<p>I am just a high school student. All day I dream about getting a PhD. Will going to a lesser school (for example a LAC ranked 15-20 as opposed to one ranked in the top 5) affect my chances of going into a top graduate school in the sciences (now, it's physics, I don't know about in 4 years time.. maybe economics? chemistry? engineering?)?</p>
<p>wow...........</p>
<p>like everyone is going to say, you shouldn't worry about that until much later. simply taking a few classes in college and liking them is not reason enough to get a phd either. at the very least, you should do some undergraduate research in the field that you're interested in before you even consider grad school.</p>
<p>actually, I think the question as posed by the OP is relevant. </p>
<p>The short answer to the OP's question is that the "status" or ranking of one's college has far less impact than the quality of work one does as an undergrad and the quality of the recs one can obtain. Networks among faculty are all important too, but one interesting side effect of the the boom in PhD education during the past few decades is that a lower ranked school is likely to have PhDs educated at the same places as the top ranked schools, so the networks can be similar.</p>
<p>I can't emphasize enough that it is far more important to go to a college where you will fit in and excel than to go to a top ranked institution.</p>
<p>Think of it this way: If you are making admissions decisions in a PhD program, who would you rather accept, the kid with recs that say "this is the best student I've seen in years" who happens to be from a "lesser" school or a rec that says "does good work..." and happens to go to a topped ranked place?</p>
<p>I agree with newmassdad somewhat, but I also believe you'll find that most of the schools that offer rigorous research opportunities to undergraduates are near the top of the list anyway. Pick a school where you know that many undergrads, even the freshmen, are able to find work in labs during the academic year as well as over the summer. A good sign would be a high student-to-faculty ratio and participation in a summer fellowship program such as REU to pay for your work during the summer. If you don't wind up at a school like that, remember to apply to REUs at other schools during the summers. (Start early contacting faculty around the U.S. - maybe even November!) You'll still be at a slight disadvantage if you don't get research experience during the year as well, but you can make up for that by starting your senior thesis early.</p>
<p>When it comes to grad school admissions, there will be no difference between top 5 and top 15-20. Really. Go where you like and where you think you will have opportunities.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the comments. </p>
<p>Do you guys mean:
If I do well in a LAC ranked 15-20 and get into a UIUC grad program (just a random example), and just do as well in a LAC ranked top 5 I will most likely get into grad programs in the caliber of UIUC too.. but not those which are much higher or lower than UIUC?</p>
<p>I really don't understand what your post says (sorry), but I personally feel that the better school will give you better odds for admission to good grad programs. It's pretty much a no-brainer. However, your college tuition is not going to buy you grad school admissions no matter where you go. You need to earn stellar grades and do research during the school year, and if those things will only be possible for you at slightly easier colleges, then by all means go there.</p>
<p>By the way, why the strong interest in liberal arts colleges? Good science/math/engineering schools tend to have strong departments in physics, engineering, chemistry, and even econ. Typically your first year or two would be spent learning the same material, regardless of your major: you would get a strong background in all of the sciences, without wasting valuable time on subjects you definitely don't plan to major in (like art and philosophy). I bet you could get more/better research experience and advanced coursework at those science-y schools than at a LAC. Have you considered it?</p>
<p>Hmm.. what I meant is.. If I were to do exactly the same things at both LACs (research wise, grades wise, everything).. will I get into the same grad school from either of the two colleges?</p>
<p>LAC because I'm an international needing aid.. financial aid for internationals from huge prestigious universities is harder than anything..</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really don't understand what your post says (sorry), but I personally feel that the better school will give you better odds for admission to good grad programs. It's pretty much a no-brainer.
[/quote]
There are many problems with this quote. Let's start with defining "better school". Better how? Undergrad reputation? A college can have a great reputation overall and be terrible at undergrad education in any specific discipline. And the quote ignores the connection between fit and performance for any one student. I could go on, but will not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmm.. what I meant is.. If I were to do exactly the same things at both LACs (research wise, grades wise, everything).. will I get into the same grad school from either of the two colleges?
[/quote]
No one knows the answer to this because the experiment has never been done... :) Seriously though, the question is rather meaningless, as things will never be the same. I would guess, though, that within a pretty broad range of schools, if you fit and performed the same, you'd have the same admissions results. It is not as if the faculty admissions committees sit around saying "this is a Williams guy. Let's give him an edge over the Colby girl because Williams is a higher ranked school..."</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is not as if the faculty admissions committees sit around saying "this is a Williams guy. Let's give him an edge over the Colby girl because Williams is a higher ranked school..."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe not in this example you give, but there has to be a line somewhere and this has to happen to some extent. Grad schools are bombarded with nearly flawless applications every year, at some point they are going to have to start separating applicants by the school that they attended.</p>
<p>I don't think its a coincidence that top graduate schools are primarily filled with students who attend top undergrad schools as well.</p>
<p>ah, now I see why some feel "schools matter".</p>
<p>Many grad departments are NOT bombarded with "nearly flawless applications."</p>
<p>This is not like applying to undergrad. First, the actual reading is done by departmental faculty committees. Second, there is real substance to a graduate school application, where the "score" at the undergrad institution's corresponding department is well known. Third, how you did overall is far less important than how you did in matters related to the proposed grad study.</p>
<p>but enough of this debate. If you feel it matters so much, then maybe it does for you.</p>
<p><i>"LAC because I'm an international needing aid... financial aid for internationals from huge prestigious universities is harder than anything..."</i></p>
<p>Are you sure it will be easier to get aid at liberal arts colleges? I would not have guessed that. These schools are just as expensive (Williams and Colgate are both around $45,000/yr., just like Harvard and MIT) - how do you know they will allocate more funds to international students? Also, are you sure the difference in cost will be big enough that it would be worth it to limit yourself to LACs when other schools may be a better fit?</p>
<p>I have heard that you'll need to demonstrate serious interest in the arts and humanities in order to get into LACs. They like to cultivate well-rounded people. This may come at the expense of depth in your major. For example, if you major in physics at Williams, you only need to take ten physics courses. Those requirements do not include Classical Mechanics, more than a term of thermo/stat. physics, or a year-long sequence in quantum. The only math requirement is multivariable calculus. Worst of all, it will be very difficult for you to take advanced coursework, because very little of it is even offered. (String theory? Grad. level particle physics? Relativistic quantum mechanics? Dream on!) This will put you at a huge disadvantage relative to students from larger schools, or even smaller schools where depth in major is emphasized.</p>
<p>I don't know that that's true--- Princeton only allows you to take 12 courses in your major (most people take fewer, the minimum is 8) but you don't see princetonians having trouble getting into graduate school. Research is more important than depth of classes.</p>
<p>I'm actually pretty surprised by the cap on course number at Princeton! 12 semesters or 12 year-long courses? Does that include labs? How many hours per week are we talking? ...I would still venture that the material is much more rigorous at Princeton, but I have little proof of that. </p>
<p>Another factor might be the level of math being used in the coursework. Multivariable calculus is not a great foundation. Here at Caltech, year-long analysis or topology courses are normally used to fulfill the math requirements for physics, and most students take a year-long abstract algebra course as well if they plan to continue in grad school. That math level is reflected in junior and senior-level physics coursework, as I'm sure it is at Princeton. Many students take far more than the minimum number of courses in physics here, often including graduate-level work.</p>
<p>Honestly, I don't know what a senior here would do if there was a cap on courses in the major. A thesis shouldn't eat up all of your time - you should continue to learn new physics as well!</p>
<p>12 semester-long courses, but labs are included in the course, ie chem lab is part of the chem lecture class.</p>
<p>I don't see how multi can be all that's required for a physics major.. maybe its all that's technically required but in actuality you need to take more? I'm not sure.. I know that physics majors here have to take up to complex analysis.</p>
<p>snowcapk, I dream to take grad level courses and dream to get into private universities too.. but sometimes you just have no choice.. it is indeed 'easier' (still hard) to get into a LAC on full aid..</p>
<p>From the collegeboard, Colgate provide about 5million of aid for its international students.. while a similar amount is given by Dartmouth.. considering that Dartmouth have a larger class size and MUCH higher popularity(ie more competition for this aid) compared to Colgate.. LAC is the more viable option..</p>
<p>I am applying to schools like Dartmouth, Columbia, Yale too.. but put it this way.. I am prepared to go to LAC too because it's more likely..</p>
<p>Oh okay, sounds like you're pretty well-informed about who is providing aid and what your odds are of getting that support. I'm glad you're not ruling out other schools like Dartmouth, Yale, and Columbia, because you could be pleasantly surprised by what they offer you.</p>
<p>1.) From what I've seen in admissions processes generally, there are three ways to think about "branding." Probably elements of all three are right.</p>
<p>A.) The most obviously true one is that as a general rule -- with significant exceptions -- top-notch universities often have more available opportunities for excellent extras. This rule has many exceptions, but the trend is there.</p>
<p>B.) The second theory is that a name-brand school will offset a low GPA, but will not make up for other missing credentials. If anything, it will highlight deficiencies in other areas. A kid graduating from Amherst with a 3.3 GPA is very understandable; an Amherst kid with a 550 GRE is really a red flag.</p>
<p>C.) Third possibility has been directly described to me, although admittedly this is not in PhD contexts. "When I'm picking kids to interview, if he comes from a top school I'll interview him as long as there's nothing wrong with him. If he comes from a low-ranked school, I'll interview him if there's something special on his application. Once that's done, that's all out the window and the interview is the most important thing."</p>
<p>In other words: excellence is a panacea, but if you're going to be a mediocre candidate, the branding might help.</p>
<p>I don't know which of these is true, if any of them are. But those are three models that have been described to me.</p>
<hr>
<p>2.) This is an absurd question. You want a PhD, but you don't know in what? That's completely backwards. You should pick a field you love and then decide how far you want to take it.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the invaluable comments.</p>
<p>So, assuming (I know there are too many variables in this thread but please bear with me): </p>
<ol>
<li>I were to get in and attend a LAC ranked 15-20</li>
<li>I decided to major in math and physics</li>
<li>I am not a math and physics genius</li>
</ol>
<p>What can I do there (at college) to get into a top grad program? Can I even get into a MIT/Caltech even though I am not a genius ie Do I even have a chance? Is there anything that I can do to get into a MIT/Caltech grad program in math/physics?</p>
<p>^
I know it's every math/physics geek's dream.. and not everyone can fulfill this dream.. but why not ask here? haha.. I hope you guys don't mind..</p>