<p>goldenboy, a department that is strong at the graduate level will generally be strong at the undergraduate level. There are exceptions of course, such as:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>At some universities, certain departments/disciplines (Architrcture, Business, International Relations, Nursing, Public Affairs to name a few) only offer degrees to graduate students</p></li>
<li><p>Some universities have tiny endowments and therefore cannot afford providing undergrads with adequate resources</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Where MIT is concerned, in subjects such as Linguistics, Philosophy, Political Science and Psychology, neither of the two points above is applicable </p>
<p>This said, I definitely agree that for students who are only interested in the humanities or the social sciences (save Econ), attending a LAC, Ivy or top university makes better sense than attending MIT. But some students really love the MIT culture and curriculum, and for those students, attending MIT for a field such as Linguistics or Political Science can make perfect sense.</p>
<p>Fickle, I was simply trying to prove something: “Chance Me” threads are an absurdity in themselves, and test scores are not important at all. They have nothing to do with measuring the applicant’s abilities. A long time ago, people told me I had no chance at UChicago - well, they weren’t exactly right, were they?</p>
<p>I don’t understand why or how people can judge other applicants based on the “stats” they post. I can understand the curiosity that comes with wanting to see how much of a chance someone has, but many of the posters in chance thread are jerks. I have experience with that, and I fought back.</p>
<p>And saying that I do not have “what it takes,” whichever quality that may be, is not totally credible. ACT gives out numbers, not credible evaluations.</p>
<p>And Alexandre, I’m not sure I agree with you 100%. My dual enrollment prof, who got his BA at UMichigan in anthropology, did not recommend for me to go there. Too big, bureaucracy issues, undergrads 2nd to grads, etc. Their post-grad program is supposed to be “one of the best,” however. Those issues are bound to occur at all, if not most, large research unis.</p>
<p>rbouwens, if you are so willing to listen to your professor, why do you still have an Ivy obsession? Do you think Columbia, Cornell, Penn or Harvard have less bureaucracy or focus more on undergrads than Michigan? Those Ivies have between 20,000-25,000 students and are very much research-driven.</p>
<p>Like you said, there is a downside to all large research universities. Any university that has a ratio of 1:2 grad:undergrad is going to have a research driven culture that will take some of the focus away from undergrads. Some Ivies have a 2:1 or even 3:1 grad: undergrad ratio. If this truly is an issue for you, I am surprised you still idolize the Ivies.</p>
<p>This said, Anthropology is not the most common major at most universities. At Michigan, there is ~100 per graduating class. This includes Classical Archaeology, Cultural Anthropology, Biological etc… If you divide it up into actual interest, there is seldom more than 50-60 undergraduate students per graduating class. In concert with a faculty of over 50 professors, classes in anthroplogy at Michigan tend to be small (almost always fewer than 20 students at the intermediate and advanced levels and never greater than 100 students at the intro level). That is the case at most top-rated Anthropology programs. </p>
<p>Where you have overcrowding at larger research universities such as Columbia, Cornell, Harvard or Michigan is in very popular majors, such as Economics, Political Science and Psychology. Those majors will typically have 200 or more students enrolled in intro-level classes and over 30 students in intermediate and advanced level classes.</p>
<p>Your professor definitely did not give you good advice.</p>
<p>rbouwens: I agree completely with you that chance threads are meaningless, and usually are just an opportunity for overachievers to show off their stats online and have their egos stroked. But the way you spammed 8-10 threads with your 22 ACT score seemed to imply, “Anyone can get in, considering I got deferred with a 22,” rather than what you intended.</p>
<p>However, I still don’t think you had a real chance at any top 10 or top 20 schools with a 22… sorry. That’s only slightly above the 60th percentile. That’s not even going to cut it at most #30-50 USNWR schools, I imagine.</p>
<p>Fickle, when I said “what it takes,” I meant what it takes to succeed, not to be admitted.
And I was waitlisted at four #30-50 USNWR schools, including one below that and accepted to 6. And USNWR rankings change every year, so I would have had more in that category if it had been last year…that seems fishy to me. Some schools drop 10 places in one year!</p>
<p>And where are you getting 60th percentile? With my combined GPA and ACT score, I’m still only at 9th percentile for UChicago and UMich.</p>
<p>And Alexandre, you’re absolutely right. My teacher told me not to go after the “big schools” for undergrad, and look at me now. I’m not really “going after” them, though, because this is not a thread with with me saying that I want to go to one for undergrad. That would be impossible unless I was planning to transfer, which I’m not.</p>
<p>However, of those 50 anthro profs at UMich, how many teach undergrads? How many students do lectures have?</p>
<p>And I don’t think he was referring to class size specifically. I think he was referring more to the size of the department - it’s easy to get lost. If there are 50 profs in 1 department, how many would you have in four years? At small schools, specifically mine, where there are only 5 profs (one passed away last month), you’re going to know them all for a long time.</p>
<p>At the local uni where I took my anthro class, it was a 200-level and there were 40 kids in the class - and this school was half the size of UMich.</p>
<p>When I say I love the Ivies, it’s not because of the name sake. I know and read about every single Ivy schools, and everything appealed to me except for UPenn.</p>
<p>You guys keep saying you can get Ivy-education in other schools. But undergrad isn’t all about “education”. It is also about the “experience”, and that’s why there’s the ongoing “undergrad focus” debate in the first place. Can you get the Ivy experience from anywhere else? NO. You know why?</p>
<p>Because no two schools can be the same. MIT is in the same area as Harvard and has a matching reputation. But Is MIT HARVARD? No. Is UCHICAGO COLUMBIA? Nope.</p>
<p>Ivy schools aren’t all about prestige. They have their own tradition, their own culture, and those CANNOT be imitated by other schools. And such singular characteristics are what attracts me to the Ivy schools. No matter how much you guys try to convince people that Stanford is the Harvard of west, or that Duke is better than Brown, these schools CANNOT be the same, at all. </p>
<p>When people see ivy-obsessed students, they immediately assume they are just prestige-driven and insecure. But please remember that for some, Ivy schools ARE the match, and no matter how much you tell them that there are other Ivy-level schools, they won’t care because it’s not only about the level of academics. It’s about culture and tradition as well.</p>
<p>What “ivy experience” is there that isn’t equally found at other top schools, except in your imagination? If you took the top 20 schools and sorted them by similarity of experience, the Ivies wouldn’t all cluster together. How is the “ivy experience” at Columbia, in the city, remotely like the “ivy experience” of Dartmouth in Smallsville, NH? What on earth do you think is the commonality of these schools beyond top notch students and a historic athletic conference? You’re idealizing.</p>
<p>Y’all, most school have traditions. Some schools are more intense about it at others, but trust me, Ivies aren’t the only schools with intense spirit, strong senses of tradition, and incredible alum networks. I go to Smith, and believe me, we have incredible traditions and a ton of pride. I know of many graduates who have been offered jobs through alumnae connections. This isn’t unique to Ivies or Smith–many women’s colleges/private LACs have this sort of thing. My best friend goes to Reed and they have crazy intense traditions. Bryn Mawr has a ton of traditions, and a wonderful alum network, and it looks like Hogwarts! The Ivies are obviously fantastic schools, but there are a ton of other fantastic schools out there. (Fun fact–when I toured at Wellesley, the admissions office told us the administration discourages students from taking classes at Harvard because they feel students aren’t challenged enough. Obviously this isn’t because Harvard has slack academic standards, and is quite possibly admissions propaganda–I don’t go to Wellesley and I don’t know anyone who can confirm or deny it for me–but you really shouldn’t dismiss anything that isn’t an Ivy as lacking in academic rigor/culture/traditions.)</p>
<p>Well, I did sound like I was idolizing the entire Ivy League. Forgive me for that. My post was mainly talking about the Ivy schools individually (reason why I excluded UPenn at the start). I just used the term Ivies since literally, I find almost all the schools there appealing, as some other guy would find UCs. In the collective sense, I know it’s just an athletic conference. And when I say I like the Ivies, it doesn’t mean I like them AS A GROUP. I just like the schools that belong to the Ivy League, as simple as that.</p>
<p>It’s odd that if you decided to like top schools and claimed you were taking the label off, only like those and not others. Face it - you think there is some magic sparkle to being an Ivy.</p>