<p>n.b.: To translate the jargon we’re using, “R1” is Research 1, a former Carnegie Classification, now replaced by RU/VH - “Research University, Very High Research Activity.” It’s a relatively objective ranking system based on measurable research output. Only 108 institutions met the criteria last year, mostly public. The next tier down is “R2,” or RU/H.</p>
<p>I think the OP’s first line of research should be in tracking where Duquesne students in his area go to graduate school. Some graduate programs prefer students from certain schools, even if those schools are not traditionally “elite.” This preference often comes from the success of past students or from connections among the faculty.</p>
<p>Yes, a rigorous undergraduate education matters, and yes, two students from, say, Stanford and Duquesne, are not considered equal. However, much depends on what those students have done. Let’s say that the Stanford student has a 3.0, and the Duquesne student has a 3.9. The Stanford student has done one low-level internship, but the Duquesne student has completed two prestigious internships, one in Washington and another in Harrisburg (state government.) The Stanford student has good LORs, but the Duquesne student has “my best student in ten years” type of LORs. Who gets in? The Duquesne student. If both students were more-or-less equal in their profiles, then the Stanford student gets the nod, even with a slightly lower GPA. </p>
<p>Of course students from elite universities will get into Harvard. The important take-away is that students from lower ranked universities also get into Harvard. You don’t have to go to HYPSM to get into a top-ranked program in your field as long as you distinguish yourself from your peers. You can’t just be good; you have to be exceptional. For every Stanford student accepted into a program, twenty may have been rejected. Ixington may have been the only applicant from his mid-tier university, so that’s a 100% acceptance rate. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now we seem to be quibbling over the definitions of a ‘research university’ vs. a ‘teaching university’, with the confounding problem that research universities tend to be correlated with prestige. However, I am quite confident in saying that graduates from, say, Amherst College are far more successful in winning admission to top graduate programs than are graduates from, say, University of Texas at San Antonio even though the latter unquestionably offers far more high level research facilities than does Amherst. As a case in point, UTSA actually offers PhD programs - and therefore must have the high-tech research infrastructure to support them - whereas Amherst does not offer any PhD programs at all. However the term ‘teaching college’ is defined, Amherst is surely far closer to being one than is UTSA. Yet one then has to wonder why so many top-flight graduate programs ‘stupidly’ offer admission to Amherst students, when they could have instead admitted more students from UTSA. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But I’m afraid that does not hold. You did not attend a non-prestigious institution. Rather, you attended an (unspecified) campus within the University of California, which is arguably the most prestigious public university system in the country, and perhaps the world. Now, if you had attended a 4th tier school, your story might hold. But you didn’t. Indeed, your story once again (ironically) seems to demonstrate that prestige does indeed matter. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And for similar reasons, I’m afraid this doesn’t hold either. You attended a state flagship university, which in itself implies that you attended the best public university in your state. The vast majority of college students at public universities do not attend the flagship, but rather attend a branch campus or their state’s secondary state university system (or, often times, a branch campus of their state’s secondary system). </p>
<p>For those who still disagree, consider this thought experiment. Confining ourselves only to those students who want to attend graduate school, ask yourself how many of those students at UTSA would rather be going to UT-Austin (or, even more starkly, to Harvard) if they could? Now ask yourself how many of those students at UTAustin (or Harvard) would rather be going to UTSA? Be honest with yourself. I think we can agree that the migration pattern would be asymmetrical. But why would that be, if prestige truly does not matter? After all, if the same student would enjoy the same graduate school opportunities regardless of whether he attended UTAustin vs. UTSA, then there is no reason to prefer one or the other, right? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’m afraid that that is precisely the terms of the debate, and a large one at that. I would first proffer that the question is largely a nonsequitur, for, as stated eloquently by Ourobouros313, higher prestige universities tend to offer better resources and therefore allow students to become better prepared. Hence, a student with the same natural talent but who attends a lower-tier school is probably not going to emerge as strongly qualified had he attended a better school. </p>
<p>But placing that issue aside, even if two candidates were truly equally qualified, the question then revolves around the informational problem regarding how does the adcom truly know that they are equally qualified? Nobody can really measure exactly how qualified any particular candidate is - there are simply far too many unobserved variables regarding personal motivation and natural talent at play. As Momwaitingfornew has stated, the Stanford student is going to have an edge over the Duquesne student simply because the Stanford student has the established brand name that reduces informational uncertainties; the Stanford student, if nothing else, was at least talented enough to win admission to Stanford. </p>
<p>Again, this is why people tend to prefer to attend more prestigious universities. That prestige has value. We can debate exactly how much value does prestige hold. But to assert that prestige holds no value whatsoever is an extreme - and IMO an untenable - position to take. </p>
<p>To be clear, I also agree that deficiencies in prestige can be overcome. Students at 4th tier schools can indeed win admission to top-flight graduate programs through diligence. But let’s not kid ourselves here. That guy will have to work harder to prove himself than will the guys from Harvard, simply because the Harvard guys will enjoy an edge in prestige and resources. Whether that’s fair or unfair, that’s simply a fact of life that we cannot deny.</p>
<p>Perhaps the true point of this thread is merely to serve as a psychological support crutch to those students at less prestigious schools. If you need to constantly repeat to yourself that “prestige does not matter” as ixington recommended in post #4 as a motivational self-deception technique to maintain the confidence to perform our jobs, then fair enough, you are free to ignore all of my posts. I understand that sometimes we need to lie to ourselves. {For example, it is well understood that athletes must convince themselves that they’re the best player in the world in order to play well, even though rationally speaking, each athlete knows that he probably isn’t the best in the world.} </p>
<p>But we should understand that these are just psychological tools of self-deception and nothing more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How would you predict which students would/wouldn’t be able to perform at the required level prior to attending? Do you really think most undergrad/PhD programs admit students with the intention that they’ll fail?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, since we’re on CC and talking about exceptional students (as we often seem to assume everyone on here is), the difference between a Caltech or MIT and UCLA or Cornell may be seen as significant. I mean, aren’t there all those extra opportunities available to engineers from MIT that aren’t necessarily there for graduates of other close-but-not-quite-MIT schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet you have, in the past, seen the point in getting a faculty position at Harvard/MIT to know you have an almost nonexistant chance of getting tenure. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although I agree with most of the other things ixington has said, I don’t agree with this for two reasons:</p>
<p>1) Many professors at teaching colleges and universities also do research, especially at top teaching colleges. As a PhD student, if you ever look at a job search for a candidate at places like Haverford, Swarthmore, Amherst, Pomona, etc., these professors are expected to establish a program of research that includes undergraduate students. At the top schools, they also may get generous start-up funding to begin a lab and buy some equipment. Top teaching universities realize the power of a research program for a professor and support that.</p>
<p>Not to mention that many people assume that if you are at a top university you’ll get top research experience in these big labs. I am a PhD student at Ivy right now in a top psychology laboratory. First of all, we don’t even really take freshman and sophomores - most of our RAs are juniors and seniors. Second of all, they don’t do the higher level stuff. That’s handled by graduate students and post-docs. Our undergraduate RAs mostly handle literature searches, cleaning data, maybe doing some coding…all very low-level things. They don’t often present and they rarely get authorship on papers. Meanwhile at my teaching college, I started doing research as a sophomore and I helped design projects from the bottom up, did actual data analysis and meaningful work. I’m not saying that every research university is like this; what I’m saying is you can’t assume that you’ll be doing cutting edge research just because your university has it going on. Maybe your job will be to feed the rats and change the cage clippings. (And laugh, but I have some grad colleagues who work with rats and they DO have RAs who basically do just that.)</p>
<p>2) When there are other universities around a small college, students often can do research there. I went to a small teaching college in Atlanta. There were plenty of research opportunities at my college, but there were other research universities around - Emory, Georgia State, Georgia Tech, and others. Many of my classmates ended up working with strong researchers at those universities. Especially since most of us had cars - but public transit easily took you from my college to one of those other universities.</p>
<p>Does prestige matter? Yes, even in the most superficial sense. Believe it or not, adcom professors <em>are</em> a little bit impressed with an app from Harvard or NYU or Pomona or Swarthmore. BUT it is because those places have a reputation for turning out good scholars because of the availability of their research opportunities, strong advising, strong departments within their field in some cases, and the resources available. This doesn’t preclude getting in from a less elite place, as long as you get the things you need to get early on. You may just have to work harder for them or look a little harder to find out what you need.</p>
<p>Also, yes, an LOR from a top professor can be a significant help to getting you in. But do y’all really think a significant number of undergraduates are getting LORs from top-ranked scholars? Let’s be real, those top-ranked professors are not working personally with undergrads in most cases. I work in a lab with a well-known professor and he barely interacts with the undergrad RAs; most of what he says during lab meeting they don’t get (he talks about higher level stats all the time…the grad students barely get it) and our lab manager writes their letters of recommendation. He just signs them.</p>
<p>So in reference specifically to the OP, I don’t think you should transfer from Duquesne. I think one should go to the best place for them that they can afford. But Duquesne is in Pittsburgh, no? First of all, investigate any and all research opportunities at Duquesne. Talk to professors and see what they are doing and who needs RAs. Secondly, investigate other universities in Pittsburgh. University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon are both in that city and you can find research opportunities there.</p>
<p>Also, as far as PhD program dropping out goes…IMO (as a PhD student) most students don’t drop out because they were incapable of doing the work at the outset. The fact that they got in attests to the fact that they had potential. I think people just either realize academia isn’t for them, or don’t have the perseverance necessary to succeed, or have families, or get better jobs, or just get bored, or their experiments don’t work out or their advisors die or move onto other places…etc. Rarely, IMO, do PhD students drop out because they’re not intelligent enough, because frankly getting a PhD only requires above-average (and not astronomical) intelligence. Most of it is elbow grease, a humble spirit, the ability to live on ramen for 5-10 years, and a burning desire to do research no matter what. Or stubbornness.</p>
<p>Well said Julliet – I think your point is right on when you said that prestige matters to some extent. I didn’t go to an elite university either-I went to a state flagship school, but because the university was big enough, I was able to find ample research opportunities on campus, and the fact that NIH was also right around the corner, gave me an opportunity to work with them too, which helped. I think you have to work a bit harder to look for these kinds of opportunities than people coming from elite universities just because the resources may or may not be available to you. You have to take the initiative to make it work for you otherwise you can get deterred from your direction of interest. </p>
<p>One thing that really helped me was taking time off between graduate and undergraduate school, because it really gave me a very good perspective of where I want to take my career, and because I worked a bit in both academia and industry, I felt like having an advanced degree is a necessity in any direction you go if you want to someday end up in the management side of research or any field and that is why I came back to school. </p>
<p>Also, coming to graduate school, I have already explored so many other career options available for PhD graduates that I am already convinced that I don’t want to be in academia (and I am only a first year) but still want the degree to take my career in a different direction. </p>
<p>It doesn’t matter where you go to school, as long as you find opportunities for research and make good working relationships with your PIs and professors and make sure you get good letters of recommendation from them (this is very important–dont ever burn bridges even if you don’t like their working style or their personality, you have to be very diplomatic), and ofcourse get good grades–then you can certainly get into top notch programs.</p>
<p>I think the point is that an intelligent and motivated student can distinguish himself (or herself) wherever he goes. Yes, it is good to go to a good undergrad institution. But as I understand it, grad schools are trying to evaluate students’ potential, not their achievements. Achievements are a way to measure potential, but they have to be considered contextually.</p>
<p>sakky - No, thank you or posting. I do absolutely believe that prestige matters to some point…(this is why I have the desire to go to one) However I do believe that there is some truth in want boroso313 is saying…</p>
<p>Julliett - Yes, Duquesne is in Pittsburgh, and I definitely plann on doing research at at Pitt if I don’t wind up transferring there.</p>
<p>Does anyone know where I an find a list of where undergrads from certain schools tend to go to graduate school? I can’t seem to find one for Duquesne. A couple of colleges mailed me one.</p>
<p>Also, would it be a good idea to get a masters from Duquesne in Social and Public Policy? (With plans to get a Ph.D from a more prestigious school obviously) Or should I get it from a more renowned school for that field. </p>
<p>Lastly did anyone else have this problem as an undergrad and have any idea how to deal with the psychological effects? Going to this school is giving me great anxiety. I can’t focus on anything else but the future, I’m obssessed with the fact that I’m not going to get into a good grad school if I go here and its making me physically sick. Does anyone have tips on how to deal with that? I keep telling my self to not worry about that right now, but I can’t.</p>
<p>I really shouldn’t say all this on the internet…what if Duquesne sees this and thinks I’m not grateful for my scholarship, and revoke my acceptance because I’m a brat and slashing the school. I saw on one post that the Fordham admission director commented. What if the same happens here. I’m screwed. </p>
<p>I should clarify that I am very grateful for my acceptance and scholarship, and enjoyed the campus when I visited, and the professors in the department I am interested in seemed very passionate. I am just obsessed with rankings very anxious and concerned about the future…nothing against Duquesne. I will be going there in the fall after all.</p>
<p>First of all, it’s unlike that a Duquesne admissions officer is likely to open this thread because it’s in the Graduate School forum. Next, even if he did, he’d see that people are giving you advice to stick with Duquesne, at least for now, and that you’re working thorough the idea. They gave you that scholarship to entice you at attend, knowing that you’d probably have higher-ranked but more expensive options. And third, you do need to be careful on what you post on the internet since Google picks up threads and posts on CC in a short time and archives them for everyone to see at a later time.</p>
<p>will i be able to delete this thread?</p>
<p>i have another thread with the same subject line in college search and selection…the could pick that up. ahh.</p>
<p>Here is my story. </p>
<p>I transferred to a prestigious “other ivy” private school ranked in the top 10 usnwr b/c I had my doubts as well…and wanted to prove to myself something (Hey I really belong somewhere else)
I lasted all of one year there and got A’s…but I absolutely hated it there, hated the weather, hated being across the country from where I was from, and didn’t like the vibe at ALL, extremely conformist and uptight waspy, is how I would describe it… Then, I went back and finished at the state public I originally started at. The state school has better job connections where I wanted to be long term anyhow, and a much larger alumni network. Probably a given, considering the other was several 1000 miles away. Now if I had wanted to stay in the region where the school was at, or be in New York or DC or something, then yeah, I’m sure it would be an advantage.
It was an experience, but the difference was negligible and some classes were actually a bit easier than the other top 50 state school I went to, although the class sizes were more intimate. I felt like I was paying way too much (3x higher tuition) than the classes/learning were actually worth.</p>
<p>I’m glad that I did it though, I proved to myself I was capable of doing the work at that level, and ended up saving 30k dollars over my last year and confirming by going away, where I wanted to be (and also where I wouldn’t want to be)</p>
<p>So, I think…not that much… </p>
<p>Grad school it doesn’t matter either, it’s all about the Professors.</p>
<p>Stop freaking out. You’ll be fine. Go outside.</p>
<p>I think the real answer to this question is that there’s no real answer. How much does prestige matter in some pure, Platonic sense? Who knows, but I don’t think that’s what is being asked. People want to know how much it matters to <em>admissions committees.</em> Well, adcoms are not one monolithic thing. They’re made of individuals, all with differing ideas and values and sensibilities. It will vary by school, department, and even on one program from year to year. It could be anywhere from valuing an Ivy pedigree to actively giving preference to applicants from unknown schools; most will fall somewhere between. This is why it’s important to apply to a number of schools. Pretty well everyone has strong and weak points in their application, and it’s hard to know which schools will be most sympathetic to your particular profile.</p>
<p>And besides, how exactly does one measure prestige? I know there are some easy calls, eg Ivy vs Podunk State, but many aren’t so easy. (I laughed at another thread that suggested Emory and Vanderbilt aren’t elite schools.) And take my example: I got into a pretty well regarded program (top 20 in my field); I went to a Podunk State, but did summer REU at mid-major school with a prof VERY famous in his field. Did prestige get me in? Possibly.</p>
<p>Very interesting thread. I struggled with this same issue for the past three years of my undergraduate education. In fact, my situation is similar to the OP’s in several ways. I go to a fourth-tier school for free, though I had dreams of attending MIT. I believe prestige matters in several ways: students from prestigious schools (read “schools with a track record of producing high-quality students”) are more likely to be top-quality students since they got admitted to the top school for undergrad. Also since their schools’ have a history of producing top students, students at top-schools may have an advantage sincethe reputation of the top-school may put the adcomm at ease and make the selection of a student less risky. Finally, top schools prepare students better for graduate school by making available in an excellent manner the requirements for graduate school: research opportunities, excellent LORs that are more likely to impress adcomms because of the quality of the researcher writing the LOR, higher bar for excellent academic performance etc).</p>
<p>The other side is that a student from a less-prestigious school can do a lot to help himself or herself to get into the ivies. I am presently attending two nearby schools in addition to my home school to get the classes I need to be more competitive for the programs I hope to apply to. I have done research at Purdue University, got accepted for a research program at Caltech, and passed up a summer research offer at Stanford to accept one from MIT. I also presently doing research with a professor at my school and another at the second-ranked state school in my state. I will get good-great recommendations from almost all these professors I am working with and my GPA is above a 3.8</p>
<p>I do not know if I will get into MIT or Stanford this fall, but I sure know that I have given it my best shot. I have positioned myself to have the best possible opportunity for admission at these graduate programs as the resources around me and my ability have allowed. If I do not get in, I can comfort myself with the knowledge that I gave it my best.</p>
<p>If you stay at your school, learn from me and harness all the opportunities in and around your school. Apply for internships in the summer of your freshman year. You may not get into anywhere too serious, but you will have some experience and you can put that in your resume to apply for the summer of your sophomore year. Just like that, build your profile gradually until your senior year. Also talk to professor that do research about your interests. Even if they do not accept you in their labs in the first year, they can mentor you until you are ripe enough for research work. </p>
<p>On the downside, if you, like me, always wanted an intellectual and vibrant campus, you may not get that in a low-tier school. Thats seems a fair trade-off for a free undergraduate education. I hope you succeed.</p>
<p>didn’t matter for me at all. get a job resume first before going to grad school and it will help out tons.</p>
<p>
Not saying this is the case in your particular instance, but this illustrates why a “free” undergraduate education is often a “sucker pitch.” </p>
<p>Going $100K into debt for an undergrad education is foolish; going $20K in debt, particularly if it’s mostly subsidized loans, is often the smart thing to do in the long run.</p>
<p>One of the most overlooked components of undergrad is the peer effect: half your education takes place outside the classroom and being the big fish in a small pond is nowhere near as stimulating and good for your development as being a competitive fish in a big pond.</p>
<p>I’d have to agree with TheDad. My cousins went to a huge State school where the typical student was more concerned with partying than studying. They frittered away every summer playing video games rather than build their resumes, graduated with worthless generic economics degrees (which are no use without internship experience). They were enabled by their environment.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, at my school, everyone is incredibly career focused. No one wastes an opportunity–everyone does something productive and resume-building every summer, whether it be internship, research, volunteering, etc. That sort of thing rubs off on you.</p>
<p>Ouroboros’s and TD’s posts above illustrate why it is more difficult for a student at a “lesser” university to gain admission than a student from a more prestigious university. At the top schools, the intellectual environment is sustained even outside of class, with debates on issues erupting over dinner or in the dorm halls, with advisors and peers able to recommend internships and research opportunities, with a general sense of ambition and passion. Of course, this kind of environment is not exclusive to USNWR top ten or even top 20 schools. But the less selective colleges tend to have these factors at a much more diluted level, mostly because many students are there just to earn a degree, nothing more.</p>
<p>And yes, the student who attends a less rigorous school has to work harder at creating and maintaining opportunities. That said, a mediocre student from a prestigious university does not impress adcoms, and the one who did all the right things at a less prestigious university will show him up, every time. That’s why you see several CC students here saying that they went to a mid-tier university and got into top programs in their fields; they were the ones who distinguished themselves from their peers.</p>