Palmetto Proving Grounds

Didn't realize sports teams or a library gave you a great education

Well, it apparently taught me to read much better than your education did, because my degree IS on the same level as your own. I started and finished in Columbia, as I said earlier. And speaking from a position of knowledge, minus the ignorant bliss you obviously have regarding "satellite" campuses, I can tell you and everyone that I speak with that USC Aiken taught me as well or better in nearly every class I took. I can think of only one class (a lab, actually) where I wasn't taught as well as I would have likely been in Columbia, and in that class I instead learned more about life than probably any that I ever took. The professor that taught that lab knows far more about Physics and applied physics/engineering than anyone that I had at Columbia, although he taught very little of it. But as for nearly every class that I took at Aiken, each was a better learning opportunity than the ones that I had at the "core" campus, where I finished. While at Columbia, I found myself lost in a sea of students more than once and could often not find any real help and would struggle to understand for an entire semester, pulling out my grads at the end to a C or maybe a B. But at Aiken, I knew far more out of my B's and A's (and even one C) than I could have hoped for at Columbia. And this experience was not mine alone, as many of my friends from the engineering department had to come to Columbia to finish the upper division classes. It was amazing how much better each of them understood the subjects from the lower division classes as opposed to our fellow students who'd spent the first two years in Columbia. From an educational standpoint, there was no limitation on Aiken other than the breadth of courses available.

Socially, it was night and day. There wasn't much for me to do in Aiken. Of course, I was working 30 hours a week anyway, but that was the case in both Aiken & Columbia. There wasn't the nightlife that my roommates and I had in Columbia. Nor was there the level of athletic competition. They had golf, baseball and basketball to my knowledge (and were very good this past year in Men's Basketball at their level, from what I understand), but I never went. I've always gone to Columbia to enjoy my Carolina sports.

And if that experience on a poor, small, campus having been doubtless taught by overall-wearing nitwits lowers your opinion of me... well let me just say I wouldn't accede to a second interview with you anyway (not that I'd expect to be interviewed by someone with such a narrow-minded class bias). Those intellectually impure, lower-level, county-renowned (and only wishing to aspire to the world-renowndedness of their peers) professors gave me an education that I not only can be proud of, but can use just as readily as any of the ones that taught me on the Columbia campus.

I think what he's trying to say is that if you would have stayed and graduated at USC Aiken, your degree would have been looked down on compared to a USC Columbia degree. Companies look at the school you graduated from, not the quality of your professor.

Lol at these people being trolled by the op. wasnt even a good troll either

I understand that some companies look at your school, although I've never had any issues with it (and from your point, I suppose I shouldn't). But as far as the quality of education, which is a large part of what makes a productive work force in many sectors, the quality of the education should be paramount. In fact, I would submit that it eventually will be. Those who got the better education will eventually rise to the top over those who did not.

I'm not going to say that you can get a better resume blurb than MIBS if you graduated from USC-A. But you can't get any better anywhere, really. So USC's flagship academic program is unfair to compare to. Anyone with the opportunity to get into the Columbia International Business program would be a fool to go elsewhere, no matter the location.

What I take issue with is the presumption that because an individual has a degree from a separate campus that he should be looked down upon as having inferior intellect (which is what some posters are at least implying, if not explicitly stating). First off, though a degree might open a door, it rarely (and should never) gets someone through the interview process. Secondly, to think that you get thrown in a reject pile because your city listed next to "The University Of South Carolina" is not Columbia is a sad point to make, if true. I'm far enough into my career that my education does not matter as much, but my experience has taken over as projection of my worth. So it makes little difference to me. But to think that early on, that could have been a deciding factor seems cheap to me. Finally, Human Resources activities are largely a one-off routine after the initial screening for job experience. If you have the chops to do a job, education is down the list on deciding factors unless you are just starting out your career and have made no industry contacts (b/c, as many of us know, networking is where it's at). While I might get a boost over the OP if everything else were the same in South Carolina, it would hardly be fair to have that as the final thing tipping the scale in my favor. And if you're far enough outside the state, no one is going to know the difference anyway.

Amen!! No need to argue and eat our own. Let the Taters do that. If you're a Gamecock, you're certainly welcome, and thus should count yourself among equals as brothers and sisters of the garnet and black!! GO COCKS!!

But what if someone takes online classes through the USC system and their degree is from USC but they have never stepped foot on campus? Please tell me what your opinion is so I can judge my self-worth by it...

So, if you met someone who said he played baseball at USC, and you found out it was USC Upstate, would you consider it misleading?

Afterall, it's the usc right? That's a bad example, but meant more as hyperbole.

More importantly, It's 100 percent proper etiquette to list the city in which you attended college on your resume. If you simply listed The University of North Carolina on your resume, when in reality you attended UNC Wilmington, you would be looked at as a fraud when an employer performed a background check and education verification.

Same as USC.

I actually had this happen, as an employer, as someone listed "University of Michigan" on their resume, yet she had attended University of Michigan in kalamazoo...its not the same.

Now, i do not look down upon, nor judge anyone, to each his/her own...but at best its misleading and at worst its borderline fraud IMO.

Technically, yes, you may have graduated from "The University of South Carolina system" but, again, it would be very misleading to list that on your resume and not specify the city and actual campus you attended.

The admissions requirements are in no way similar either. Now, each individuals education probably came down to what he/she was dedicated to achieving, regardless of college choice, so i do not mean someone is smarter or less smart regardless of their choice of school. However, i doubt you could find many USC-Columbia, UNC-Chapel Hill, University of Michigan - ann arbor, etc... Graduates Who would argue that their satellite campuses are "the same degree."

Everyone has a right to their opinion though, and i will not be offended either way, unless it was an employee/employer situation. In which case, i would consider it, even with benefit of the doubt, misleading at best.

Yeah... It baffles me that so many in this thread are delusional enough to believe satellite campuses are equal to USC Columbia.

Honest question: did you ask the employee what her degree said? Although I would presume to see the city & year graduated on the resume (although not a hard and fast requirement), that should not be the only place that education is listed. In even my most recent jobs, I've been required to fill out applications that include the city of my educational stops all the way back to high school. So that is where I would have put Columbia even if it hadn't been on my resume. But back to my question, if her diploma said University of Michigan, then she has every right to list that on her resume. If it said University of Michigan - Kalamazoo, that is what she should put. If/when asked, she would only be committing fraud when she lied about the campus. And she should be required to submit that answer somewhere in the process.

I don't know how much easier it is to get into USC-Sumter, Aiken or Salkahatchee than it is to get in Columbia, as I had no problem getting in either place. But I do know that I respect anyone that graduated from any of them the same due to my experience in both the satellite and central campuses. Since their diploma states the same thing as my own (The University of South Carolina, giving no indication of the campus attended), I would argue (and, I guess, have argued quite vehemently) that mine and theirs are "the same degree." I may be in the minority, but I know I'm not alone b/c of a group of people that shared the same experience that I had at the same time feel the same way.

Not only are you a dbag but you showed your dbagness from a troll.

I just wonder how many of you "my cock is bigger than your cock" snobs are unemployed? fess up, tools!

You guys are hilarious! OP said does that make him a "Gamecock alum?". The problem is in the wording...the argument that ensued is laughable...is he a Gamecock? I'm sure he is...is he a USC system alum? Absolutely he is! Is he a Gamecock alum? 'Fraid not...he screwed himself in the wording...that's JMHO...anyway Go Cocks! At least we can agree in that!