<p>Obviously if you compare a top 10 with a lower ranked school, the top 10 school's student will be favorable even if they have lower credentials than the latter. But what if you're comparing a school in the top 20 vs like top 50? How much do grad schools take those kind of rankings into consideration?</p>
<p>If by “ranking” you mean USNWR, they don’t take those ******** numbers into account at all. Nobody inside academia gives one iota of credence to their horribly-flawed methodologies and completely useless “ranking” structure. Graduate school admissions are determined entirely by professors within the field you’re applying to.</p>
<p>Does that mean there isn’t a hierarchy? Of course not. But it’s based on department-by-department academic reputations, not by any dead newsmagazine’s nonsense. Many “low-ranked” schools have strong departments in fields that “high-ranked” schools completely ignore.</p>
<p>And no, your example is not “obvious” at all. In fact, it’s wrong. Graduate admissions are highly individualized, and a student from a “no-name school” with strong credentials could easily be admitted over a student from a “top 10 school” with mediocre credentials. Someone who stands out from the pack at Random State U. has shown much more potential for graduate education than someone who was admitted to an Ivy and then did bupkis of note once there.</p>
<p>tl;dr: Everything you learned about USNWR on College Confidential was wrong.</p>
<p>Obviously if you compare a top 10 with a lower ranked school, the top 10 school’s student will be favorable even if they have lower credentials than the latter.</p>
<p>That’s neither obvious nor necessarily true. It depends on the program, the professors and their experiences with past students, and the students’ portfolios individually. In general, though, a student from Harvard with a mediocre file will NOT get admitted over a student from Kansas State with an excellent file. That’s not how it’s done.</p>
<p>Also, people need to get over these number rankings. No one besides college-obsessed high school seniors, and their parents, read USNWR rankings. So most people don’t know whether a particular school is in the top 10, top 20, top 50, or whatever.</p>
<p>People - including professors - tend to give far more qualitative rankings to colleges than that. Yale, Stanford, Princeton may be ranked as “excellent” in their eyes, but in my field, so would Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota, and Michigan. We have a loooot of graduate students who did their undergrad at Michigan. There may be a group that’s “great” and a group that’s “very good” and a group that’s “good” and a bunch of groups that are “not so great,” “not great at all,” “pretty bad”…you catch my drift.</p>
<p>But it won’t be based on numerical valuations of where U.S. news puts them. In my field, Wisconsin and Michigan are valued a lot higher than Dartmouth and Brown, because those schools are known for having strong departments in my field. Even some smaller schools like my LAC and Cal State Northridge are known for having great research training programs for underrepresented groups so sometimes they get an interested pass to see if a student participated in that program Or if Student from Montana State worked with Professor Y, and Professor X at the grad program she’s applying to knows Professor Y and thinks highly of him/her, that can be a plus in her favor even though she went to Montana State.</p>
<p>It is not a quantitative process at all. It is totally subjective.</p>
<p>When I said lower credentials, I didn’t mean significantly lower. If 2 applicants have very similar credentials, but one came from caltech with a 3.5 and the other from a state university with a 3.6, they would be valued the same? I think not.</p>
<p>GPA is just one of several considerations in a file. You’re really putting too much thought into this.</p>
<p>DoubleD, I don’t think you understand just how different graduate admissions are from undergraduate.</p>
<p>Graduate admissions committees operate on the department level, in most cases. The people judging applications are not “admissions counselors” or what have you - they are professors in that department. The number of applications is thus much fewer and so the scrutiny is much more individualized. Beyond a first cull based on GPA or GRE minimums (and often even those are flexible), professors examine the merits of each candidate - not just the brand name on the diploma.</p>
<p>For example, if the state university applicant had research experience directly within the field of interest of a professor, while the Caltech applicant had research experience, but in a different direction… that professor would likely argue to admit the state school graduate, not Mr. Caltech.</p>
<p>Or the state school student may have been in a very strong department in the field, while the “prestigious” school’s department may be considered weak or differently-focused. There are any number of fields for which the Ivies/expensive privates have little or no offerings at all.</p>
<p>I don’t think having specific research in the area is as important as you said. A lot of engineers switch to other engineering majors during grad school.</p>
<p>Again, it entirely depends on the field and program - or even the specific needs and desires of the faculty on the admissions committee. Some professors might consider it important, others wouldn’t.</p>