Explain to me the whole "Prestigious" notion when picking schools.....

Applying to College
1

Is the difficulty of getting admitted into prestigious school more apparent than the actual cirriculum when accepted.

It seems to me that its much more difficult to get admitted into selective schools like the IVYS, Stanford, MIT and UC’s Vs. Regular state schools but once you actually get accepted and start taking classes, is the actual cirriculum that much tougher?

It seems to me Accounting is Accounting, Economics is Economics, Biology is Biology and so on, its purely objective. SO whether your taking Economics at Penn St. or Univ of Penn, its the same material. I understand the information can be presented more efficiently and cover more in UPenn, that’s clear but it seems to me the basis and foundation would be similar.

An intermediate finance course taught at Carnegie Mellon, UPENN covers more than at Penn ST, Univ OF Pitt?

ANd this whole prestigious factor, does prestige equate to difficulty to graduate and obtain a degree from that respected institution? What i take from it is , the quality of teachers are better but then again does that mean highly regarded teachers equate to tougher teachers that are more difficult?

Please clear this up for me im confused, i always thought prestige means an overall quality of education including profs, class size, and overall environment but it seems to me the more selective and prestigious a school is, the harder the cirriculum is and thus harder to obtain a degree from there?

WHen USNEWS Ranks overall top universities, is the principle factor how hard the cirriculum is? So when rank 1,2,3,4…50- this esentially is the order from the most difficult schools to the easiest schools.

2

<p>Prestige has more to do with reputation, quality of professors, grad school placement, etc...than difficulty.</p>

<p>Case in point: Harvard.</p>

3

<p>Prestige has little to do with how difficult the school is, if that's what you're asking. Some very prestigious schools have very notorious grade inflation, while other less prestigious schools do not. I think the idea of prestige comes from people having a high opinion about a school's teachers, students, area, history, etc. What I'm saying is that these schools have prestige for a reason, they're good schools. That's not to say that you can't get a great education at a less prestigious school. After all, you are the one who decides how seriously you'll take your education. You could go to harvard and putz around for four years or you could go to Chico State and study every night, it's up to the individual to decide.</p>

4

<p>Can you list some of the most prestigious schools that have grade inflation? Is there any stats you could provide( link), that would be interesting to look at.</p>

<p>Also what motivates colleges to have grade inflation, to raise the overall GPA of the student body, thus lead people on to believe that a certain school has the best quality of students when examening the overall GPA?</p>

<p>My university is known for grade inflation in the more technical classes like Calc, Matrics, Physics, Statistics, Engineering but everything else like History, English there is none...My reasoning is that techinical classes like high level math are more difficult, thus if there was no grade inflation, you would have a low passing rate and the department would fail, i dont know?</p>

5

<p>Also keep in mind that not all learning occurs in the classroom. When I attend a CE course related to my profession, I sometimes learn more during the breaks from the other participants than I do from the lecturer.</p>

<p>I'm sure living and socializing with some of the people that attend Harvard or Princeton, for example, can be exhilirating experience.</p>

6

<p>some ivys which are regarded as less "prestigious" than others are known to be alot harder. they say cornell is the easiest ivy to get into and the hardest to get out of. they don't call it "cornhell" for nothing.</p>

7

<p>The schools that I've heard have grade inflation are most of the IVYs+Stanfurd. I've seen a few articles put out about these cases but I don't really want to dig around for the links. People seem to post them on these boards all the time, so just look around and you'll probably find some. As for the why, I think you're right. A school like Harvard doesn't want to have people flunking out or lowering the overall gpa because that would look bad for them. Not to say that Harvard lets people slide by without any work, because I have friends who've gone there and worked their arses off, but if the classes are really that hard wouldn't a couple people flunk out?</p>

8

<p>The idea is that hobknobbing with the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful (that's where the prestige comes from) make it more likely that you will become rich and powerful.</p>

<p>There is little evidence that this is true (all other things being equal), some evidence that it isn't (studies of folks accepted to HYP who decided to go elsewhere seem to do as well or better, at least financially speaking), but that's the core of the concept.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
The idea is that hobknobbing with the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful (that's where the prestige comes from) make it more likely that you will become rich and powerful.

[/quote]
While that may have been true, I don't think so any more. There is no place more prestigious than Harvard, yet as Marite frequently points out, 70% receive financial aid. It's more of a brand-name thing now.</p>

10

<p>For me I wanted a highly selective school for simply that reason, that it was highly selective. I wanted to be at a place where the best and brightest students of the country were gathered. I wanted to be able to make a political statement and be challenged on it as opposed to be given blank looks or looks of disinterest. I've spent my entire high school career with the "intelligent, but nothing special" crowd, and I'm dying here. For college I really wanted to be in an environment with people more like me.</p>

11

<p>I wouldn't make the leap that people with higher sats and gpas necessarily have more interesting things to say about politics or really anything else, except maybe studying techniques. I'm just saying the difference of 100 sat points and .2 on the gpa doesn't make a ton of difference.</p>

12

<p>"I wouldn't make the leap that people with higher sats and gpas necessarily have more interesting things to say about politics or really anything else, except maybe studying techniques. I'm just saying the difference of 100 sat points and .2 on the gpa doesn't make a ton of difference."</p>

<p>It's not that the 100 points makes someone very intelligent and interesting, it's just likely that a highly selective school is going to attract many more of the very intelligent and interesting people. It's not even necessarily an ivy or one of them. A school like the University of Chicago is nearly ideal for what I'm searching for in terms of selectiveness ::fingers crossed for the waitlist::</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
I've spent my entire high school career with the "intelligent, but nothing special" crowd, and I'm dying here. For college I really wanted to be in an environment with people more like me

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Humble?</p>

<p>....</p>

14

<p>"Humble?"</p>

<p>I tire of humble. I've taken these kids's crap since kindergarten.</p>

15

<p>"While that may have been true, I don't think so any more. There is no place more prestigious than Harvard, yet as Marite frequently points out, 70% receive financial aid. It's more of a brand-name thing now."</p>

<p>First of all, as has been pointed out to Marite on numerous occasions, with data from Harvard itself, fewer than 50% receive "need-based" financial aid from Harvard. The remaining 20% have received outside grants, community scholarships, NMS, etc. Secondly, take away its reputation for educating the rich and famous, and there is just less "there" there. No one I know would argue that the quality of instruction is that good, certainly not above that of 20 or so other places, nor that the quality of life is either. (Princeton Review ranks Carleton, Pomona, Smith, Amherst, and Haverford as the best undergrad educations in the country, and Harvard barely breaks the top 20.) I mean it is a very fine school of course, but take away the prestige (and the money) and do you think 70% of those admitted would attend? I seriously doubt it.</p>

<p>As to the best and brightest - Harvard itself says they reject entire classes of students as academically talented as those they accept. The corollary that goes with this is that these students are going elsewhere. It's a great school, as are 40 or 50 others, but I doubt, at least for the average undergrad and for those not requiring something in particular that Harvard has), certainly not head-n-shoulders above the rest. Except in prestige.</p>

16

<p>I was simply addressing the "notion of prestige" posited by the OP, not making a case for it. Harvard has tons of it, deserved or not, and I agree with your assessment there--I never said they were the "best and brightest." Where I disagreed was with your notion that people think prestige is hobnobbing with the rich and powerful. Those kind of folks can pay their own way, and they don't need or get financial assistance, and according to the numbers, they're a distinct minority. And according to what you read here on CC, they're not liked or even respected.</p>

17

<p>Well the kids are higher achievers that go to hard colleges, so they get higher grades than kids who don't study as hard or that aren't that great with academics</p>

<p>this equals grade inflation</p>

18

<p>I don't know about every subject, but math, engineering, and physics curricula certainly vary a lot by university, even within the top 25 (or top 10!)</p>