<p>Recently, I've noticed that there seems to be a disproportionate number of top undergraduate institutions represented in most of the highly ranked graduate schools in the country. I've done some searching, both of Professors at my own school, and schools like Harvard, UC Berkeley, Stanford and have come to the conclusion that it seems like even though grad school is what really matters--it seems like many of these people in academia did their undergrad at the same prestigious (see Ivy League, UChicago, Northwestern, Williams, Amherst) schools that seem to dominate the top of USNWR (which I know is not the end all be all). Indeed, some schools that publish their graduate student lists seems to show a similar trend (at least, in my limited experience) that schools like Harvard tend to maintain a graduate student body from those only coming from the elite of the elite undergraduate schools. Admittedly, there is the occasional State U grad that passes by, but nowhere near in numbers to say Harvard College's representation. </p>
<p>As a student of one of those State Us (UT-Austin), who didn't do bad in high school, but didn't end up at a top-tier undergrad institution, it's frankly discouraging because it seems the odds are against me. I know it is not impossible, and I am doing my best with the opportunities available to me here. I've applied and been accepted to my departmental honors program in English which gives access to the "best" Professors and shrinks class sizes down, as well as doing CV building (if mundane) research assistant work. Nevertheless, it's still disheartening because I will probably be competing against students who have had more resources thrown at them, and to put it bluntly--the prestige of their undergraduate school behind them.</p>
<p>To anyone who has been involved in academia at the graduate level, are my reservations founded whatsoever? Or is it really just a matter of self-selection bias in which students who matriculate at Harvard or similar schools are more likely to apply and have superior qualifications (outside of the name of their undergraduate alma mater) at top graduate programs?</p>
<p>If you consider undergraduate English curricula at “top” private universities and liberal arts colleges, you’ll probably encounter similar features. Many English departments at these schools require a senior project or undergraduate thesis to graduate; graduate applicants often revise these projects, usually their strongest piece of undergraduate writing, for use as a writing sample. Additionally, private universities and liberal arts colleges tend to be smaller in size (and consequently have smaller class sizes) than state universities, fostering close interaction between faculty and students; in order to attain strong letters of recommendation, these relationships are essential.</p>
<p>It is true that academic resources tend to be more readily available at private universities and liberal arts colleges, but that does not mean that they are nonexistent at your state university. Rather, at a state university you must seek out these resources yourself. From what you’ve posted, it looks like you’re already on the right track. Continue to be proactive (i.e. cultivate relationships with professors, seek out worthwhile academic opportunities, etc.), and when the time comes to apply to graduate programs, you might be (pleasantly) surprised by your results.</p>
<p>UT-Austin is one of the best universities in the country. You will not have a problem competing with even Ivy League and other elite grads, as your university has resources comparable to those universities in a lot of fields.</p>
<p>As has already been said, it’s both. I would suspect that the self-selecting nature of the graduate pool has more to do with it - there are more aspiring professors at Harvard and Stanford than there are at UGA and UF, not because those aren’t great universities but because they’re made to serve everyone - from the kid from a low-income family who just wants to be a nurse to raise their standard of living to the kid who does want to be a professor and can’t afford anywhere else or decides to stay close to home. Kids who go to top schools are usually children of the wealthy elite (or at least the upper-middle-class) who have been exposed to more upper-middle-class careers that require graduate degrees, so they are more likely to want to go. And the low-income kids who go learn quickly from their peers that the expectation in their new peer group is to go to graduate school.</p>
<p>But quality of department, professor connections, research availability and resources do have something to do with it, too.</p>
<p>I’m going to go out on a limb here and in spite of the backlash, say something. Although UT-Austin is a powerhouse in some fields, it is definitely not one of the best universities in the country. Many people don’t even consider it 2nd tier in terms of public universities. There will always be overlaps of course(The worst at a school like Berkeley and the best at UT-Austin will have similar opportunities). The resources are probably similar at an Ivy League and the UT schools. But a kid from an Ivy League will almost always be better off because of the prestige. I’m currently in a graduate program in DC, and honestly everyone here’s from an Ivy League, military college or a top LAC, we rarely see even the top state schools. (Virginia, Michigan, Berkeley) I personally think that a few of the Ivy kids who were let in are idiots, but they have their school brand behind them. Simply put you will always have to work harder, but that’s how the world works. Don’t dwell on it, just put in your best effort. But you still have a pretty decent chance, Harvards a crapshoot for anyone, even Harvard undergrads.</p>
<p>Texas is objectively one of the best public universities in the country. (AAU member, total research funding, etc.)</p>
<p>That “some people” (who you don’t bother to name) “don’t even consider it 2nd tier” is of absolutely no consequence. Who are these people and why should we care what they think?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your evidence for this absurd claim?</p>
<p>This is a graduate school forum - I expect higher standards of argumentation.</p>
<p>“Some people” don’t think humans are influencing climate change. But climate scientists have data to prove that we are, and that data is true regardless of how many people “believe” it.</p>
<p>Correlation does not imply causation. There are other reasons for grads of top schools to be overrepresented in top grad schools, outside of academic incest:</p>
<ul>
<li>grads of top schools are more likely to be academically inclined (for better or worse)</li>
<li>grads of top schools are more likely to have the necessary resources</li>
<li>a lot of top schools are also top grad schools, so a lot of these grads have the added incentive of not having to pick up an go across the country</li>
<li>yes, grads of top schools are also more likely to be successful applicants, I think. I mean, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that the average student of English at Stanford will be better than the average student of English at UT-Austin. You know, simply because neither university attracts with their English programme, but Stanford does have other attractors. </li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>there is so much wrong with that statement i can’t even…</p>
<p>But, I digress. UT-Austin is very well known in the sciences, particularly in geoscience, and some social disciplines. Not so sure about English - but then the only way to be known for English is to have Harold Bloom, and that university hasn’t produced anything in years.</p>
<p>No. GRE scores are a comparatively small part of graduate admissions. Standardized tests are easily gamed. Research experience and academic recommendations are not.</p>
<p>There are many fields in which UT Austin is better at than ALL Ivy schools. Ivy name does not carry as much weight when it comes to graduate schools. Pick a department and advisor, not a school name.</p>
<p>argumentation? whose arguing? I gave him a simple opinion. You don’t have to agree with it. You should maybe see a therapist about the passive aggressiveness you got going on there. The OP can decide what he wants to read, and what he doesn’t.</p>
<p>No, you made an outlandish, ridiculous claim. I challenged you to provide evidence for it. Rather than do so, you accuse me of being passive-aggressive. Your resort to ad-hominem suggests strongly that you have no such evidence and that your opinion is, indeed, nonsense.</p>
<p>Yes, you have a right to express your opinion. I similarly have the right to challenge that opinion.</p>
<p>It’s simple. The admissions to the top universities have a much higher minimum bar, in terms of academics and many other factors. However, many students attend their (very good) flagship state school for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that they don’t fit many of the kinds of achievement (at times non-academic) sought by Ivy Leagues and many other schools. </p>
<p>For many competitive undergraduate schools, to get admission “purely” on the basis of academics, achievements on the order of international olympiad medals may be in order. </p>
<p>A lot of very amazing students don’t have those achievements, and thus, end up scattered at various places, and many students from terrific (but not the most undergrad-prestigious) schools end up doing amazingly for graduate admissions. </p>
<p>It is most crucial for graduate admissions to come from a department which has reputation of sending students to the best schools, so that your recommendation writers and credentials are well-branded, since a top notch graduate program will often prefer to go with the less risky option when making decisions.</p>
<p>The poster who identified that students attending various great state schools with less name-recognition may come from very different backgrounds had it correct.</p>
<p>I am fairly familiar with Berkeley. There are plenty of students rejected from Berkeley who are accepted to a different UC school, who actually do better in future endeavors than their accepted counterparts. The reason is that Berkeley rewards across-the-board high scores/numbers, whereas someone who was the high school physics whiz may not have those. He may head to a different UC school, achieve excellent record in physics, and head to a terrific graduate program. </p>
<p>These scenarios are just too common to make any sweeping generalizations about a UCB student having so much better opportunity. Keep in mind the faculty at various good schools are actually terrific, and face it, probably no worse at training the undergraduate students for graduate school.</p>
<p>It really depends on the specific majors. Some of the flagship state universities (Austin is certainly among them) are the power houses in engineering, computer science, and some science fields. Their top graduates have been as competitive as their private schools counterparts. I am not sure about English major though.</p>
<p>I think the reason has to do with the way graduate school admissions are structured.Most serious research is done at the top schools.Graduate schools take research and recommendations a lot more seriously.Students at top undergrads have greater access to well known,big name professors who get to write them the strongest recommendations.The two things that a very smart student at a non-elite school can work with(GPA and GRE scores) are the same ones that do not count as much for admissions.One might say that there are plenty of research opportunities at top schools that the top undergrads at non elite schools might take advantage of during the summers.I agree.With a qualification.Those internships are more likely to be awarded to citizens and permanent residents(I have a couple of data points.The smartest internationals seldom get those internships,but once they get citizenship,they magically qualify ).So…yeah.A smart international student should go straight to a top undergrad.Otherwise he or she has to make do with non elite undergrad and graduate schools.It is life.</p>