<p>I know this has been discussed before but I’m still not sure.</p>
<p>I’m highly considering attending a college where I’m at the top of the applicant pool and can get merit aid. </p>
<p>When it comes to post-grad time…just how impressive is it really to have been the big fish in a small pond? </p>
<p>Let’s say I become the editor-in-chief of the college newspaper at a small, lesser known college and have my own talk show on the radio station. Whereas, for argument’s sake, I only make the staff of a more prestigious college paper and work as a PA for the radio station. </p>
<p>How would employers and such view both scenarios? </p>
<p>I tend to think the first option would be better because then I would have gained the actual experience of being an editor and talk show host (hypothetically, of course, fill in the blanks for whatever you might want to do). But again, I really don’t know.</p>
<p>I don’t think you can really generalize, but you know what they say: Where you go to college isn’t nearly as important as what you do there. If the prestigious college is really well-known for their paper/radio station, that may be a different matter, but I tend to believe that the first scenario would be more impressive.</p>
<p>Your instincts are correct, in my opinion. Hands-on work experience is everything in communications, marketing/advertising and PR organizations. Good writing samples, a broadcast reel, or an online portfolio will give prospective employers a far better idea of your abilities than a name on a diploma can provide.</p>
<p>If it’s a really prestigious college newspaper, you’ll see just having a significant place on the staff doing wonders for your career, if at least because of the connections/internships you’ll get.</p>
<p>Philovitist, with all due respect–aren’t you still in high school? </p>
<p>I have been working in communications/marketing/advertising for 25 years and have hired dozens of people during that time. Where someone went to college is the LAST thing I look at. Yes, having a major role on a paper (at a great, good or lesser-known school) shows that the applicant might have relevant experience. But the only proof is the work itself. Which means every detail must be perfect. A sloppily written or edited resume or cover letter is a disqualifier. </p>
<p>Also, I hate to break it to the OP but careers in journalism are harder and harder to get, and the pay isn’t great–all the more reason to incur the least debt possible.</p>
<p>Thanks for the responses so far.</p>
<p>Yeah, I know careers in journalism are harder and harder to get, and the pay isn’t great. I’m not even sure that’s what I WANT to do. But it’s something I’m interested in exploring at least. That’s another reason I think I’d rather go to a small school and gain as much hands-on experience I can. To see if it’s even something I really would want to do career-wise. Ya know?</p>
<p>But still. I’d like to hear more replies and comments from everyone.</p>
<p>Oh and another question: is being the editor of the paper or yearbook or whatever considered more desirable than being a staff writer, or is it viewed the same?</p>
<p>Any other opinions?</p>