The importance of the undergraduate school

Graduate School
41

<p>bo435, </p>

<p>Your post is completely ridiculous but I'm fairly sure you were already well aware of this after you clicked the "submit reply" button No one here is arguing that a degree from HBS is of the same worth as one from SUNY Buffalo. Obviously the two have completely different market values and thus attract totally different students. An MBA is a professional degree that, when coming from a place like Harvard, basically certifies that you have several years of top notch work experience under your belt, that you are a natural leader and that, unless the admissions people over in Cambridge got it totally wrong, you are cut out for the world of business. An undergraduate degree, on the other hand, is a non-professional degree that shows employers and grad schools that you have what it takes to succeed in a number of general courses and that you are capable of handing in work on time and respecting deadlines. If this degree comes from a prestigious undergrad, it also shows future employers or graduate schools that: a) You were a great high school student b) you were able to succeed against other top high school students in university. Comparing a the value of a name brand professional degree like a MBA or a JD to the value of a BA is patently ridiculous, especially for individuals who fancy themselves educated.</p>

<p>I dont think anyone would debate that graduates from truly elite universities such as Yale, Hrvard, or Princeton have a world of opportunities open to them upon graduation that undergrads from mediocre universities dont. Likewise, their chances of being accepted to top grad programs are also higher, but to say that this advantage is due solely (or even mostly) to the name on their degree is complete and utter BS. Rather, students who had the gumption to get into Harvard or Yale for undergrad are some of the most hard working and bright young adults in the country which explains why--surprise, surprise!--many of these individuals go on to top grad schools. Amazing!</p>

<p>Another big problem I have with this thread is the use of Harvard as the ONLY example of an elite B-School</p>

42

<p>There's no point getting so mad over this. I mean... so yeah, go to Harvard B school or Stanford or Penn and get a MBA. Yeah I don't think ivy undergrads get any type of advantage when it comes to b school admissions. They're just higher quality applicants on average. I think they definitely are "some of the most hard working and bright young adults in the country." So I think if you can do well at a undergrad school like any of the ivies, the admissions ppl are going to be very impressed. Likewise, you can and should impress them by other means as well.</p>

43

<p>I wasnt getting mad, but I am annoyed at the flat out stupidity of many of those who claim plainly that Ivy League grads have an advantage when it comes to graduate admissions BECAUSE they went to an Ivy. That's nonsense. They have an advantage when it comes to applying for jobs or getting into graduate schools because, for the most part, they are obsessively hard working, very bright, or both and employers as well as grad schools know this.
It's as if no one on this forum has ever bothered to take a basic level stats class and learn what a spurious correlation is.</p>

44

<p>I agree Reaver. I don't need to apply for a PhD program at a prestigious university (assuming they would accept me) because I prefer to work for a company and design bridges, building, and wastewater treatment plants. In all honesty, I believe I lack the creativity necessary to be a good researcher, and the communication skills required to be a professor. However, I believe that I'll be a great engineer in the field with aspirations as intense as, though different, from your own. We all have different skills that we can apply to better society.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
Claiming that those who don't hold BA's from the most elite schools in America, institutions which pump out a very limited amount of undergraduates each year, a total which represents a fraction of the American workforce, are destined for "mediocre" work is a sakky-esque assumption if I've ever seen one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, did I ever SAY that "those who don't hold BA's from the most elite schools in America...are destined for "mediocre" work"? Please point to the quote where I said that, or anything like it. Oh, can't do it, can you? In fact, didn't I specifically show that even a guy from the University of Central Florida got into HBS? </p>

<p>Claiming that people said certain things when they actually did not is apparently a jmleadpipe-esque assumption if I've ever seen one. Not only did I make no such claim, in fact I volunteered evidence that showed precisely the opposite. </p>

<p>What I have said is simply that those who attend topflight undergrad programs have advantages over those who don't. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Rather, students who had the gumption to get into Harvard or Yale for undergrad are some of the most hard working and bright young adults in the country which explains why--surprise, surprise!--many of these individuals go on to top grad schools. Amazing!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I wasnt getting mad, but I am annoyed at the flat out stupidity of many of those who claim plainly that Ivy League grads have an advantage when it comes to graduate admissions BECAUSE they went to an Ivy. That's nonsense. They have an advantage when it comes to applying for jobs or getting into graduate schools because, for the most part, they are obsessively hard working, very bright, or both and employers as well as grad schools know this.
It's as if no one on this forum has ever bothered to take a basic level stats class and learn what a spurious correlation is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, actually, I would say that you're the one that is making the spurious connection. The truth is, they do have an advantage, and a keen one at that, that stands above and beyond whatever advantages they have in terms of natural talent and work ethic. </p>

<p>How's that? It's simple economics, and specifically, the economics of matching. A Harvard undergrad might get an offer from McKinsey. But had that same guy gone to SE Missouri State, he probably wouldn't have gotten that job at McKinsey. But why not? After all, he's the same guy, with presumably the same work ethic and same talent. The problem is matching. McKinsey simply doesn't recruit at SE Missouri State, and you can't get the job if you can't even talk to a recruiter. On the other hand, believe me, McKinsey has extensive recruiting activities at Harvard. I am fairly confident in saying that any Harvard student who wants to meet with a McKinsey recruiter can do so. That doesn't mean that you'll get the job, but at least you get to meet them. So at least you have a chance. </p>

<p>I consider the situation to be akin to dating. You can be the most handsome, most intelligent, most charming, most adorable guy in the world, but if you're not actually around women who are available, you're never going to find anybody. Again, it's the matching problem. It doesn't really matter how good you are if the other party can't find you. </p>

<p>Look, to use econ-speak, labor markets are absolutely riven with asymmetric information which makes the matching problem so acute, and schools serve as nexus points that bring together students and recruiters in order to solve that matching problem. Clearly, some schools are better nexuses than others. One could say that the top schools are similar to exclusive and high-end singles clubs: they attract the best single women, which attracts the best single men, which then attracts more of the best single women, which attracts more of the best single men, etc. </p>

<p>Look, jmleadpipe, in a world of perfect markets, what you are saying would indeed hold: top employers really would be hiring from top schools only because those students just so happen to be high quality, and nothing more. But the world is more complex than that. Markets are deeply imperfect because of their information asymmetries, and schools therefore serve as de-facto market generators and designers. As an economist might say, transactions may not happen with even the best goods if the market is imperfect.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
88.2% doesn't round to 89%

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I used USNEWs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Divide entering class size by number of acceptances.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong. You're calculating it the wrong way. What you have neglected is that HBS allows its *doctoral * students to also get MBA's if they want it. Those who do so are part of the 'entering class' but are not counted as part of the regular admit pool.</p>

<p>Stanford, on the other hand, does not allow its doctoral students to get MBA's, unless of course they want to enter the regular admissions process.</p>

47

<p>Compare MBA APPLICANTS to MBA APPLICANTS. If doctoral students don't apply, don't bother counting them.</p>

<p>And I'm still waiting for this supposed cross admit data you claimed to have seen.</p>

48

<p>that's true. A lot of top firms do recruit extensively at Harvard. I remember seeing a lot of ads on campus during the fall. I would have to say that it's a lot easier to get a job at Goldman, JPMorgan, etc from the Ivies that it is from SE MO State, given the same GPA, major, interview skills etc. I agree with sakky. I guess the flood of opportunities does give the ivy league undergrads an advantage, whether it'd be fair or not... I'm guessing the reputation of one's undergrad matters isn't a deciding factor in any way, but somehow it just matters so much indirectly.</p>

<p>So I guess we've all established that (1) the reputation of where you get your MBA matters a lot citing jmleadpipe, but I guess we're still not all on the same page about (2) whether how the reputation of your undergrad matters.</p>

49

<p>Does coming from a top 3 LAC carry a lot of weight?..</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
Compare MBA APPLICANTS to MBA APPLICANTS. If doctoral students don't apply, don't bother counting them

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But you can't. The data that is presented by USNews does not separate the two. The entering class is the entire entering class. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And I'm still waiting for this supposed cross admit data you claimed to have seen.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me ask you this. Do you remember where every single piece of data you have ever seen in your life is located?</p>

51

<p>I think they should carry at some weight. I heard from someone that the top LACs are pretty decent schools.</p>

52

<p>So in actuality, Harvard's yield is even lower than reported by US News since admittance does not include PhD candidates. And in regards to your second comment, don't talk about **** you can't cite since it sounds like you made it up off the top of your head.</p>