<p>frugal “doctor” writes:
“I have been a researcher, but I researched objective data. A physician’s abilities are highly subjective and thus […] almost impossible […] to conduct a study […] that would be valid in any peer review journal.”</p>
<p>Excepting the standard case that researchers try to use objective data, this statement remains bizarre. Are you actually some kind of nursing assistant or para-professional, and only pretending to be a physician? “Internet physician a la Google”?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, you presented many personal opinions and one tough-sounding tautology - all of which were equally unsubstantiated and thereby disposable. You know: Opinions; everyone has one. Proof has greater potency, right?</p>
<p>Here are some highly overrated froshes, especially that upper quartile. Yeah, they probably don’t even know that grapes can be sour:</p>
<p>Depends on the state university. And some of those apparently-marginal high school students do turn it around in college. Plus, you’ll be interacting with the whole range of people in the real world. Even an elitist prig cannot completely avoid the masses.</p>
<p>Having a degree from an Ivy League has its advantages, I don’t think anyone will deny that. I think we sometimes “romanticize” about Ivy leagues though.
For nursing, I don’t think the name of your school should matter. For example, you graduate from John Hopkins University School of Nursing, sit for the licensure exam and fail. Is your JHU degree worth anything? What about the nurse who has a BSN from an accredited online nursing school who passes his/her licensure exam? </p>
<p>Slightly old thread, but I note that this is yet another thread in which the question of whether certain colleges are overrated or not is discussed strictly in terms of how well it situates you for specific careers. Your college experiences may be valuable to you for other reasons, and in my opinion, highly selective colleges provide many benefits that don’t have much to do with career success.</p>
<p>I’d like to add a trend I believe is starting. With so many college graduates and so few jobs, companies can pick whomever they want from the top 25 schools. Of course the Ivys are part of the top 25 so I personally think if you want to be assured a job, they are not overrated. My daughter goes to Penn and the school is phenomenal and in my opinion, no state school could even come close to the learning opportunities and the quality of students and professors you find at those schools. </p>
<p>It also depends where you want to eventually work. Most schools have regional networks and graduate students who want to work in their regions. The best schools are where students can maximize their learning and opportunities. That requires a match and that may not always be an Ivy school.</p>
<p>For professionals in medicine and nursing, things are different. Completing my residency at JHU provided me a very intellectual experience, competitive colleagues, but it lacked certain diseases I saw in medical school. The medical experience is subject to the pathologies found in the metropolitan area. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t change my experience for anything but it took me years to gain an expert level of comfort with the different diseases I found at the location I now practice. My colleague who trained at Massachusetts General had a similar experience. His training wasn’t better than mine, it was different. It helped him accomplish his objective.</p>
<p>So, I would say that depending on several factors, the Ivy schools go from excellent to overrated. It all depends what you want to accomplish, where you want to work, and if the schools are a great match.</p>
<p>Well, first, JHU isn’t an Ivy and, second, a medical residency isn’t really school. So basing whether Ivy League colleges are overrated on someone’s residency experience at JHU is invalid, IMO.</p>
<p>I went to an Ivy. My offspring attended a different Ivy. I agree with Hunt. It’s not just about the job you can get after graduation. It’s also the experience you’ll have while you’re there. So, I don’t really care whether someone is the world’s leading hedge fund manager and went to a CC followed by directional state U because, while I want my offspring to be self-supporting, I don’t measure success as “who has the most toys when (s)he dies,” as the t-shirt says. </p>
<p>Now, there may be wholly legitimate reasons not to go if you can get in. Seriously, though, I don’t think the experience is the least bit overrated. It seems as if most of the people saying it is don’t have such an experience. Since they don’t, I don’t think they can say–one way or the other–whether it is. </p>
<p>One of the other posters on this board once said about his med student kid that he was very happy she didn’t like to read because he thought it was a horrible waste of time. If one of my kids said something like that, I would feel like a complete failure as a parent. YMMV. </p>
<p>Yes I know I know. But you overlooked the comparison to Mass General’s residency which is run by Harvard Medical school and maybe I should have expanded on how that Ivy experience was not in any way an advantage of mine or my colleague’s at Duke. Oh by the way, HMS happens to be…Ivy. Also, the OP’s question related to nursing. Huge association with residency type training due to the clinical hours they have to complete. You need to separate nursing, residency and any applied health field from regular UG experience. As you said, the comparison may be invalid otherwise.</p>
<p>Agreed, which is why YOU should stop saying that the Ivies are overrated for everything other than investment banking. </p>
<p>Moreover, quite seriously, I’ve NEVER heard anyone refer to an “Ivy residency.” For most of us, Ivy league is really about the undergrad experience. Med schools and residency programs don’t play in a sports league. And it was the desire to keep sports in balance with academics that was the impetus for the formation of the Ivy league. Not much of a problem with residency programs. .</p>
<p>Ivy Leagues are overrated. Though they are unarguably top schools of the US, it is merely a sports League after all.
You can find schools of equal caliber that may be more favorable than ivy schools. Technically, you pay $10000 for its reputation, they are just too overlooked. </p>
<p>I don’t think the Ivies are overrated for engineering, because (except for a couple) they’re not that highly rated for engineering. Still, they attract some very able engineering majors because the totality of the experience offers benefits that may offset a (slightly) less strong engineering program.</p>
<p>The Ivies are all really excellent schools. I do think some relatively uninformed people don’t realize that there are other schools that are equally excellent. Does that make the Ivies “overrated?” I’d say it makes those other schools underrated.</p>
<p>I think they are only in the fact that many may go that do not belong there. Read Malcolm Gladwell’s book “David and Goliath”. Depending on the student, sometimes it is better to be a big fish in a small pond instead of a small fish and a big pond. Choose wisely depending on the type of student you are and what you wish to get out of college. If you are going for name only then an Ivy may not be for you. </p>
<p>bspreppie, I think they are roughly comparable on many levels. The more prestigious colleges and subjects at Oxbridge could be compared to HYP, and the less popular to “Lower Ivies”. They are very different, however, both on the undergraduate and graduate level, so what you are looking for in a school factors in a great deal. That being said, I think Ivies–and top American schools overall–tend to offer a more holistic college experience and better set of opportunities. It comes down to a bit of a cultural difference of what a school “should be”. The educational system in the UK tends to focus more on pure academics, whereas some would say top American schools offer more of a rounded package. </p>
<p>From a medical school standpoint oxford and Cambridge are I guess “considered inferior” since they don’t accept all their coursework (you have to do the pre reqs at a US school). Don’t know about law/business or other grad schools.</p>
<p>US medical schools have a list of things that they want incoming students to have mastered. US and Canadian universities have adopted these as standards, so that pretty much every Bio / Chem 101 / etc is going to have covered that material. To compare curriculums from different countries to see if they have covered those elements would be a lot of work. For example, in the UK (and Ireland) you go straight into law or medicine from secondary school (it’s not undergrad/postgrad). So the courses are structured differently - you don’t do a generic Bio or Chem 101, you go straight into the medically relevant Bio or Chem. So, for the US medical schools, it is easier to require the pre-reqs be done at a US or Canadian school. It is not a judgement of inferiority on any other country’s or university’s standards. </p>
<p>stillforyou is essentially right- the UK system is great for people who have a passion for what they want to study, but it is not holistic or well rounded. However, dividing the colleges into more or less prestigious the way the Ivies are seen is not as accurate, not least b/c your degree is from the university, not from your college. So, whether you go to the famous Christ Church or the less known St. Annes, your diploma says Oxford. Merton has a reputation for being v academic (it is often at the top of the Norrington tables), and it one of the oldest colleges, but its name is not particularly well known by people who are not pretty familiar with Oxford.</p>
<p>Take away the prestige from the Ivies, and they still are among the best undergrad schools. After all, they have tons of money (good for financial aid, counseling, tutoring, student research, etc), four year residential communities, and smart students. What is there not to like?</p>