<p>
[quote]
I don't want to be 50k in debt going into grad school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dude, all this over 50k? Go to Columbia.</p>
<p>What matters for getting into a top grad program is your overall undergrad performance and the school's judgment about your graduate school/scholarly potential. Period. A lot of factors go into that---undergrad GPA, GREs, the types of courses you took as an undergrad (relevance to grad program, overall level of preparation in the field, degree of difficulty), whether & what you wrote as an undergrad, recommendations from your professors. Other things equal, a good undergrad record from a top college will be more impressive than a similar record from a less impressive college--and that's true whether the top college is an Ivy, a top LAC, a non-Ivy private, or a top public with a strong program in your field. </p>
<p>As for the recommendations, it matters most what's in the letter, which you won't know. Merely getting a letter from a top professor isn't enough if it's lukewarm or if it doesn't reflect a pretty deep familiarity with, and confidence in, your work and your potential as a scholar. But again, other things equal, strong letters from well known and highly respected figures in the field will have a greater impact than similar letters from lesser-knowns. </p>
<p>The main thing, though, is that it's the total package that counts; no single factor controls. You certainly don't disqualify yourself from getting into a top grad program by going to Hunter College so long as you take a challenging program, do really well in school and on your GREs, and make a strong positive impression on the top people in the department. Others have done it and you can, too. But if you can do all that at Columbia, you'll have a leg up; it will be somewhat easier at the margins to get into the top grad programs, so long as your GPA, GREs, and recommendations are comparable, in part because of perceptions that a Columbia undergrad edcuation is rigorous and top-of-the-line, and in part because in most fields you'll have more opportunities to interact with more academic "stars" on the Columbia faculty who, if they're willing to take the time to write strong letters of recommendation, will carry more weight in the grad school admissions process.</p>
<p>The thing you want to be careful of is going to a school where you get a 4.0 and then are mad because you couldn't show graduate schools your full potential since you already have a perfect GPA.</p>
<p>I think most of the replies are painting graduate admissions procedures with a very broad brush. If you are going into an academic PhD program, a recommendation letter from a leader in the area of interest will go a long long way. A glowing letter from an unknown professor doesn't go very far...almost all recommendation letters are glowing. A direct connection from the letter writer to a collegue/friend at the graduate school of interest is often what sets the accepted applicant apart from a highly competitive pool.</p>
<p>As for the status of the institution....it really depends, but generally has a clear influence on the application process. For example, Ivy league schools very often seem to trade students (i.e. undergrad at one, grad at another). Also, it makes a graduate program look good to show that it has accepted students from top universities.</p>
<p>Most graduates from my school are almost never denied by any grad schools that they apply to. Sometimes a name undergrad and good recommendations will push you over.</p>
<p>If your goal is academic graduate school and your choices are Columbia and Hunter, go for Columbia. There's no time like the present to develop academically to be better prepared for graduate school.</p>
<p>Maybe this doesn't mean anything, but I know my doctor/dermo/dentist's have all gone to undergrad schools such as Rutgers, Temple, and Drexel...not that those are bad, but certainly not prestigious.</p>
<p>Wait, let's clarify, are you comparing the Honors Program at Hunter College v. Columbia College?
To be frank, 50,000 is really nothing.
It will be, what, equivalent to your first year's salary?</p>
<p>Well, I supposed what I'm really getting at is, is the difference in educational quality/opportunites for undergrad worth the difference in price for someone to whom 50k IS something (I'm 26, independent and basically quite poor). If there is a notable difference in educational atmosphere/resources between Columbia and Hunter (just for example) and if going to one would help get me into a great grad program, then it would be worth it. I tend to want to go to Columbia because I'm seeking rigorous, unabashed intellectualism but all my friends who have been through college swear that grad school is what really matters. Their advice is to try to get into Columbia for grad school, go for cheap on the undergrad. I'm at a C.C. right now and am suffocating. I'm in the Honors Program, which is great but it's still very limited feeling. I suppose I'm eager to get with people who are hungry for their education. It's a duel between what's practical and what's most desirable. I'm sure some of you can relate, so I'm looking for your opinions. Thanks again for the wealth of input, much appreciated.</p>
<p>if you plan on attending grad school, undergrad doesn't matter, as long as it is respectable. I think the prestige schools really help with finance/consulting jobs right out of college. </p>
<p>And personally i think attending a prestige school can hurt your chances of a great grad school.</p>
<p>Keefer, would you mind elaborating? I've heard this from many people but never heard exactly why.</p>
<p>I don't understand why people will blatently deny the differences in the education obtained at different schools. A student at a top school will be better prepared than a student from a lesser school, and this is represented in the GRE, LSAT, MCAT scores that students receive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many highly ranked colleges, Ivy and otherwise, will often provide an application benefit to their own undergraduates (although I doubt that this is ever explicitly claimed).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In some cases, it's a huge benefit. MIT grad school is absolutely inundated with former MIT undergrads. The same is true of Harvard. For example, in one recent year, every single new student of the Harvard business economics PhD program was a former Harvard undergrad. Granted, that was an unusual year, but I think it's rather illustrative of the strong home field advantages that some schools provide. {For example, I don't think that Harvard undergrads are any better than the undergrads at peer schools like YPSM, yet the fact that every single new student into the busec program was a former undergrad seems to be strongly indicative of some home-field advantage.}</p>
<p>Furthermore, some grad programs actually reserve spots for their own undergrads, to the point that others are not even allowed to apply. For example, the EECS MEng program at MIT is specifically reserved only for MIT EECS undergrads - nobody else can get in, in fact, nobody else can even apply. {Heck, even non-EECS MIT undergrads can't apply.}</p>
<p>How do you know that the difference in scores isn't a function of the difference in quality of the student body as a whole, as opposed to the quality of education? A student's score on those tests is going to be a combination of their natural ability/intelligence, and what they get from their school. Most selective top schools probably don't have to do anything, and their students would still on average score higher than "lesser" schools. That doesn't mean that the "lesser" school isn't doing more to help students achieve beyond their naturally abilities (even for students who are capable of going to a top school).</p>
<p>sakky,
The home field edge that you describe is very clearly borne out by the matriculation data at some top law schools, eg, Harvard and Yale. This is a good reason why one should temper their enthusiasm about the WSJ Feeder School rankings which give a nice boost to those colleges that have their grad programs included.</p>
<p>dilksey,
I agree with you that the difference in scores very likely is a result of the quality of the students and that the quality of the education, if that can even be measured, is not automatically less or more at the schools with more selective student bodies.</p>
<p>jroe, competition for grades at top schools is fierce. In professional school admissions, your GPA is one of the top 3 criteria that admissions committee will judge on, it isn't hard to figure out that an A at MIT is harder to come by than an A at Saint Anselm College, and I would guess that it's a lot harder. If you get a 3.9 GPA at Saint Anselm, and great GMAT scores, the med school admissions folks have no reason to question your ability. But if you have the same great GMAT scores, and a 3.0 GPA from MIT, which is respectable, I will bet anything that between these two applicants, they will take the Saint Anselm guy, even if that 3.0 at MIT was harder to achieve.</p>
<p>I do not think the argument can be made that a school is prestigious because of the aptitude of the student body, because those students are applying to the school often because it is prestigious. If this was true, the oldest schools would also be the most selective. Rutgers, Salem College, Moravain College, and many other older schools are not selective. Apparently, there was a reason why people chose Dartmouth over Rutgers, even though Rutgers was founded 3 years earlier.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is a good reason why one should temper their enthusiasm about the WSJ Feeder School rankings which give a nice boost to those colleges that have their grad programs included.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The WSJ feeder ranking regards professional school admissions. However, I would say that, at least anecdotally, home-field advantage at certain schools (i.e. Harvard, MIT) is even more pronounced when it comes to academic graduate school. From the numerous examples I have seen, probably the most effective way to get into a Harvard PhD program is to already be working on a productive research project with a Harvard professor, who will then back your admission packet in order to keep the research relationship alive. If a Harvard prof specifically says that you're a valued member of his team and so he wants you admitted, then as long as the rest of your credentials are decent, the adcom is quite unlikely to reject you. Obviously the easiest way for an undergrad to strike up such a research relationship with a Harvard prof is to be an undergrad at Harvard. This is how many former Harvard undergrads who freely admit that they didn't really have the best grades or GRE scores nevertheless still got into Harvard PhD programs. </p>
<p>Incidentally, this leads to the other highly effective way to get into Harvard for your PhD, if you didn't go to Harvard for undergrad, which is to get a job as a research associate for a year or 2 under a Harvard prof, and then apply to the PhD program. Again, if the research relationship is productive, then the prof will vouch for your admission.</p>
<p>keefer, that is exactly what I was wondering. Better to be a stand out at a Hunter level school than a B+ student at an Ivy or super competitive school. It's quite a difficult decision to make. Part of me says I'm in it purely for the education; if I can get a better education at Columbia but must sacrifice GPA, theoretically I'm okay with that. Practically, though, I may be limiting myself in the long-run. I will be pursuing academic graduate work, history or lit. (have not decided yet). Ugh, I am truly undecided. I'm also considering LAC's Amherst, Hampshire, Sarah Lawrence and Wesleyan, which makes things more confusing.</p>
<p>Concededly this was quite a few years ago, but when I was admitted to an extremely competitive graduate program at a top Ivy some years back, the entering class in my department came almost entirely from "prestigious" schools. I don't recall all of them, but I do recall 2 Harvard, 2 Michigan, 1 Duke/Oxford, 1 Columbia, 1 Kenyon, 1 Princeton, 1 Cornell. One was from Oklahoma, the rest (3 or 4 others) I don't recall. These were all high GRE/high GPA applicants, but in that admittedly small sample my guess is that the high GRE/high GPA applicants from the more prestigious schools edged out high GRE/high GPA applicants from less prestigious schools.</p>
<p>If you're capable of being an A or A+ student at Hunter, I wouldn't assume that makes you a B+ student at Columbia. I have no idea what Columbia's grading curve looks like but there's been a lot of grade inflation at prestigious schools, partly because the faculty doesn't want to disadvantage their very talented students in the competition for scarce spots in top graduate and professional schools.</p>