The “Acceptance Rate into Dream Med/Law/Bus School” irrelevance

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Shooting from the hip here. </p>

<p>Are we having a difficult time understanding the difference between correlation, coincidence and causation?</p>

<p>On almost a daily basis between March and May, we see posts asking the question: “which school (A, B, or C) to which I have been accepted has a better placement rate into (medical, law, mba,) professional school program?</p>

<p>This post is invariably followed by numerous posts citing placement rates into the professional program from undergraduate schools A, B, or C.</p>

<p>Suppose that Super Selective University’s (SSU) professional school applicants graduated high school with, an average, 4.3 gpa, 1475 SAT and very strong leadership ECs. SSU is more selective than Highly Selective University (HSU) and Very Selective University (VSU), and therefore 3.5 years later, one would naturally expect the students from SSU, having not been ruined by their sojourn at SSU, to have, on average, very high MCAT/LSAT/GMAT, and strong outside interests. SSU neither enhanced nor diminished the qualities already possessed by their students four years prior, and therefore does not advantage the student if he/she had chosen SSU instead of HSU or VSU. I’m leaving out the discussion of college GPA here since I think adcoms at professional programs have ways of normalizing gpas from different undergraduate schools.</p>

<p>Suppose further that Highly Selective University’s professional school applicants graduated high school with, on average, 4.1 gpa, 1430 SAT and strong leadership ECs. HSU is more selective than Very Selective University (VSU) and and therefore 3.5 years later, one would naturally expect the students from HSU, having not been ruined by their sojourn at HSU, to have, on average, higher MCAT/LSAT/GMAT than VSU (but not as high as those from SSU’s applicants), and strong outside interests. HSU neither enhanced nor diminished the qualities already possessed by their students four years prior, </p>

<p>and so on for Very Selective U, and the <em>average</em> student with 4.0 gpa, 1360 SAT and sorta strong ECs.</p>

<p>On average, yes, the undergraduate school with the stronger incoming freshman class (SSU) will, 3.5 years later, have a higher placement rate into selective professional schools. SSU will have better placement than HSU, which will have higher placement than VSU. That’s because the professional schools have a strong overlap in decision criteria for acceptance to their program as the undergraduate schools did.</p>

<p>Is this relevant to a posting student here whose grades, SATs and ECs gains him/her entrance to SSU, but instead attends HSU? No! SSU does not make its students smarter, have more drive, become more creative or be more capable of performing well on the MCAT/LSAT/GMAT. The student at HSU already performed equally to those at SSU (remember the student was offered admission to SSU but matriculated to HSU).</p>

<p>Why do these posters think that attending SSU suddenly makes them smarter, more creative, and able to score higher on the MCAT/LSAT/GMAT, and therefore gives them a better chance to dream professional school? If anything, as with the high school to college admissions process, the argument could be made that a student at HSU (read large public HS) will stand out, whereas at SSU (read private competitive suburban HS) will be in the middle of the pack. </p>

<p>I’m afraid so many of these threads give too much credit to the SSU, and creates a false hope -- and may divert a student's focus from their own achievement, to the crutch that SSU represents to them.</p>

2

<p>Bravo! I always get ticked off when people are like “go to stanford! you have a better chance of getting your harvard MBA from there” or the like.</p>

3

<p>Hmmm, the lack of replies tells me that people would PREFER to believe that selective colleges do more for them than they actually do.</p>

<p>very interesting… bordering on denial. (P.S. I attended a top 5 undergrad and top 12 Bschool)</p>

4

<p>There is a lack of replies because HSers and some people (the ones who loooooove to cite the WSJ study) don’t understand how professional school admissions works. HSers want to believe that they are somehow getting an advantage by going to a school with a 90% placement rate rather than one with a 75% placement rate. What they don’t understand is that any Top 20 school has the resources in place to get you into the professional school of your dreams. But, as you know, on CC people are very elitist. Because they themselves have a 2300 SAT score and got into a school with a 9% acceptance rate, they have to make themselves feel like they are setting themselves up for success better than someone with a 2200 SAT score that goes to a school with a 15% acceptance rate. It’s sad but I chuckle every time I see someone proclaim: “You should go to JHU!!! It has a 90% acceptance rate to med school.”</p>

<p>People who go to the premed forums for school selection often walk away disappointed. No one is willing to make the assertion that “Duke is better than Cornell for premed!” or “Cornell is better than NU for premed!” because those of us who are professional students or applicants know that no such generalization can be made. The HSers often get frustrated to the point of lashing back at us because we don’t want to choose a school for them (imagine that, wanting to have your future decided by a few strangers on the internet).</p>

5

<p>I agree wholeheartedly. One’s acceptance rate to prof/grad school is directly related to how well you did in college and testing, not where you went to school. Harvard has smart people graduating because they had smart people matriculating four years prior. If Harvard’s class went to Georgetown, Wisconsin, SMU, etc. they would be just as smart.</p>

6

<p>Factors you are missing:</p>

<p>1) Influence of peers: many students when they get to college either don’t know what they want to do or what opportunities are available after graduation OR think they know but then end up changing their minds based on their academic/social experience at a given school and what their fellow pupils are doing. Some schools obviously place better because certain post-graduate options are pushed either by the institution itself or other students. Also, certain jobs (particularly if you are looking at MBA placement) are less difficult to come by and/or more popular at certain places that are seen as desirable by adcoms at top business schools. Conversely, some schools lack these resources or actually discourage students from pursuing these routs to top professional schools. I know a friend personally that was told he would never get into the medical schools on his list because he attended school X. I could go on…</p>

<p>2) Reputation/prestige of undergraduate institution as a factor in admissions decisions: Though this varies by school, many top professional schools DO consider the rigor/competition at your undergraduate school in addition to its reputation when evaluating applications. This is particularly the case at top professional schools that also have very strong undergraduate programs.</p>

<p>3) Alumni network: some schools have great admissions stats (like say Haverford, Caltech, WUSTL, Harvey Mudd, etc.) but lack a successful group of alumni that students can network with after graduation. This is important to getting the right work experience that could help one get into top law and business schools.</p>

<p>4) For pre-meds at top feeders the resources (tutoring, hospital volunteering opportunities, clinical experiences, research opportunities, etc.) are readily available, popular, and easy to take advantage of because they send a large number of students to medical school every year.</p>

<p>I could go on…But it is really important not to underestimate the culture of an institution and the influence of peers and what career trajectories they choose to pursue as well as what the institution itself pushes on students (i.e. career services that is heavily focused on i-banking/consulting or a career services office that has little information/resources or pushes fortune 500 jobs that people must find on their own).</p>

7

<p>Davida1: those are all factors, but of almost nil importance.</p>

<p>I’ll have to go home, look up the longtitudinal study of students from the 60’s, 70’s and '80s, and the results tracking students accepted to, but not matriculated to, Harvard.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that the students who were accepted to Harvard but instead (usually for financial reasons) attended Big State U, or wherever they ended up, did just as well in their careers (as measured by earnings) than those that did in fact attend Harvard. Why? Because they didn’t suddenly become dumber, less motivated, or less creative by going to Big State U. In fact, Harvard was irrelevant to their career success.</p>

<p>The correlary is that the students who can gain acceptance to a Top 10 school, but attend a less prestigious university, they will do just as successfully applying to Medical, Law and Buisness schools if that is what they want to do.</p>

8

<p>Okay… but all other things aside…</p>

<p>Going to an Ivy League school gives you a perspective of the world that can be matched in not many other places. For example, last week I sat in on a lecture by a Nobel Laureate in Economics and ran into Brian Greene (Elegant universe) in a bathroom. My peers have been in movies with Adam Sandler, winners of the Tsaichovsky Festival keeps a Strativarius in his dorm room, etc. Can you find the density of talent that Ivies have anywhere else?</p>

<p>If you choose to accept the premise that humans are innately social creatures that are influenced by their peers, then you MUST acknowledge the likely truth that those who attend Ivies, apart from their innate talent, benefits additionally as well. In other words, in most cases, already smart students gain more benefits attending such universities.</p>

9

<p>Going to an Ivy, Stanford, Duke, MIT, or another top school will open more doors for you than going to a non-top 25 school. Beyond that, its up to you to distinguish yourself.</p>

<p>I am working for a pretty prominent company and our analyst classes are mainly Ivy Leaguers, Duke, Stanford, NU, Williams students etc. but there are still lots of individual students representing schools such as Denison, Virginia Tech, USC, Michigan State, Penn State, and so on. I think its half where-you-go and half what-you-do (well, maybe more slanted towards the latter).</p>

10

<p>The other fact is that people assume that they will do well if they go to a school they are “overqualified” (whatever that means) for. But, the reality is that in terms of numbers the difference between a student at Haverford and Williams or Stanford and Tufts is not really that significant. What gets people into top schools as opposed to schools for top school rejects is usually non-academic things. So, while you may assume that by going to a less prestigious/competitive university that you will do better, people often misjudge their own abilities/strengths (people come from very different secondary school environments) and you never know what outside factors/events may influence you in college. You could end up doing poorly or at the median and there is a big difference in terms of post-college opportunities for people at the median at Columbia and SUNY - Geneseo. Also, the college you go to sticks with you forever regardless of the graduate school you attend. IRL I find that I tend to be more impressed by individuals that attended a top undergraduate program and a weak graduate program than vice versa.</p>

11

<p>Having said all of that $$$ is a real issue. Top students that turn down prestigious private universities for full rides elsewhere or an honors program at a top state school may not have the same debt when they graduate, which is a good head start, and they may or may not have the same academic experience as their peers.</p>

12

<p>I most certainly came out of college relatively smarter and more ready for grad school qualifying tests than I was in high school. I also came out of college more mature and better prepared to deal with both academic and non-academic challenges. Furthermore, there is no doubt in my mind that my resume is relatively more impressive now than it was when I entered college. In short, I came out of college a far better grad-school (or employer) prospect than I entered college. </p>

<p>So, you may ask, what experiences of mine in college led to this growth? Academically, without any question, I learned and grew the most from my small classes (5 or fewer students), of which I had around a dozen of. Additionally, being surrounded–in every class–by people as smart or smarter than myself definitely inspired me to push myself harder than I would have otherwise. </p>

<p>Similarly, much of my growth was caused by my peers. Nearly virtually everyone at my school was driven and talented. It was hard not getting involved (and taking leadership roles) in extracurriculars wich such a brilliant and driven group of peers around me; everywhere I looked were people doing incredible things…how could I not join them!? Furthermore, my school had the resources and the will to support innovative student projects. Even had I been inspired to lead elsewhere, there are few other places where I could have found the institutional support needed to make any of my projects a success.</p>

<p>Now, I may be an exception, but I doubt that’s the case. I went to a top school and I am absolutely sure that it affected me far more profoundly than a mid-level school would have. Virtually every meaningful experience I had–academically, socially, or otherwise–was unique to the most elite schools. </p>

<p>I want to make clear that not every student will have this experience at their school. However, the top schools are set up such that it’s far easier and more common to have experiences like mine than at the average college.</p>

13

<p>Oh, and incidentally, I would show up as a “failure” on the longitudinal study cited above; I am teaching at a low income school through Teach For America and consequently am making very little income. </p>

<p>Studies such as the one cited in this thread fail because they capture a very incomplete measure of post-graduate success. To measure success by income alone fails to take into account the ever-growing number of graduates who dedicate their lives to public service or academia (and thus to lower incomes).</p>

14

<p>I agree. This is also similar to the problem with the “PhD production” rankings.</p>

15

<p>norcalguy:</p>

<p>I would suggest that it’s not the kids who peceive significant differential value where (almost) none exists, but their parents who foist that belief onto them.</p>

<p>truazn: The Committee in Stockholm does not limit Nobels to only those currently teaching at the Ancient Eight. If you are looking for Nobel lectures, suggest you check out UChicago. Cal-Berkeley has a few wandering around as well. </p>

<p>btw: how many peers can you associate with during your four years? 100, 1000, 6000? In absolute numbers, Cal has as many top “smart students” (your term) as does Harvard. Thus, no matter where you attend college, you’ll find your kinda people.</p>

16

<p>JP_Omnipotence wrote: “Bravo! I always get ticked off when people are like “go to stanford! you have a better chance of getting your harvard MBA from there” or the like.”</p>

<p>Well, I did… but it had nothing to do with Stanford, which is my point here. And I did not matriculate to Harvard MBA, but to UCLA Anderson at no cost. And two years later owned a home, due to having zero debt. And seven years after that, a new home in an exclusive area of LA, and again, because of the lack of loan debt.</p>

17

<p>bluebayou–that logic doesn’t hold because most of the people you associate with in college tend to be from a representative sample of that college (and not simply the 500 smartest people). Additionally, campus culture is incredibly important to the college experience and, without a doubt, the campus culture at a place like Harvard is affected by it being, well, Harvard. The campus culture at a top school will be pretty different from an average school, even if some of the students at the average school are just as smart as those at the top school. Finally, your comparison of Cal to Harvard demonstrates that (I think) you and are are talking about a different level of “top school.” While I think there is a noticeable qualitative difference between the Harvard experience and the Cal experience, I think the difference is barely more than just that–noticeable. In the grand scheme of things, both Cal and Harvard are “top schools” of the sort that I (and I think many of the other posters here) refer to.</p>

18

<p>Most people choosing between an expensive, highly selective elite private school and a less expensive alternative usually have as the less expensive alternative a Top 50 school at full scholarship, or the flagship state school (Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, UVA, N. Carolina, Florida, Maryland, UT Austin, Rutgers, etc.) and not a lesser public school (community college, Cal State XXX, etc.)</p>

19

<p>Ok, so now I need to clarify at least my viewpoint again. I wouldn’t consider a Florida, Maryland, or Rutgers on the same level as Harvard. I think there’s a difference between Cal and Harvard, but not a huge one. Similarly, I think there’s a difference between Cal and Maryland, also not a huge one. However, I think that when you add up those differences (say, between Harvard and Maryland), it does get significant. Maryland’s a solid state college–very respectable in every sense-- but I wouldn’t consider it to be one of the “top schools” in the country. I guess it all comes down to where you draw the line, but I think the generally accepted assumptions on this board place the line higher than UMD.</p>

<p>Now, the discussion in this thread is about various input/output rankings as a measure of college quality…the issue of whether an increase in quality is worth giving up a full ride is entirely separate debate.</p>

20

<p>I agree with abl’s comments about campus culture. DunninLA may not have yet come to terms with the way in which going to Stanford has benefited him/her.</p>