<p>carolyn,</p>
<p>it seems you are justifying and defending the less prestigious schools.
when people are choosing school, they usually don't get to the level where they know which schools they can get THEIR particular needs. so prestige is a way to avoid risks as prestigious schools are always filled with the more opportunities than non-prestigious schools.</p>
<p>bottom line: prestigious schools are Better, and always ARE</p>
<p>Vampire, I think you're thinking is pretty black and white on this......Carolyn's great because she sees the finer shades of grey.....it's complicated....she knows that and articulates it well.....</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>*I'm gonna say this straight out. Perhaps you don't know any better, but you should be ashamed to make those comments. They are FALSE, and unfounded. I have no idea on what basis you derived those conclusions. *</p>
<p>That prestigious schools offer more opportunities is probably true. But no matter where you go, the cream rises to the top eventually.</p>
<p>I disagree that prestigious schools automatically offer more oppurtunities. Many large ivy league schools lack the undergraduate research oppurtunites that more undergraduate oriented schools offer. This is because at large research Universities the research equipment is often restricted to graduate students and researchers. For instance, I believe Carleton College(Grinnel and Bowdoin possibly too) offers one of the very best if not the best undergraduate science education, as they have excellent lab facilities that are only for undergraduates(as there is only undergraduate enrolled). Thus Carleton College will likely offer greater and more worthy research oppurtunities than say Cornell.</p>
<p>Cornell is still the better school, though...</p>
<p>"Better school".... do you really believe that?...and why?</p>
<p>Because I like it more--why do you think?</p>
<p>Ok.... I already projected that. But why do you like it more?</p>
<p>The students seem to be of a higher caliber, I like the campus more, I like the professors more, I like the atmosphere more, I like the location more, etc. etc.</p>
<p>Alright, point taken. However I disagree that students at cornell are "of a higher caliber" and frankly I am unsure what exactly is a measure of "caliber", also I somehow doubt you've met with a sizeable amount of professors at both Carleton and Cornell.</p>
<p>Obviously I talking about things from my experience. No, I am not an expert on either school.</p>
<p>When we are choosing schools, we are taking in our intuitions.
Being unable to proving one's point statisticaly doesn't necessarily disaprove the point.</p>
<p>true, I am just afraid many people's intutions are jaded by those of others. Namely people's decisions are often based more heavily than they think on "prestige".</p>
<p>Vampire, recall my earlier post referring to your comment " prestigious schools are Better, and always ARE". What sort of intuition is this based on???</p>
<p>You also say prestigious schools always offer more oppurtunites, which I commented on earlier comparing Carelton College to Cornell University.</p>
<p>carolyn is right on this. </p>
<p>And you folks who say that the more prestigious schools have a better calibre of student are not taking important issues into consideration, such as the great student who goes to the state school because they can't afford the more prestigious school, even after receiving money. Take Penn State, for instance. Do more partying types with little real interest or ability in academics attend PSU than attend Dartmouth? Sure - but more of everything attends Penn State. They also have a chunk of 1600's with 3.9 gpa's, too.</p>
<p>What is your point? Obviously there are brilliant people all over (some working at McDonald's and some at state schools). The point is that there are many more at prestigious universities and that a higher percentage of the students at Penn State are "partying types with little real interest or ability in academics" than at, say, UPenn. This seems pretty patent to me.</p>
<p>My point is that Dartmouth may have 100% of its student body be brilliant, while Penn State might only have 10% of its student body be brilliant. But at the end of the day you're talking about a lower percentage, but basically the same number of students. In other words, even the less prestigious schools may afford great academics, terrific professors, and high calibre students to meet.</p>
<p>It's clear that "prestigious" universities do not hold any kind of monopoly on bright students and / or faculties - there are terrific academic programs throughout the country.</p>
<p>However, when one graduates from a top school, there is a certain level of "goodwill" afforded to that graduate simply as a function of having attended a "prestigious" school.</p>
<p>As an analogy, an NCAA athlete graduating to the professional level will be given a certain level of acknowledgement merely due to the fact that he has spent time in a "big league" division (e.g. Big Ten, ACC, Pac-10, etc.)</p>
<p>Conversely, an Ivy League athlete has an uphill battle to climb in this respect (for a number of reasons, strength of conference, strength of schedule, facilities, no sport scholarships, etc.) In short, a lack of reputation and recognition - i.e. "prestige"</p>
<p>Does that mean that there aren't any Ivy League athletes that can make it in the Pros? or that the level of any random individual's experience at any particular athletic program will be any less rigorous? No. But it will be a lot harder for that athlete to get the kind of recognition that an athlete coming from a big-time NCAA program will get almost automatically.</p>
<p>This leads to a kind of virtuous circle. Great athletic programs -> attract the best athletes from the country -> creates winning programs -> attracts best coaches -> increases alumni giving -> better facilities -> increases visibility -> attract scouts from the best professional teams -> select the athletes from this great athletic program -> make loads of $$$ in the pros -> increases the reputation, prestige of the "great" athletic program...</p>
<p>Its a similar concept except substituting athletic programs with academic ones.</p>
<p>(of course I'm not saying that schools with great athletic programs can't have great academics, just that when an athlete attends a great sports program that kind of "prestige" is similar to a student who attends a great academic one.)</p>