from Stanford not only because it's a 3.7, but because it's from UM. I love UM, but it's kind of a burden when everyone else has a 3.7 from Princeton/Vassar/Harvard/Swarthmore... If only they went on LSAT alone...
I understand your point and I will admit that I am more familiar with Engineering than Law. It appears engineering is a bit more democratic and many types of schools place students into the top engineering graduate schools and companies. Heck the Ivy league is not really that good in engineering.
I have a son at USC now getting his BS in engineering. He choose USC over UPENN and Northwestern and neither MSU or Wyo were ever on his list. He had some thoughts similar to yours and he felt this was the best way to keep all his options open although I was not sure I agreed with him.
I was thinking more of a career than grad school and I still think you can go far without a Stanford grad degree.
Is this thread brag about about our scholastic achievements? Anybody with your credentials should be billing hundreds of bucks an hour, not posting on this board with common folk.
Is this thread brag about about our scholastic achievements? Anybody with your credentials should be billing hundreds of bucks an hour, not posting on this board with common folk.
I was afraid someone might think that I was trying to brag. I only brought up myself to illustrate that: 1) I would love it if Stanford=UCLA and USC, and 2) Judging by entry requirements, rankings, job prospects, and layman perception, it most certainly is not. Also, having an acceptance to a law school is not really a reason to brag about anything...
Poke, wholeheartedly agree that one needs not go to Stanford to have a great career. Your son sounds like a smart dude. FWIW, if he's anything like me (from small town, regular guy), I think he made the right choice. A lot of Ivy Leaguers are not who I would want to spent any amount of time with.
Is this thread brag about about our scholastic achievements? Anybody with your credentials should be billing hundreds of bucks an hour, not posting on this board with common folk.
I was afraid someone might think that I was trying to brag. I only brought up myself to illustrate that: 1) I would love it if Stanford=UCLA and USC, and 2) Judging by entry requirements, rankings, job prospects, and layman perception, it most certainly is not. Also, having an acceptance to a law school is not really a reason to brag about anything...
Poke, wholeheartedly agree that one needs not go to Stanford to have a great career. Your son sounds like a smart dude. FWIW, if he's anything like me (from small town, regular guy), I think he made the right choice. A lot of Ivy Leaguers are not who I would want to spent any amount of time with.
She's ranked as the 13th-best prospect by the Web site Hoopgurlz.com, but can look to her parents to keep her grounded.
“My coach is pretty good at it, too,” she said. “I've got a lot to work on.”
Down to Earth, dedicated, smart, humble...she has a bright future. What a great family. Whatever choice she makes, she'll make the most of it...I think it would be great if she played for the Lady Griz, but getting out of Montana for a few years does wonders for your appreciation of it. Montana pride...keep up the good work!!
Joined: 06 Oct 2005 Posts: 830 Location: Somewhere in Montana 2648 eGriz Bucks
I think it is appropriate to bump this thread back to the top of the board. With our loss last night it is apparent that Tinkle would improve our Lady Griz team drastically. I am wondering what the chances of getting her to stay in Missoula to play for the LG actually are. With Tinkle, Hurley and Ferda's experience playing together and crushing teams outside of Montana in big tourneys may play a part in her decision. I am hoping at least. There is obviously great pride in Montana within her family and I would hope that she would like to continue her family's tradition.
The 6-3 Washington recruit would have helped a lot, but apparently she committed to Gonzaga unfortunately. So it appears that the guards and forwards are set for a while, but we are hurting for some good inside presence that can dominate like we had in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Tolbert and Guardipee bust their tales for the LG, but they have not shown the ability to dominate.
Many interesting takes on this one, but I think some of you don't know how good your University is on the world stage academically. A Nobel prize winner this year? Does that ring a bell?
Good luck to the young lady wherever she goes. But this place is not so bad. Most of chose to live here when we had other choices.
Academics aside, lets see. Go to Stanford and consistently be a 1-4 seed in the tourney or come to Montana and get beat by 28 by the #3 team from the SEC? I wonder.......
If you don't think very good, Don't think very much!!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
