Honestly Have You Ever Thought About This?

Applying to College
1

<p>I have often wondered this as I have gone through this crazy process and watched my brother go through it a year ago...........I mean to the average kid, most only know of the "name brand" schools or the Ivies or the "Big 10" or the ones known for sports but not necessarily for academics, but there are thousands of schools that are the "sleeper schools", ones many have not ever heard of and tend to look at with disdain or as being inferior because THEY haven't known about them.</p>

<p>I mean take Yale, Harvard, Princeton and then take a school you have never heard of. What makes Yale and Harvard take the top two spots every year over these others? If you went blindfolded and stepped into each respective classroom, would you say I am certainly at an Ivy here or I am not in a nationally recognized universtiy here? I really have to think we might all be surprised at how in a good school, few would know where they are. As an example I visited my cousin at Stonehill in Boston, which is a great but very small school in Easton outside of Boston. I sat in on two classes there and must admit I was blown away, I mean I could have easily been on Harvards campus, and I did visit there so can say that the classes I sat in on were remarkably comparable. Stonehill is a notch below a BC, but a respectable and solid good school..............it just got me wondering. </p>

<p>It seems like those top schools will never lose their standing because they have the endless billion dollar endowments now, the star power (meaning all the ex and current presidents,CEO'S,celebrities,etc..........who beautify their campuses),the national recognition,(heck even our media plays into it and uses their names to draw in the crowds) They are truly a "name brand" and are forever known as THE TOP SCHOOLS, the ultimate.</p>

<p>When I grow up (wink) I think I just might start my own poser "US news and world report rankings". BUT this time they are going to be totally objective, I won't give a crap about who went there or whose grandfather gave 100 million dollars, or which dorm is decked out in chintz and central AC, or the fact that their endowment could feed a small country, or that their are big budget hollywood films filmed on their picture perfect pristine campuses. This will be based on the integrity of the school, the happiness of their students, the quality and ACCESSABILITY of the professors, the fairness by which it operates and the academics it provides.
ITS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, and you know I truly believe this would have an outcome that could shock us all!!! As I sit here and ponder this (while my stack of homework is growing behind me and I am thinking that if i keep on typing it will magically disappear) I realize that in a way these"rankings" we are all SO obsessed with are somewhat bogus. Just stop and think about it, its an interesting point. Now time to hit the books.....................</p>

<p>P.S. This is for all of you who will immediately look for my posts to see where I have applied and if I practice what i preach, NO i am a total victim, applied to 4 schools......got in EA to Yale, waiting on Stanford, Harvard and Brown.
But this is not to say that when I have kids of my own and my study has proved me right that my own kids might be in fact going to a school that is on the cusp of becoming a namebrand and they can say their mom was the brainstorm behind this new college branding revolution!</p>

2

<p>"This will be based on the integrity of the school, the happiness of their students, the quality and ACCESSABILITY of the professors, the fairness by which it operates and the academics it provides."</p>

<p>Most of these criterions are already in the U.S. News Rankings. Integrity is kinda broad so i dunno, but happiness of students is measured by U.S. News by Student Retention Rate, Quality and Accesability of Professors measured by percentage of faculty that are full time and faculty resources, Academics is kind of hard to measure with statistics, but you could use graduation rate which is also included in U.S. News Rankings, I don't know how you would objectively measure fairness. </p>

<p>Lots of people are just blinded by the prestige of ivies, or top 25s and will do w.e it takes to get in, a lot of high school seniors honestly believe a name brand university will make it easier for you to get places in life. However, those who work hard in high school, and are qualified enough to go to an ivy, why shouldn't they? I don't think it's right to label every ivy applicant a prestige whore.</p>

3

<p>There was a book out called Colleges That Change Lives that highlighted a group of smaller schools (the author leaned towards LACs). These schools are lesser known schools with unique programs that focused on some of the things you mentioned- happiness of students, quality and accessability of professors, fairness in which it operates and the academic exp it provides.</p>

4

<p>With all due respect, I think you have missed the point. My point is if we were doing a new and fresh study/survey and all schools were nameless just college A,B,C...etc......and we had the above criteria to go on I would venture to say and I feel really sure about this that we would not necessariily have the top 10 schools that are routinely the top 10. I just think the gross inflation of what these schools are today and no doubt will forever be, put so many other "non name brand" schools in an unfair position.</p>

<p>As a final example, a company is huge does very well, and is talked about everywhere, a small but equally capable co. comes along which is able to churn out the same results, make the same revenue,etc..........but is never able to "make it" or to fairly compete with Co.A because of all the recognition it has gotten. Is it fair? No its not, the difference though is we are talking about millions of kids every year who are feeling that if they don't get into the top 10 they have been let down, they somehow have failed. I just wish there were a less biast system, thats all. End of point.</p>

5

<p>I think we could address the problem of kids blinded by prestige and names if we look at whether people in the job market are blinded by prestige and names. When you see that famous names, or people in amazing jobs like a writer for TIME or the New Yorker, have graduated from Ivies, it makes people think that they can't get an amazing job like that unless they graduate from a school with an amazing reputation.</p>

6

<p>grotongirlie: You know how they say it's only easier for the rich to get richer? It's the same kind of thing. HYPS is a perpetuating cycle, with more people applying, doing well, donating back, making more people apply, etc.</p>

<p>I'm not saying it's an unjustified system though. The schools do put whatever resources they have to good use for the students. There aren't many (if any) colleges in the US that can match the research and professional opportunities that Top 10 colleges can offer. I don't think a college can be as "good" as a Top 10 college but not be a top 10 college.</p>

<p>Now if one such college existed, the system would obviously be biased towards those that have always been around. In every aspect of life (sports, music, , technology, whatever) there's always a bias for the "veteran" over the "newcomer" even if both are inherently equal. I might even go as far as to say we may prefer the veteran EVEN IF the newcomer is better. It's just a fact of life.</p>

7

<p>grotongirlie, you make good points, and you're not the first one to make them. I can see what you're saying in that rankings and prestige don't always measure (in fact, often don't) the qualitiy of education you receive at said schools. Here is an article with some criticisms on US News:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0009.thompson.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0009.thompson.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>But we also have to accept that many aspects of educational quality are just hard, if not impossible, to measure. You said that you found some amazing classes at Stonehill. I'm sure there are these classes in almost every university, but there are also mundane classes with bad professors in almost every university. While that has a large effect on students, it's hard to measure something like how interesting professors are at a certain university, because it's intangible and varied. So yes, I can see someone going to a LAC, and getting a better education than Harvard. Heck, Harvard students themselves often complain that the professors don't teach undergrads. But that's hard to reflect in the rankings.</p>

<p>Classroom quality aside, there are so many other boons to attending a top university that I think justifies their ranking and prestige.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>More and more students are entering professional schools (medical/law/business school) and the competition is more fierce than ever. Nationally, about 50% of all students who apply to med school are rejected from every single one. Even at a great school like Berkeley, I believe that statistic hovers around ~65%. Yet at a school like Harvard, over 90% of the pre-med applicants are accepted somewhere. You would think that maybe HYP students are more qualified, but statistics suggest otherwise. At a grade-deflated school such as Berkeley, pre-meds need 3.7-3.9 to get into med school, but at a relatively grade-inflated school like Princeton (and I suspect Harvard), accepted pre-meds average a 3.5-3.6. For all those students who want to get into a good law school or med school, there is little doubt in my mind that absolutely one of the best place you can attend for undergrad is Harvard, Yale, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>Research and resources. If you want to participate in important research with professors who are leading their field, and get published in prominent scientific journals, you probably won't find it at a place like Stonehill. Research powerhouses, especially those with a low undergrad population like HYPS, have many more of these opportunities, and a good publication or good recommendation from a well-known faculty advisor is worth more than its weight in gold when it comes to grad school.</p></li>
<li><p>Networking. If you want an interview for a well-paying job with great perks at a prestigious company, having the right connections can be all it takes to get your foot in the door. How many US Presidents has Harvard churned out now? Six was it? And the last presidential race was decided between two Yale graduates.</p></li>
<li><p>Prestige matters. I hate to say it, but many college students come simply with the mindset of getting a degree. A Harvard degree will simply open doors. Many employers will tend to go by the name of your school, if you don't have significant prior work experience. Sure, I may have attended Harvey Mudd and pulled a great GPA (which isn't easy at Harvard Mudd, at all), but how many employers will know that Harvey Mudd has an intense curriculum? Rather than finding out about every college's nuisances, many employers will just tend to go by the name of the institution.</p></li>
</ol>

8

<p>vici, great points and most I agree on. You mention the 'right' professors and the "vast resources", those are only possible because of the outrageous endowments these schools get, its a barbaric system, which goes round and round and never stops to let anyone in. Take a Harvey Mudd, which frankly I didn't know existed until I started this process, who knew that this school broken down some ways is harder to get into than Harvard. IF both schools were labeled school a and b and from today had the same endowment, the same "star power" who can say which would be the eventual #1? No one knows. Sadly, there are so many fabulous schools out there that I do not think will get the fair shake they deserve.</p>

<p>I realize its life and so many facets of our lives operate this way......it would be refreshing though to see and hear a different and new perspective and not the ususal suspects dominating the top of every single list.</p>

9

<p>As a 40 something old lady, I'm very impressed with your level of understanding of the issue. Good for you and I bet you will go far, regardless of where you go. Excellent insight.</p>

10

<p>don't worry about it groton- this group of people on here is biased.<br>
The majority of the country agrees with you.</p>

11

<p>I have friends who didn't know of the existence of the ivy league, and hadn't heard of most of the schools in it.
difficult to comprehend after a couple months on CC...</p>

12

<p>I'm sorry, but every employer worth working for in the science fields knows and greatly respects Harvey Mudd. You forget that Harvey Mudd isn't a general university like Harvard. We are extremely specialized. We only care about engineering, science, and math employers. Among those employers, Harvey Mudd's prestige is unsurpassed.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
You mention the 'right' professors and the "vast resources", those are only possible because of the outrageous endowments these schools get, its a barbaric system, which goes round and round and never stops to let anyone in.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course it is. Is it a mere coincidence that the university with far and away the largest endowment (Harvard) is also ranked #1 on most university rankings produced? Harvard can easily attract top professors and researchers with funding and amentities. Let's look at an example: Berkeley (yes Berkeley, not a no-name institution with small endowment) recently lost some promising researchers to Harvard because of lack of funding:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=254363%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=254363&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Corey Goodman and Carla Shatz had a grand vision for UC Berkeley: to build the greatest neuroscience program in the world, to figure out how healthy brains work, and to use that understanding to cure disease.</p>

<p>They wanted a place where chemists and physicists, geneticists and other scientists could work alongside neurobiologists like themselves to unlock the secrets of the body's most mysterious organ. They wanted to change the world. The university wanted them to do it.</p>

<p>But there was no money to build their neuroscience center or equip their hoped-for high-tech laboratories. Today, Shatz is pursuing similar research at Harvard Medical School, and Goodman is the chief executive of a biotechnology company that develops drugs to treat neurological disease.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What can I say? I certainly don't like that this is happening (and neither do Berkeley students if you'll read the thread) but that's how universities work. Those with large endowments, vast resources, and a strong brand name is going to end up coming out on top. Sure it would be refreshing for some no-name small school with few resources to come out on top, but that doesn't make too much sense, does it?</p>

<p>
[quote]
IF both schools were labeled school a and b and from today had the same endowment, the same "star power" who can say which would be the eventual #1?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But that's exactly the point. We can debate about "if Harvard and UMass were labeled school a and b, had the same endowment, same "star power", same professors, same quality students, same resources" the two schools might be ranked equally. But it's exactly because these differences exist that makes Harvard better than an institution like UMass. So I think what you are really saying is that you don't like the current criteria by which institutions are evaluated. You would rather see institutions evaluated based on such factors as teaching quality and not say, brand name. This is why some turn to other rankings like the ones PrincetonReview have, which focus more on student life and other criteria. But like I said, many students (sadly) simply don't care about quality of professors even if you do create a ranking that measures such; or to be fair, I should say they don't care as much relative to other factors, such as say, getting into a good med school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm sorry, but every employer worth working for in the science fields knows and greatly respects Harvey Mudd. You forget that Harvey Mudd isn't a general university like Harvard. We are extremely specialized. We only care about engineering, science, and math employers. Among those employers, Harvey Mudd's prestige is unsurpassed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think you overestimate Harvey Mudd's brand name. I'm sure that many employers in the fields of engineering and sciences in California would recognize Harvey Mudd's rigor, but I suspect many employers (especially not in these fields), especially in other states, have not even heard of Harvey Mudd. Try going to the East Coast and see how many employers know about Harvey Mudd. Now, I'm not just trying to put down the college or anything, I recognize that it's very selective, but I'm just pointing out that its brand name is rather limited compared to certain other universities. And even among those employers who know about Harvey Mudd, I don't know if I can say that its prestige is "unsurpassed." For example, I think to most employers the MIT or Caltech degree would probably trump Harvey Mudd.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
For example, I think to most employers the MIT or Caltech degree would probably trump Harvey Mudd.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think employers would disagree with you on this one. MIT and Caltech are harder to get into, but Harvey Mudd is just as difficult to get out of. There's a reason why Mudd's PhD per student rate is basically tied with Caltech's for first place in the country.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but I suspect many employers (especially not in these fields), especially in other states, have not even heard of Harvey Mudd. Try going to the East Coast and see how many employers know about Harvey Mudd.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm actually from the East coast (or the midwest, whichever you want to consider Ohio part of). One side of my family is all engineers so I end up going to parties with lots of them. They've all heard of Harvey Mudd before I applied. Are you in the engineering field? Because if you were (and didn't come on CC to find out about it here), I bet you would have heard of Mudd too.</p>

<p>Then there's the fact that Mudd is gaining popularity and notoriety ever year. The number of applications rose >15% this year. I'm quite confident that in a decade or so Mudd will be around Caltech's present level in notoriety among those in science.</p>

<p>The average starting salary of Mudd engineers is ~60k/year. That certainly means we are getting hooked up with some awesome jobs after graduation, right? It's all just about landing a decent first job anyway. After that, your skills take over. Mudd prepares its students as well as any other school in the country for the working world.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
I think employers would disagree with you on this one. MIT and Caltech are harder to get into, but Harvey Mudd is just as difficult to get out of. There's a reason why Mudd's PhD per student rate is basically tied with Caltech's for first place in the country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you believe that employers would prefer a Harvey Mudd degree over a MIT degree? I think that's stretching it. Hey, I openly admit that Harvey Mudd is one of the best places in the nation to get an engineering degree; I've said that in other threads too. I just wouldn't say it's the best. I think more students who are accepted into Harvey Mudd and MIT would choose MIT. Just take a look at the Preference rankings:</p>

<p><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I'm not sure why Harvey Mudd wasn't in the overall rankings but if you go to page 46 where they list prefered by region MIT is about 4th while Harvey Mudd is about 22nd.</p>

<p>Similarly, I think employers would prefer a MIT degree over a Harvey Mudd degree, if nothing else then for the fact that more employers have heard of MIT than Harvey Mudd.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm actually from the East coast (or the midwest, whichever you want to consider Ohio part of). One side of my family is all engineers so I end up going to parties with lots of them. They've all heard of Harvey Mudd before I applied. Are you in the engineering field? Because if you were (and didn't come on CC to find out about it here), I bet you would have heard of Mudd too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well your family seems to be very much into engineering so I'm not surprised you have heard of Harvey Mudd but I doubt that most employers on the East Coast (even in engineering) are familiar with engineering. I have heard of Harvey Mudd through friends who have applied and through CC but then again I'm in the area, and believe me, even in the area most people have not heard of Harvey Mudd.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Then there's the fact that Mudd is gaining popularity and notoriety ever year. The number of applications rose >15% this year. I'm quite confident that in a decade or so Mudd will be around Caltech's present level in notoriety among those in science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I never said Harvey Mudd is not gaining popularity every year. All I said was that it's still not as popular as MIT. I think if you take a look at the application numbers of the two schools that will reflect this as well. And maybe in a decade or so Mudd will be around Caltech's present level, but my point was that it's not now. I don't know what will happen in a decade so I was only talking about the present.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The average starting salary of Mudd engineers is ~60k/year. That certainly means we are getting hooked up with some awesome jobs after graduation, right?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I never said you were not getting hooked up with some awesome jobs. Like I have said before, I never disputed the fact that Harvey Mudd is one of the best places in the country to go for engineering, and prepares you for some great jobs. I just think MIT and Caltech, for now at least, are better.</p>

16

<p>mostly,I agree with you</p>

17

<p>"I just think MIT and Caltech, for now at least, are better."</p>

<p>Fot engineering, MIT may be better (I'm not sure), but Caltech is not better for engineering... it is more of a science school.</p>

<p>...Please, someone take me on for that remark. I'll quote JPL employees, Caltech graduates.</p>