Ivy's overrated?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>ruyi,
I think you might be young and silly...and also wise beyond your years. Good luck wherever you go.</p>

<p>sakky,
I agree that getting the degree is the single most important thing for a student to achieve, BUT...do you not agree that the Ivies approach could be practiced by many, many universities and this would have a devaluing impact on the receipt of a degree. Right now, when you graduate from a UC or from a Caltech or from a W&M or from a Wake Forest or a Davidson (and particularly when you do so with a good GPA), this has great meaning for employers because they know the difficulty of grading at these institutions. On the other hand, Ivy schools are mostly known for smart students and lots of grade inflation. </p>

<p>With regard to the USNWR approach for weighting of Graduation & Retention factors, I agree that this could perhaps be weighted more heavily, but only if all schools took a similar approach to this. When some (like a Caltech with a 90% graduation rate) deliberately choose not to dumb down their curriculum and their grading, IMO this should be respected and not penalized while a student coming from Harvard (98%) or Brown (95%) practices some level of grade inflation and does all it can to graduate the students nearly irregardless of their academic effort and achievement during their undergraduate years. I hear you on the graduation itself being the key, but should an Ivy really benefit from such a lenient approach, particularly vs a school that chooses to maintain a higher standard?</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's very idealistic. But let me put it to you in a stark form. If you had to choose one, either getting a degree but not growing intellectually, or growing intellectually but flunking out, which would you choose? I think most people would choose the former. I know for certain that the guy I referenced previously who flunked out of Berkeley would choose the former without thinking twice. He's been suffering for 10 years in menial jobs because he doesn't have a degree and has no easy way to get one (because, again, no decent school wants to admit a student who flunked out of his previous school). </p>

<p>Look, the truth of the matter is, like it or not, we live in a world that greatly values the degree. Sadly, a lot of employers won't even bother to give you an interview if you don't have a degree. It doesn't matter if the degree is from a no-name school, it doesn't matter if your major has nothing to do with the job. They still won't consider you if you don't have a degree. Hence, unless you are born with special talent, i.e. Bill Gates or LeBron James such that you can strike out on your own and find your own success, you basically need a degree in order to have a decent career. Whether we like it or not, this is the world that we live in. The degree can be in something, heck it can be in anything, but you need the degree. </p>

<p>This is why I think that schoos ought to be more careful in how they run their grading policies, and specifically in how they go about flunking students out. Flunking a student out is one of the most dramatically perilous things you can ever do to somebody, because not only are you obviously hindering him from getting a degree from your school, you are hindering him from possibly ever getting a degree from ANY school, because like I said, most schools do not look kindly on transfer candidates who flunked out of their previous school. </p>

<p>Let me continue with the example I put forth previously. Take that guy I talked about who flunked out of Berkeley. In addition to getting into a bunch of Ivies (which he should have gotten into), he also got into UCDavis and other lesser UC's. And while he didn't apply, he would have certainly gotten into a bunch of CalStates. He chose Berkeley, and flunked out. Yet if he had instead gone to an Ivy, to Davis or one of the CalStates, he probably would have graduated. But now that he flunked out of Berkeley, none of them - not even the CalStates - wants to admit him as a transfer. So not only can he not get a degree from Berkeley, he can't get a degree from * any of those schools either*. In other words, he would have been better off if he had never gone to Berkeley at all. That's sad. College shouldn't make you worse off. But in his case, it did. </p>

<p>And that's the problem. The sad truth of the matter is that a lot of schools just don't care very much about their undergrads, especially the ones who are struggling. They are dangerous schools. You can ruin your career by going to one of these schools, when you would have done just fine by going someplace safer. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ha! Rather tricky wording you did there, when you qualified your statement with the quote 'many of [your] students who attended Princeton, etc.'. In other words, it seems to me that you're just cherry-picking. OF COURSE there are some students at the top Ivies who don't get into med-schools and other students at other schools who do get in. OF COURSE. But the real question, is what happens to ALL of the students, not just ones that you cherry-pick. </p>

<p>The second issue is that you have managed to name a bunch of highly regarded LAC's. I have myself touted the strength of the LAC's when it comes to undergraduate education. To me, the real divide is not between Ivies vs. top LAC's, but rather between all top schools of any kind (Ivies + LAC's + other elite schools) vs. mediocre schools. That to me is the interesting dichotomy. </p>

<p>But I'll put it to you this way. According to the data, about 90% of Princeton and Harvard premeds who apply will get into med-school. Few LAC's can say the same, and of those that do, many of them will engage in screening (hence, not even allowing certain subpar students from even applying to med-school). And even THAT doesn't capture the full dynamic of the premed process because it doesn't factor in the fact that many premeds get weeded out in the premed process and hence don't even bother to apply to med-school.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, if you want to really get into this subject, might I suggest you head over to the premed section of CC where posters such as myself, bluedevilmike, norcalguy, and others have debated this subject AT LENGTH. The general consensus there is that you want to go to a school that is grade-inflated, whatever that school is. For that reason, I have greatly criticized MIT and Caltech when it comes to preparing their students for med-school, because of the harsh grading. On the other hand, plenty of mediocre schools ALSO engage in harsh grading, to the point of flunking plenty of people out. That's where the problem is.</p>

<p>My stance is simple. If a guy isn't good enough to meet your standards for graduation, then fine, don't admit him in the first place. Why admit students who don't have the ability to graduate? Why admit somebody only to flunk him out later?</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
I agree that getting the degree is the single most important thing for a student to achieve, BUT...do you not agree that the Ivies approach could be practiced by many, many universities and this would have a devaluing impact on the receipt of a degree. Right now, when you graduate from a UC or from a Caltech or from a W&M or from a Wake Forest or a Davidson (and particularly when you do so with a good GPA), this has great meaning for employers because they know the difficulty of grading at these institutions. On the other hand, Ivy schools are mostly known for smart students and lots of grade inflation

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My preferred solution is simple - those other schools should tighten their admissions requirements, specifically by not admitting those students who aren't going to graduate anyway. Why admit those people? You're only wasting everybody's time and money by doing so. </p>

<p>Even worse, you're making your school a more dangerous choice. Think of it this way. As a prospective student who just got admitted, I have no reliable way of knowing whether I am one of those students who will eventually flunk out if I choose to come. I might well be in that X% of students who does flunk out. How would I know? Hence, given the choice of 2 equally prestigious schools that have different graduation ratings, why wouldn't I want to choose the safer one that has a higher graduation rate? By doing so, I increase the chances of getting a degree.</p>

<p>Consider this analogy. Before I start driving, I put on my seat belt. Granted, I probably won't get into an accident. And even if I do, I might die anyway, even if I was wearing my seat belt. But buckling up increases the odds that I will survive if I do get into an accident. No guarantee of course. But it does increase the odds. It's a safer choice. Why wouldn't I want to make the safer choice? Now if, theoretically, I only have access to a car that doesn't have a seat belt, then I guess I will have to do without, but if I have the choice of wearing a belt, why wouldn't I make that choice? </p>

<p>Hence, those schools that are less SHOULD be punished in the rankings. *That's exactly the way it ought to be *. The moral of the story is that you need to make your school safer, and if you refuse, you deserve a lower ranking because it means that you're not taking care of your students properly. </p>

<p>
[quote]
With regard to the USNWR approach for weighting of Graduation & Retention factors, I agree that this could perhaps be weighted more heavily, but only if all schools took a similar approach to this. When some (like a Caltech with a 90% graduation rate) deliberately choose not to dumb down their curriculum and their grading, IMO this should be respected and not penalized while a student coming from Harvard (98%) or Brown (95%) practices some level of grade inflation and does all it can to graduate the students nearly irregardless of their academic effort and achievement during their undergraduate years. I hear you on the graduation itself being the key, but should an Ivy really benefit from such a lenient approach, particularly vs a school that chooses to maintain a higher standard?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My answer is yes. They should benefit. Because that means that they are taking a more selective approach to who they admit, and then caring for those students who they do admit. That's a far far more humane approach than just carelessly admitting a slew of students, knowing full well that a bunch of them will flunk out. </p>

<p>Think of it this way. Think of the practice of the Titanic. The Titanic did not have enough lifeboat spaces for everybody. So when the ship sank, thousands were consigned to death. Woudn't it have been more humane to have simply not allowed these people to board the ship in the first place? You should only be accepting people up to the number of spaces on your lifeboats. It's morally wrong to accept more, because doing so puts people at risk. Sadly, a lot of schools out there seem to believe there is no problem in regularly accepting significantly more students than they actually intend to graduate.</p>

<p>The case of Caltech is one in which myself, Ben Golub, and Nextmikesays have argued over several times, and you can search through my old posts to find those arguments. While I respect those guys, I am still not persuaded by their arguments. Specifically, what I think Caltech should be doing is simply not admit those guys who are going to run into trouble. I really don't think that's as hard as Ben Golub makes it out to be. Specifically, what you can do is simply perform a statistical data-mining exercise on past Caltech students who flunked out, and then simply admit fewer future applicants who exhibit similar traits. For example, maybe it is found that one particular high school produces a disproportionately high percentage of Caltech flunkouts. Then the answer is to simply admit fewer students from that high school. Maybe that high school doesn't do a good job of preparing its students, maybe the particular demographic of that area is just not conductive to producing success at Caltech, but either way, there is a problem. </p>

<p>You also mentioned the issue of repute amongst employers. So let's talk about that. The truth of the matter is, for all of the rigor of the Caltech curriculum, Caltech does not have the brand name that other (grade-inflated) schools like HYPS have. Let's face it. Like it or not, Harvard has, hands-down, the best brand name in the world, despite all its grade inflation. If you want to talk about engineering schools, Stanford, frankly, has a better brand name than Caltech does, despite being an easier school curriculum-wise. If Caltech rigor was really so well-respected that employers would prefer a Caltech grad over a Harvard or Stanford grad, then I might agree with you that the rigor has important value. But the fact of the matter is, employers don't do that. Most employers would value a HYPS grad at least equally with, if not better than, a Caltech grad. Caltech's rigor is not rewarded in the market. It should be rewarded. But it isn't. Sad but true. </p>

<p>Look, we have to deal with the world the way it is, not the way we would like it to be. The truth is, a guy who flunks out of Caltech is probably more capable than a lot of guys who graduate from an easier school. But employers don't see it that way. All they will see is that the guy doesn't have a degree. They won't care why he doesn't have a degree, all they will see is that he doesn't have a degree. In a perfect world, employers would understand that that guy went to a very difficult school and even though he didn't make it, he's still better than a lot of guys who did graduate from easy schools. Sadly, we don't live in that world. That's why graduation rates are so important. They're a mark of safety because like it or not, you are going to be judged by whether you have a degree or not. It shouldn't be that way, but it is that way.</p>

64

<p>Sakky,
Nice comment, but are you getting paid by the word?? :) </p>

<p>Every AdComm of an Ivy League school makes the comment that they have an overabundance of qualified applicants and that they could fill 2 or 3 or even 4 classes of qualified students from their applicant pool. For those who don’t get in, they end up elsewhere-maybe a top private, maybe a top public, maybe a top LAC. They may not be Ivy students in name, but they certainly are of very similar quality and certainly academically able to complete the work needed to graduate from an Ivy school. Thus, I don’t buy your argument about the non-Ivies should just eliminate all of the prospective bad apples in the admissions process. Depending on how deeply you measure (ie, what you consider as natural 2nd or 3rd choice schools), it is pretty close to a random distribution of who would and who would not hypothetically graduate from an Ivy. </p>

<p>The difference begins with how these students are treated at their respective schools. You have made clear that the Ivies’ approach is to offer great support and lenient grading as a way to achieve high graduation rates. Other schools may take a different, more difficult approach where they set a high bar for the students to reach in order to get good grades and/or graduate. Neither approach is necessarily “right.” They are different and will appeal to different students. However, in the USNWR calculations, the weighting is all given to the graduation rate and no weighting is given to the difficulty of actually achieving that diploma. My personal view is that this approach trivializes the achievement of graduation and statistically, this calculation (20% of the ranking score) contributes importantly to the high ranking of the Ivies. </p>

<p>In response to the OP’s question, “are the Ivies overrated?” my response is that the students who attend are not overrated. They are certainly among the very best high school students in America. However, the quality of the classroom teaching and the amount of effort required to graduate from an Ivy are very overrated. So, the prospective student has to make a choice-either go for the brand and attend the Ivies if accepted or go to a college that requires higher undergraduate academic achievement and usually also gives more hands-on and better classroom teaching. I think it is a testament to the Ivies’ power that most students and families go for the brand, but I also think it is potentially a sub-optimal choice for the development of the student. </p>

<p>And as for wishing the world were different, I have no illusions about this. I know exactly how much value a degree from an Ivy School has in the workplace. I especially know how much value it has after 6-12 months on the job versus another graduate from a lower (and maybe much lower) rated school. In the real world, that Ivy value-added is pretty close to zero.</p>

65

<p>With the exception of Harvard and Princeton, Ivies are overrated. Precisely because they are overrated and have big endowments, they attract the best students and can afford to be selective. It's a case of positive feedback where reputation boosts student body quality and fundraising, which in turn reinforce reputation.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
Every AdComm of an Ivy League school makes the comment that they have an overabundance of qualified applicants and that they could fill 2 or 3 or even 4 classes of qualified students from their applicant pool. For those who don’t get in, they end up elsewhere-maybe a top private, maybe a top public, maybe a top LAC. They may not be Ivy students in name, but they certainly are of very similar quality and certainly academically able to complete the work needed to graduate from an Ivy school. Thus, I don’t buy your argument about the non-Ivies should just eliminate all of the prospective bad apples in the admissions process. Depending on how deeply you measure (ie, what you consider as natural 2nd or 3rd choice schools), it is pretty close to a random distribution of who would and who would not hypothetically graduate from an Ivy

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no, this is a logical nonsequitur. </p>

<p>I agree with your first part that the Ivies each have several times the number of qualified applicants than they can admit. But I am afraid it does not then follow that the other, lower-ranked schools admit a student body that can be modeled as a random distribution of those same students. </p>

<p>Again, let's use Berkeley as an example, as it is the school that I know best. The truth of the matter is that the average student at Berkeley is just not as good as the average student at the Ivies. I agree that some students at Berkeley are indeed Ivy-caliber in every way. But the truth is, plenty of other students there are not - a notion to which plenty of current Berkeley students can surely attest. There is a large tail-end of students at Berkeley who, frankly, aren't that good and who are clearly not Ivy-caliber by any definition. These students obviously comprise a highly disproportionate percentage of students who will flunk out of Berkeley. </p>

<p>Berkeley knows that they admit quite a few of these students, and so, as you stated above, what Berkeley does in response is attempt to maintain the quality of its degree by flunking out a lot of those students. I would already say that that, by itself, is already quite a draconian policy (after all, why admit students who you know are going to flunk out?). But what exacerbates the problem is that the policy tends to catch some good students along the way. No grading policy is perfect. You get some false positives and false negatives. You inevitably flunk some students out who are actually good, but just ran into bad luck (and you also inevitably manage to graduate some mediocre students who should have been flunked out). Hence, the question is then, if you're good enough to get into an Ivy or other top private college like Stanford, why should you turn that down to put yourself at risk of flunking out at a place like Berkeley? Why take a risk if you don't have to? </p>

<p>Nor do I mean to single out Berkeley. Alexandre is a big fan of Michigan. Yet even he will admit that there are plenty of students at Michigan who aren't Ivy-caliber. UCLAri knows UCLA quite well and he will admit that UCLA has plenty of students who aren't that good. The point is, the student quality at these particular schools cannot be characteized as a random distribution of Ivy-caliber students. Far from it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The difference begins with how these students are treated at their respective schools. You have made clear that the Ivies’ approach is to offer great support and lenient grading as a way to achieve high graduation rates. Other schools may take a different, more difficult approach where they set a high bar for the students to reach in order to get good grades and/or graduate. Neither approach is necessarily “right.” They are different and will appeal to different students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really don't know about. After all, how many students are actually attracted to the risk of flunking out? How many students actually consider less support to be attractive? I can agree that there is such a thing as personal fit, but you can't stretch that notion THAT far. You have to be quite the daredevil masochist to actually want LESS support and a GREATER chance of flunking out. Most people are not daredevils or masochists.</p>

<p>I think what you mean to say is that some people are willing to put up with more danger and less support if by doing so, they earn a more prestigious degree. In other words, the danger and support are tradabe commodities. But nobody actually wants these attributes without getting something in return. And like I said, the most prestigious degree you can get is a degree from Harvard, which also provides great safety and support. That's a triple-threat. Why trade for anything when you can have it all? That's why Harvard has by far the highest yield percentage of any school in the country. Very few people are going to turn down admission to Harvard - certainly far fewer than those who turn down admission to any other school. People know that Harvard is offering them a highly prestigious and SAFE degree. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In response to the OP’s question, “are the Ivies overrated?” my response is that the students who attend are not overrated. They are certainly among the very best high school students in America. However, the quality of the classroom teaching and the amount of effort required to graduate from an Ivy are very overrated. So, the prospective student has to make a choice-either go for the brand and attend the Ivies if accepted or go to a college that requires higher undergraduate academic achievement and usually also gives more hands-on and better classroom teaching. I think it is a testament to the Ivies’ power that most students and families go for the brand, but I also think it is potentially a sub-optimal choice for the development of the student.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I see that you talk about suboptimality and that students may be better off in choosing a school that requires higher levels of achievement than the Ivies do. But that's precisely what I'm talking about too. What if the student can't/doesn't want to meet that higher level of achievement, such that he flunks out? I would argue that that situation is REALLY sub-optimal. See below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And as for wishing the world were different, I have no illusions about this. I know exactly how much value a degree from an Ivy School has in the workplace. I especially know how much value it has after 6-12 months on the job versus another graduate from a lower (and maybe much lower) rated school. In the real world, that Ivy value-added is pretty close to zero.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's actually not what I'm talking about when I invoked the notion of the real world. What I am talking about is, like it or not, in this world, you basically need a degree from some school, ANY school, in ANY subject, if you want to have a shot at a decent career (again, unless you're born with a unique talent like Bill Gates or Kobe Bryant). The gap in valuation between a degree from a top school and a lesser school is infinitesimal compared to the gap between having a degree from a lesser school and not having a degree at all. </p>

<p>Which makes the act of flunking somebody out of a school one of the crushingly harshest things you can ever do. After all, like I said, not only are you preventing him from a getting a degree at your school, you are also hindering his chances of getting a degree at other schools as well - because no school looks kindly upon a transfer applicant who flunked out of his previous school. Which gets back to what I was saying before. Instead of flunking the guy out, why not just simply not admit him in the first place? That way, he can go to a school that is more attuned with his capabilities and where he can actually get a degree. </p>

<p>Berkeley admits a lot of students who, frankly, are not ready for the rigors of Berkeley. Why admit them? If you stopped admitting those students, then you could raise the grading standards and offer better support for the remaining students. </p>

<p>To make a digression, at least in the case of MIT and Caltech, I'll give credit where credit is due. They at least attempt to protect their students somewhat by instituting hidden grade policies in freshman year such that those who flunk out in their first year can apply to some other school with a relatively pristine record, as many of their poor freshman grades won't be recorded on external transcripts. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. Personally, I think those students should simply have not been admitted, but hey, it's still a lot better than nothing. Other schools, like Berkeley, UCLA, and many others really do offer nothing to protect their poor-performing students. For example, if you flunk out of Berkeley, your transcript is going to be absolutely tattoo'ed with ignoble insignia. My question is why? My take is, if you've decided to terminate a student's tenure at your school, fine, but why do you also have to publicly vitiate his academic reputation too? That's just adding insult to injury. Let the guy leave with a clean slate. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. By law, personal credit problems, including personal bankruptcies, are wiped from your credit record every 7-10 years. Traffic violations are wiped from your driving record are wiped every 10 years or so. But a bad academic record stays with you FOR LIFE. Why? Take that guy who I talked about who flunked out of Berkeley. It's 10 years later, and he STILL has to answer for his poor performance at Berkeley. It's still hindering him from transferring into some other school. Why? Yes, he screwed up. But that was a long time ago. Isn't it time to let the guy off the hook?</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
He's been suffering for 10 years in menial jobs because he doesn't have a degree and has no easy way to get one (because, again, no decent school wants to admit a student who flunked out of his previous school).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Community college --> Transfer into 4 year university = No more complaining</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
But now that he flunked out of Berkeley, none of them - not even the CalStates - wants to admit him as a transfer. So not only can he not get a degree from Berkeley, he can't get a degree from any of those schools either. In other words, he would have been better off if he had never gone to Berkeley at all. That's sad. College shouldn't make you worse off. But in his case, it did.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i find this very hard to believe.</p>

69

<p>sakky: Of course 90% of Princeton's med school applicants are admitted. It's not because they went to Princeton, it's because of the qualities they possessed prior to entering Princeton. It's very likely that you could take those same exact students who attended Princeton, put them at Denison, St. Lawrence, Scranton, etc., and they would get into med school anyways.</p>

<p>A student I know was could have been admitted to virtually any Ivy. Because the Ivies were a very poor match with what she was looking for in a college, she chose a low-prestige no-name state school. She applied to eight medical schools and was accepted into five of them. Why? Because she was an outstanding student, scores extremely high on the MCAT's, put together a great resume of undergraduate extracurriculars, etc. Basically, you could say she had all the same qualities a Princeton med-school applicant had. </p>

<p>In my humble opinion, based on my thirty years of college advising with thousands of students, there is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in attending Ivies if you want to go to med school. If you are a "Princeton type" who goes to a lesser-known college, you'll get into med school.</p>

<p>As far as your referring me to another CC site where you and some others debate this issue, no thanks. My knowledge is based on thirty years of experience in working with thousands of students. A foolish CC debate isn't going make me believe something that simply is not true.</p>

<p>High schoolers looking at colleges: Take my word for it.....an Ivy education is completely unnessesary if you want to go to med school.</p>

70

<p>just to add to this from a premed perspective, one of my friend's brother went to MIT, majored in biochem and ended up not getting into any med school upon graduation 2 years ago and he studied a whole lot. i believe MIT's med school acceptance rate is ~70%. I know some pretty dumb kids in high school who went to crappy schools who are now in good med school. Granted, that my friend's brother eventually got into a pretty good med school following a post-bac program, my point is if he had gone to some crappy school, he would have done well and and wouldn't have spent another two years trying to get in med school.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
Take my word for it.....an Ivy education is completely unnessesary if you want to go to med school.

[/quote]

Unnecessary, but it doesn't hurt. Ivies and their peers have some of the deepest pockets around, and they're pretty generous. Personally, I'd be willing to accept a great financial aid package and grade inflation as a pre-med!</p>

<p>Harvard: Free for families making under $60,000
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512386%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512386&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Princeton: No loans</p>

<p>Yale: Free for families making under $45,000 and considerably reduced EFCs for $45-60,000 families
<a href="http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/financial_aid/initiatives.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/financial_aid/initiatives.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Penn: No loans for families making less than $50,000
<a href="http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=925%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=925&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Stanford: Free for those making under $45,000
<a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/march15/tuition-031506.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/march15/tuition-031506.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Columbia: No loans for families making less than $50,000
<a href="http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/09/19/News/Cu.Trades.Loans.For.Grants-2284572.shtml?sourcedomain=www.columbiaspectator.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/09/19/News/Cu.Trades.Loans.For.Grants-2284572.shtml?sourcedomain=www.columbiaspectator.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

72

<p>warblers: True that Ivies have deep pockets for those with a great deal of financial need, but think about this:</p>

<p>An Ivy-calaber student attending a school of lesser prestige has a greater chance of getting aid because he/she may qualify for MERIT scholarship money, even if he/she has no need. If the student has need, it is likely that they will end up at least as well off financially at a lesser-prestige school because of a combination of merit and need-based aid, on top of a price tag that may start out thousands of dollars below the sticker price of an Ivy.</p>

<p>The big bonus: An Ivy-caliber student attending a school of lesser-prestige may be given opportunities they might not have at an Ivy. For example: an offer to do research with a professor, admission to an Honors program, etc.
I have seen this happen on numerous occasion.</p>

<p>The "big fish in the small pond" scenario often results in the pre-med student having the opportunity to develop a much more impressive resume of activities than the average student at an Ivy.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Community college --> Transfer into 4 year university = No more complaining

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But why should it have to come to this? Why can't he just get into the same schools that he did as a high school senior? IF he could get into a CalState right out of high school (which he could), why should it be any different now? What it means is that Berkeley has made him WORSE off than if he had never gone to college at all. </p>

<p>Think of it this way. If he had never gone to college, and just got a job right after high school, then he could apply to a CalState right now and get in, purely on the strength of his old high school record. But because he chose to go to Berkeley, he has lost that option. Why? </p>

<p>
[quote]
i find this very hard to believe.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Believe it. See above. </p>

<p>
[quote]
sakky: Of course 90% of Princeton's med school applicants are admitted. It's not because they went to Princeton, it's because of the qualities they possessed prior to entering Princeton. It's very likely that you could take those same exact students who attended Princeton, put them at Denison, St. Lawrence, Scranton, etc., and they would get into med school anyways.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not so sure about that. And I'll use an example of one of the eminent posters here. Molliebatmit, who went to (obviously) MIT, has admitted that she probably couldn't get into any good med-school, and it is debatable whether she would have gotten into even a no-name one. This is despite the fact that she got into every single elite PhD bio program out there and she's now at Harvard. So why doesn't she believe she could have gotten into med-school? Because she 'only' pulled a 3.4/4 GPA at MIT. I say 'only', because that's actually a quite good GPA at MIT. But not for the purposes of med-school admissions.</p>

<p>See, that's the point. If she had gone to HYPS, she would have almost certainly gotten higher grades, and hence she probably would be able to go to med-school. She chose a school that deflates grades. Granted, she doesn't care about med-school anyway, so she doesn't care, but what if she did? Frankly, she would have beeen better off going to another school.</p>

<p>The same holds true for Caltech. Our resident Caltech expert, Ben Golub, has freely admitted that Caltech is not a good choice for premeds. Why? Grade deflation. If you want to protect your GPA, Caltech is a bad choice. </p>

<p>So it's not as simple as you imply - it's not just about the ability of the students. It also has to do with the policies of the students. Tough schools like MIT and Caltech are, frankly, bad choices for premeds, such that some premeds who go to those schools wind up not getting into any med-school, whereas if they had gone elsewhere (i.e. HYPS), they might have gotten in. Now, obviously some of the premeds there are tough enough and smart enough to make it through anyway with top grades despite the tough curriculum. But there is a definite reduction of placement success. </p>

<p>See, THAT's the Ivy advantage, or more accurately, the 'grade inflation' advantage. Going to a school that grades easier, as the Ivies and other schools do, does in fact seem to help your chances of getting into med-school. It shouldn't work, but it does seem to work. </p>

<p>
[quote]
just to add to this from a premed perspective, one of my friend's brother went to MIT, majored in biochem and ended up not getting into any med school upon graduation 2 years ago and he studied a whole lot. i believe MIT's med school acceptance rate is ~70%. I know some pretty dumb kids in high school who went to crappy schools who are now in good med school. Granted, that my friend's brother eventually got into a pretty good med school following a post-bac program, my point is if he had gone to some crappy school, he would have done well and and wouldn't have spent another two years trying to get in med school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. </p>

<p>But what's even worse is that some students go to MIT, Caltech, or other difficult schools and don't even graduate. If they had chosen HYPS, they probably would have graduated. Perhaps with mediocre grades, but at least they would have graduated.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
But why should it have to come to this? Why can't he just get into the same schools that he did as a high school senior? IF he could get into a CalState right out of high school (which he could), why should it be any different now? What it means is that Berkeley has made him WORSE off than if he had never gone to college at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It shouldn't, but that's life. There is NO reason that he has to work menial jobs for the past 10 years. He could have gone to a CC and transferred back in. Come on, it's only 2 more years max (in his case, probably only 1 year, I'm assuming he didn't fail all of his classes). The point is, he chose to not continue with his education. I am sympathetic that he failed out, that sucks, but there is no reason that he couldn't jump back on the horse and try again. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Think of it this way. If he had never gone to college, and just got a job right after high school, then he could apply to a CalState right now and get in, purely on the strength of his old high school record. But because he chose to go to Berkeley, he has lost that option. Why?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with you, I think he should have been able to enroll in one of the CalStates, but the reality of it is that he doesn't have that option. So what are we arguing? It seems logical to me that if you if some option that you wish existed but doesn't, you can either create the option (by goes to the higher education board of California, when they have a public forum, and argue for conditional rules to be put in place) or he finds another option that will satisfy his goal. Now the latter may take longer, but you can agree that it is a lot more plausible than the former. </p>

<p>To give you an example, I know a guy who did poorly (something close to a 2.0 gpa) at Berkeley and yet he was able to transfer to Florida, a pretty decent university and a solid engineering school. So I think there is hope for people in poor situations to transfer to other schools.</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
An Ivy-calaber student attending a school of lesser prestige has a greater chance of getting aid because he/she may qualify for MERIT scholarship money, even if he/she has no need. If the student has need, it is likely that they will end up at least as well off financially at a lesser-prestige school because of a combination of merit and need-based aid, on top of a price tag that may start out thousands of dollars below the sticker price of an Ivy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure about that. That really depends on individual circumstances. Consider this. I know 2 guys who got into both Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that it would actually be cheaper for them to go to Harvard, even though they were California state residents. That's because Harvard offered them full grants, whereas Berkele wanted them to take out loans. I will always remember one of them mordantly saying that he always wanted to go to Berkeley but couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The big bonus: An Ivy-caliber student attending a school of lesser-prestige may be given opportunities they might not have at an Ivy. For example: an offer to do research with a professor, admission to an Honors program, etc.
I have seen this happen on numerous occasion.</p>

<p>The "big fish in the small pond" scenario often results in the pre-med student having the opportunity to develop a much more impressive resume of activities than the average student at an Ivy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, there may be opportunities to be a big fish in a small pond. But then there are opportunities to be a big fish in a big pond as well.</p>

<p>Let me tell you another story, again, about Berkeley. It has been asserted by some that, given Berkeley's sheer size, the top Berkeley students are just as good as the students at Harvard. For example, if you were to take the top 6500 students out of Berkeley's 23k undergrad student body, that top slice would be just as good as Harvard's 6500 undergrads. </p>

<p>But if that is really the case, then why does Harvard absolutely crush Berkeley on an absolute scale when it comes to winning major national awards, like the Rhodes Scholarship? Even with Berkeley's huge student body, Berkeley hasn't won a single Rhodes since the 2002-2003 academic year. This academic year alone, Harvard has won 8. </p>

<p>I believe I know why too. It's because Harvard Rhodes candidates have an entire team backing them up. They get coaching, interview practice, advisory services, opportunities to huddle up with former Rhodes alumni - basically an entire marketing package to back them up. In contrast, at Berkeley, if you want to win a Rhodes, it's all you. You are the one that has to collect all of the requisite recommendations. You are the one to put together an essay package. You have to find help by yourself. In essence, nobody really helps you. Having seen the support system surrounding the Rhodes candidates at Berkeley and at Harvard, I can say that it's like night and day. </p>

<p>I know several people at Berkeley who tried to compete for the Rhodes who were highly worthy individuals. They didn't even make it past the beginning qualifying stages. I am saddened, but not surprised, because that's what happens when you don't get the proper institutional support, but your competitors are. </p>

<p>Note, the Rhodes Scholarship is just one example. But it does fit a larger pattern. Let's face it, old<em>but</em>wise. There are a LOT of schools out there that don't really support their students. You keep talking about all these lesser-ranked schols that offer all of these great services and support, and yes I am aware that they exist. But we have to be honest in admitting that there are plenty of lesser-ranked schools that have mediocre services and support. </p>

<p>If nothing else, the Ivies are safe schools in that with rare exceptions, you know you will get a degree as long as you do the bare minimum of work (and sometimes you don't even need to do that). There are plenty of other schools that seem to enjoy tossing students out, that have the attitude that if you are doing poorly, that's your problem. Why go to a school like that if you don't have to?</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
It shouldn't, but that's life. There is NO reason that he has to work menial jobs for the past 10 years. He could have gone to a CC and transferred back in. Come on, it's only 2 more years max (in his case, probably only 1 year, I'm assuming he didn't fail all of his classes). The point is, he chose to not continue with his education. I am sympathetic that he failed out, that sucks, but there is no reason that he couldn't jump back on the horse and try again.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, this scenario is far from guaranteed. Of course anybody can go to community college. But does that mean that he can just transfer back into a CalState? Not really. Why? Because every transfer admissions application requires that you submit all of your old transcripts from all colleges you formerly attended. That's right ALL of former colleges. So in his case, he has to submit his old (failed) Berkeley transcripts, which means that he is far from assured from actually getting admitted. So he might end up doing all of these community college classes for nothing (other than getting an AA, I suppose). </p>

<p>See, that's the probem. I remember actually suggesting this very idea to him years ago, and he was ready to do it, until he realized that the above paragraph would be a problem. </p>

<p>Now, of course, he MIGHT do so well in community college that his performance would offset his Berkeley transcript. But the key word there is 'might'. He might not. And it's that uncertainty that is making him gunshy. In contrast, like I said, if he had never gone to Berkeley in the first place, he would be able to go to a CalState or a lower UC right now. That's the risk that you take by going to a 'dangerous' school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree with you, I think he should have been able to enroll in one of the CalStates, but the reality of it is that he doesn't have that option. So what are we arguing? It seems logical to me that if you if some option that you wish existed but doesn't, you can either create the option (by goes to the higher education board of California, when they have a public forum, and argue for conditional rules to be put in place) or he finds another option that will satisfy his goal. Now the latter may take longer, but you can agree that it is a lot more plausible than the former.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not 'arguing' the point. I am simply using him as an example for why people shouldn't want to choose a 'dangerous' school - because you might end up being like him. So, if nothing else, other posters here can learn from his painful experience and learn to value school safety. Not everybody who goes to college will do well. Some will not do well. So you have to ask yourself what will happen if you don't do well? In the case of Ivies or other top private schools, you can do poorly, and still graduate anyway. You'll graduate with mediocre grades, but hey, at least you'll graduate. At other schools, you may not get even that. </p>

<p>
[quote]
To give you an example, I know a guy who did poorly (something close to a 2.0 gpa) at Berkeley and yet he was able to transfer to Florida, a pretty decent university and a solid engineering school. So I think there is hope for people in poor situations to transfer to other schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but in his case, it seems like this guy was still in good academic standing (albeit barely). But that's not quite the scenario I am talking about here. This guy was not in good academic standing, and that's what killed him. </p>

<p>And again, that illustrates what I'm talking about. The Ivies, and schools like Stanford, might give you mediocre grades, but it's almost impossible to actually land in bad academic standing there. In contrast, some dangerous schools will not hesitate to toss you into that category. Hence, in the context of this thread, you need to ask yourself whether you really want to take a risk like that. Not everybody who goes to college does well. </p>

<p>Perhaps I have a different take on this, but I tend to judge schools not on how their best students are doing, but on how well their WORST students are doing. If even the worst students are still doing fairly well - still on the road to getting a degree and getting a half-decent job, then that's the sign of a pretty desirable school. But if the worst students are doing terribly, then maybe you should think twice about going to that school. Because it might happen to you.</p>

77

<p>sakky, does flunking out from berkeley disqualify him from a transfer agreement? i'm genuinely curious. that's too bad if it does.</p>

<p>i think anytime you choose to go to a top school, you're taking a risk. people who are willing to take the risk should know they have options if they don't succeed. 10 years doing menial jobs? he could've gotten a degree in nursing or in allied health, or something like that. the way i see it, he has it better off than some of my friends who immigrate here and start from the bottom up, without even fluency in english.</p>

78

<p>sakky,
My understanding of the USNWR graduation data is that they are for 6-year graduation rates from the same institution. They don't give credit for students transferring to another school and graduating from there, right? If my interpretation is correct, then your argument of graduate/not graduate is not applicable as you do not know the outcome when the student goes elsewhere to complete his/her studies. Granted, a transfer situation is less desirable than completing one's studies at a single school, but it is not nearly the catastrophe that you paint of not graduating at all.</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
sakky,
My understanding of the USNWR graduation data is that they are for 6-year graduation rates from the same institution. They don't give credit for students transferring to another school and graduating from there, right? If my interpretation is correct, then your argument of graduate/not graduate is not applicable as you do not know the outcome when the student goes elsewhere to complete his/her studies. Granted, a transfer situation is less desirable than completing one's studies at a single school, but it is not nearly the catastrophe that you paint of not graduating at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, there are students transferring into schools and out of schools. There's no way to tell that it's skewed to the point that many students are transferring out and few students are transferring in, and vice versa.In fact for UCs like Berkeley the opposite is happening because they admit many transfers from community colleges. Second of all, if a student is performing poorly, it's unlikely that other colleges will want to take him on the basis of a poor transcript, so we have reasonable evidence to believe that the graduation rate is not heavily influenced by students transferring to other colleges.</p>

<p>
[quote]
i think anytime you choose to go to a top school, you're taking a risk. people who are willing to take the risk should know they have options if they don't succeed. 10 years doing menial jobs? he could've gotten a degree in nursing or in allied health, or something like that. the way i see it, he has it better off than some of my friends who immigrate here and start from the bottom up, without even fluency in english.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're always taking a risk in the sense that no school has 100% graduation rate, but consider UC Berkeley with a 58% 4-year graduation rate versus Yale with a 89% 4-year graduation rate. Obviously the risk of attending Berkeley is much greater. As to your complaint about majoring in something easier, Berkeley has a policy in which engineers who are performing poorly (i.e. below 3.0 GPA) has to apply to the college of letters and sciences and the college may not admit them. That means if you are performing poorly in engineering you may be stuck in engineering.
Finally, I think comparing this Berkeley student to immigrants is pretty irrelevant. By the same token I could say the immigrants are a lot better off than say, the victims of Darfur. But that's not even on topic. We're talking about students at the Ivy League schools and other top colleges, and the way I see it, the Ivys do provide some real advantages, the superior graduation rate being one of them.</p>

80

<p>VERY overrated ! too much legacy, too much "old boy's", too little creativity!</p>