<p>Just to piggyback onto zagat's comments, I suspect that if there is a material "name" advantage, it is less about grad school admission and more about networking opportunities in certain high-paying professions. In looking at schools it's well worth visiting the career office and seeing who comes to campus to do interviews for internships and "permanent" jobs. </p>
<p>I would definitely send a young person to a "small but respected state school" that offered support for students seeking internships, research opportunities, etc. The only type of school I am really doubtful about is the small, underfunded, mediocre private school. I hear too many people who sent their kids to these -- they would not have considered a state school for reasons of snobbery -- and who are now discovering that many resources are simply not there.</p>
<p>"With the exception of Yale in the humanities, and Princeton in some of the the sciences, none of the Ivies (just to use them as an example) figure in the top 10 in ANY of the rates of future Ph.D. productivity." </p>
<p>This isn't an entirely fair way to gauge how going to a school will help with grad admissions. The correct question to ask wouldn't be "what percentage of people go to graduate school" but rather, "what percentage of grad school applicants from x undergrduate program get into their top choices (and, more importantly, how many ultimately "succeed" within those programs). It's not surprising to see that the LACs you mention send a high percentage of people on to graduate programs: LACs have a reputation for doing that. However, if someone were interested in graduate school in the sciences, I would recommend a research institution (even a state school) over an LAC. As others have mentioned already, getting into grad school depends highly on your undergraduate research experience. At a research institution, there are going to be more graduate students and postdocs to help with the day-to-day aspects of your project. And that crucial rec letter from your principal investigator that the potential grad schools read will have come from someone the admission committee probably knows well - to the extent that some people in the department may have worked with (or better, for) him/her. In terms of "name advantage," it isn't so much where you went (well, for engineering admissions, it gives a little edge if you come from Caltech or MIT) but who you've worked for. At a "name" school it is simply more likely that you will be able to work with someone who is influential in his/her particular field.</p>
<p>Data is just data - you make of it what you will. But the data doesn't indicate any advantage for the research universities. On the contrary, even as undergraduates, the rate of undergraduate research in biology (for example) published in peer reviewed journals coming out of little Hope College outstrips those at any the Ivies (again, just as an example) by roughly 4:1. Same is true at Earlham.</p>
<p>People - to add my two cents: My son was accepted to a state school (free tuition and fees) and one of the top 50 universities with a great merit scholarship (basically we will have to pay R&B plus a small loan). My son definately wants to go to grad school too so this is an interesting topic. We are chosing the "name" school because he will be able to finish his masters in 5 years. The university lets senior's take classes that will apply to their masters. This is very important because if your child is going to grad school they can't take forever to get there. Parents & Students: Take this into consideration when deciding upon a school:)</p>
<p>"In the end, it's best to choose an undergrad school where you would best thrive at. In terms of grad school, that's far far more important than anything else." shizz</p>
<p>I would say then, that assuming the school has the facilities to do good research, that most kids are best off not going to the hardest most competitive school, albeit perhaps the highest ranked one, they get into. Even, if as ofter seems the case, this makes their parents nervous that the kids aren't studying nearly constantly. I remember a conversation with Mini about a certain school famed for its difficulty, where the students don't have time for such things as habitat for humanity.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see to what extent Yalies, for instance, tend to track whatever field is seen as the sure route to big money. Medicine in one decade, high tech, the next, investment banking the next etc. Then see if the poor smucks at a well known state school tend to follow the money just as much.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(though I would note, for example, that Yale sent 17% of its graduates onto med. school in 1975, and only 6% in 2002, even as the academic quality of their students probably improved. The gap between the schools is likely less than it was in 1975, and med. school may have become less attractive to Yale grads. I am NOT suggesting that they aren't smart enough to go to med. school; only that they didn't.)<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Something that seems to have changed since 1975, besides the lack of attractiveness of medicine, is that many students now take a gap year prior to applying to med school - sometimes a couple of years. This is even more pronounced, I think, at elite schools. When I started med school in 1980 - only a few people, 10-15%, were NOT straight out of college. I don't know what the %age is now, but I get the feeling that it is much higher. If you just look at graduating seniors plans, you don't get the full perspective.</p>
<p>Gap percentages are higher, though I haven't seen any evidence of them being higher at elite schools (and certainly wouldn't come anywhere close to explaining a 65% decline.) Often the reason for the "gap" is the unwillingness of the school to recommend a candidate directly for admission, for fear that a rejection will be bring down the school's admit rate. I think the major reason for the change in the Yale (Ivy?) med school rates is the reason the schools give themselves: they are rejecting entire classes of students every bit as academically talented and qualified as those they are accepting, and these students are going somewhere else...and making their way to med. school. Is there a reason we shouldn't believe what the Ivies themselves are telling us?</p>
<p>The most competitive undergrad schools are often the ones that are highest ranked. I don't want to derail this thread into a debate about that statement, but I think it's safe to say it's generally true. I come from a "name" school so there is a bias to keep in mind, but this is what I have observed.</p>
<p>Another benefit about going bigger schools the wide range of fields to choose from. God knows how many times I have flip flopped between different interests. Thankfully, I've had a lot of opportunity to explore and narrow down what I wanted to study. </p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>"With the exception of Yale in the humanities, and Princeton in some of the the sciences, none of the Ivies (just to use them as an example) figure in the top 10 in ANY of the rates of future Ph.D. productivity."</p>
<p>I never trust blanket statements with numbers about grad school admissions. It's not difficult to get into a grad school. The demand for PhD students outweighs the supply. The difficulty lies in getting into a good program. Acceptance rates are much lower than undergrad for a much much stronger pool of applicants. I would attribute those kinds of statistics to career choices made by the students. I actually don't know many students here going to grad school. Most are going to professional schools or are opting for high-paying jobs in industry.</p>
<p>"Is there a reason we shouldn't believe what the Ivies themselves are telling us?"</p>
<p>I think it's a disservice to talk about professional schools in a grad school thread only because the two are completely different, but I know a recent trend of many students is to take a year off before going to med school. I can think of many people here that are choosing to do their MPH (masters in public health) or are working in a hospital/research lab before applying to med schools again. The biggest reason for that change in admissions rate is probably because med school admissions are getting so competitive that rates are going down. 1975 and 2002 are 27 years apart. Compare the undergrad acceptance rates then and now. If you compare rates now to just 5 years ago, there is still a noticeable change.</p>
<p>" The biggest reason for that change in admissions rate is probably because med school admissions are getting so competitive that rates are going down. 1975 and 2002 are 27 years apart."</p>
<p>You really think that Yale students have gotten that much less competitive relative to other schools? (I don't mean that rhetorically - my instincts, again based on what the Ivies are telling us - are hat this is true, and the gap is no longer there. But -- Shiz - if this is true for medical schools, why wouldn't the same hold true for "good" Ph.D. programs? Wouldn't that be by far the simplest explanation?</p>
<p>Have to weigh in on this one, if only to disagree respectfully with calkidd about LACs. :)</p>
<p>Son chose a "name" science LAC, first in grad school admissions in his discipline, over a full ride at a state school. He's seen both the very high acceptance and matriculation rates (with funding) for seniors at his school and the response he has already gotten to his REU applications for this summer (3/4 so far including Ivy in a very competitive year as NSF funding has been cut). I agree that what counts most is research in addition to great recs from profs who know you well -- which, thanks to his school, he has (along with publication as co-author in a top journal) -- and assuming at least a solid GPA and GREs.</p>
<p>At his school, students get first-rate experience with research and the personal attention and mentoring of top-notch teaching profs (who are well-known and respected in their disciplines). The students are talented, the classes challenging, and the curriculum rigorous; so graduates are extremely well prepared. Summers offer the opportunity to do research at major universities, through REUs, in an intimate environment with resources that might not be available at LACs or even at other universities [How many major nanotech centers are there, after all?], which in turn leads to networking opportunities. Best of both worlds.</p>
<p>Many people would argue that a bright student with initiative and a strong work ethic will find an opportunity to succeed wherever s/he goes; and I would agree. But from what I've seen firsthand, the opportunities have a greater likelihood of presenting themselves at the "name" school. There is no doubt in my mind that my son would not have the options he has if he had gone to that state school.</p>
<p>I'm sure Yale has gotten more competitive, but there are more people applying for the same spots. I also don't know where you got your numbers from. Are you saying 6% of all Yale students went to medical school or that 6% of med school hopefuls got accepted into med school? If it's the latter, I seriously doubt the veracity of those numbers. If it's the former, it's definitely more believable. 1 out of 6 students going to med school from a given University is A LOT. Nowadays people are going into IB, law school, and other industrial jobs. 6% doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all.</p>
<p>As far as PhD programs are concerned, I'm not sure what you're talking about either. I have no idea what percentage of yale students go to "top" programs. I know a few students graduating from Yale this year and I can give you anecodtal evidence of their success, but I don't think that's what you're looking for.</p>
<p>From Yale's website Office of Institutional Research (which they have just taken down, to be replaced by their CDS) - in 1975, 17% of Yale grads went on to med school; in 2002 it was 6%. I'd be surprised if they weren't as successful in admissions as they were 25 years ago. But fewer are applying. As in all schools, some are putting it off - some are likely encouraged by the school to put it off, so as not to mess up the admit statistics. This is not in any way a knock on Yale - there is no reason to believe the students aren't every bit as qualifed as they were 25 years ago, and some reason to believe they are better. But the gap between Yale and the other schools just isn't particularly large any more.</p>
<p>As for the Ph.D.s, your argument seems to be that while folks from the prestigious schools are not going on to Ph.Ds at the rate of other schools (according to readily available HEDS data put out by the U.S. Department of Education), they are nonetheless going to "better" grad schools. I've never seen any evidence for this, and I think the simple explanation is that there is an academic "re-sort" after four years, and those coming out of the prestige institutions are not seen as signficantly better than their peers at other schools. And the Ivies, at least, are candid in saying so - they reject entire classes as academically talented as those they accept, and these students are going (and succeeding) elsewhere.</p>
<p>"some are likely encouraged by the school to put it off, so as not to mess up the admit statistics. This is not in any way a knock on Yale -"</p>
<p>You directly stated before that Ivy league schools are hiding something, so yes I could consider this a knock on Yale and other schools of similar caliber. Implying that a school chooses a particular course of action with the purpose of bettering some insignificant statistic is a preposterous idea. That is questioning the integrity of a school, its administration, and the advisors who only look out for the best interests of their students, and frankly I'm offended. I would not be surprised if Yale advisors are telling their students to wait a year before applying. In fact, that's a great idea for students that are on the fence.</p>
<p>"As for the Ph.D.s, your argument seems to be that while folks from the prestigious schools are not going on to Ph.Ds at the rate of other schools (according to readily available HEDS data put out by the U.S. Department of Education), they are nonetheless going to "better" grad schools."</p>
<p>You are right. I have never seen any reliable year-to-year statistics about students graduating into PhD programs. Everything that I speak of comes from experience. I can tell you that my classmates (the ones that are going to grad school) have been accepted into the top programs in their fields. I am not implying that people from lesser known schools are less capable. In fact, I directly stated the very opposite of that. I have worked with fellow students from lesser known schools who are very bright and talented. </p>
<p>"And the Ivies, at least, are candid in saying so - they reject entire classes as academically talented as those they accept, and these students are going (and succeeding) elsewhere."</p>
<p>Well, yeah. When applying to top schools, there is more talent than they can accept. Like I said before, grad school admissions are very informal. They don't just see what your grades and test scores are. They want to see if your interests "fit in" to the department. It's very informal and not like undergrad admissions at all.</p>
<p>"I would not be surprised if Yale advisors are telling their students to wait a year before applying. In fact, that's a great idea for students that are on the fence."</p>
<p>But it's not a knock on Yale, because the same could be said at EVERY school. I don't believe they are trying to hide anything! I think they wish to put their best feet forward in admissions, like every other school. Some schools weed out "weaker" applicants earlier in the process, and some later - and, frankly, I think the weeding out, on balance, is a good thing, not a bad thing - it prevents folks from becoming docs who are likely not cut out for it. As to why, percentagewise, fewer Yalies are choosing to become docs, well, we all have our own speculations, as per above, and no need to repeat 'em.</p>
<p>"I have worked with fellow students from lesser known schools who are very bright and talented."</p>
<p>Well, I would think that rather patronizing, though I doubt you meant it that way. The fact is they beat out students from better known schools in order to be there. Or did I get that wrong?</p>
<p>The implication is that smarter kids usually attend well known prestigious schools. I have worked with students that do not attend prestigious schools, but they are just as smart and talented as my classmates.</p>
<p>That was in reference to summer research programs (REUs) I have participated in. Those are competitive and yes, I'm sure they were accepted over applicants from prestigious schools. Next year in grad school, I'm sure many of my classmates will be from "lesser known schools" who got in because of their talent and ability and who accepted over students from prestigious schools.</p>
<p>The implication is that smarter kids usually attend well known prestigious schools. I have worked with students that do not attend prestigious schools, but they are just as smart and talented as my classmates."</p>
<p>But the admissions people at the Ivies DON'T agree with you. They are saying that kids just as smart as those they are accepting are being rejected and are going elsewhere for their undergraduate work. Yes, there may be students who are less capable at those institutions as well (less capable, that is, when they applied for undergraduate admission, not necessarily when the applied for graduate school admission.) </p>
<p>The smarter kids ARE attending prestigious schools AND the less prestigious ones, and, according to what the admissions officers are saying these days, those attending the less prestigious ones (because they were rejected elsewhere) may represent greater numbers.</p>
<p>Sybbie - thanks for the link. Notice the law school attendance numbers plummeting as well (one could hardly argue that this is because lawyers aren't paid enough. There goes another broken hypothesis. ;)) You can be sure those law school places are being taken by someone else...</p>