<p>I know this is kind of a silly, meaningless topic, but something I was curious how people/students felt about. </p>
<p>Some people believe that intelligence sets those apart at top ranked schools. In other words, if you are less intelligent, you will have trouble competing at higher ranked schools even if you work harder because most of your peers are smarter than you.</p>
<p>If you believe that, then regardless of work ethic, a certain student at MIT or Caltech would always be near the bottom of the class. While at another school, he'd be near the top.</p>
<p>If you believe that work ethic, motivation, and maturity governs success, then you could believe that student could be the top at any school.</p>
<p>Of course, the real answer is, it is a mix of the two, but at what composition?</p>
<p>If for instance, you took a 3.9 GPA engineering school student from say, UC-Irvine or Michigan State, how would they fare at Georgia Tech? Berkeley? Caltech?</p>
<p>Would they be able to remain at the top of their class, or would they be middle of the pack or towards the bottom?</p>
<p>What about a 3.0 student at those top schools? Would they rise to the top of the class at UC-Irvine or Rutgers? Would a student who is performing well at a non-ranked engineering school be barely getting by at Irvine or Rutgers?</p>
<p>What exactly do guys think the performance equivalencies are between schools?</p>