<p>I've just gotten through reading a "study" put out by the WSJ on the best feeder schools. I've been looking at various schools for awhile now, but when it comes down to it, one of the biggest reasons to attend a good undergraduate school for many is to get into a great graduate school. I was kind of surprised at their findings, ranking schools like Williams and Pomona in the top 20 for feeder schools, and putting places like UVA and Cornell below the top 20. </p>
<p>I'm really starting to change my mind on places like USC, BU, and others because they seem to lack in this department due to various reasons, which is a big deal. Aside from these rankings, in yall's opinions, what are the best colleges for truly helping their students to get into a good business grad school and that have a reputation for their students getting in...besides Harvard, Yale, etc. I know those are at the top, but any hidden gems?</p>
<p>Wellesley is a hidden gem, but of course some folks don't qualify for that school ;). Full disclosure: I went to Wellesley and Stanford Business School (but there were a lot :eek: of years in between).</p>
<p>I would really like to see you ignore this kind of ranking in your college search and selection. I suggest you go to the school that meets your needs for an undergraduate education. And the school that appeals to you on as many dimensions as possible - academic climate, geography, location, where you think you'll have some fun....</p>
<p>The methodology for "ranking" the "top 20" or "top 50" or "top whatever" feeder schools is quite suspect, imo. For example, let's take two somewhat similar sized schools from the list - one near the "top" and one down a lot lower. Williams had 47 students attending "elite" grad schools, giving it a "rank" of #5. Bates had 8 students attending elite grad schools, "ranking" it much lower. Well, how many Williams and Bates students applied to such grad schools? If 147 Wms students applied, then their "success rate" was only about 1/3. If 10 Bates students applied, their success rate was 80%. We don't have any of this information.</p>
<p>These rankings have one purpose and one purpose only - to sell newspapers and magazines. They also have an unfortunate effect of raising anxiety and diverting students from considering schools which would be wonderful places for them. Don't be one of those students.</p>
<p>Stanford Business school, where I went, has students from 159 different colleges and universities in its current class - 87 different US schools and the balance international. I can assure you that several of them are "no name" schools. Because it is the candidate and what s/he did with the college years, what s/he did with the post-college years that matters.</p>
<p>That's why people who deserve to go to certain schools based on their interest are not getting in to those places. Too much name-brand recognition types who want the name to improve on their chances on top grad schools and top job opportunities. A real shame that those who could make those schools a better are being cast aside.</p>
<p>"Wellesley is a hidden gem, but of course some folks don't qualify for that school"</p>
<p>Lol yes I don't think I have very good chances of getting in there. :)</p>
<p>I had the same suspicions that you have voiced about the article. I was also thinking, this ranking most likely refers to students applying to grad school straight out of college, yet there are many (like yourself) who wait some time before going to grad school. That is usually the case considering the bills one racks up in their undergraduate years, as well as the need for work experience. So I am actually looking at this in a similar way as you, not taking it as gospel or something to use to pick my schools for me. However, I have picked out many of my schools based on the fact that I feel they fit me well. Several choices however, like BU and USC, were schools I was strongly considering as safety/match schools that I thought I'd be happy at. Only until I learned about the difficult grading curve and the fact that this often can destroy one's hopes for a good graduate school education did I realize that, even if I were only admitted to one of these, I would not go. </p>
<p>I did find the article very helpful in one aspect...I was unaware of many of the liberal arts colleges and how truly respectable they are. When I first started looking, I was really interested in Amherst and Bowdoin until I found out about their very low transfer rate. After studying more though, I've found that the rates aren't that horrible. (25 transfer admits to Amherst seemed awful until I realized only 168 had applied). </p>
<p>So now I am looking for a safety/match to replace BU/USC. However appealing these schools may be, I cannot see myself at a school where I am struggling to "get the grade" for grad school because the average class grade (by school policy) has to be a 2.85. Some of the LACs listed on the WSJ study are very attractive, given the attention they give to students. Wesleyan in particular looked appealing as a possible match/safety because of its 40% transfer rate. </p>
<p>I don't really know where I'm going with this other than the fact that I will definitely be looking into LAC colleges. Lol. Thanks for your input Jmmom.</p>
<p>I'm not saying to pick colleges based on rankings. I'm looking at colleges, considering also their affect on students who intend to go to grad school. In my case, this made me aware to the fact that some schools I was very interested in based on personal preferences would probably severely limit me when I went to apply to graduate schools because of their harsh grading curve. I think it is very helpful to see how many students actually do get to go onto graduate school, and if many do not, there may be a reason for that.</p>
<p>I haven't made my choices based on rankings.</p>
<p>"That's why people who deserve to go to certain schools based on their interest are not getting in to those places. Too much name-brand recognition types who want the name to improve on their chances on top grad schools and top job opportunities. A real shame that those who could make those schools a better are being cast aside."</p>
<p>So how does one know that a college is "the" place for them? How do you know you're not just another prestige whore? In all honesty, I'm the first college student in my extended family, so there isn't anyone saying "go to this college." When I first started looking at colleges, rankings were a good start. I could see what schools were the best "bang for the bucK" and then I found out which ones were truly fitting for me. I have been researching many other universities well outside of the top rankings. Don't get me wrong...I've researched all of my choices quite thoroughly. Some of us, however, didn't come out of the womb with the idea of college in mind, so we don't know where we would like to go until we look around. As for the comment that those truly interested in a college don't get in because of the people who focus on name recognition, you should think for a minute what first interested you in that university. I know a girl that has wanted to go to Columbia since she was 4 years old, and when I asked her why, she said it was because she had lived near it for the first half of her life. Unfortunately, I have not had that kind of a connection with a place. Only now have I started to look. When I asked her why else, she said the fact that it was an amazing school obviously didn't have a negative effect on her choice.</p>
<p>And to all of those who are whining that they can't get into a college based on "interest," I'd say quit crying. What makes you think the people that get in aren't just as interested. In fact, it would seem that they are often more interested because they've been so dedicated in their attempt to get in. Perhaps if you are so interested in the university, you should show the admissions committee that interest by working for competitive grades like the rest of us.</p>
<p>Well. I am just basing my asumption from what I've read on the other posts. As well as the trend that I've seen. Yes grades must be top notch and test scores. But as I read, there are more applicants than there are spaces available. So for those who could make a difference are being cast aside, regardless of top grades and test score due to a larger HS propulation applying in record numbers. I am only talking about admissions to undergrad; not grad programs. </p>
<p>It's all about supply and demand. I applied to the following schools and was rejected by all of them for transfer admission:
Stanford
Yale
Cornell CAS
Brown</p>
<p>No I am not complaining about not getting in. I am applying to Columbia School of General Studies for the Spring 2007 school year. So I'll see how that goes. My response was not directed AT YOU! It was directed on popular trends that I've seen over the years. The Laws of Supply and Demand. Also my grades are competitive</p>
<p>lol ok well it seemed like it was...i don't want to come across as that kind of a person so i get kinda defensive. There are some intentionally rude people on these forums sometimes. Good luck at Columbia. </p>
<p>BTW, how are you applying to the School of General Studies. I have heard it is a bit easier to get into, and you get the same degree as people graduating from "the college." I am going to be applying to Columbia after 2 years at a cc, and I know that although my grades and test scores are good, my chances are still slim. I'd apply to the School of General Studies if it was possible to get into Columbia. The school looks awesome.</p>
<p>Maybe I missed it...but where on that list did it say USC and BC were bad feeder schools? Is that just your opinion / your findings....or is that documented somewhere?</p>
<p>It doesn't. I brought up BU (not BC) and USC because they were examples of schools I had found that I felt would hinder my chances to get into a graduate school that I desired to go to. I strongly believe USC Marshall could be a great school for students planning to further their education beyond the undergrad level, but as I have said, the "Marshall" curve is ridiculous and anyone wanting to have their options open will be unreasonably burdened. The fact that the average has to be a 2.85 for every class, as one student has said, means only 3 or 4 people per class usually get A's. I don't want easy grades, but I don't want to go to a school where the administration is intentionally keeping grades low to try to look more "competitive" in comparison to schools like Harvard. I want to get good grades so I have choices for grad school, and enjoy college. </p>
<p>So, my opinion on those schools isn't supported or refuted by this study, but after doing research I have been swayed not to apply to them.</p>
<p>Lots of good thinking there, brand. As well as others on this thread. I don't agree with everything you've said, brand. But you are thinking this through intelligently.</p>
<p>We would all be better off in many ways if the rankings didn't exist. But they do and we are all affected by them, try as we might to avoid it. Just don't let them "rule." I guess that is the message.</p>
<p>Oh, sorry about the BC / BU mix up...I agree with your findings however do you think the above curve at USC is just for Marshall, or do you think it goes towards the University grading as a whole?</p>
<p>Also, wouldn't grad schools know that schools like BU and USC use curved grading systems and therefore understand that some students will have lower grades just based on administrative policy? I know that from a numbers perspective it wouldn't look better but maybe the curve system would be taken into an account during admissions..</p>
<p>Your post brings up a lot of good questions brand..this is a very interesting topic...</p>
<p>Actually, from what I've heard the curve is called the "marshall curve" (kinda like a curse lol) because it only applies to Marshall. So I think the rest of the university is normal, but don't hold me to it. I really couldn't say whether grad schools take into account the difficulty of grading at places like BU and USC, but I don't want to take the chance either. From what I've heard, students are often very disgruntled on review sites because they say grad schools don't care (nor have they ever heard about) the grade deflation at places like USC and BU. Most people don't pay attention to what is going on within these schools. I'm not how true that may be, but there have at least been articles in recent newspapers about BU for sure. And Business week had a review from a student who talked about Marshall's curve. I guess it may be taken into account, but when you're talking about the average being a 2.85!!! I don't know how far the grad school admissions committee will let you go, and that is going to be the average person's GPA from Marshall (theoretically). </p>
<p>Are you planning to apply to Marshall? When I first started looking at colleges to transfer to, USC was the 2nd or 3rd one I came across that I really liked. But I'm glad I've found these things out. Whether they are absolutely true or just the complaints of lazy students, I'm not sure I can take that chance. When so many people complain about the same thing, I start to wonder.</p>
<p>No, I am not planning on going to Marshall but I am transferring to USC this fall into the Arts and Sciences school for 'Pre-Med'...so your post caught my attention as I will have to apply to Med schools (like Business majors go to grad school)...and was wondering if the grade deflation spread across the campus...I sure hope not as that could hurt my med school acceptance chances just by pure policy...</p>
<p>Now that you mentioned it, I have heard of the 'marshall curse'...at first I always thought that this was just a complaint by lazy students also but after a little research it does look like it happens far to much to just occur to lazy students...i would not want to take those chances either if you have schools that are better options....</p>
<p>this is definitely a factor to look into...especially if you are looking into any sort of grad / med / law school...thanks for bringing this topic to my attention...</p>