<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t know many Caltech and MIT PhD students, do you??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes they are, especially the PhD students in econ, math and physics…</p>
<p>
According to the NRC rankings, Duke is top 10 in the humanities, top 10 in the biological sciences, and top 20 in the social sciences. That’s pretty darned strong.</p>
<p>Its weak point is the physical sciences (#35), but realistically most students don’t major in chemistry or physics.</p>
<p>“You don’t know many Caltech and MIT PhD students, do you??”</p>
<p>Prodigalson, my best friend and one of my uncles got their PhDs from MIT. Two of my cousins got their PhDs from Caltech. I know those four VERY well. Six of my high school classmates did their undergrad at Caltech and MIT. I knew them well too. I know at least another dozen or so who did their undergrad and grad at those two schools, but not as well. I am 100% certain of my observation. So tell me, how many very close relatives and friends do you know who did their PhD at MIT and Caltech…and how many undergrads have you known who attended those two schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duke’s faculty and departmental rankings are NOT “pretty darned strong” compared to those of some of the schools (e.g. Cornell, Penn, Chicago, Hopkins, etc.) with which it shares the most cross-admits.</p>
<p>It is very telling that no Dartmouth, Notre Dame, Rice or WashU students and alums feel the need to defend their school about this…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What about Duke’s weak engineering programs? Pratt students (engineering majors) make up approximately one-fifth of Duke’s undergraduate enrollment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess your best friend, one of your uncles and two of your cousins aren’t THAT smart…</p>
<p>One of the two cousins completed his BS in Engineering at the age of 17 frrom the American University of Beirut and go his PhD from Caltech in Electrical Engineering at the age of 22. He was a tenured professor at the University of Michigan’s CoE at the age of 28. </p>
<p>My uncle is a professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Michigan. He wrote the bible on steel reinforced concrete and is known in his field across the world.</p>
<p>My best friend did his BS in Mechanical Engineering at the American Universyt of Cairo. He spent his Junior year at Cal where he managed a 4.0 GPA taking 5 classes per semester (all of them Engineering). He is now a Partner at McKinsey. </p>
<p>Those aren’t exactly failed PhD candidates.</p>
<p>Prodigalson, it is a fact that at all highly regarded research universities, faculty’s first priority is research. Research is driven in part by graduate students. As such, faculty at those universities will give priority to their graduate students, regardless of how smart…or dumb their are. Undergrads will never be a priority regardless of how smart they are. Faculty at those elite research institutions will approach their undergrads the same, whether they are geniuses or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, what did your undergrad friends at MIT and Caltech do/achieve to make them, in your mind, “smarter” than your PhD friends? 
</p>
<p>UCB, I did not keep in touch with many of my classmates. One of those that did her undergrad at MIT went on to get her MS at MIT. She then joined Bain for three years and returned to Cambridge, this time to HBS to get her MBA. She is now a partner at Bain. Another stayed in academe, earning a PhD in Electrical Engineering at Stanford and is now a very senior officer at Cisco. I did not keep in touch with the others.</p>
<p>But my point of view was actually shared by those who actually attended those institutions.</p>
<p>^ wow…that’s a very fine line you draw. It’s so fine, it’s invisible to my eyes.</p>
<p>As an MIT alumnus (graduate student), parent of an MIT undergrad and educational counselor for MIT where I interview applicants, I share Alexander’s view that there are on a relative basis more “off-the charts” smart undergrad students at MIT (and CalTech) than grad students. From my personal experience, there is no doubt there are grad students at MIT that would never have been admitted as undergrads. It is not true across all departments (such as math or physics) and is not necessarily true among internationals, where few top students from developed countries apply as undergrads. I think it has more to do with the fact that the undergraduates are generally recruited on sheer brain-power while the graduate students are more often admitted based on a number of factors including experience and recommendations. </p>
<p>Where I disagree with Alexander is that undergrads are treated the same at all research universities and that always play second fiddle to the grad students. That is definitely not true at MIT. MIT pioneered the concept of undergraduate research over 40 years with its UROP program and it is has since become a standard part of the training of all students. All undergrads are involved in the same leading edge research and do the same level of work as graduate students. There are more opportunities than students available to do the work, so they can pick and choose a program they really like. They will get their name published on papers, even as first authors. I would argue that they often have an easier relationship with faculty which truly enjoys the presence of these smart undergrads. They also don’t have any of the administrative duties of graduate students or post docs. My D has been doing research in neuroscience since sophomore year and she would not trade for a second with any of the grad students in her lab who always appear stressed. She has a much more flexible schedule than graduate students. She can pretty much drop in anytime on her Lab Director if she has an issue to discuss, something grad students would typically not do. Undergrads have this extra level of freedom that is largely gone when research becomes a job as opposed to an adventure.</p>
<p>MIT = Awesome.</p>
<p>They suck because they waitlisted me. :SIGH:</p>
<p>So are you saying it’s easier to get into MIT Sloan for an MBA than for MIT as an undergrad :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do. You can get into Sloan without very impressive quantitative skills, something virtually impossible for undergrads. As a grad student, I took many courses at the Sloan School and I don’t believe more than 20% would have made it as undergrads. Now, again, the Sloan School looks for other skill sets and is no piece of cake to get into! </p>
<p>Keep the spirit. All my top EA applicants this year were deferred, but I believe several will make it during regular decision. EA has become tougher and tougher every year.</p>
<p>PS: Phead. I misread your post. I thought you meant deferred as opposed to waitlisted. Good luck for grad school!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, I buy this argument. But Alexandre’s (limited) anecdotal evidence does not exactly corroborate this view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re kidding yourself if you think that, for example, Caltech (small private) undergrads do not get more faculty attention than Michigan (large public) undergrads.</p>
<p>Caltech undergraduates > or = Caltech graduate students</p>
<p>Michigan undergraduates < Michigan graduate students</p>
<p>Alexandre said:
“My best friend did his BS in Mechanical Engineering at the American Universyt of Cairo. He spent his Junior year at Cal where he managed a 4.0 GPA taking 5 classes per semester (all of them Engineering). He is now a Partner at McKinsey.”</p>
<p>Wow, could you tell him to write a website on how to study?</p>
<p>Most of this discussion has been based on speculation and anecdotal reports that may or may not reflect the quality of instruction you are likely to experience at these schools. Let’s take Chicago, for example, since it has come up in several posts.</p>
<p>It is not unreasonable to suggest that professors will tend to devote more attention to smarter students. It may be true that, in general, Chicago graduate students are smarter than Chicago undergrads (especially in the most famous departments, such as econ). But presumably this is not the only factor that affects instructional quality. It is reasonable to expect that class size, school policy, campus culture, etc., also have an influence.</p>
<p>Consider policy. At Chicago there are graduate divisions (e.g. Social Sciences), there are graduate departments (such as Economics), and then there is “The College” (with majors and interdisciplinary programs, but not departments per se). If a professor is teaching undergraduate courses, typically it means s/he has a faculty appointment to The College and is “committed”, by policy, to teaching undergraduates. This policy is reinforced by significant, prestigious awards for undergraduate teaching ( [Llewellyn</a> John and Harriet Manchester Quantrell Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching | The University of Chicago](<a href=“http://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/quantrell.shtml]Llewellyn”>http://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/quantrell.shtml)). </p>
<p>Chicago compares very well to other schools for average class size (<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size-4.html#post1062512809[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size-4.html#post1062512809</a>, post #50). C<em>llege Pr</em>wler surveys suggest that Chicago’s resources and policies actually translate to a high level of student satisfaction with their courses (it is one of only 6 national universities to get an “A+” grade for academics, based on a survey of over 200 Chicago students - though I’d caution against taking the letter grades too seriously because students at different schools may have different standards). We also can also look at graduate outcomes such as the NSF data on the baccalaureate origins of PhDs. For all PhD disciplines, Chicago is the only national, liberal arts university in the top 10 overall. The others are all LACs or small technical institutes ([PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College”>http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html</a>)). This suggests to me that Chicago students probably are getting the kind of academic attention usually associated with small, liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>Your Mileage May Vary at Chicago or any other school. It is very difficult to reliably measure the quality of undergraduate instruction. However, there is enough evidence to strongly suggest that at this one research university, at least, undergraduates are not being significantly shortchanged by faculty attention to graduate students. They are in small classes with outstanding faculty, they are happy with the instruction, and they are succeeding after graduation in areas that presume a high level of academic preparation.</p>