<p>I know the official line is always "we don't discuss our applicants with other schools." And, most schools do treat the application content as highly confidential to protect individual privacy. However, there is usually a good flow of information, through the informal channels, among schools. Personally, I don't think this put an applicant on any real disadvantage unless he/she is telling a different story in each school. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know you threw on a disclaimer to your first post, but the fact that you readily admit that you rejected a student offhand who had a 4.0 while "heavily courting" a mediocre student from a Top LAC is pretty awful, in my humble opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pretty awful, perhaps, but an accurate account nonetheless of how grad admissions work. It is actually fairly common for grad programs to prefer mediocre students from top-ranked schools over "stellar" applicants from third-tier institutions. I guess the rationale, which which I agree BTW, is that a 4.0 GPA from a lousy program is far less impressive than, let's say, a 3.5 from a school that is known for its academic rigor. In the end, it is not the grades that matter, but what you actually know/have learned in college.</p>
<p>There is confidentiality in admissions. We only know about any student's other admissions and offers when that student tells us.</p>
<p>Isn't it rather reassuring to hear that the fact that you chose to challenge yourself by attending a tough program and getting the occassional B is better than skating by in an easy program with all As. This reminds me of the validictorian issue of weighting Aps or not, every one is upset when the slacker 4.0 with all easy classes outranks the all AP kid who got a hard-earned B...yeah, yeah, we all know the best option is the toughest program and all As, but this is real life and Bs (and, horrors) even Cs happen. I am pleased to hear Prof X state that is not a damning mark for your future, but is taken in context with all other pursuits and accomplishments.</p>
<p>I think you future grad students should be happy to hear what Prof X is saying, she is saying it is the total picture that matters not one particular grade- of course, all programs probably have some minimum threshhold which must be met before any consideration.</p>
<p>I see where Professor X is coming from. The student with a high GPA perhaps did not take advantage of anything during her undergraduare career while the one from a LAc school did. BTW I think a GPA of 3.35 is a pretty good one, it may not be 3.50 or above but it's still competitive enough.</p>
<p>First off, I didn't mean to attack Professor X in any way. I got the gist of what he was saying from the outset, namely that a student coming from a more rigorous program will get a serious look, even if he isn't a 4.0 achiever. I understand that and also understand that this isn't Professor X's way of saying that attending a third tier school is worthless, but rather that this is a reality of grad admissions. What I was originally militating for, however, was that professor X would point out what he later, did, namely that the prestige of undergraduate insitituions is but one of many factors that plays in to graduate admissions. if there is something College Confidential does NOT need it is more people drinking the Prestige Kool Aid.
Again, I tend to be much mroe frank/confrontational on CC than many other posters, just because I like a good, candid discussion which is what we are having right now. I in no way meant to demonize Professor X, especially since he spends so much time giving great and uself information on this board.</p>
<p>Another issue that I have is that some people have great reasons to attend a second or third tier insititution. Take me for example. i live in Montreal, which is home to one of North America's finest Medical/Research Insititutions, McGill University. I could have attended McGill, but chose to attend Concordia, a large, City College style university, instead. There were many reasons for this, namely that I enjoyed the student body much more at Concordia, and that my program, Political Science, is about as dead as it can be at McGill, whereas it is vibrant, active and engaged at Concordia.
That said, I would find it really dissapointing if, come grad admissions time, I was looked down upon due to the fact I attended a second tier school when I had very legitimate reasons for going there.</p>
<p>It's one thing to not get caught up in prestige, it's another to forget why it's there to begin with.</p>
<p>Merper,</p>
<p>I don,t mean to discount prestige. Telling someone who wants to win a Nobel Prize in Chemsitry, "Dude, forget about Harvard. It's totally overrated. Do an online course instead..." is obviously disregarding the usefulness of prestige in the worst possible way. Great schools, and great programs, are usually great for a reason, and that reason is usually not simply hype. Thus, if a kid comes up to me and says, "I really want to do grea things in Math, so I'm going to Princeton," I won't accuse him of being blinded by prestige.</p>
<p>However, when someone comes on CC and saying that he wants to work in the Public Sector and people start telling him that he NEEDS to go to SIPA, SAIS, or KSG unless he wants to have a horrid career, that is when the Prestige Kool Aid is being drunk, by the gallon.</p>
<p>You see it as well as I do, I'm sure. Alot of people who post here legitimately want to go to great schools, and for very good reasons. Others are convinced that unless they get a grad degree from MIT, their life will be a failure.</p>
<p>Great point, merper!</p>
<p>
[quote]
That said, I would find it really dissapointing if, come grad admissions time, I was looked down upon due to the fact I attended a second tier school when I had very legitimate reasons for going there.
[/quote]
I do think you have very legitimate reasons for choosing your current school. But that's no point here. If someone chooses to be in a less rigorous program (regardless the prestige of the university) and fails to make himself/herself a great candidate with the available resources, the adcom will see that clearly and "reward" his/her effort accordingly.</p>
<p>Dallas,</p>
<p>That is obviously true. If an admissions board rejected a student who had a 3.6 but was coming from a much more rigorous program and had published, interned, ect.ect. in place of a student with no real attributes except great academic scores, I would find that suspect.</p>
<p>As for SIPA, SAIS, or KSG (and other professional schools in general), don't discount of the fact those schools have a very strong record on placements. It isn't just someone purely seeking prestige. It is the sad truth that certain doors could only be opened through those gates. </p>
<p>I do hope Professor X will say something to the extent of "prestige" on faculty hiring which of course is way beyond the scope of OP.</p>
<p>What Professor X is suggesting is pretty interesting, but the comparison is somewhat unbalanced. It appears as if the school attended by either applicant was less of a concern where more emphasis was placed on the "package" itself. </p>
<p>Quick question Profesor...all things being equal other than GPA who would your admissions committee prefer? The Third Tier 4.0 with strong LOR's, research expeirence, internships etc etc or the Top LA's graduate...again with strong LOR's, research, internships etc etc only with say a 3.3 GPA?</p>
<p>I think that this is only the true way of determining whether or not the "name brand" effect is actually at play here.</p>
<p>Dallas,</p>
<p>I have no problem when someone comes on here wanting to know how to become an ambassador and someone says "Go to SIPA." The fact of the matter is that many doors can only be opened from schools such as SIPA, KSG, SAIS et. al., but those are very specific doors, leading to very specific employment. What I have always had an issue with is when someone comes on here and asks something like "I want to work in the public sector, maybe at the city level, could I do that by attending a State University?" and people immediately tell the guy he should be aiming for SIPA or the WWS. As I said before, I do not doubt that many doors can be opened by going through great schools, but not everyone wants to be the next president, the CEO of a Fortune Five Hundred company or an Oil Tycoon.</p>
<p>sphere,</p>
<p>Prof X's point was always that the "whole pacakge" was looked at, and that undergraduate schools are obviously a part of that package. The reason I got on his case beforehamd is because he didn't expound on this fact in enough depth and I could see a wave of CC posters going "SEE! You need to go to HYPSM to get into a masters program! I knew it!"</p>
<p>jm</p>
<p>I see, but in his comparison there is no reason to come to the conclusion that the institution attended by either student was a mitigating factor in determining who should be admitted. Appearently, from what I can tell, it seems as if the student from the Third tier institution was taken less seriously simply because they lacked any substantial hands on experience of any kind outside of academia. Where the second applicant seemlingly had more to offer aside from a strong GPA. </p>
<p>This is why I would be interested to see who the preferred choice would be if both applicants were virtually identicle with everything outside of GPA. If the 3.3 continues to get the nod, then I think it's pretty self-evident that the choice of institution-- can in many cases become the deciding factor in the admissions process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I have always had an issue with is when someone comes on here and asks something like "I want to work in the public sector, maybe at the city level, could I do that by attending a State University?" and people immediately tell the guy he should be aiming for SIPA or the WWS.
[/quote]
I can see your viewpoint that a very rigorous program could be an overkill for such a person. To me, the key lies on the word "maybe". Some of the really good programs have a transformative effect on their students and open their eyes to the possibilities. Your maybe-at-city-level person may see what he/she could truly be at one of these programs and decide "hey, I can be at the state/federal/international level." I've been one of those places myself so
I tend not to discount a person's true potential upfront. I always ask someone to aim higher (rather than just stay put). But, that's just me.</p>
<p>Also, i'd argue as to whether or not a 4.0 from a third tier institution is any less capable or prepared than that from a top institution. </p>
<p>A 4.0 is a 4.0...capabilities from other cadidate are undefined if not nearly limitless. However, the 4.0 from the lower tiered institution may have to demonstrate that, where the later has already proven this.</p>
<p>sphere,</p>
<p>all 4.0's are not the same. i highly doubt that people with 4.0 from a third tier institution can achieve the same in a more challenging environment. when people in you class are at least as smart as you and the class grades on a curve, it is quite a feat to get an A. </p>
<p>even within the same institution, GPA can vary depending on course choices. it is very conceivable that a person who choose to take easier classes to get 4.0 is less well trained than another person who want to engage in more challenging classes but with lower GPA. i really dont know GPA is a valid indicator unless you normalize the difficulty of classes. </p>
<p>of course GPA is just one indicator of how successful the candidate will be. i personally think that overemphasize on GPA by sacrificing rigor of your training is simply foolish.</p>
<p>jm,</p>
<p>well, when the job opportunity is boundless, it is fine wherever you go to school. but reality is that it is not that easy to find a job and going to a more prestigious school does give you an edge in job seeking and school applications. there is a reason that people are willing to pay that much money to go to Ivy league schools. </p>
<p>even if your aspiration is not grand, you still need to get there. by attending a more prestigious program, you are more likely to reach your goal. with that said, i don't mean to say that by attending a less prestigious school, your life is doomed. you just have to work a lot harder than other people to reach the same goal. people from less prestigious programs have a lot more to prove.</p>
<p>jml</p>
<p>an adcom's task is to identify who they think are the strongest students. in the case of the 4.0 3rd tier vs. 3.3 LAC, the 3.3 LAC student was assessed as being overall (significantly) stronger. what other discussion needs to be made?</p>
<p>dallas wrote:
I do hope Professor X will say something to the extent of "prestige" on faculty hiring which of course is way beyond the scope of OP.</p>
<p>i find this a fascinating thought too - and second the motion. i hope Prof X doesn't take the "misunderstanding" here too personally and is willing to chime in on this. i don't think anyone here has concluded from her posts that u can't get into a good grad school from a 3rd tier uni.</p>
<p>jm</p>
<p>all 4.0's are not the same. i highly doubt that people with 4.0 from a third tier institution can achieve the same in a more challenging environment. when people in you class are at least as smart as you and the class grades on a curve, it is quite a feat to get an A. </p>
<p>Not to make an argument out of this but I strongly disagree. A 4.0 from any institution is primarily based on drive, ambition, sacrifice, determination--and a bit of luck. It is highly improbable that even the strongest student can take 30 or more college classes and still maintain a straight A average. Within any institution, that grading scales from one professor to the next will vary, making it that much difficult of a feat to attain. Now, that being said, in my very own personal opinion, a person who is capable of maintaining a 4.0 at any institution will naturally adapt to the more challenging environment simply because they possess the attributes that I mentioned earlier. Of course, this is true assuming both candidates have taken an identicle course load. Now there's no imperical evidence to support either side of the equation, but i'm trying to look at this purely from a logical point of view.</p>
<p>However that's not to be mistaken with saying that a 4.0 from a 3rd tier is equally as prepared as someone from a top university, but IMO they are just as capable of earning that very same GPA.</p>