<p>Actually, i really haven't seen any empirical 'proof' anywhere to the contrary of mine. My point was to directly refute the 'assumption', because a simple statement that a 4.0 at a higer level school is not an automatic guarantee of admission into a top-caliber school. The reason I make this assertion is because that there are more then simple numbers that exemplify the character and quality of a student, and the same way, there are equally numerous factors that must be taken into account toward the merit of the school. I firmly believe that the amount of tuition fees is not in direct relation to the quality of the school. It may make the facilities nicer, and it may attract more 'nobel laureate professors', but it still speaks nothing of the quality of education. </p>
<p>Returning to my point, yes, I will contend that sometimes it may be more difficult to obtain a 4.0 over a 3.9 at a less selective school, but this makes no difference when speaking of the intellectual vitality of the student. I may be an idealist, but I believe that admissions counsels take this into consideration, and STILL equate the applicants on par with one another. </p>
<p>Therefore, the question remains: Should someone transferring from a CC and State universities be afraid that his competition come from columbia, brown, penn, williams, etc, etc? The complete answer is no. I truly do think that those chosen to be on the admissions counsel are above the 'prestige' factor, as much as they are above the 'if they admitted him we should too'. again, I may be an idealist, but I hold this belief, and until i am -proven- to the contrary by actual evidence and not hearsay and rumor, I believe it to be right.</p>