<p>And they also recruit at Georgia Tech and Duke.</p>
<p>I think you are missing POIH’s point. If a student is accepted at MIT, Harvey Mudd and Rose Hulman and likes each of the schools equally-a bloom where you plant them type and it costs the same to attend each of these schools-would you seriously advise her not to attend MIT. Of course you can me successful from any of these schools but MIT will offer more opportunities. It is a world recognized “brand”. One of the the top 10 schools in the world-not just US. I think a similar statement can be made as to H and Y over top LAC’s. Again you are talking about universities that are in the top 10 in the world. Should this “branding” be the reason you choose to attend-of course not-but to say that it does not exist or should not be taken into account when choosing a school is not accurate.</p>
<p>I think the differences go beyond branding. Someone asked in a post what makes HYP different. My post in that thread argues that (<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/730092-what-makes-hyp-different.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/730092-what-makes-hyp-different.html</a>) in addition to branding the top schools and especially HYP excel not just in selectivity but in horizon-raising, contacts, alumni networks, and improving the lottery of available opportunities to graduates. However, this is a difference of degree not kind. Brown, Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth Penn, Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore (and on a regional level perhaps a few other LACs) offer some of these same things but not to the the same degree as HYP do. [I’m not trying to be exhaustive here but just so people don’t scream, Stanford and MIT are probably somewhere between the two groups. I don’t know about Caltech, which is tremendously selective and is mentioned in many breaths with MIT, as I am not part of any worlds that intersect with Caltech.]</p>
<p>In responding to the OP’s question, the relevant point is not that HYP is different from other schools but that a limited number of LACs also get serious consideration likely comparable with Brown, Cornell, Columbia and Penn but just as the wonderful things that HYP do for grads (who are willing to take advantage of the advantages conferred upon them by their school) do not extend to all research universities or all private universities, the advantages that this limited number of LACs confer upon their students do not extend to all LACs. </p>
<p>As a result, choosing between and an LAC and a university is not the right way to frame the problem. As I also said, I wouldn’t make the choice solely on the basis of economic returns, but if the OP is examining only economic returns, the choice between Swarthmore and Yale goes to Yale, but to make the comparison quite clear, the choice between Williams and Bentley or BU goes to Williams.</p>
<p>
Any number of people (some of whom went to MIT) actually advised my son not to attend MIT. They all said, “it’s fine for grad school.” It was moot since ds didn’t get into MIT, but still it was a bit disconcerting.</p>
<p>“It’s being childish to say there is no value of HYP experience over Amherst/Williams/Swath.”</p>
<p>Depends. My d. (who is a “TA” at P and who went to Smith), would tell you that the quality of education is higher at Smith. More day to day contact with faculty, more access to senior faculty, more opportunities to participate in REAL research (in the humanities - I won’t comment on the sciences). P. seems to agree - at least in her department - despite scores of applicants, they haven’t awarded a single fellowship to an HYP graduate (some of whom majored in the same department) in four years. I had the same experience 35 years ago (with Williams and UChicago, again in the humanities). My H. friends in the humanities were always envious. Hey, Chicago students had to listen to ME, six hours a week, and P. stduents the same with my d.</p>
<p>BUT - there’s no question that you’ll rub shoulders (even if at great distance) with more famous folks at HYP, and the sons and daughters of more famous folks. And I don’t discount the value of that. </p>
<p>Street value? No question HYP’s street cred is higher - I have found the street cred of my Williams degree over 40 years to be virtually zero. Luckily, they gave me a fellowship to Oxford, which has tons of cred, even though virtually no one has a clue what goes on there.</p>
<p>Americans have to get out of the mentality that the world ends at the Atlantic or the Pacific. Kids need to know themselves and have enough of a sense of the life they want to live to make these decisions well. IF they are thinking that life is going to take them outside the US in many careers, they had better take the chance that they can make it at a school like MIT or Harvard if they are accepted. It matters. This is especially true if grad school is not in the plans… obviously. </p>
<p>I think it is equally fine to live a life where this doesn’t matter at all. I have one child who definitely knew it wouldn’t matter for him, and made choices accordingly-- he was just as happy with his college choice as his brother who went for the big name. </p>
<p>Can i also add, as an MIT grad married to an MIT grad, how absolutely ridiculous the comments about ‘MIT is not for undergrads’ truly are. MIT provides opportunities abundant to anyone who wants them, challenges you to be the most resilient and most creative learner you can be and allows you to develop critical thinking skills that help you detect crap for the rest of your life!!</p>
<p>I may have sent my kid to Harvey Mudd over MIT. Instead I sent him to Stanford for his engineering degrees.</p>
<p>My son didn’t apply to MIT because he never would have gone to school with all the nerds.
And he is multi-talented. MIT didn’t meet all his needs.</p>
<p>He also refused to apply to HYP. He isn’t into identifying people as plebeians and patricians. They don’t do that so much in California.</p>
<p>Stanford was great for grad school… after an MIT undergrad experience that is!</p>
<p>Off the OP’s topic, but we had a dinner party a year or so ago with several people who went to MIT. Very highly respected guys (university president, consultant/professor, CEO) and they all loved the “Institute” and felt that they got a tremendous amount from being there. However, one of the mentioned the saying among MIT alumni that “after 10 years, the nausea turns to euphoria.” I thought that was kind of funny.</p>
<p>mini, the street cred of Williams and Amherst is no doubt zero (and probably would be at many US corporations outside of the Northeast) but would be strong at Bain or Morgan Stanley or Harvard Business School.</p>
<p>No doubt. But the vast, overwhelming majority of Williams and Amherst grads are never going to set foot at Bain or Morgan Stanley, and whether they end up a Harvard Business School will be almost totally dependent on what they do after graduation (and what connections - family and otherwise - they are able to mine upon graduation to put them in position for HBS.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heard the same about most Ivies…mostly from older friends and high school classmates who attended mainly because of the Ivy name and were disenchanted with the much lower prioritization of attention/help undergraduates received in relation to grad students and faculty research. Got a glimpse of this myself when I took a summer STEM course at an Ivy. Was shocked the professor had a disquieting habit of running from the lecture hall as soon as class was over and telling us students to “Please direct all the questions to your TFs.” While I had no problems in the course*…that’s not how Profs should be acting towards his/her students in my book. :(</p>
<ul>
<li>Was a factor in why many classmates in the course…including dozens of Ivy undergrad econ majors and a grad student kept asking to look at my notes and for help with the course. Ironic considering that course happened to be in my third worst subject in high school.</li>
</ul>
<p>How many years out of school and how many jobs before it does not matter where you went to school?</p>
<p>Where I live, if you went to BYU, it will work for you for life. (You can decide if for good or ill: it means that you likely are a Latter Day Saint, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, have some international experience, and are more likely than not to have a strong family life, and that, again most likely, you are not gay. And you likely got a good education, with little in the way of grade inflation. This sends HUGE signals to certain employees.) Secondarily, the two major state universities will give you a leg up for a long time.</p>
<p>mini, I think that the key value of these elite institutions is, from employers’ perspectives, is not the education but the sorting that they do. In part, what gets you in also gets you other things later (capabilities, self-belief, family and other connections). But, the point is that you get looked at. </p>
<p>While it is quite clear that HBS and its competitors look at what applicants have done after graduation, one of the variables is where they went to school and Williams and Amherst do pretty well on that list. While it is not easy to distinguish what the student brings to the table from what the school adds, what is clear is that Williams, Amherst and Swarthmore are good at placing people in elite professional schools. A WSJ study in 2007 places WAS below HYPS but above Columbia, Brown, Penn and Cornell in getting kids into elite professional schools. (<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/332384-rankings-wsj-top-feeder-schools-graduate-schools.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/332384-rankings-wsj-top-feeder-schools-graduate-schools.html</a>). Here’s the ranking (just copied from the attached post):</p>
<p>1 Harvard University – Cambridge, Mass.
2 Yale University – New Haven, Conn.
3 Princeton University – Princeton, N.J.
4 Stanford University – Stanford, Calif.
5 Williams College – Williamstown, Mass.
6 Duke University – Durham, N.C.
7 Dartmouth College – Hanover, N.H.
8 Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Cambridge, Mass.
9 Amherst College – Amherst, Mass.
10 Swarthmore College – Swarthmore, Pa.
11 Columbia University – New York
12 Brown University – Providence, R.I.
13 Pomona College – Claremont, Calif.
14 University of Chicago – Chicago
15 Wellesley College – Wellesley, Mass.
16 University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia
17 Georgetown University – Washington, D.C.
18 Haverford College – Haverford, Pa.
19 Bowdoin College – Brunswick, Maine
20 Rice University – Houston</p>
<p>You are also right that there is a local effect (in Utah, in Texas, and in Georgia, for example, I have the sense that local degrees are of great value if you want to stay local).</p>
<p>My wife provides an interesting case study. She has two high-prestige degrees, but works in a field where those are very rare. In many ways they make her an outsider; she does not share the dominant culture in the field which generally comes from a certain division or school at many public universities. For about a decade, through several public-sector jobs, she hardly heard her degrees mentioned, and they weren’t highlighted on her official bio. Now, however, she has a job with a well-regarded nonprofit, and it became clear about Week 1 that her various alumni ties were crucial to their willingness to hire her, almost as much as her (extensive) experience and reputation. In fact, through some difficult office politics, it has been somewhat helpful that she and the CEO share an alma mater a few years apart.</p>
<p>My daughter recently got her second job out of college, also at a high-prestige nonprofit. The name on her diploma didn’t get her the job – I suspect all the candidates had credentials at least as good – but I’m sure her resume wouldn’t have made it into the interview pile without the brand. Everyone in the organization has top-something degrees. Her boss, by the way, went to one of the LACs we are discussing here.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that there are students who would choose Rose Hulman or Harvey Mudd over MIT. There are many valid reasons to do so. My point was that all things being equal that MIT has the clear edge and it should be recognized, not dismissed. I phrased it in terms of branding and Shawbridge and rob2 expressed it differently. The point is MIT has an advantage over these schools. The same can be said for H and Y over LACs. Its not status or trying to impress Joe the Dry Cleaner.</p>
<p>I hope folks who read that hyped up article from WSJ above note that it is not about graduate schools at all! but only law, medicine, and business schools (precisely those where family income, and, in some instances, connections to jobs before one applies, are likely to have the most weight.)</p>
<p>I am sure that if one included Ph.D. programs in both sciences and humanities, schools of education, schools of social work, schools of public administration, etc., one would likely get profoundly different results.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t help interjecting that this experience is the opposite of my Ds’ UG experiences at H and Y. D claims that her UG profs at H would literally beg the class to come visit him/her at office hours, and both Ds had/have personal connections with profs at both colleges.</p>
<p>Addding: both of my Ds are non-STEM majors. Maybe the STEM profs have stereotypical issues with interpersonal communication.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Silicon Valley engineering/CS companies may fly to MIT, but they also fly to UCLA and USC. They also recruit locally at Berkeley, Stanford, SJSU, UCSC, and SCU, and often make longer drives to Cal Poly and UCD.</p>
<p>Of course, it may be different if you are referring to investment banking and other much more highly brand-conscious employers.</p>
<p>^It’s been my experience that this is the norm at any larger university (maybe different at a LAC). MOST students do not visit the professor and most professors would like more visits. </p>
<p>Moreover, it would be silly to judge any entire institution on the actions of a professor. They are an extremely independent bunch, and you will get great ones and crappy ones at every place you go.</p>