[an]

[quote=walterwhite]thanks. he’s not a computer type person, he’s more of a reality type kid. doing very well in ap science classes. some hs alum attending cal st san marcos came by to recruit and he was excited by the guy’s pitch. maybe he should shoot a little higher though…hate the idea of encouraging him to go out and away into the world, but maybe it is the right thing after all…[/quote]
What AP sciences are you referring to? Bio/chem/etc? If he tried programming and doesn’t like it, then I agree, stay away from compsci. If he like bio/chem/etc. he can go into Bioengineering or Chemical engineering. UCSD was #1 in Bioengineering about 15 years ago. Not sure where they are today. Whether you encourage him to go out or not, whatever you do, don’t make him stay if he wants to go. He’ll remember it forever and he’ll replay the what if in his head periodically.

My thinking is, if you have the $ to pay for him to apply to various colleges, it doesn’t hurt to apply to all the big names as well as the locals (have the dream colleges, the realistic colleges, and the back up college). After he get all the acceptance letter back, then you can sit down and decide which one is right. It better to have choices and be the one who do the deciding vs being forced to go to a particular college because you didn’t apply to enough and get rejected from the one you thought you would get into.

[an]

[quote=walterwhite]thanks. he’s not a computer type person, he’s more of a reality type kid. doing very well in ap science classes. some hs alum attending cal st san marcos came by to recruit and he was excited by the guy’s pitch. maybe he should shoot a little higher though…hate the idea of encouraging him to go out and away into the world, but maybe it is the right thing after all…[/quote]
What AP sciences are you referring to? Bio/chem/etc? If he tried programming and doesn’t like it, then I agree, stay away from compsci. If he like bio/chem/etc. he can go into Bioengineering or Chemical engineering. UCSD was #1 in Bioengineering about 15 years ago. Not sure where they are today. Whether you encourage him to go out or not, whatever you do, don’t make him stay if he wants to go. He’ll remember it forever and he’ll replay the what if in his head periodically.

My thinking is, if you have the $ to pay for him to apply to various colleges, it doesn’t hurt to apply to all the big names as well as the locals (have the dream colleges, the realistic colleges, and the back up college). After he get all the acceptance letter back, then you can sit down and decide which one is right. It better to have choices and be the one who do the deciding vs being forced to go to a particular college because you didn’t apply to enough and get rejected from the one you thought you would get into.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.

Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).

JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.

This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.

Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).

JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.

This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.

Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).

JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.

This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.

Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).

JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.

This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Absolutely. I’d like to see plans from both parties. You’ll recall that we have yet to see anything remotely approaching a plan (or a budget, for that matter) from the Dems.

Completely absent from this conversation is Obama’s ACTUAL record, as well as the fact that he has been promising that JOBS are a priority since nearly the beginning of his Presidency. I don’t know how many times we’ve “pivoted” to jobs, but its been more than a few. One of the major selling points of the stimulus package was jobs creation (remember the whole getting unemployment below 8% promise?).

JOBS will be the key determinant of the 2012 election and because of that, yeah, it really doesn’t matter whom the GOP nominates. This election is Obama’s to lose and regardless of the Dem’s continued insistence on the good job he’s doing, there is a huge groundswell tacking in the opposite direction. Pay particular attention to the usual stalwarts on the liberal side of the print media and what they’ve been saying about Obama. This isn’t Fox News and the WSJ, this is the NYT and the WashPost, including Maureen Dowd, and Dana Milbank and even Krugman.

This president is in trouble and no amount of hyperbolic ventilating changes that fact.[/quote]
Totally agree Allan. Although the Obama’s budget didn’t really go anywhere (he did provide a budget that congress shot down), it doesn’t really matter. It’s all about JOBS. If unemployment stay at 9.1%, it would be a hard fight for Obama but if it goes up by the time we hit election, I don’t think it matters who Republican nominate. If JOBS take a nose dive again, it would probably the final nail in the coffin.

[an]

School depends on whether your kids want to be done w/ school after 4 years or want to go on and get their MS/Ph.D. UC tend to teach more theories, which would benefits those who go on to get their MS/Ph.D. CSU on the other hand tend to be more practical, which would be more beneficial if you go directly to the work force after college. If you have the money and your kids have the smart to get in and succeed at that level, try to shoot for MIT/Caltech/Standford/etc. It’s a little easier to get into the top companies (Google/Apple/etc). Example would be (guessing at GPA here) a 3.0 GPA ant those top universities would get you an interview those top companies but a 3.0 GPA at SDSU might not (assuming everything else is similar).

With regards to which discipline, I think it’s easier to get a job with Compsci vs the other engineering degrees. So go w/ Compsi if your kid like it.

[an]

School depends on whether your kids want to be done w/ school after 4 years or want to go on and get their MS/Ph.D. UC tend to teach more theories, which would benefits those who go on to get their MS/Ph.D. CSU on the other hand tend to be more practical, which would be more beneficial if you go directly to the work force after college. If you have the money and your kids have the smart to get in and succeed at that level, try to shoot for MIT/Caltech/Standford/etc. It’s a little easier to get into the top companies (Google/Apple/etc). Example would be (guessing at GPA here) a 3.0 GPA ant those top universities would get you an interview those top companies but a 3.0 GPA at SDSU might not (assuming everything else is similar).

With regards to which discipline, I think it’s easier to get a job with Compsci vs the other engineering degrees. So go w/ Compsi if your kid like it.

[an]

School depends on whether your kids want to be done w/ school after 4 years or want to go on and get their MS/Ph.D. UC tend to teach more theories, which would benefits those who go on to get their MS/Ph.D. CSU on the other hand tend to be more practical, which would be more beneficial if you go directly to the work force after college. If you have the money and your kids have the smart to get in and succeed at that level, try to shoot for MIT/Caltech/Standford/etc. It’s a little easier to get into the top companies (Google/Apple/etc). Example would be (guessing at GPA here) a 3.0 GPA ant those top universities would get you an interview those top companies but a 3.0 GPA at SDSU might not (assuming everything else is similar).

With regards to which discipline, I think it’s easier to get a job with Compsci vs the other engineering degrees. So go w/ Compsi if your kid like it.

[an]

School depends on whether your kids want to be done w/ school after 4 years or want to go on and get their MS/Ph.D. UC tend to teach more theories, which would benefits those who go on to get their MS/Ph.D. CSU on the other hand tend to be more practical, which would be more beneficial if you go directly to the work force after college. If you have the money and your kids have the smart to get in and succeed at that level, try to shoot for MIT/Caltech/Standford/etc. It’s a little easier to get into the top companies (Google/Apple/etc). Example would be (guessing at GPA here) a 3.0 GPA ant those top universities would get you an interview those top companies but a 3.0 GPA at SDSU might not (assuming everything else is similar).

With regards to which discipline, I think it’s easier to get a job with Compsci vs the other engineering degrees. So go w/ Compsi if your kid like it.

[an]

School depends on whether your kids want to be done w/ school after 4 years or want to go on and get their MS/Ph.D. UC tend to teach more theories, which would benefits those who go on to get their MS/Ph.D. CSU on the other hand tend to be more practical, which would be more beneficial if you go directly to the work force after college. If you have the money and your kids have the smart to get in and succeed at that level, try to shoot for MIT/Caltech/Standford/etc. It’s a little easier to get into the top companies (Google/Apple/etc). Example would be (guessing at GPA here) a 3.0 GPA ant those top universities would get you an interview those top companies but a 3.0 GPA at SDSU might not (assuming everything else is similar).

With regards to which discipline, I think it’s easier to get a job with Compsci vs the other engineering degrees. So go w/ Compsi if your kid like it.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]As CAR said, today it’s their job, tomorrow yours.[/quote]
IIRC, isn’t this dispute (potential strike) is about making the employee pay more for their health insurance? I think most of us have already experienced this, but we didn’t strike. I used to work for a company that took it to the chin and they freeze 401(k) match. I worked for another who took it to the chin and they change their health benefits that require us to pay more for an inferior plan. Instead of striking, I just leave the company and find a better job that have better benefits.

To those pro-union pro-labor, aren’t you guys/gals suppose to support them and go back and shop at Vons/Ralphs/Alberstons when the strike is over? If they lose customers like you after the strike, then the company would just be in a deeper hole, which means they will have to cut more benefits in the future. It’s like going out and buying Japanese/Korean/European cars while saying your pro-union/pro-labor. Shouldn’t you be supporting the American companies that hire those union workers?

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]As CAR said, today it’s their job, tomorrow yours.[/quote]
IIRC, isn’t this dispute (potential strike) is about making the employee pay more for their health insurance? I think most of us have already experienced this, but we didn’t strike. I used to work for a company that took it to the chin and they freeze 401(k) match. I worked for another who took it to the chin and they change their health benefits that require us to pay more for an inferior plan. Instead of striking, I just leave the company and find a better job that have better benefits.

To those pro-union pro-labor, aren’t you guys/gals suppose to support them and go back and shop at Vons/Ralphs/Alberstons when the strike is over? If they lose customers like you after the strike, then the company would just be in a deeper hole, which means they will have to cut more benefits in the future. It’s like going out and buying Japanese/Korean/European cars while saying your pro-union/pro-labor. Shouldn’t you be supporting the American companies that hire those union workers?

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]As CAR said, today it’s their job, tomorrow yours.[/quote]
IIRC, isn’t this dispute (potential strike) is about making the employee pay more for their health insurance? I think most of us have already experienced this, but we didn’t strike. I used to work for a company that took it to the chin and they freeze 401(k) match. I worked for another who took it to the chin and they change their health benefits that require us to pay more for an inferior plan. Instead of striking, I just leave the company and find a better job that have better benefits.

To those pro-union pro-labor, aren’t you guys/gals suppose to support them and go back and shop at Vons/Ralphs/Alberstons when the strike is over? If they lose customers like you after the strike, then the company would just be in a deeper hole, which means they will have to cut more benefits in the future. It’s like going out and buying Japanese/Korean/European cars while saying your pro-union/pro-labor. Shouldn’t you be supporting the American companies that hire those union workers?

[Author]

Posts