pretty quick to dismiss community college. I took lower division classes at one, my math classes were taught by PhDs or people with three decades of math and statistics experience. The rigor was pretty good, I transferred to a very good school from the community college and was well prepared.
1. The point was "there is a standard of rigor that you don't experience at every school". I could have used anything as an example. It doesn't matter that I picked community college. If you agree with that statement, then do you disagree with the conclusion: that once you go down that path, you the student, have a burden to explain to everyone how the quality of education compares with the best?
Technically, yeah, I made a generalization: cheaper schooling means shittier quality education (not bad, just worse). Of course, I haven't stepped into every community college classroom. But this is the psychology of the people looking at your application.
Technically technically, what actually matters is all the things that go along with going to a cheaper school, not really the fact that it's cheap.
2. "The rigor was pretty good" - does that mean you kept taking math classes (real analysis, etc)? If not, then how can you make that claim?
The OP was asking for an engineering
degree; there the math is powerful
support but only support.
Sure, the first two years at Harvard
can be something special, especially
if the student uses AP or tests out
of the standard first two years of
ugrad school. E.g., Harvard's Math
55 taught to freshmen at least at
one time used Halmos, FDVS, Rudin's
'Principles', and Spivak's 'Manifolds'.
That's usually junior or senior level
stuff.
I know one guy who went to Harvard and
as a sophomore took a reading course
from A. Gleason. So, if in the next
two years he knocked off one of Hilbert's
problems, like Gleason did, then he
could also become a Harvard 'Fellow'
and skip a Ph.D.! But, again, we're
talking engineering, not being so
advanced as a ugrad that really should
end up with a Ph.D. in math instead of a
Bachelor's.
What's so wrong about just taking the first
two years of college as just the
usual first two years? A CC can
provide that. A CC can use a
good calculus book; when I took
calculus, I used the same book
Harvard used; that is, Harvard
was willing to teach a calculus
course, just calculus from just
a common book, to I don't know
who took it. Given the book
and anything like a competent CC teacher,
the Harvard course doesn't have much
room to be better than a CC course,
especially if the student followed
my recommendations on self study before
the course.
I know; I know; maybe the freshman
English lit course at Harvard is taught
by a Nobel prize winner in literature
and can provide some astoundingly profound
insights into Henry James and, thus,
change the lives of the students. I'm
not impressed.
You seem eager to "pay a lot" for the first
two years of college.
I'm not sure about "cheaper schooling, lower quality". In engineering and computer science there are state schools that compete, IMO, pretty handily with "the best". you might snigger and scoff, but hiring managers at good companies don't.
also, if you start your degree at a CC and transfer to a 4 year to finish, what does it says on your diploma? exactly what it would say if you went there for four years. I wouldn't recommend keeping secrets about your life, but if no one asks...
I did keep taking math classes! I have a math minor.
yeah, so, I was rushing. I edited the previous post: what matters is all the things that go along with cheaper schooling, not that fact that it's cheap.
Sounds that it is a lot about credentials. Sadly enough it is. My experience with my education in industrial engineering at "university of applied sciences" in germany (whatever that would be in the US...) was rather good even when compared to the big names around here as far as knowldge is concerned. Yet, the fact remained that it wasn't a big name.