<p>People on CC tend to argue over which schools are better and create a hierarchy of schools. In all reality, is there a difference in the quality of education received from an Ivy/Stanford/MIT as compared to colleges such as Emory, NYU, Gtown, JHU, etc.?
Yes, the former are more difficult to get into and have a reputation as such. However, the latter also have great reputations for being excellent schools. Is one going to receive an education from one of the former that trumps one of the latter?</p>
<p>How are you going to quantify ‘better’ education? Post grad paycheck? GRE scores? Ivy grad school admission? </p>
<p>That’s why people argue: because there is no one solid answer.</p>
<p>From the leading researcher in college student outcomes:</p>
<p>“The student’s peer group is the single most potent source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years.” - Alexander Astin, “Four Critical Years Revisited”</p>
<p>Living with, studying with, hanging out with, debating and arguing with, being inspired by, and being afraid to let down an Ivy/Stanford/MIT peer group is one of the most valuable educational experiences imaginable. I wouldn’t doubt that it constitutes a whole different quality of education from that at an average school. But is it that different an experience than being part of an Emory, Gtown, JHU peer group? No, they’re pretty special too. (I would suggest that NYU may be a different matter since, from what I’ve read on CC, it seams that the experience there is more akin to living in the city with a peer group than going to college with it.)</p>
<p>So would you say there’s no qualitative difference in the education from any of those schools?</p>
<p>bump 10char</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly, who really knows? People just tend to repeat things that they hear. Unless somebody has actually physically attended these different universities and sat through their classes, I find it hard to understand that they could accurately differentiate between their quality of education.</p>
<p>Honestly, I fail to see how “education” is different between any school. This is from someone who transferred from UCR (ranked 90 or so) to UCLA (ranked 25 or better). Really…are you going to learn different things at different schools? Rather, I think the most important differences are in the peer groups.</p>
<p>There are a few exceptions though, where I think some schools truly offer superior education. I spoke to my friend who went to Cal Tech, and truly, I believe they get an amazing education. He told me about how theoretical everything is, how all the tests are take home, what kind of rigor and effort is required, and I really felt like his education was better than almost any other I’ve heard of.</p>
<p>But with a few exceptions, “education”, as in, what you actually learn in class, will be the same in practically every good school. The things that separate schools are peer group, job/research opportunities, etc.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that my educational experience is in the engineering college though…there is definitely more standardization amongst schools in my discipline.</p>
<p>The elite schools provide an extra step to a better future i.e. grad school, first job. Beyond that, college is what you make of it. If you are a slacker at Stanford, compared to an academically curious student at NYU, you suck.</p>
<p>I’ve taken courses at schools that span the range identified by the OP.
The best were at a university ranked in the 6-10 range and at a top 5 LAC.
Classes were small. Professors were excellent teachers (and sometimes distinguished scholars) who took pains to draw out students in discussion and to write thoughtful comments on written assignments. The facilities were impressive. </p>
<p>At a university ranked in the 20-30 range, classes I took were larger, the teaching was based more on secondary sources, the faculty was not as distinguished, and there was not as much discussion (the facilities were not nearly as impressive, either). However, in my opinion this is an overrated school. Many classes at some other schools in a similar range (or at public honors colleges) may be more like the ones at more highly ranked schools.</p>
<p>At a top 3 university where I took 2 undergraduate-level courses, the professors were distinguished and interesting, but tended to hold forth on their own research rather than engaging students in a challenging, Socratic give-and-take. </p>
<p>One of my children spent a year at a large state flagship university. Some of the classes were very large; many of the tests were multiple choice; the atmosphere was not too stimulating. He transferred to a LAC, where he had a much more satisfying experience. I have another kid now in his second year at a LAC ranked in the mid-twenties. He’s having a great experience in and out of the classroom. </p>
<p>So, based on personal experience, I think there are real differences in educational quality. These seem to correlate (though not perfectly) with some of the major college rankings. Of course, personal commitment, clear goals, ability and effort all make a huge difference in what you’ll get out of wherever you wind up. At 18, I did not have the “prepared mind” to get as much as I should have out of one of the best universities in the world. Years later, I probably learned more in some classes at a far less prestigious school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I noted above, what happens in the classroom constitutes only a portion of the educational experience of any college. At a particularly good college, it’s often the majority of the “education” that occurs outside the classroom.</p>
<p>
not even close to true. What IS true is that the great teachers, the teachers who creatively and effectively present the core principles of a given class, are generally not found at the highest ranked universities. Think about the priorities of an Assistant or Associate Professor at a HYPSM – where in their hierarchy of professional responsibilities lies “in-class effectiveness” or proactive mentoring of students?</p>
<p>
BINGO! Discussion is CRITICAL to forming and honing critical thinking. Random thoughts bouncing around one’s head during a 1 -> Many lecture are unformed, uncritical, and often simply wrong. In the absence on discussion, of a feedback loop, learning is haphazard, inefficient, and often utterly ineffective. The best learning occurs IN DISCUSSION with intellectually talented peers. Where does one find such an environment? NOt in a lecture hall with 50 or 100 students. Not in a small classroom with peers who spend more time daydreaming about the club they’ll visit that night than listening or processing what other students are discussing. It happens in a small classroom with talented peers.</p>
<p>
I agree. However, many non-HYPSM, non Top 20 schools create avenues for the HYPSM or Top 20 caliber students who choose to go elsewhere (e.g. flagship Honors colleges/programs – whose students are often zero tuition and sometimes zero cost) stat out to HYPSM or certainly top 20, and are their own peer group within a larger institution. Then there are the higher ranked LACs, which fulfill this role effectively.</p>
<p>One of my nephews recently graduated from JHU and went on to graduate work at Rice. He’s one of the most brilliant kids I’ve ever known. I cannot imagine that many of the “peers” at HYPSM would be brighter than he. </p>
<p>So, no, I don’t think there’s that huge a difference – peer-wise or otherwise – between HYPSM and JHU/Emory, etc.</p>
<p>I think a difference between the two categories of Ivy/Stanford/MIT and GTown/Emory/JHU are connections. The people I know who go to schools in the latter group seem to be doing some major networking, while it seems less the case for people who attend the schools in the former group. For some reason most of the people I know who go to schools in the second group are very set on a preprofessional goal (med, law, engineering) while those that go to HYPSM don’t appear to restrict themselves in this manner. I’m not sure why. I suspect it might be because students who attend HYPSM are more likely to want to learn for learning’s sake instead of viewing education as getting themselves a stable, well paying job. It all goes back to peer group, and while JHU/Emory/Gtown and HYPSM students are all bright, HYPSM kids just have this extra “oomph” that makes their overall student body stronger. That I think is the overall difference in education between the two. The material and the difficulty it is taught at at these places is probably very similar and on the same level, it’s just the people that makes for the difference. </p>
<p>In a way college adcoms are basically doing cooking. They take promising students and get them all in the same place, mix them together in a stimulating environment and hope something great results from the collaboration. HYPSM happen to be able to have access to the best ingredients. There’s a reason why Facebook and Microsoft originated at Harvard and not somewhere else, Harvard just so happened to hit the jackpot in getting the Facebook and Microsoft founders in one place.</p>
<p>“'m not sure why. I suspect it might be because students who attend HYPSM are more likely to want to learn for learning’s sake…”</p>
<p>Well, then, they’re barking up the wrong tree at Harvard, where they’re likely to receive much of their learning from teaching fellows and resident/non-resident tutors. ;-)</p>
<p>I do agree, though, that JHU students may have a more pre-professional mindset – especially the pre-med students. (OTOH, if you’re pre-med at Harvard, wouldn’t you <em>also</em> have a fairly pre-professional mindset?)</p>
<p>Also…maybe I’m way off, but I always had the impression that it was the small LACs that attracted students “more likely to want to learn for learning’s sake.” </p>
<p>Of course, even those small-LAC kids (of whom I was one) do eventually have to face the prospect of getting a job after college. In a sense, then, aren’t all students “pre-professional,” to varying degrees?</p>
<p>“The student’s peer group is the single most potent source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years.” - Alexander Astin, “Four Critical Years Revisited”</p>
<p>I think that is a fair statement gadad. But how is the effectiveness and quality of a peer group measured? And is one’s peer group the entire university or merely those we surround ourselves with? Socially, people will usually befriend people with similar temperment, passtimes and values. Academically, we will invariably always surround ourselves with students of equal intellectual intensity and ability. Bottom line, regardless of the quality of the overall student body, it is safe to say that students will form subgroups that suit their needs.</p>
<p>Re: Post #13
“For some reason most of the people I know who go to schools in the second group are very set on a preprofessional goal (med, law, engineering) while those that go to HYPSM don’t appear to restrict themselves in this manner. I’m not sure why. I suspect it might be because students who attend HYPSM are more likely to want to learn for learning’s sake instead of viewing education as getting themselves a stable, well paying job.”</p>
<p>That’s just naive. I’ve got news for you—HYPSM is full of people set on top medical and law schools, and their econ depts are full of closet business administration students hoping to head to Wall St.</p>
<p>“Think about the priorities of an Assistant or Associate Professor at a HYPSM – where in their hierarchy of professional responsibilities lies “in-class effectiveness” or proactive mentoring of students?”</p>
<p>Somewhere down near D level in Widener Library. ;)</p>
<p>Not sure if you are literally looking for a comparison of MIT and Emory, but I know 2 guys from our HS - one is a SR now at MIT and the other is a SR at Emory. The guy at MIT, who was the better student in HS, says every semester has been brutally challenging. The guy at Emory says it’s easier than our HS was.</p>
<p>Nobody can definitively answer such a question since the lurking variable will always be the specific qualities of the individual. Sure, broadly we can understand certain comparisons and perhaps conclude that, all things being equal, such and such a school appears aggregately stronger. But that’s really kind of useless as pertains to the needs, expectations, interests, and social orientation of a specific student learning specific things. In general though, all of those mentioned are fine schools that provide a quality education. If you can get in and afford it, it would be a real priviledge to attend any one of them.</p>