Does Harvard Pay Off? Hard to Tell.

[fabrizio]

<p>

There are aspects of the study that don’t make any sense to me and I see where the authors sort of have staked out their claim to proving this particular hypothesis years ago that elite schools don’t really matter for talented kids.

</p>

<p>What parts don’t make sense?</p>

<p>As for “stak[ing] out [a] claim,” Dale and Krueger mentioned in their [2002</a> paper](<a href=“http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~lsghent/dalekrueger.pdf]2002”>http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~lsghent/dalekrueger.pdf) that prior studies had found that attending more selective colleges, as proxied by higher average SAT scores or higher tuition, paid off. But the author of that study, Kane, himself acknowledged the possibility that some students who attended elite colleges might have done just as well no matter where they went.</p>

[Sithra]

<p>I am getting an elite education for 200$ from Amazon.com</p>

[Hanna]

<p>FooMonChew, neither Harvard nor Yale Law gives letter grades, and yes, graduates still do better in the job market than graduates of any other law schools. I can’t imagine that the college would ever make that shift, but if it did, there’s reason to think that graduate schools and employers would still find a way to take a lot of Harvard College seniors.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@QuantMech

if I ran medical school admissions, I would definitely take the rigor of the undergraduate curriculum into account, and I take a dim view of academic sandbaggers. The idea that all courses count equally, regardless of level, as long as the few required boxes are checked, just seems wrong.

</p>

<p>At the most basic level, the academic sandbagging student is wasting time and tuition money retaking courses s/he already knows. But it also affects other students in that those who are taking the courses for the first time will be penalized if the course is graded on a curve.</p>

<p>It seems hard to believe that medical and law schools are unable to handle the idea of differentiating applicants by rigorousness of undergraduate courses chosen. It also seems hard to believe that they studied how well admitted students have done in medical and law school and found that the academic sandbaggers and those who stuffed their undergraduate studies with “easy A” courses did just as well as those who fearlessly took more difficult or advanced courses, honors courses, etc…</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

I am getting an elite education for 200$ from Amazon.com

Let us know when you get to the section on punctuation.</p>

[frazzled1]

<p>It’s never surprised me that students at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale graduate with high GPAs. They’re obviously smart people - they’re at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. I’d like to get a grasp on what it is that makes classes less or more difficult at lower- or higher-ranked institutions. Is the material itself more difficult - is there more to learn about German History in the Early 20th Century or Inorganic Chemistry at HYP than at State U? Or is it the (generally) higher quality of the student body?

It seems hard to believe that medical and law schools are unable to handle the idea of differentiating applicants by rigorousness of undergraduate courses chosen.

Having just seen one kid go through the law school admissions cycle, the conventional wisdom seems to be that undergraduate rigor/institution/major is far less important than GPA, which is itself less important than the LSAT. I’ve read this in a number of different sources, though I agree with ucbalumnus that it’s hard to believe. (Just remembered that Elle Woods made it into Harvard Law with a 4.0 in fashion merchandising from a big party school … that 179 LSAT surely helped.)</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>Interesting issue, ucbalumnus. Medical school is probably fairly difficult. But I suspect that its difficulty differs qualitatively from the difficulty of understanding Galois theory or quantum field theory, becoming fluent in a new language, figuring out Linear B or cuneiform punctuation (nods to Hunt), or gaining an accurate historical perspective on Otto von Bismarck or Phillip II. [Note: Omissions from this list do not mean that I think a field is easy!] </p>

<p>A quick look at the Molecular Biochemistry of the Cell, by Bruce Alberts et al. makes me think that med school might be difficult in approximately the same way that organic chemistry is difficult–hence the med schools’ requirement of that course. </p>

<p>So I’d guess that either the rigorous courses may develop skills that are less applicable in med school, or there may be some external driver (e.g., med school rankings that are based on undergrad GPA with no further analysis).</p>

[Hanna]

<p>“I’d like to get a grasp on what it is that makes classes less or more difficult at lower- or higher-ranked institutions.”</p>

<p>Ranking isn’t necessarily the best proxy for this, but in my experience, what differentiates a difficult class is the level of writing expected from students (in humanities and social-science fields). I placed out of expository writing at Harvard due to my freshman English course at Bryn Mawr, but I took a number of writing-intensive classes that were mostly freshmen, and at both schools we often traded our reaction papers and saw each other’s writing. There was a tremendous difference in the writing ability of the BMC freshmen vs. the H freshmen. In practice, that meant that writing had to be much better at H to get the same grade. The material was just as challenging at BMC, and the professor was top notch. (Thank you, Prof. Horn! You were great!)</p>

<p>I expect that the difference between BMC and H would be much less drastic if you compared seniors rather than freshmen, but I didn’t stick around to find out.</p>

[frazzled2thecore]

<p>With language courses - the more difficult course covers far more material and moves at a faster pace.</p>

<p>Gen chem - from what my S, D, and friends tell me, the more difficult gen chem course as offered at the higher-ranked school also covers more material, including what is generally taught in junior year p-chem at state schools. Assigned problem sets take more time to complete and draw upon a higher level of presumed mastery of high school chemistry. Textbooks can be more challenging and less time is spent going over the basics.</p>

<p>Even though the ability levels of students attempting the course differ dramatically among schools, curves and attrition rates are often similar such that the student setting the curve at a typical state flagship could be struggling to stay ahead of the mean at an elite school. Sometimes it is very difficult for a student to even figure out where they stand on the curve (and how hard they need to work to get an A or B), especially (as is often the case at elite schools where skipping this course would be very difficult) if there are several “outliers” in the class, and the exams are written with a very high ceiling.</p>

<p>Also, at research universities (probably not so much at LAC’s or honors courses at state flagships), no matter the ranking, gen chem is generally taught in a large lecture situation, with hundreds of students per professor. The graduate TA’s (and sometimes undergraduate TA’s) who are assigned to do the grading and assist with students having difficulties, can be of very uneven quality, with regard to mastery of the material, ability to teach, and with grading, which can seem rather random at times. It can be difficult for some students who are more reserved to reach out in a large lecture and find friends to form a study group. Some students have difficulty learning to navigate this type of logistical situation.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@QuantMech

A quick look at the Molecular Biochemistry of the Cell, by Bruce Alberts et al. makes me think that med school might be difficult in approximately the same way that organic chemistry is difficult–hence the med schools’ requirement of that course.</p>

<p>So I’d guess that either the rigorous courses may develop skills that are less applicable in med school, or there may be some external driver (e.g., med school rankings that are based on undergrad GPA with no further analysis).

</p>

<p>However, medical schools apparently do not differentiate between applicants who take the easiest possible pre-med courses (e.g. general chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, and calculus for biology majors) versus those who take the harder or more advanced courses (e.g. chemistry for chemistry majors, physics for physics majors, and calculus for math majors). Even in the narrow context of pre-med courses, medical schools apparently encourage taking the easier schedule, including academic sandbagging (e.g. repeating freshman calculus even after a 5 on the BC that the undergraduate school would normally use to place the student into more advanced math).</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>I agree with you, ucbalumnus–I’m just casting about for an explanation of an admissions strategy that is at odds from the one I would use. Any members of med school admissions committees on here, who could weigh in with an explanation?</p>

[Brooklynborndad]

<p>skimming the study, and ignoring most of this thread</p>

<ol>
<li>It seems that the study does not have a variable for chosen major, etc.</li>
</ol>

<p>Suppose students who choose a lower avg SAT school are more likely to pick a “marketable” major, while those who chose a higher aver SAT school choose a less marketable one (based on discussions on CC, on I think the fact that school rep matters more for getting a job in with a lib arts degree than with an engineering degree, etc) how would that impact the results? I think clearly it would make the value of the high repute degree appear less than it really is. </p>

<p>Alternatively, suppose those who choose the lower avg SAT school are savvier, more frugal, etc, than their reputation happy peers - and that these charecterisitcs make them better in the business world - this would also mask the career benefits of the higher SAT school (to be fair the study attempts to use number of schools applied to as a proxy for personality charecteristics, but I dont know that its a very good proxy)</p>

<p>Krueger et al are to be congratulated, again, for a clever way to try to examine this issue, and bring SOME information to bear in place of assumptions.</p>

<p>But those who latch on to the study, in the belief that, despite its necessary methodological limitations, it proves their beliefs, are not to be so congratulated. A fortiori, those who make arguments without respect to the needs of individual students. Even the authors of the study state “For black and Hispanic students and for students who come from less-educated families (in terms of their parents’ education), the estimates of the return to college selectivity remain large, even in models that adjust for unobserved student characteristics.” </p>

<p>THose are special sub groups the authors were able to identify. There are undoubtedly othe subgroups, less easy to ID in a study, where the school selectivity (or some other aspect of fit) matters. To recommend the cheaper option to all, without regard to the needs of the individual student, I think is wrong - just as wrong as it is to recommend best fit at any cost to all.</p>

[kmcmom13]

<p>Re: Differences in rigor among colleges/universities</p>

<p>This is perhaps a meager but illustrative example. (Meager because it is a public-to-public comparison; however, the latter public is on par with many of the privates)</p>

<p>“McSon” took a music theory course (while a HS Senior) at our local “regional” and well regarded university. Received an A; received 3 credits.</p>

<p>During his first year at our state flagship’s rigorous, top-10 style school of music, he covered ALL THE STUDIED MATERIAL from the regional u’s course within THE FIRST THREE WEEKS of theory…and actually failed the course in the end when the sheer PACE of the work got away from him. He did manage an A- when he retook it this year, but that freshman F certainly made an unsightly dent in his otherwise respectable GPA (and taught him a thing or two about keeping up at all times.)</p>

<p>McSon is/was one of those top 5% performers and was at a gifted/talented magnet program. At “regional u” even though only a HS student, he stood out. At top ranked state flagship, while his contributions in his specific discipline have been noted, he is pretty much among academic peers (some of whom amaze and inspire him). </p>

<p>So I agree with the earlier comments about the level of writing, the “toughness” of the grading, pace, depth and content being the key variables. </p>

<p>I don’t know, though, that the privates comparatively offer more rigor than some of the top rated (in terms of peer assessment, the only sensible criterion) public universities (UC Berkely, UVA, UMich, etc.) My best guess is that some would and others might not.</p>

<p>But back to the original topic. Sure, it’s an investment – the way a house is an investment. In the old paradigm, you expected to make some money flipping your house, as well as enjoying living in it while paying for it. In the new paradigm, you pretty much have to settle for enjoying living in it (because you might not see a ROI).</p>

<p>Likewise, in the old paradigm, money spent on the best college you could (theoretically) afford was expected to pay a dividend, AND give you a nice mind/network/formative experience/learning base from which to enjoy your world and your life.</p>

<p>In the new paradigm, we might have to settle for the internal quality of life while paying for it, without expecting necessarily the strong ROI fiscally. Worth consideration when entertaining large loans ;)</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

However, medical schools apparently do not differentiate between applicants who take the easiest possible pre-med courses (e.g. general chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, and calculus for biology majors) versus those who take the harder or more advanced courses (e.g. chemistry for chemistry majors, physics for physics majors, and calculus for math majors). Even in the narrow context of pre-med courses, medical schools apparently encourage taking the easier schedule, including academic sandbagging (e.g. repeating freshman calculus even after a 5 on the BC that the undergraduate school would normally use to place the student into more advanced math).

</p>

<p>I think you need to interpret that another way. Med schools are certainly aware that the levels of chemistry that the chemistry major will undertake (etc) are higher than the level of the chemistry that the non-chem major will undertake. And yet - they still “allow” them in. They’re telling you that they mean what they say that it’s the basics that they want to make sure you have down … they will teach you so much the chem major, bio major, and French-major-who-took-the-requisite-pre-med courses are all going to be starting at ground zero together anyway. It’s just a different paradigm entirely. I, too, wouldn’t encourage a future pre-med to go all gung-ho on proving studly upper courses.</p>

[311710rvmt]

<p>College is not just about money. I suspect people go to Ivy League schools not so much because they believe it is financially the right choice (Ivy Leagues don’t even advertise themselves as being a road to wealth!), but because of the social prestige and clout such a diploma carries. It’s about the bragging rights and the way people see a Harvard graduate vs a graduate from Average State U, even though both may be paid equally, or even do equally well at their jobs. They essentially sell their exclusivity, like all luxury goods (luxury cars, country clubs, designer clothing). They make you a “Harvard Man”, or give you the “Harvard Experience”…</p>

[villager]

<p>This reminds me of an anti-corruption tribunal that was going on in Kenya about 4 years ago.The judge presiding had graduated from the University of Nairobi,and he was quizzing this low level accountant ,about 50 who had graduated from Harvard.He had been in the company over 20 years and never rose to management!The arrogance in which the judge mentioned the words,“So you went to Harvard?” was so embarrassing.No.You have to go to Harvard to accomplish something a lot more solid than “The Harvard experience”</p>

[kxc1961]

<p>@Villager, A graduate of Harvard may or may not get you too far in your intended career. About 22 years ago, a friend of mine got his Ph.D. from Harvard in Astrophysics and wanted to get an academic job. He failed miserably in a brutal competition. This was his first ever “failure” in his life. Later on, Merrill Lynch trading picked him up, and he became filthy rich. Was he a success story? Depending on your perspective.</p>

[fireeaterr]

<p>Disregard currency, acquire females.</p>

[kxc1961]

<p>Interesting perspective…Yes, with Harvard shirt on your back, it may be easier to pick up girls in the bar…Good luck.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>Surprised this thread is so long-lived. </p>

<p>I think the amount of noodling over whether or not Harvard is worth it or not pretty much makes the case that yes, it’s worth it. Any school that commands so much attention is bound to also draw some attention for its graduates. That is what our kid who went there has found. It has opened doors. Including for post-graduate education – both for medical school and other directions. Internships were plentiful, as well.</p>

<p>Regarding the rigor of premed curriculum, I really don’t get ucbalumnus’ point. Becoming a medical researcher may be helped a good deal by a super in-depth undergrad science background. Becoming a good doctor is about more than lab prowess. Surely, we’ve evolved enough in this society to recognize that.</p>