<p>*I loved my big pond. The other fish were terribly interesting. *</p>
<p>EXACTLY what I would have written! For me, being surrounded by other big fish at the OP's fictional "EC" would be what would make me happiest, even with the likelihood that I would not be Star Student after four years (which, in fact, describes my undergrad experience 30+ years ago fairly well, come to think). Being "surrounded by smaller fish" would leave me antsy and itchy, so I know what my personal choice was, and would still be.</p>
This argument has been held a gazillion times on this board. I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind...and freely confess you're not going to change mine. I look at lists like this:</p>
<p>and wonder how people can persist in believing that you have a better chance of getting into a top law school from a less selective college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>well, i just crunched some numbers, comparing the number of externally sponsored national merit scholars at a school with the number of students it enrolled at harvard law. only schools with at least five national merit scholars were considered; a total of 92 schools met this criterion.</p>
<p>what did i learn? well, the 'better' schools on this 'good' school list tended to do pretty well. that said, harvard didnt come anywhere close to finishing first. neither did stanford or yale or princeton. the top 20:</p>
<p>harvard finished 24th, dartmouth 33rd, princeton 34th and stanford 38th.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>to answer the original question, it does indeed depend on the student. its a question thats very difficult to answer, however, though fortunately it doesnt have to be black-and-white. why not search out a school where youre a pretty big fish in a pretty big pond, one of the better students but rarely the best?</p>
<p>i wouldnt have been a top mathematics student at harvard or princeton or mit. however, i was one at a school that finished just behind them (eighth in the nation!) in the putnam mathematics competition last year. the faculty provided me with the kinds of opportunities reserved for 'top' students, but the quality of the overall student body was still pretty high. i could sit in a room and talk math with people more gifted than myself but not have to struggle through any of my classes. it was the perfect compromise for the undecided if you ask me.</p>
<p>Johnri the problem with your arguement (and perhaps some of the arguements others have made...I only briefly skimmed through) is that it likely impossible to separate out what the school is responsible for and what part is due to the individual. I don't think you can make the arguement that it is "easier" to get into a top grad school from a more selective college - simply using the college as your independent variable.</p>
<p>What I'm saying is that, the drive and determination it takes get accepted to Harvard, and in addition to actually go there creates a very select subset of individuals. These individuals are undoubtedly intelligent and talented, but there are plenty of people who likely could have been or were accepted to Harvard but simply had no desire to attend the school (for any number of reasons...CC blasephemy! I know). Thus this talented and gifted subset is also extremely motivated by needing to be the best, to be at the top. I'm willing to guess that if you were to compare the schools that Harvard grads applied to vs. those at a less selective school there would be far more "prestigious" schools for the Harvard applicant than the other - even if they had equal scores and probably even if the non-harvard grad had better scores.</p>
<p>Thus motivation is certainly an important factor. The top state school students, the ones who chose option B from the OP (w/o necessarily thinking about it in such terms) are perhaps could care less that they go to a top 10 school in their program of choice b/c they aren't planning to be tops in their field, they just want a job or to make it to the next level (grad school). This is particularly true, it seems to me, for students who are looking to stay in one region...if you aren't planning on heading to NYC, or LA, than a big name isn't really as important. I mean, I'm a midwest kid, and I have plenty of friends who are/were content to stay around KC - so it didn't make sense to go away and then come back...</p>
<p>Finally one last thing I wanted to share - there are only two guys from Harvard at my medical school, one in my M1 class who will be taking the year over again, and one who should have been in the M3 class, but had to take the M1 year over again last year, putting him a year behind his original classmates. Seems rather odd if you ask me.</p>
<p>I am somewhat in this situation with this situation, where I could attend a so-called better school, which I hate to use because any school is what you make, and any school is how you fit with it, and i think i am going to choose #2 just because of the attention you're given, the small size, whats not to like?</p>
<p>Med schools and Law schools accept top applicants. They typically regard the undergraduate institution of the applicant very slightly. In other words, a Harvard 3.5 GPA is viewed more credible than a 3.5 GPA at University-of-no-name. HOWEVER, a 3.2 GPA at Harvard vs a 3.8 GPA at University-of-n-name is a much different story. Several med schools automatically filter out the 3.2GPA without consideration of the undergrad school. Simply put, a 3.2GPA limits a pre-med SEVERELY. On the other hand, the 3.8 GPA from University-of-no-name is MUCH better, regardless of the amount of work this individual put into their studies (and perhaps easier curriculum). The 3.8 GPA is competitive, much more so than the 3.2 GPA at Harvard.</p>
<p>The situation is crappy, but that's how it works. You gotta know how to play the game.</p>
<p>Now, you looked up the matriculants to Harvard and other Ivy Law Schools to notice that many of the incoming class graduated from an Ivy. You forgot a crucial part of this analysis, however. Ivy league kids are generally much more motivaed than University-of-no-name kids. They generally score better on MCATs or LSATs, have higher GPAs, etc. HOWEVER, the kid at University-of-no-name may be a dumbass if he went to Harvard undergrad; however, since he is at University-of-no-name he is in the top of the class and will get into a great program (as long as he is motivated to do well on the MCAT/LSAT). The other kids in his class are nowhere near his ability and certainly absolutely not even close to harvard undergrads status.</p>
<p>If you don't believe me, ask any medicine school admissions counselor. I've spoken to my fair share. They can't give a Harvard kid much more preference than another kid, but it's simply not fair. The other kid may be just as intelligent and motivated, but he was offered a better scholarship elsewhere (and quite frankly couldn't afford a private school). It's basically impossible to COMPARE schools, that's why there's the MCAT/LSAT: for credibility.</p>
<p>The point:
I think if your kid wants to go into business or get a job straight out of college, he should go to the more prestigious school.
If your kid wants to go to med/law/pharm/other, he should seriously consider the lower-tier school. A BUUUUUUUNCH of pre-med/law/pharm kids drop out of the ivy league programs because they can't handle it. It's a shame because had they gone to a lower-tier school, they would be doctors and lawyers now.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ivy league kids are generally much more motivaed than University-of-no-name kids...HOWEVER, the kid at University-of-no-name may be a dumbass if he went to Harvard undergrad; however, since he is at University-of-no-name he is in the top of the class and will get into a great program. <<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Actually, I think the top kids from the University of No Name are VERY motivated--because they know they have to be at the top of their class. (I won't vouch for the rest of the kids, though.) </p>
<p>And I doubt that these top kids would be "dumbasses" at Harvard undergrad, but I do agree with you that their GPA <em>could</em> (not necessarily <em>would</em>) be lower and that lower GPA could make for some consequences later.</p>
<p>
[quote]
well, i just crunched some numbers, comparing the number of externally sponsored national merit scholars at a school with the number of students it enrolled at harvard law. only schools with at least five national merit scholars were considered; a total of 92 schools met this criterion.
[/quote]
Maybe because one has nothing to do with the other? And what is an "externally sponsored NMS" anyway? I have no idea what you compared and why it matters. Why not just plot the total number of admits to Harvard Law from each school? What does NMS have to do with it?</p>
Yup. One of the professors who wrote a recommendation for me scoffed at my grad school anxieties, saying that he had seen MIT kids with 2.9's accepted at the top programs. (My program next year has 70 first-years, and 10 of us did our undergrad at MIT.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe because one has nothing to do with the other? And what is an "externally sponsored NMS" anyway? I have no idea what you compared and why it matters. Why not just plot the total number of admits to Harvard Law from each school? What does NMS have to do with it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>an externally sponsered national merit scholar is one who actually wins a national merit scholarship, not one who merely wins an institutional award.</p>
<p>is it a perfect statistic? no. but it does provide a very good idea as to where the TOP undergraduate students in the nation enroll for college, the kinds of kids who will get into harvard law school. it does have its faults, punishing the schools at the very top (particularly harvard). a function of these students and students scoring over 700 on a section of the sat would probably be better, as it wouldnt place quite as much emphasis on the absolute top students and would reduce the coastal bias.</p>
<p>nonetheless, the secondary point remains. the schools that did well were either on the west coast (with its dearth of top law schools) or in the northeast, suggesting that geography is a very important consideration in law school selection, even top law school selection. further, there seemed to be no advantage to selecting one slightly 'better' undergraduate school over another (something that can be compared with the data).</p>
<p>more importantly, my point was simply to demonstrate that theres a lot more to the numbers presented than their raw amounts. what is significantly more important is that the undergraduate inputs be taken into consideration and, depending on how those inputs were viewed, could make it quite simple for someone to not be crazy and think he may have an advantage coming from a 'lesser' school.</p>
<p>For many, paying top $ and going to EC may be an irrational choice. However, some love their big pond, and find other fish interesting, for some it is equivalent of climbing Mt. Everest or going to South Pole. Some just love the challenge, and some may view it as pure stupidity. If earning big $ was the primary goal, half of the student body at EC could have guaranteed admissions to many top paying professions (e.g. medicine). My S knows perfectly well that his future earning power is much less than a kid who went to a lowest tiered guaranteed medical school.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>MIT kids with 2.9's accepted at the top programs. <<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>That is good to know. There has been anecdotal evidence to suggest that many programs/internships use a GPA of 3.0 as a bright line requirement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, while it may not be politically correct to say so, lots of girls are unhappy socially when there aren't a fair number of guys who can outshine them in class.
<blockquote>
<p>And thankfully some girls like to kick the guys butts in class. In fact, some take great glee in it. As long as we're taking things into account , let's take that into account, too. (5 of the top 7, and 7 of the top 10 students at D's high school are girls. I think times they are a'changin'. Finally. At least I can I hope so. )<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>But, what do these girls look for in a spouse? Studies show that succesful women STILL want a spouse that is "smarter, stronger, more succesful..." than they are. So, how much are times "a'changing".</p>
<p>It seems to me that most successful marriages have couples who are approximately equivalent in educational level. Any great disparity probably will eventually cause boredom or resentment.</p>
<p>I'm also curious about your focus on National Merit Scholars. Apparently you are discounting those National Merit finalists who receive college or employer scholarships in favor of those who receive scholarships directly from the National Merit Corporation. Is that correct of have I misread your posts?</p>
<p>I question your analysis if you are indeed focusing on National Merit Scholars and excluding the college and employer scholarships. Let me give you an example of how these scholarships work in practice: Of the top 3 students in my son's high school class, all of which were National Merit finalists, one received a college-sponsored merit scholarhip. One received a scholarship from his father's employer. The third attended a college that does not offer college-sponsored National Merit scholarships. This third student did not have access to an employer-sponsored scholarship because her father is self-employed. She was named a National Merit Scholar and, while she was clearly an excellent candidate and deserved her award, the other candidates were also well-qualified. It was my understanding that the first 2 students were ineligible to be named National Merit Scholars under the National Merit rules because they received National Merit scholarships sponsored by their college or parent's employer. </p>
<p>In other words, National Merit Scholars are clearly among the top students but they are not necessarily the TOP students. Instead, they are the top students who did not receive National Merit scholarships from college and employer-sponsored sources.</p>
<p>chipper, who says they'll be looking for anything in a spouse? LOL Maybe the spouse will be looking for them.;) I know plenty of successful marriages where the female partner makes more than and has more perceived clout than the male. Bring on your study. Where's it from? Redbook?</p>
<p>my 'ranking' was not at all scientific in nature. it was merely intended to demonstrate to the poster to whom i responded that a rational person could come to the conclusion that attended a 'top' college could hinder ones chances at top law schools. i had external national merit scholarships from the correct time period (2002) from the laissez-faire rankings (these probably also include corporate winners), so i used them in order to demonstrate that an argument could be made. it was intended to be somewhat sarcastic in nature, but it was late and that clearly did not come out in my post.</p>
<p>if i were conducting a more formalized study i would actually like a list of the college destinations of the 50000 recognized students as well as the finalists. however, that information is not readily available (to my knowledge) and the overall scholarship data (also not as readily available) would be highly skewed in favor of schools that offered scholarships to all finalists, moreso than the numbers i used.</p>
<p>again, i apologize to anyone who took the first half of my post too seriously. the intent was merely to demonstrate that a lot of things influence the number of kids who end up at harvard law, one of the biggest being the academic INPUTS at these schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The third attended a college that does not offer college-sponsored National Merit scholarships. This third student did not have access to an employer-sponsored scholarship because her father is self-employed. She was named a National Merit Scholar and, while she was clearly an excellent candidate and deserved her award, the other candidates were also well-qualified. It was my understanding that the first 2 students were ineligible to be named National Merit Scholars under the National Merit rules because they received National Merit scholarships sponsored by their college or parent's employer.
In other words, National Merit Scholars are clearly among the top students but they are not necessarily the TOP students. Instead, they are the top students who did not receive National Merit scholarships from college and employer-sponsored sources.
[/quote]
DRJ4 - In this case you are incorrect. The National Merit Scholars awards sponsored by NMSC are awarded FIRST - without regard to whether the applicant has chosen as "first-choice" a school that offers school-sponsored national merit scholarships or qualifies for a corporate sponsorship. Thus, some people consider the National Merit Scholars awards to be the most "elite" of the NMscholarships. They are essentially the top 2500 applicants out of the country. (I'm not here to argue whether they are or are not more deserving - but the NMC employee who I spoke with when I had questions actually offered the information that this was the most "distinguished" of the NMawards)<br>
My DD was a National Merit Scholar and received one of these - even though her first-choice school offered their own college-sponsored scholarships.<br>
(FWIW - some schools offer more money than the NMC sponsored awards - often these colleges will kick-in extra money and extend the award all 4 years so that the National Merit Scholar doesn't lose out by having been offered the NMCorp award.) Hope this helps to clarify - NMC can be as clear as MUD! :)</p>
<p>My D received an NMS as well. While I think she's brilliant, I don't think they represent the best of the best in any identifiable terms. I believe there is some regional distribution to the awards as well. </p>
<p>I think a better analysis, if you want to use Harvard Law as your benchmark, is to list all the schools from which Harvard Law drew students, in order of preference. You'll find Harvard far above the rest. It probably represents a local bias, but also represents that many believe Harvard students in general are the best of the best.</p>