<p>To get into graduate schools for astronomy or physics like ucsc, Stanford, or berkley, how imortant is your undergrad school in education? Would someone who attended a lesser known LAC like Whitman college be at a disadvantage to a person of equal intelligence at a stanford or uc berkley?</p>
<p>The undergrad institution doesn’t matter all that much. If you keep a strong GPA, have good test scores, and engage in undergraduate research you really shouldn’t have a problem, no matter where your undergrad is.</p>
<p>If you’re judging completely on how a college will view you, the difference is negligible between a competitive large, public school and a competitive liberal arts college. However, the amount of knowledge and connections you will make will have a drastically different effect depending on what college you attend. So to the old geezers on the admission committee, yes, it doesn’t matter. But in reality, the professors you study with and people you meet will have a huge effect on your graduate studies, more than just your graduate admission…</p>
<p>does the academic reputation of varying LACs matter to grad schools? i.e. a Whitman with a 98 (out of 100) on the Princeton Review academic scale, vs. a lower one like Ithaca at 80?</p>
<p>No. Go with whoever has more opportunities!</p>
<p>Son just went through the application process for physics phd. The competition for top grad schools is insane. Visit gradschoolcafe and physicsgre websites to get an indication of just how difficult this is. Most programs have 500-700 applicants and have 20-30 spots open for grad students.</p>
<p>huh. I would imagine you would go with the easier school to have a higher GPA if it truly doesn’t matter.</p>
<p>Let’s say Berkeley and Stanford admission department decide between two candidates with 3.5 GPA from #5 ranked in the nation undergraduate program and 3.9 GPA from #50 ranked in the nation undergraduate program. Who do you think they will pick?</p>
<p>Truely I think it boils down to who you did research for and what phd program most fits that research. I think the top schools all know one another and that they stick together trading their top students for these spots. Other really bright kids get in but it’s a crap shoot. it’s amazing the level of research a lot of undergrads have for these top programs. Your physics gre score needs to be very high 80% and better for these guys.</p>
<p>Who you know, what you did, physics gre, gpa in about that order.</p>
<p>You will notice though that people doing grad school work at top schools often went to very good colleges, this isn’t always the case, but it seems that way when you read the students’ bios.</p>
<p>It’s not about the prestige of the school, it’s about the opportunities and the quality of mentorship available to undergraduates.</p>
<p>Given two students of equal intelligence at Stanford and a small LAC, the Stanford student is at a huge advantage if he chooses to participate in cutting-edge research and form relationships with top professors in his field. That’s not related to the Stanford “name”, but to the types of resources available to a student at a place like Stanford.</p>
<p>Where you go to undergrad absolutely matters for graduate school admission, but not because professors doing graduate admissions are easily swayed by shiny diplomas.</p>
<p>Guys, we get this kind of thread at least once a month. Go back through the archives and you’ll see the same answer over and over despite different scenarios.</p>
<p>Amen tickle. Actually, I think this question gets asked once a week. Mods should make this question a sticky.</p>