Ivy's overrated?

College Search & Selection
41

<p>
[quote]
The thing is, people assume the ivies are better than other schools because top students attend them, but top students often apply because of exactly that assumption. A great number of schools offer equivalent or superior undergraduate teaching to the ivies. Don't get me wrong, the ivies are fantastic, but there are at least thirty schools where the teaching is as good or better.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, but you are presuming that students are all interested in the teaching. Granted, some are. But let's face it. Plenty are not. Plenty of students are interested in just the networking and the recruiting opportunities, and really don't care that much about the teaching.</p>

<p>That may sound bad, but I don't think it is. Let's face it. Most undergrads end up in careers that have nothing to do with their undergraduate major. For example, most history majors do not become historians. Most poli-sci majors do not become political scientists. Hence, if you're not going to end up doing for a living whatever it is that you majored in as an undergrad anyway, frankly, who cares how good the teaching is?</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I personally support this position. I am just saying that, given the way that society is presently constructed, caring more about networking and recruiting opportunities than about teaching may be a rational thing to do. Whether we like it or not, the truth of the matter is that most students go to college because they want to advance their careers. If a college education didn't help their careers, most people wouldn't go to college. Hence, if your purpose of getting educated is to advance your career, then it is entirely rational to focus more on the networking and recruiting than on the curricula of a subject that you may never use in your career.</p>

42

<p>Fair enough, but if you don't care about teaching I don't think you deserve a spot in a top university. It's true that few schools have alumni networks like the ivies do, though there are exceptions. (USC and Michigan come to mind immediately).</p>

43

<p>personally, i do not think the ivies are overrated</p>

<p>they are amazing schools</p>

<p>i wouldnt say anyone considers stanford or mit ot be less good</p>

44

<p>Actually, there are many universities with amazing (good enough to rival those of the Ivy League in terms of loyalty and influence) alumni networks:</p>

<p>Amherst College
Bowdoin College
California Institute of Technology
Carleton College
Claremont McKenna College
Davidson College
Duke University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Lehigh University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Northwestern University
Pomona College
Rice University
Stanford University
Swarthmore College
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Chicago
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
University of Southern California
University of Texas-Austin
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Vanderbilt University
Washington University-St Louis
Wesleyan University
Williams College</p>

<p>Most of those schools offer academic quality comprable to those of the Ivy League. Like I said earlier, the Ivy League aren't overrated in that they are awesome academically, reputationally etc... however, they are not unique. There are more than a dozen comparable colleges and universities.</p>

45

<p>I would say that the Ivies are overhyped sometimes...but not overrated. They are rated among the top 15 universities in the nation and I think there are some very good arguments that can be made for that ranking.</p>

<p>Alexandre I don't know if I can agree with your post there...to say that a college like UT-Austin would provide as much loyalty, influence, and academic quality as an Ivy League school like Harvard? I think that's stretching it a bit. I think the short list of schools that can offer the same quality of education may include schools such as Stanford, MIT, CalTech, LACs, etc. but the Ivy League schools can net you the reputation and opportunities that are hard to match at other universities.</p>

46

<p>Vicissitudes, my list above was not referring to opportunities and education, it was referring to alumni loyalty and influence. And I agree that there are levels within that list and UT-Austin would be in the lower end of that list. </p>

<p>In terms of schools that offer a complete package that matches those of the Ivies, I'd say there are roughly 7-10 private universities, 10 or so LACs and 3 or 4 public universities. When all is said and done, I think the Ivies are 8 of the top 25-30 colleges and universities in the nation. Like I said, they are great but they are far from being unique.</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
Fair enough, but if you don't care about teaching I don't think you deserve a spot in a top university

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You just opened quite the Pandora's Box there. I would consider Berkeley to be a top university, but I (and others) can tell you stories about some of the mediocre (or worse) teaching that goes on there. My brother can tell you about the inferior teaching that sometimes occurs at Caltech. Similar stories exist at other top universities. If you ever saw the movie "A Beautiful Mind", you will recall that John Nash (Russell Crowe) was a deliberately hostile and arrogant teacher who cared not a whit about his teaching quality and often times wouldn't even show up to his own classes when he was a faculty member at MIT (before his mental illness truly took hold). Similarly, contemporary reports of the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski) indicate that he was a quite poor teacher while he was a math assistant prof at Berkeley. </p>

<p>Hence, I think it's an incomplete statement to say that many students don't care about teaching. The truth of the matter is that a lot of top universities ALSO don't care about teaching. The truth of the matter is that at a lot of the most famous universities in the world, you can get hired and enoy a highly successful academic career, advancing up the professorial ladder despite being a bad teacher. Contemporary reports of Nash and Kaczynski indicate that their research was considered to be so highly regarded that if they hadn't succumbed to mental illness, they probably would have eventually been promoted to full professor despite horrid teaching ratings. And of course there are plenty of other guys at the top research universities who don't suffer from mental illness but who are also poor teachers who nonetheless get hired and promoted anyway. I've certainly had the displeasure of having to endure courses taught by some of them. Websites like ratemyprofessor.com indicate that many of the faculty at the top research universities are quite mediocre teachers. </p>

<p>So when it's quite clear the some of the faculty just don't care a whit about teaching, and that the universities cater to these faculty by hiring and promoting them anyway, that inevitably causes the students to also not care about teaching. Can you really blame them? A lot of students at many famous universities know full well that they're not being well taught, and, by extension, a lot of prospective students who matriculate at these schools go in knowing not to expect uniformly good teaching. So why do prospective students go there? Why do the current students stay? What I said above - the brand name, the networking, and recruiting.</p>

48

<p>The beauty and the attraction of the Ivies is the concentration of high quality students, the history/prestige of the brands, and the post-graduate opportunities. At the undergraduate level, I suspect that many (most?) Ivy Leaguers would agree that the quality of the teaching at the Ivy Schools IS overrated (my belief is that the PA scores are much more linked to grad school faculty and research success than it is to satisfaction with classroom instruction), but this comparative deficiency is trumped by the social and professional networks that the Ivies provide as well as the relatively greater post-graduate opportunities. It is the students and the alumni that are spawned and spread throughout influential industries, that are the greatest strength of the Ivy League and who mostly perpetuate its powerful reputation. </p>

<p>As pools of highly qualified students, IMO the Ivy League is not overrated. Having accepted that, however, this does not mean that there is a monopoly of talent to these schools. I strongly believe that the Ivy institutions are NOT unique in attracting and bringing together high quality pools of students. This is the great under acknowledged fact today in American education. </p>

<p>There are many, many talented students in all parts of the country today. Just ask anyone who has worked for more than a few years in a professional environment in some region other than the Northeast and I suspect that there will be virtual unanimity that very smart and very talented students are plentiful outside of the Ivy League. The unfortunate part is that these students (and their schools) don’t get the respect that they deserve although their abilities are more than recognized in the workplace (where it really matters). Employers in cities like Atlanta, Washington, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Kansas City, etc, may be record high name recognition of the Ivy Schools, but they also have the wisdom that schools in their regions (Emory, Georgetown, Rice, BYU, U Washington, Wash U, etc.) have students every bit as talented and usually with far greater humility and at one-third the sense of entitlement.</p>

49

<p>The Ivies are overrated. During my 30-year career as a college advisor (I am now retired) I worked with thousands of students and parents in the college-selection and admission processes. My students went on to attend virtually every type of college in America, including HYPSM What I found is this:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The ultimate accomplishments of my students had little or nothing to do with WHERE they went to college; it had everything to do with WHAT QUALITIES THEY BROUGHT WITH THEM TO COLLEGE. Those who were "Ivy types" (very intelligent, highly motivated, etc.) but turned down Ivies to go to less prestigious colleges, ultimately ended up accomplishing the same types of things they would have had they attended Ivies (gone on to Ivy Law Schools, got Ph.D.'s from the best schools in the nation, gone on to get the top jobs on Wall Street, etc.).</p></li>
<li><p>On the other hand, I had some students for whom the Ivies were a reach, but they were ultimately admitted. For some, this worked out ok. For others, they would go to an Ivy as a pre-med student, get frustrated because of the competition, get lower grades, and drop out of pre-med by the end of their freshman year. In many of those cases, had they gone to a less prestigious college, they could have been a standout, had more confidence and gotten better grades, and had the confidence to stick with pre-med. So, Ivy does not alway equate to success. Sometimes it can equate to failure.</p></li>
<li><p>My students who turned down Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, etc. who chose to attend less prestigious schools are now in positions where they are the bosses of many Ivy grads. My Ivy grads have gone on to do great things (as I expected, and others have underachieved). In other words, they fit the same pattern of virtually all students.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>As I've said numerous times, it's not WHAT the Ivies are teaching that makes their grads successful, it's WHO they are teaching. In other words, you could put those same Ivy students in less prestigious colleges and they will still be just as successful professionally. Or, as I pointed out regarding the pre-med students, maybe even MORE successful than if they went to an Ivy school.</p>

50

<p>Schools as prestigious as the ivies (and their counterparts...IE: Duke, Stanford, etc..) are inevitably overrated, but they're still among the best places in the country for a higher education. However, they are certainly nowhere near the end-all. For example, a student who graduates with top marks from a moderately prestigious public school (Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland, Delaware, etc..) can get into just as good a grad school...</p>

51

<p>As someone applying to ivies and with a top choice of an ivy, I will say they are definitely overrated, especially Harvard. The general public doesn't even know the difference between "ivy league" and "good school." Also, in USNews, ivies have a huge boost in peer assesment. Just look at the numbers if you don't believe me. I will make this statement though...Yale, Princeton, and maybe even Harvard deserve to be ranked in the top 3...why? Because someone has to be, and if it was stanford, caltech, and mit, we'd be complaining that they were overrated. That said, HYP still get more credit than numbers 1,2,3 should ever deserve (should be insignificantly more prestigious than numbers 15,16,17).</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
* On the other hand, I had some students for whom the Ivies were a reach, but they were ultimately admitted. For some, this worked out ok. For others, they would go to an Ivy as a pre-med student, get frustrated because of the competition, get lower grades, and drop out of pre-med by the end of their freshman year. In many of those cases, had they gone to a less prestigious college, they could have been a standout, had more confidence and gotten better grades, and had the confidence to stick with pre-med. So, Ivy does not alway equate to success. Sometimes it can equate to failure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm afraid I don't buy this. This all depends on which schools you are comparing. You can search for my old posts where I have actually compared Ivies to non-Ivies in detail and have demonstrated that in numerous cases, it is actually * easier * for an Ivy student to get into med-school. For example, I once demonstrated that Princeton premeds actually required * lower * grades than Berkeley premeds to get into med-school, despite Princeton almost certainly (until lately) offering * more * grade inflation. Anybody who's interested in that subject can search through my old posts. </p>

<p>If anything, I have found that the Ivies are actually some of the most grade-inflated schools in the country - to the point that you stand a good chance of actually getting * higher * grades than you would if you went somewhere else. This is particularly true at the bottom rankings of the class. Even if you're at the bottom of your class at an Ivy, it's almost impossible to actually flunk out. You might get a mediocre grade, but you'll still pass. In contrast, many non-Ivy schools absolutely will not hesitate for one moment to flunk you out. Heck, at some schools, certain profs actually seem to try to go out of their way to flunk students out. Reference my post #33 here on this thread.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As I've said numerous times, it's not WHAT the Ivies are teaching that makes their grads successful, it's WHO they are teaching. In other words, you could put those same Ivy students in less prestigious colleges and they will still be just as successful professionally. Or, as I pointed out regarding the pre-med students, maybe even MORE successful than if they went to an Ivy school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. I know a guy who got into a number of Ivy League schools. Instead he opted for Berkeley EECS, whereupon he proceeded to flunk right out. I am convinced (and so is he) that if he just gone to an Ivy, he would have graduated. Maybe with mediocre grades, but at least he would have graduated. Instead, by choosing Berkeley, he wound up with no degree at all. Not only that, he also wound up with a ruined academic college record such that no other decent school would take him as a transfer (because no good school wants to admit a transfer student who flunked out of his previous school). He's spent years now working menial jobs (i.e. delivering magazines, hauling boxes on the graveyard shift at FedEx, etc.) because he can't get a good job because he doesn't have a degree, and he has no easy way to get one. Going to Berkeley basically ruined his life. </p>

<p>I am convinced that this would never have happened at an Ivy, for one simple reason. Ivies don't block students from transferring from engineering to non-engineering majors. Most Ivies run engineering as an integral part of a unified undergraduate program. Even those that have separate engineering schools (Cornell, Penn), still allow quite free transfers from the engineering school to the arts & sciences school. Berkeley is not like that at all. To switch from the College of Engineering to the College of Letters & Sciences at Berkeley, you need at least a 3.0, often times more. Trust me, there are a LOT of engineering students at Berkeley who don't have anywhere near a 3.0. So if you are doing poorly in Berkeley engineering, you may find that you won't be able to get out. That's exactly what happened to that guy I was talking about. He was doing poorly in engineering, but Berkeley wouldn't let him switch away. So he was forced to stay in a major that he was doing poorly in, and he unsurprisingly flunked out.</p>

<p>Nor is Berkeley peculiar in this respect. There are a LOT of schools out there who just don't particularly care about their students, especially the ones who are not doing well. Their attitude seems to be that if you're not doing well, that's your problem, and if you flunk out, we don't care.</p>

<p>Certainly, I'm not trying to pretend that Ivy students never have problems. Of course they do. What I am pointing out is that students at many other schools have arguably more problems. I am quite convinced that there are plenty of students who flunk out of lower-ranked schools who would have successfully graduated if they had gone to an Ivy. Maybe they would have gotten mediocre grades, but at least they would have graduated. In contrast, vice versa is far less true simply because hardly anybody ever actually flunks out of the Ivies, as Ivy courses rarely give out truly terrible grades and academic dismissal policies are highly generous. Hence, it's not just a matter of the quality of the students that determines their success. It also has to do with specific policies enacted by the schools.</p>

53

<p>Many kids who flunk out of MIT get re-admitted. I might even say 'most' from what I've seen around me.</p>

54

<p>None of the Ivies is overrated. They're really just that good.</p>

55

<p>only overrated is cornell and penn is underrated cuase people thin its a state school - HYP ball, dmouth is the best of all, and brown is good but persoannly i think its the worst of them all (that rhymes)</p>

56

<p>The ability to attract excellent students is an inseparable part of a school's quality. It enables faculty to teach at a high level, it makes for more sophisticated discussion, and it attracts great faculty. It creates a climate of academic achievement and intellectual excitement. Students and faculty can learn from each other. It has a favorable effect on the entire campus culture. It fosters high aspirations, confidence, and esteem. If you uprooted the Harvard freshman class and immersed them in the academic culture at Podunk, they would be walking on their knuckles within four years. Nature and nurture are both important. The influence of the campus environment is underestimated. Like great athletes, top students need to be part of a great program to reach their potential. To me, this seems obvious. But, many people fail to appreciate the impact of the intangibles.</p>

<p>The quality of the teaching at Cornell was very good. There were a couple of exceptions, but the faculty generally seemed genuinely interested in creating a good experience at each class. Many teachers were really outstanding. Two semesters of calc at Cornell covers three semesters at many other schools. The faculty tend to teach how apparently different phenomena and concepts are interrelated (which enhanced understanding). The faculty were in their offices a lot and the TAs were available at almost all hours. The workload is a "character-building experience". Almost all students do well and graduate because they are smart and work really hard, not because of grade inflation. The C students at Cornell probably learn more than the A students at some other colleges.</p>

<p>The Ivies attract a concentrated community of talented peers. This is part of what makes the Ivies special.</p>

57

<p>sakky,
Your post above (# 52) and specifically your statement, </p>

<p>"hardly anybody ever actually flunks out of the Ivies, as Ivy courses rarely give out truly terrible grades and academic dismissal policies are highly generous"</p>

<p>makes a compelling argument for the reduction of the Graduation/Retention Rank scoring in USNWR. As you know, the G/R rank represents 20% of the entire score and this works greatly to the benefit of the Ivies in the determination of their USNWR ranks. Along with the PA, these are the two factors most responsible for the perpetuation of the lofty rankings of the Ivies vs other top privates.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
sakky,
Your post above (# 52) and specifically your statement, </p>

<p>"hardly anybody ever actually flunks out of the Ivies, as Ivy courses rarely give out truly terrible grades and academic dismissal policies are highly generous"</p>

<p>makes a compelling argument for the reduction of the Graduation/Retention Rank scoring in USNWR. As you know, the G/R rank represents 20% of the entire score and this works greatly to the benefit of the Ivies in the determination of their USNWR ranks. Along with the PA, these are the two factors most responsible for the perpetuation of the lofty rankings of the Ivies vs other top privates

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My argument does not rest solely on the Ivies, but on the top colleges in general, and in particular, on highly ranked schools that offer high graduation ratings.</p>

<p>So with that in mind, I would argue the exact opposite of what you argued - that the high G/R scores of these top schools are * precisely * why they should be be ranked so highly - in fact, so much so that I actually think the weighting of G/W should actually be * increased *. Think of it this way. Nobody goes to college just for the sake of going to college. You go to college in order to get a degree. What's so great about a college in which you won't be able to get a degree? </p>

<p>Think about it from the point of view of a student choosing a college. Ceteris paribus, he should choose a school that offers him the best chance of graduating, which, again, ceteris paribus, means choosing a school with the highest graduation rate (again, because of the principle of ceteris paribus, you are keeping other factors such as the quality of education equal). By doing so, you are maximizing your chances of getting what you set out to get, which is a degree. This all gets down to risk aversion - why take risks when you don't have to? </p>

<p>What competing colleges should be doing is stop admitting students who aren't going to graduate, and help those students who do get admitted to graduate. When those colleges insist on admitting a large chunk of students who won't graduate, and refuse to provide sufficient support to help their students to graduate, those schools get punished in the rankings, and they DESERVE to get punished in the rankings. That's * exactly the way it ought to be*. After all, if you refuse to do a good job of properly picking your students, and you refuse to help your students, you deserve a lower rating. My question to those colleges is simple - why don't you do a better job? </p>

<p>Look, I understand that the philosophy of the curriculum of these top colleges might enrage people. After all, students at these schools get a more prestigious degree, and, frankly, get it with less risk of failure than students at many other schools do. So in some sense, that's highly unfair. But what can I say? Life is unfair. As a prospective student, getting a highly prestigious degree in a safe manner is * precisely what you want *. Like I said, why take a risk in going to a school in which you might not get a degree, if you don't have to take that risk? Why go to a UC and risk flunking out if you have the choice of going to Stanford or Harvard? Not only is the latter more prestigious and a better networking/recruiting opportunity, frankly, it's also safer. That's a triple-threat right there. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Many kids who flunk out of MIT get re-admitted. I might even say 'most' from what I've seen around me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but that just begs the question of whether these kids really had to flunk out in the first place? After all, if they had gone to Harvard or Stanford, they probably would never have flunked out at all. </p>

<p>The problem with MIT is that, compared to it is still a relatively dangerous school, relative to its peer schools of HYPS. Those students who go to MIT and flunk out would have probably passed if they had just gone to one of those other 4 schools. Again, they might have gotten mediocre grades, but at least they would have passed. Hence, MIT is a more dangerous choice. </p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong. MIT still does a quite good job relative to most other schools, and in particular, is a much safer choice than is Caltech, which I view as a truly dangerous school. Some would argue that the danger inspires greater learning and greater motivation. I would counter by saying that motivation is mostly an internal trait and you can construct a difficult curriculum at HYPS that rivals or even exceeds what you would get at MIT or Caltech. The difference is that at the former, if you find you've gotten in above your head, you can just pull back. But not at the latter. If you find the required material at the latter to be too difficult, you're toast.</p>

59

<p>"Nobody goes to college just for the sake of going to college. You go to college in order to get a degree."</p>

<p>maybe i'm just young and silly, but i'm not going to college just to get a degree. i mean, of course, getting a degree is an important part of it - if i just wanted to be idealistic and learn i could do that at a library. i'm going to college for a combination of reasons though, so that's why i would choose not to go to a school that offered me a highly prestigious degree in a safe environment if i were not able to grow intellectually.</p>

<p>why? because in life, i think in the long run, the life of the mind IS more important than just a degree. i'd like a college experience that combines both.</p>

60

<p>sakky: Regarding your comments in post #52: In my 30 years of college advising experience, my "Ivy-type" students who graduated from places like Denison, Kenyon, St. Lawrence, Scranton, Muhlenberg, Gettysburg, Franklin and Marshall, Hobart, Union, Holy Cross, Ursinus, Loyola and Dickinson have BETTER rates of medical school acceptance than many of my students who attended Princeton, Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, MIT, UPenn, Harvard, etc.</p>

<p>The unfortunate part of your advice in post #52 is that high school students looking at pre-med are actually going to believe that if they go to a place like Princeton they'll have a better chance at getting into a medical school. Simply not true!</p>