<p>For students who are sure about going to grad school, do you think the big fish small pond scenario's better?</p>
<p>Discuss.</p>
<p>Better in one's graduate program or for undergrad?</p>
<p>well, the funny thing is, there's kind of an easy answer to this.</p>
<p>big universities in most cases have the best research opportunities + best reputations + best track records of helping kids get into grad school</p>
<p>those are the three things you probably want to be looking for if your goal is to 'get into a prestigious grad program' so, in my opinion, a larger, elite university is the way you want to go, in general.</p>
<p>But then again, at a big elite school, it'd obviously be much harder to do well than at a "less" elite school; right? And grad schools definitely look at GPA and class rank AFAIK..</p>
<p>
[quote]
But then again, at a big elite school, it'd obviously be much harder to do well than at a "less" elite school; right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>not necessarily, and trying to take the easy way out academically is probably a bad mindset to have if you want to pursue years of graduate work.</p>
<p>the best combination is obviously doing well at an elite school, but i would say second to that would probably be doing OK at an elite school, at least judging by graduate school class composition (just look at HLS, there are fifteen kids from yale for every one kid from UMass, and UMass is much bigger). So you could either be the absolute top of a mediocre school, or an average student at an elite school, and I think in the end a prestigious undergrad degree would serve you better, especially in the job market if you decide graduate work isn't your thing.</p>
<p>I realize that it might not be the best thing to do, ethically that is, but I have a friend(SAT I - 1560/1600) who graduated from UC Irvine - dean's list, honors etc - and then went to Columbia(Fu) for his postgrad studies. Then another fella who went to Clemson for his undergrad and Columbia (Fu again) for his postgrad ... hmm...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I realize that it might not be the best thing to do, ethically that is, but I have a friend(SAT I - 1560/1600) who graduated from UC Irvine - dean's list, honors etc - and then went to Columbia(Fu) for his postgrad studies. Then another fella who went to Clemson for his undergrad and Columbia (Fu again) for his postgrad ... hmm...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see what you're trying to point out. Where is ethics a concern?</p>
<p>
[quote]
big universities in most cases have the best research opportunities + best reputations + best track records of helping kids get into grad school</p>
<p>those are the three things you probably want to be looking for if your goal is to 'get into a prestigious grad program' so, in my opinion, a larger, elite university is the way you want to go, in general.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>elsijfdl, with all due respect (it seems there aren't many things we agree upon), but how then do you explain the superior performance of graduates of the elite LACs (and indeed LAC-like universities such as Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Rice) which matriculate at a higher relative percentage to the elite grad programs over and above many top research universities?</p>
<p>In anticipation of questions regarding "what a LAC-like university is":
- undergrad classes of under 1,500 per graduating class
- larger overall undergraduate population vs. overall grad student population
- traditionally undergraduate focused vs. research focus
- do not have all "big three" professional grad schools (law, bus, med) </p>
<p>as an example, of the Top 20 schools ranked by:</p>
<p>WSJ Feeder Colleges Ranking into the Elite Grad Programs (which was obviously normalized for class size):</p>
<p>01) Harvard
02) Yale
03) Princeton (LAC-like University)
04) Stanford
05) Williams College (LAC)
06) Duke
07) Dartmouth College (LAC-like University)
08) Massachusetts Institute of Technology
09) Amherst College (LAC)
10) Swarthmore College (LAC)
11) Columbia
12) Brown (LAC-like University)
13) Pomona College (LAC)
14) U Chicago
15) Wellesley College (LAC)
16) U Penn
17) Georgetown
18) Haverford College (LAC)
19) Bowdoin College (LAC)
20) Rice (LAC-like University)</p>
<p>That's a whopping 7 LACs in the Top 20 including 3 out of the Top 10, if you include LAC-like Universities, that's more than half the entire Top 20. Seems like "bigger" is not necessarily "better". Finally, a lack of research focus at their respective schools has not been detrimental to graduates from elite LACs in enrolling into the elite grad schools.</p>
<p>In order of preference:
big fish-big pond
small fish-big pond
big fish-small pond
small fish-small pond</p>
<p>Why? Basically because it is better to go where you are challenged to perform to the best of your ability, even if you are not a "star". Small fish-big pond is therefore better than big fish-small pond, although big fish-small pond may feel better for your ego while you are there. Fish grow according to the size of the pond.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but how then do you explain the superior performance of graduates of the elite LACs (and indeed LAC-like universities such as Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Rice) which matriculate at a higher relative percentage to the elite grad programs over and above many top research universities?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i was shying away from top LACs in general, which is why i added the addendum of "in general" because I believe there are far more quality universities than LACs. The advice I gave is obviously not counting the top 20 or so LACs but I believe after that the LAC list drops off more rapidly than the university list.</p>
<p>Assuming the poster is looking at middle-selectivity schools, I think an "average" (by cc standards) uni such as indiana would carry more weight than an "average" LAC like Denison.</p>
<p>That might be true for average schools, but at the top level the undergrad focused schools (Dartmouth, Princeton, Amherst, Williams, etc) do far better than their big university peers when it comes to grad placement. Lets not confuse people.</p>
<p>^^^ yes i assumed someone looking at schools of that caliber would be aware of that, anyway, without need of mention</p>
<p>Bumpity bump.</p>
<p>And when I say small pond, I mean a "lesser" school.</p>
<p>In my limited experience (with about four fields I'm most familiar with, so it may differ in other fields), best bet for grad school is a generally well regarded school (of a large pool) where you have a chance to do research and work with/know professors who will give you a great recommendation (especially so if those faculty are well regarded in the field). GREs (90th percentile range), GPA, letters of recommendation, who one has worked with, research experience, research fit, matters more than whether its say an ivy or in 10th place vs. 27th. </p>
<p>As an example: I did a PhD at Northwestern. My classmates came from these undergraduate schools: Gonzaga U., Harvard, Princeton, U of Illinois, U of Rochester, Reed, Stanford, University of Alberta, U of Chicago, Georgia State, U of Illinois, Wash U., U of Wisconsin at River Falls, U of Wisconsin at something-else.</p>
<p>It varies by person.</p>
<p>Some people learn better when they're surrounded by people who are as smart (or smarter) than themselves. The positive influence and high level of challenge and competition serves as a motivation device, pushing these students to work harder and learn more. </p>
<p>Others thrive in an environment where they're at the top of the class. This kind of environment provides them with confidence in their abilities, and motivates them to work harder and lead their peers. For these students, a confident outlook is key to doing good work and really getting the most out of a subject. </p>
<p>It just depends on which environment you learn better in.</p>
<p>To say it varies by person is the most accurate response.</p>
<p>Bottom line, doing well is a panacea for everything. If you go where you'll be successful, then it doesn't matter. </p>
<p>The question then of course becomes "where will I do the best?".</p>
<p>Some people need to be challenged. They need to compete, they need that risk of not getting the grade they want in order to push them to excellence.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are individuals like myself where, being above average with less effort is an impetus to success. Personally, I didn't hit my stride in a number of areas until college. This was especially true in terms of on-campus involvement. My resume was very extensive by the time I graduated, but I know that I wouldn't have accomplished as much as I did if I had gone to one of the schools that gets mouths to water here on CC. I'm ambitious, and competitive to a certain extent, but don't deal well with repeated rejections. I wouldn't have done well at a college where more people were trying to get leadership positions on campus. And in large part, I believe my extensive involvement and leadership experience were responsible for me getting into medical school. But it was that status of knowing I was better than many of my peers that pushed me for more involvement while in college. I know this is absolutely true because I'm not in the top of my medical school class and I've shied away from some opportunities because of it. Luckily my desired specialty isn't super competitive because if it was, I'd be in a difficult situation.</p>
<p>The important point is that grad schools don't really care. They just want to see success. If being a small fish in a big pond puts you behind the 8-ball and means you aren't as successful as you might have been somewhere else, then what benefit is there to the fact you went to that big pond? It's easy to argue that you wasted time and money by going there.</p>
<p>So in the end, as I've said many times, what matters most is WHAT you accomplish, not WHERE you accomplish it.</p>
<p>Ahh. Splendid posts worldchanger and bigredmed. :)</p>
<p>^^ I have to agree with Bigredmed,
I performed better when I am a big fish in a small pond because I had built a reputation of being on top, whereas if I was in a big pond, I would just be a number.
Anyways, being “the top” motivated me to stay on top because my reputation was at stake. If I was in a small fish, I wouldn’t be motivated because it I would REALLY have to go out of my way in order to be a big fish.</p>
<p>I know this is old, but I thought I should give a little insight!</p>
<p>It’s really a personal decision.</p>
<p>Big universities don’t always have the best research opportunities OR the best reputations of getting kids into graduate school. Professors at small liberal arts colleges do research as well, and because your classes are smaller and there are less of you in relation to them, you are more likely to forge personal relationships and are competing with a smaller pool of students to do research with these professors. Some of these small liberal arts colleges have very active undergraduate research programs (like Swarthmore or Amherst), and you may actually get to do higher level research since there are no graduate students to snatch up all the good work.</p>
<p>Also, the name of your school has little bearing on traditional graduate programs (if we’re talking about MAs and PhDs here, not medical/law/professional school). What’s far more important is the kind of work that you do. A student from their regional public with 2 years of research experience has a better chance of admission than a student from Harvard with no years, all else being equal.</p>
<p>It depends a lot on your personality. You need to go some place where you can thrive. If you go somewhere you feel comfortable (whatever that means to you) you are more likely to succeed.</p>
<p>It’s also not true that fish grow according to the size of the pond - not biologically and not in this metaphorical sense. How much you grow and how far you go depends mostly on YOU. I myself went to a small LAC (Spelman College) and I’m working on my PhD at Columbia.</p>
<p>I think if you’re planning to go to a professional school right away (read medicine, law) go to a place where you can be at the top. All other fields including business (future MBA) go to the best school to which you can get admitted.</p>