Why isn’t Georgia Tech on your list? For industrial and systems engineering alone (theirs is by far the largest and best in the country), of all past graduates, 1 in 10 have reached the highest position in their entity (CEO, Governor, Chancellor, General, etc.). And that’s not even their top major. Even their business majors have huge success. GT grads go on to elite grad schools, and top employers love hiring them. If you’re talking about outcomes, GT should be on your list.
@Chardo, the numbers are what they are. IE isn’t GTech’s only major. UIUC CS and CMU SCS probably would be high on this list as well if they were standalone schools.
On a per capita basis, counting all majors, GTech simply isn’t near the top at alums getting in to elite professional schools, PhD programs, winning prestigious student awards, or being leaders in business+government+arts.
@PurpleTitan No interest in creating my own. I am comfortable with the subjective being subjective.
You may be right about that.
One could compare scolleges based on distributions of “pre-professional” majors identified in the Common Data Set, section J1. The following majors seem to comprise a reasonable set:
Agriculture 1
NaturalResources 3
Architecture 4
Communications 9
Education 13
Engineering 14
EngineeringTech 15
Parks/Recreation 31
PublicAdministration 44
Health 51
Business/marketing 52
(the numbers are the CIP 2010 category codes for those majors, as shown in the CDS section J)
For 7 Ivies and 6 “public Ivies”, the first column below shows the percentages of graduating seniors in those 11 majors (which I’ve counted from the 2015-16 CDS numbers, except for Harvard for which I used the available 2014-15 CDS). The last column shows the Washington Monthly 2015 National Universities “Bachelor’s to PhD Rank”
52% Cornell (9)
44% UPenn (26)
44% Texas (57)
42% Wisconsin (33)
39% Princeton (3)
34% Michigan (28)
33% Virginia (29)
33% UNC-CH (40)
32% Berkeley (17)
16% Brown (6)
9% Yale (7)
8% Dartmouth (10)
6% Harvard (19)
So I think PurpleTitan is right to point out that pre-professional majors are popular at some Ivies/equivalents.
Pre-professional majors are much more popular at the 6 public Ivies listed above than they are at at least 4 of the actual Ivies; this kind of “intellectual diversity” may partially account for lower per capita PhD production at some public Ivies. However, PhD production is relatively high at Penn, and very high at Cornell and Princeton, even though pre-professional majors seem to be as popular at these 3 Ivies as they are at Public Ivies.
Columbia doesn’t seem to publish a CDS so it’s not listed above.
Regarding students choosing pre-professional majors, note that some liberal arts majors, like math and economics, can be chosen for pre-professional reasons (e.g. aiming for quantitative finance and the like). Also, some of the super-selective schools are favored in recruiting by consulting and Wall Street, but with less emphasis on the student’s major, so the incentive to choose explicitly pre-professional majors may be less there. Also, most of the super-selective schools have scions of wealth (receiving no financial aid) for about half of their students, with relatively few from middle and lower income families (the latter aspect is shared by some public flagships like Michigan and Virginia), so the students may have less of an immediate need to have a job at graduation.
@tk21769, Cornell has impressively high PhD production, but if you’re going to say that Penn has relatively high PhD production, then you have to say that Cal has relatively high (or higher) PhD production as well as UMich and UVa.
On even a per capita basis, Cal has higher PhD production than Penn (despite lower entering stats on average) while UMich and UVa trail Penn only slightly in per capita numbers.
Penn isn’t in the top 50 in per capita science and engineering PhD production (or per capita PhD production across all subjects, actually): http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/
That’s right, Penn is the only one of the 8 Ivies that is not in that NSF top 50 for STEM PhD production.
Penn also is the lowest-ranked Ivy for overall PhD production.
I don’t disagree that Cal, Michigan, and UVa, have relatively high PhD production,
although even Berkeley’s STEM rate is not as high as 7 of the Ivies or 34 other (non-Ivy) private schools. And yes, any number of factors might contribute to the difference.
@tk21769, true, but I don’t see anyone trying to make the claim that the best publics are the same as the top of the Ivy League; more than they are similar to the bottom or only a little below as near-Ivies.
@PurpleTitan Seems like many of the relative “noobs” (among privates schools currently considered elite undergraduate institutions), even privates are pre-dominantly pre-professional factories (and it is hard to quantify this by major choice as many of the selective private schools do not necessarily have droves of students in explicitly pre-professional majors, but do have tons of folks who are chasing the Big 3, medicine, law, and some form of business, with finance being the most popular). Even Penn, an Ivy didn’t have as big of a reputation as it did today, but looks more like the pre-professional factories that are kind of newer to what many consider elite highered. I suspect it doesn’t crack top 50 STEM PhD producers perhaps because there are more pre-nursing and pre-medical students than normal. Also, it appears many of the top STEM PhD producing institutions have STEM curricula that are ultimately less “pre-med friendly”…and you can figure out what this is code for. It would be interesting if these lists could scale for when certain schools entered the Association of American Universities. My alma mater, for example, was not particularly relevant in elite highered at all until about the 90s (late?) when it officially joined the AAU in 1995 (CMU even joined first). Some places do well (with their undergrads. that is) considering how late they are in the game. Rice is also quite late in terms of joining it but has managed to build upon their success really well and even become very highly ranked at the world stage in some fields.
@bernie12 Just what is “pre-med friendly” code for, pray tell?
@Dustyfeathers : There are many things…and it comes from the fact that some schools just pitch certain courses or even sets of courses at completely different levels than other elites. Some schools have a different curriculum altogether for many pre-health cores (this has become a more recent development as more “integrated” science courses have been promoted by those in highered). It seems it can indicate a number of things such as the course load being easier. For example, at some schools, the requirements to major in a STEM subject or to simply attend the school are more stringent (maybe there is a senior project requirement, a challenging STEM core, high credit hour requirement). Sometimes the content in the pre-med core classes at some schools is significantly more challenging on average than it is at other elite institutions and then the exams reflect it (yes, many of these places have grade inflation, but at the same time, many of the schools I refer to alread have quite fierce competition because a higher percentage of students have experience beyond just AP/IB credit). Like some schools have moved some chemistry and biology courses into a more “integrated” direction which would make the course more challenging for a freshman or sophomore. Princeton and Yale’s intro. biology course sequence at least touches on biophysics/physical biology aspects which has not been done at most schools. Harvard’s life sciences 1a is some combination of experimental biology, general chemistry, and an intro. to some biologically relevant organic concepts. Some intro. biology sequences that are even “traditional” when compared to those places have a slant toward more modern genetics content and experimental biology that has not quite popped up everywhere (MIT, Chicago, Columbia, WashU, Penn, and some other others come to mind).
Many freshman/sophomore STEM/pre-health students may feel (perhaps rightfully so) that they have a better chance of success in a course where most sections are very heavy in content volume and focus more on regurgitation, understanding, or low level applications to be successful on examinations. A case or problem based biology course may spell for quite the adjustment. Some schools have physics sequences that set the bar a bit higher than other schools (like they’ll only have a calc. based for pre-healths and that calc. based course stresses a higher than normal level of theory and mathematical prowess). The “general” chemistry sequence at some schools encompass some version of real quantum chemistry and also concepts that may only be seen in an advanced or intermediate inorganic course. At least a portion of the organic sequence at some places (Harvard for example) looks more like an advanced bio-organic course at other top schools.
Some schools with unusually challenging organic sequences who have not revamped it into a biology emphasizing course have instructors (or just maybe it is department controlled, I know Harvard closely monitors outcomes and level of its intro and intermediate STEM courses) stress a much higher level of theory than needed to simply know some ochem for the MCAT. They tend to delve deeply into Molecular Orbital theory (and not just basic HOMO-LUMO, name that orbital, but stereoelectronic effects, etc) and other concepts and tools that are more reminiscent of an advanced or graduate level course. The problem types given to students on assignments and exams are on a different planet compared to other even elite schools which are traditional in their curriculum and mainly ask for the standard, tell me the product of the reaction, do some T/F questions, draw this mechanism which you definitely have seen before, perform a synthesis…the tests at the schools I mention, are more application, synthesis, and even creativity based. They are much more focused on getting students to explain away phenomenon or experimental data on reactions or outcomes they haven’t been taught. You are required to derive and then draw a model to explain something away. Some of the harder courses that lean more toward the traditional paradigm make the students deal with very complex molecules, thus forcing them to really understand the principles behind a reaction and not just memorize the outcome of different reactions.
At some schools, these differences may only exist in maybe 1-2 of the pre-health cores, some none, but there are a handful where it is existent among all of the pre-health core courses, no matter who is teaching (again some schools do seem to regulate these courses much more than others). The STEM curriculum, in terms of ease, level of theory, and content stressed at many of these places is likely more appealing to those going into those fields (as in grad. school or industry) for their future. It can certainly be great from an educational standpoint to have pre-meds having to know how to problem solve in various fields at the levels I describe, but it isn’t a requirement and medical schools are very GPA sensitive. Most STEM majors will have the one subject that doesn’t appeal to them and at many schools you can just take an easier instructor or course in the subject and still fulfill the pre-health requirement, but at some places, you just have to deal with a course that may be on steroids and is a nightmare for a person just taking it to fulfill a requirement.
*Don’t get me wrong, most elites are harder than most “normal” schools for these courses even when the course is pitched at a more traditional level even if just because of the competition. At many “normal” schools, the students would on average, struggle through the exams and a curve would need to be applied. At an elite pitching a majority of pre-health courses at a more traditional level, content volume will generally be heavier and the averages still much higher. If you are at a school where most instructors write exams that are at a normal level, expect a near 80 or 80+ average and no curve meaning that you’ll pretty much have to always score near or in the 90s to make an A grade. If you add more content volume or have a “couple” of higher complexity questions on exams, maybe expect 75ish and no or a very slight curve (the same test at non-competitive institutions may yield mean below 60 unfortunately). I am just claiming that some elites have many more instructors asking the already smart students to jump really high very soon. It isn’t just the competition, the instructors are pitching the course differently and primarily in a way stressing skills not as emphasized in HS STEM courses.
It could also be the grading curve. Some elite schools still have a decent percentage of STEM instructors with C+/B- distributions, so students would consider these places relatively grade deflated. However, they are really just less inflated though and honestly, a lot of these schools often are NOT pitching their course at the same level as some of the schools I mentioned, many of which have slightly more generous curves in those weeder STEM courses. Often when I see conversations on here that say: “Well my elite school is so grade deflated compared to that one” in reference to STEM, based on the course content I see from the other school, the comparison simply isn’t fair in the first place. Such comparisons assume that the departments being compared (interschool) have instructors that teach their courses at the same level. Some times it just ain’t true. One school can have a single brutal section, or have most students concentrated in sections run by instructors who pitch the course at a very high level, and another can have no such sections or just one taken by a minority of students.
@bernie12 Lots of description, thank you.
So what you’re saying is that pre-med-friendly is easier? In order to give premeds more As??
In a nutshell, what’s the code?
@Dustyfeathers : I just call it “code” because students at various elite schools don’t really like to admit that their STEM courses may on average be just flat out easier than those at another school (especially if it is of similar caliber or prestige). Some student bodies are notorious for complaining about the intensity of academics…you don’t call certain schools’ STEM curriculum “easier” than a counterpart, just more “pre-med friendly”. I’m alluding to the fact that students may attempt to define “pre-med friendly” as something else because they aren’t willing to concede that academics in certain majors are easier than at peer institutions either a) known to be abnormally strong in STEM in general or b) have a couple of unusually rigorous depts that pre-healths must pass through.
I’m just trying to be CC PC. Calling an elite school’s dept easier than the same at a peer institution, especially STEM, steps on lots of toes. Notice how you often have people jumping up and down claiming that “X STEM class is actually much easier at Harvard, so people are told to take it there during summer”…with people making and sometimes believing such exclamations, it is no surprise no one likes their curriculum being described as easier than anywhere else’s. Much like an egotistical person may have lots of trouble saying sorry.
STEM majors, especially pre-healths at elites seem to generally want to subscribe to the “its greener on the other side” philosophy whether it be some state school or another place that they want to believe so hard that it is grade inflated or easier. The idea that going elsewhere would have gotten them a higher GPA is entertained perhaps too often.