how much does prestige matter? (in your opinion for undergrad)

Graduate School
41

<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>I don’t think this is useful at all, because where you go isn’t going to be based on where others go but based on 1) your grades and achievements in college and 2) what you are interested in doing. It’s useless to know that students from your school go to Harvard Law if you are interested in a PhD in basketweaving and the best schools in the basketweaving field aren’t even Ivies (and do note that sometimes in your field, the best schools are not going to be those top privates. In addition to some Ivies the best schools in my two fields include Wisconsin-Madison, Michigan, Washington, Minnesota, Berkeley and UCLA).</p>

<p>I mean…relax. You haven’t even begun your freshman year yet. I know that it’s easy to think you KNOW what you want to do at age 17 or 18, but when I went into my freshman year I wanted to go to law school and I ended up…not going to law school. I wouldn’t have dreamed I’d be doing a PhD in Columbia the day I stepped onto my undergrad campus, but here I am. Lots and lots of freshmen change their minds. Should you get an MPP from Duquesne? Who knows? Make that decision in April of your senior year when you get the admissions back. Focus on enjoying the rest of your senior year. Go out with your friends, have senior parties, take some books out from the library and just read some trash lit. Your admissions officers, should they even read this thread and figure out who you are, are not going to take your scholarship back because you are worried about graduate school.</p>

<p>I also agree with TheDad that the free ride isn’t <em>always</em> the best choice. Obviously if you are facing six-figure debt versus a free ride, there’s no question, but sometimes taking on the debt is worth it. Again, that’s not to say that you can’t get into a great grad school from a lower-tier school, but either way (even if you decide not to go to grad school) I’ve learned from studying here that top schools have LOTS of resources that kids in lower-tier schools don’t have access to. It really has to do with money, though. I would say that in retrospect, the most important thing in choosing a school isn’t the “vibe” or the location or the “feel” or how well you “fit.” You can make friends anywhere. I think it’s the resources available, the quality of the professors, and the academic opportunities offered. But then, those are not things that are important to you at 18 - they become more important to you at 25, when you reflect back on what you could’ve or should’ve done.</p>

<p>I also agree very much that the intellectual environment of your college has a huge (huge - much bigger than you’d expect) impact on you as a student, BUT the corollary is that you can’t always expect that certain schools will have an environment based on ranking. My LAC was ranked #68 in the U.S. News the year I went, which is good - I mean top 100 but not top 50 or 25, right? But the intellectual atmosphere was astounding. It was a women’s college and the women there weren’t just aiming to be teachers or lawyers or engineers. They wanted to start innovative charter schools, create world-changing policies, engineer better bridges, be college presidents…they wanted to change the world (indeed our school’s motto was “A Choice to Change the World”…lol). We had engaging conversations outside of class about politics and academics and everything; people were walking around campus speaking to each other in Spanish and French; everyone was doing research, it seemed, or some great internship and knew somebody that knew somebody. It was a warm environment - professors were friendly and knew you by name and wanted to help you - and yet very professional - we dressed “up” for class and took everything seriously. And, it wasn’t a tippy top school.</p>

<p>This is why visiting is important, I think. Yes, the top Ivies and Stanford and MIT are going to have intellectual environments, but I also think you shouldn’t assume that some of the schools ranked towards the ‘bottom’ don’t have them, too. Determine for yourself…but, don’t go anywhere where the environment is NOT encouraging and where it seems everyone is just trying to pay the bills (unless you also just want to pay the bills, you know?) and get any old whatever.</p>

42

<p>Yes, the whole intellectual thing is another worry of mine. I was telling my friend that I wanted to be in an environment where I would be intellectually stimulated in and outside of the classroom and she looked at me like I was a freak. This is really important to me though – I love politics, and debates, and many reviews of Duquesne say that students are stuck up, and very into drinking. I mean don’t get me wrong, I like to party here and there, but never ever would I let that interfere with my school work. I will be in the honors college, so hopefully the environment there will be a little more challenging, and my peers will be more into engaging in conversations other than nonsense. </p>

<p>I do get the vibe that Duquesne is a very career oriented campus, which can be a good and a bad thing I guess. I myself, for sure plan to get internships and volunteer experience over the summer. </p>

<p>It is nice to know that people who were in the same situation, made it to top programs in their field for grad school.</p>

43

<p>It’s the classic “chicken or the egg” question in many ways. The genius in high school goes to the best possible college, and he simply continues his genius, like he would anywhere else. Thus as a genius he continues to the good grad program or becomes a successful businessman.</p>

<p>Or the smart kid in high school gets into the prestigious school, where he is officially made for life. As long as he just gets that coveted degree with that big Ivy League name on it, he can be whatever he wants and go to any grad program he wants.</p>

<p>I tend to go with the first theory. But where does that leave late-bloomers like myself? I had a 2.7 in high school, I went for free to a third tier college and now have a 3.85. Now I want to go to a “good” school too, but will I be discriminated against due to my mistakes in high school and a lack of enthusiasm to spend an added 100k for my undergrad education?</p>

<p>I’ve yet to figure it out. From what I gather Law Schools only care about your test scores and GPA, no clue what grad programs care about though other than GPA/GRE, and what about foreign colleges that only have GPA requirements and nothing else? GPA is the only constant factor that I see.</p>

44

<p>Grad schools care about research experience, real-world experience in the field and your “fit” with the research interests of professors.</p>

45

<p>uhm, what does drinking have to do with an intellectual environment? Some of the greatest conversations I’ve ever had at Harvard have been when I’m drunk.</p>

46

<p>The number one thing about top schools is simply the people around you. You’re sitting next to Mark Zuckerberg who one day asks you if you want to invest in his fledgling project, you’re across from future presidents who ask you if you’d like to help them run for student counsel. Getting a job is soooo much about networking, and being around future billionaires sure helps.</p>

<p>My school had an 8% graduation rate and an average GPA under 3.0. I actually liked it for a long time because I would almost always be the smartest guy in the room, but I never felt like I was with my kind. It’s hard to say what is the best decision. I graduated 4 months ago and don’t have a job, some guy from harvard probably does. But I know people from top 100 schools that are just as unemployed and they also have a 50k debt to deal with.</p>

47

<p>If you graduate in the bottom quarter of your class, no matter where you go, you’re not going to have an easy time getting a well paying job. But the person who graduates first from Harvard is going to be far ahead of the guy who graduates first from a podunk school. Going to a high ranking place doesn’t automatically guarantee you anything, but it does open up opportunities you wouldn’t have elsewhere.</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s true, but it really also depends on the personality of the student. Someone who needs external motivation would probably just slack off at a less competitive school. On the other hand, I took the free education (large public, top 100, but not top 50), but I’m taking the hardest classes I can, going to talks even in departments I have no relation to, and juggling a couple research projects. The issue at many large public universities (especially those with strong research) is not that the resources aren’t there, but that students often don’t know how to use them.</p>

49

<p>Agreed with proletariat. You’re going to have to seek out opportunities yourself instead of having them dropped in your lap (nothing wrong with that). I reiterate that OP will be fine as long as they bloom where they’re planted.</p>

50

<p>I know Duquesne has research opportunities, but I don’t know much in depth about them. I’ll be sure to look into that more when I get there of course, and like I previously said, Pitt (and CMU) are right down the road, so I don’t think research should be a problem. I’m more worried about the name. </p>

<p>Though it seems like many people think as long as I have a high GPA and good experience (meaning research, internships and or even jobs) along with good LOR I should be okay.</p>

51

<p>@OP</p>

<p>yes, you will be ok for the most part with those.</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m curious as to how many of these “random lacs” are middlebury, williams, bowdoin, and reed.</p>

53

<p>^ Yeah, I want to punch you in the face every time you say “small UC” or “second tier UC” as if they were mediocre universities. And what are the “other state colleges”? Are we talking about the UIUC, the University of Michigan, UT Austin and Wisconsin-Madison - all of whom are state flagship universities with top-ranked chemistry programs, or are we talking about Utah State and Texas Tech? </p>

<p>Desafinado, one of those random LACs is Bryn Mawr. The student who went to the chemistry PhD program at Harvard last year (I assume that’s where ixington is) had taken graduate classes at the University of Pennsylvania before she went to Harvard, so she’s also affiliated to some not-so-random programs. At Bryn Mawr she finished a Master’s degree in chemistry as well as a double major in chemistry and math in 4 years. Note the Master’s degree from a LAC - unlike most liberal arts college, Bryn Mawr has graduate programs in the sciences.</p>

54

<p>We’re talking about none of the above actually. I do not understand why you’re so passionate about this.</p>

55

<p>I would like to say that my experiences with the graduate admissions process have been very different from ixington’s. </p>

<p>Most (>80%) of the admitted students to the math PhD programs at Princeton and MIT this year had their undergraduate degrees from top 10 universities in mathematics. A bit lower in the rankings, most of the admitted students at Columbia had their degree from a top 20 university in mathematics. Undergraduate prestige seems to matter quite a bit in mathematics. </p>

<p>Neither ixington nor me appear to have enough experience to make generalizations beyond our fields, and I urge everyone to keep that in mind while they are reading the conversations on this thread.</p>

56

<p>I would chime in here, that undergrad prestige seems to matter a lot unfortunately. I have been monitoring a couple of graduate boards and examining applicant profiles and those from Ivy schools tend to have larger successes on the PhD front than those from less prominent schools. You could see an Ivy student with a 3.3-3.6 get into top 10-20 while most students from lower ranked schools need to be top of their class or superstar of the department with 3.8+ at least. </p>

<p>Kind of irritating since a 3.3 is not that hard anywhere, one just has to adjust to the school environment. Its more common, from my observation, in fields that require some perceived brainpower like Physics or Math (so academic pedigree is important, and it is assumed that the best students are usually at the best colleges) and a bit so in the social sciences and the humanities (where grade inflation is rampant, and academic rigor is suspect) but probably not that big of a deal in Engineering/Biology/Chemistry.</p>

<p>My opinon: <3.5 Ivy can get into a top 10-20
<3.5 Podunk State “Macky d’s or a top 50 at best”</p>

<p>As, I said, just an observation because people do get passionate about these sort of things.</p>

<p>Would point out one things though. Berkeley and Michigan are probably one of the top producers for top PhDs with schools like Williams/Rice also featuring very prominently. Some schools just have a good track-record for placing students in top PhDs and the academics in these departments actively monitor bright students and try and convince them to go the PhD track instead of jumping into Finance or something more fiscally rewarding. Also good schools push research in your face making you aware of the research opportunities available to you, and trying to match you with a faculty mentor. Liberal Art Colleges are exceptional in this regard, rankings aside. These experiences are what make a good grad application not the name of your school.</p>

<p>Belevitt summed it up nicely in post #3, you are more than the name on a diploma and if you are amazing academically then you would be fine.</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>As I have stated before on previous threads, schools should build a dynamic statistical model that incorporates information on past students who flunked out to discover the highly predictive regressors. Then just simply admit fewer future applicants who possess those regressors. For example, if it can be shown that certain high geographic regions are known for producing a disproportionate percentage of flunkees amongst past students, then admit fewer students from those regions in the future. After all, every university - Caltech included- surely has an extensive dataset of the performance of past students. </p>

<p>Controversial? No more so than auto insurance companies underwriting different premiums - or choosing not to offer insurance at all - depending on the make of your car, where you live, the details of your driving record, and your biographic information. For example, a 16-year-old white male with a newly minted driver’s license and a sportscar is going to be charged a far higher premium - and probably won’t even be offered insurance at all - compared to a 40 year old Asian female driving a station wagon, for the simple reason that 16-year old white males with sportscars have been shown through analysis of past data to be statistically and actuarially more risky and therefore most costly to insure than are 40 year old Asian females with station wagons. Heck, that 16-year old male will be charged significantly more if he happens to live in a high-traffic city compared to the burbs. The same happens in the health insurance market: those with pre-existing conditions will be charged more, or won’t even be offered insurance at all. Whether you think that’s fair or not fair, that’s what happens right now in the insurance market. Why can’t the same be done regarding college admissions? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not that they admit them with the intention that they’ll fail rather that certain schools - notably tech schools such as Caltech - are rather indifferent to the notion of failure. The program is viewed as a ‘proving ground’ for students, and those students who are unable to match certain (arbitrary) standards are then expelled. Such an expulsion imposes substantial costs upon the student - particularly at the undergraduate level as nowadays most decent employers expect you to have a bachelor’s degree and won’t care to hear your excuses if you lack one - but as those costs are not borne by the school, they don’t really care. </p>

<p>My brother went to Caltech, and flourished, graduating with honors. But he also knows plenty of people who performed poorly and by his judgment would have been far better off if Caltech had never admitted them in the first place. From an employment standpoint, it’s far better to graduate from UCLA, even with mediocre grades, than to flunk out of Caltech. If you don’t have a degree, employers aren’t going to care why. All they will see is that you have no degree. Sad but true. </p>

<p>In fact, the analysis almost certainly holds with regards to Caltech flunkees probably being better off even at MIT. See below. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Whatever differences in prestige may exist between Caltech/MIT vs. UCLA/Cornell are surely minimal compared to UCLA/Cornell vs. a 4th-tier school. Which only serves to reinforce my central point: prestige does indeed matter. We may wish that it doesn’t, but wishing won’t make it so. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Harvard, sure. However, MIT apparently grants tenure to nearly half of its incoming faculty. </p>

<p>An MIT analysis of junior faculty who could have vied for tenure during the last decade found that 41 percent of 104 women were granted tenure, compared with 48 percent of the 372 men hired.</p>

<p>[Tenure</a> at MIT still largely a male domain - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/12/06/tenure_at_mit_still_largely_a_male_domain/]Tenure”>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/12/06/tenure_at_mit_still_largely_a_male_domain/)</p>

<p>But more to the point, it is well understood by junior faculty hired by top schools - or at least ought to be - that you may not actually obtain tenure at that school. Rather, the more realistic goal is to utilize the resources and networking access of that school to develop a strong publication record to obtain tenure somewhere else. For example, I know one Harvard associate professor who never even bothered to submit his tenure packet at all (because he was told in no uncertain terms that he would not be granted tenure) but rather is leaving for a tenured position at Boston University. I know another who left for a tenured position at Boston College. I can also think of many who left for lucrative positions in consulting, leveraging their elite-status credentials as former faculty members of Harvard. </p>

<p>The parallel analogy would be how any of us approach careers in the private sector. Most of us know - or ought to know - that the first employer we join right out of school (whether grad or undergrad) is probably not one we will remain working for until retirement. The days when you could realistically work for a single employer for your entire career are long gone. Rather, you should view that employer as a vehicle to develop skills and experience, to build your social network, and to enhance one’s credentials if the employer is prestigious. After a few years, you will reassess whether you want to remain or look for another opportunity. The choice to take a tenure-track position at an elite school such as Harvard or MIT should be viewed likewise.</p>

58

<p>

</p>

<p>I believe the problem is how we are defining ‘top professor’, which is distinct from the concept of the ‘name-brand professor’. A ‘top’ professor, within the context of this thread, is more accurately described as somebody who is actively engaged in research, and in particular, in publishing in or (especially) editing A-level journals. PhD adcoms preferentially admit people who are conversant in the publishing/research game. </p>

<p>And the truth of the matter is that many ‘name-brand’, well-established professors, frankly, aren’t really actively researching and publishing. At least, not in top journals. Granted, many of them are involved in administrative tasks, or are engaged in pedagogical tasks such as course development or textbook writing. But that’s not research. Those are not the types of activities that will bolster your credentials as a prime PhD applicant. In fact, undergraduates are probably better advised to obtain LOR’s from junior faculty who have no name-brand but who are actively publishing - indeed, usually impressively so because they are striving for tenure. </p>

<p>As a case in point, take MIT aerospace professor Sheila Widnall. She is easily one of the most impressive faculty members at MIT, having served as the first woman to lead an entire branch of the Department of Defense (having served as Secretary of the Air Force under Clinton), and being a former President of the AAAS. But the fact is, she is not an active researcher, having not published in any A-level engineering journal for years if not decades. Granted, she was obviously busy with other endeavors, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that she isn’t an active researcher. Her LOR would be highly impressive if you were applying for a job in the private sector, or for admission to, say, the MIT Sloan MBA program. But less so for admission to a PhD program, for which a LOR from a recently hired MIT assistant professor who is actually actively publishing would be more valuable. {Granted, if the choice was between a LOR from Widnall or somebody who has never published at all, I would choose the former.} </p>

<p>To be clear, this is not a knock on Widnall. She obviously used to be a fantastic researcher, with a litany of impressive publications at top journals, and her LOR for PhD admissions would clearly have been valuable during those days. But the fact remains that she’s not really publishing nowadays. She’s not ‘in the game’. You want your LOR’s written by those who are currently in the game.</p>

59

<p>

I don’t see at all why that should be true. What does it matter to undergraduates how actively their references are publishing? </p>

<p>Let me add the following: I am in a discipline where undergraduate students rarely publish and most aren’t even set on a specialty yet when applying to PhD programs. If it were the case that the letters were read by the applicants’ potential advisers, I can see why it would be advantageous to get letters from the potential advisers’ collaborators. However, given that students (in my discipline) don’t apply to work with specific advisers and given that applications are usually read by a general committee (not a specialty-specific one), wouldn’t it be more beneficial to get a letter from someone with more overall name recognition?</p>

60

<p>

</p>

<p>It matters to the undergraduates because the references need to be impressive to PhD adcoms. The implicit assumption of this thread is that we are talking specifically about PhD admissions, not MBA admissions, employment, or any other endeavor where LOR’s play a role (and where Widnall’s reference would surely be valuable). What PhD adcoms desire most of all from applicants is the potential to publish in top venues. See below. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, it would not, if that person is no longer actively publishing in top venues, which is not always correlated with name recognition. The key is that, as a PhD student - and presumably a future researcher yourself, and ideally a tenure-track professor at a top-ranked department (for otherwise, why is the PhD program admitting you?) - you are going to be expected to publish, and publish readily in top venues. That means that the most valuable recommendations would come from those who are actively publishing themselves and are therefore cognizant of the publishing standards as they exist today, not as they were years/decades ago. After all, whether we like it or not, publication standards change over time, sometimes drastically so, such that research methodologies that were readily published in the past won’t be now. Somebody such as Widnall, not having been an actively publishing researcher in the top journals for decades, cannot speak to the abilities of an applicant to succeed according to the publication standards of today. {Whether today’s publication standards are truly an improvement over past standards is a different question, yet we have to live with today’s standards whether we like them or not.} That is why the best PhD recommendations can often come from ‘no-name’ junior faculty, because they are the ones who are actively publishing, whereas many big-name tenured senior faculty are not. </p>

<p>To be sure, the best LOR’s can come from those senior faculty who are also actively publishing, and especially those who are currently editing top journals. A ringing endorsement from Penny Goldberg will probably get you into any Economics PhD program that you want. I would contend that her recommendation would be far more valuable than, say, one from Paul Krugman, who has a far bigger name and a Nobel Memorial Prize to boot for the simple fact that Krugman hasn’t published any articles in A-level journals since the 90’s. After all, Penny Goldberg clearly knows exactly what it takes to be published in the American Economic Review today, whereas Krugman does not. </p>

<p>It doesn’t matter whether the undergraduates in your field rarely publish, don’t apply to specific advisers, or may not even know which specialty they may choose. The relevant question remains the same: could they succeed according to the publication standards of today? That is a question that can only be authoritatively answered by those who are participating or, ideally, setting those standards themselves.</p>