Which is better: a 3.0 at HYPS or a 4.0 at a state school?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>In a meeting with a Yale Law adcomm, a friend was told that they only looked at those candidates that fell within the top 5% of their graduating class--regardless of their undergraduate institution.</p>

<p>-Lurker-, what do you mean by diverse classes? Do you mean diversity in the adcomm sense of the word? Or do you mean breadth of curriculum?</p>

<p>gellino, I'd really caution you away from this line of thinking. Many of my friends who have graduated from HYP and various top-tier schools have not met with success in getting a job post-graduation, let alone a high-paying or prestigious one. In fact, many are going to graduate school to avoid the job market. The value of a bachelor's degree has declined tremendously.</p>

22

<p>pip-pip , if that is the case for Yale Law School, then why is more than 50% of the class from one of 12 schools (Ivy League + Stanford, Duke, Williams, Amherst) instead of more uniformly distributed?</p>

<p>Also, while you may have some friends from top schools that were unable to get high paying or prestigious jobs, I would still think that the % who do get good jobs from these schools is much higher than the % who do from state schools and this is one reason for the mad rush in applications to these 'top' schools.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]

pip-pip , if that is the case for Yale Law School, then why is more than 50% of the class from one of 12 schools (Ivy League + Stanford, Duke, Williams, Amherst) instead of more uniformly distributed?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>More applications.</p>

24

<p>Also, just b/c they only consider students in the top 5% of their class doesn't mean that they don't prefer ivy grads who meet that qualification over state schools applicants who meet that qualification.</p>

25

<p>"...I would still think that the % who do get good jobs from these schools is much higher than the % who do from state schools and this is one reason for the mad rush in applications to these 'top' schools."</p>

<p>You may be right, but I doubt that's a direct function of a given university's "prestige". Everyone has a bachelor's degree these days; it's what a high school diploma was worth 20 years ago. Employers don't care where you went to school; they care if you can do the job. For employers, past experience is a more reliable indicator of aptitude than the name brand recognition of a given college. </p>

<p>I've talked about this in other threads, but as a general rule, students at top tier schools like HYPS have access to more opportunities and resources regardless of their socio-economic background. These opportunities include research assistantships, undergraduate fellowships, internships (and the grants to go along with them), a wider variety of relevant work-study opportunities, and so on. These are the reasons why I've applied to transfer from my state school to private institutions. All of these opportunities allow an applicant to gain experience in his or her field, which (from my personal experience) employers consider to be far more valuable than the prestige associated with a given college. </p>

<p>As an aside, my friends had difficulty getting jobs, period. Then they found them--in restaurants, stores, as administrative assistants, etc., to pay the bills. Now, several years later, they are finally getting into jobs where they can make a decent living ($35,000/yr).</p>

26

<p>"As an aside, my friends had difficulty getting jobs, period. Then they found them--in restaurants, stores, as administrative assistants, etc., to pay the bills. Now, several years later, they are finally getting into jobs where they can make a decent living ($35,000/yr)."</p>

<p>You've mentioned this now on two different boards, so I have to ask what these friends at good colleges were doing to prepare themselves for the job market? Did they seek out internships in their fields? Did they participate in on campus recruiting? Did they use alumni networks to find opportunities? Did they major/minor in subjects that lend themselves to employment right out of undergrad (e.lg. accounting versus english literature)? Were they willing to move wherever they had to go to find work? What were their career goals? </p>

<p>I'm trying to learn what the cautionary tale is here, so that I can understand.</p>

27

<p>I'd say 4.0, but it depends on majors and things like that...obviously competition at top privates would be harder, but there is grade inflation.</p>

28

<p>Assuming equivilent GREs, MCATs, LSATs etc, the higher GPA is the more important Thus, a 3.6 from a state school would be better than a 3.4 from an ivy. Admissions for professional schools tend to be more numerically based, at least this is true for law school.</p>

29

<p>I think that in general, the most common traits among my friends who did not meet with success upon graduation was that they failed to take advantage of all the opportunities that their institutions had to offer. While they did participate in a handful, they had overestimated the currency of their bachelor's degree and underestimated the importance of experience and achievement. Many expressed to me regret for their past assumption that they would get where they needed to be on their stats and prestige alone.
I am not saying that is an assumption that has been made by anyone here, but it is one that bears some consideration.</p>

30

<p>you're wrong, taxguy. Professional schools weight the GPAs from various schools. Most "elite schools" get a GPA boost that way, and most state schools do not.</p>

31

<p>just out of curiousity, how many people in this thread have ever dealt with grad school admissions? because if you havent, i dont see how you could know how the graduate adcom works.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
As an aside, my friends had difficulty getting jobs, period. Then they found them--in restaurants, stores, as administrative assistants, etc., to pay the bills. Now, several years later, they are finally getting into jobs where they can make a decent living ($35,000/yr)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think that in general, the most common traits among my friends who did not meet with success upon graduation was that they failed to take advantage of all the opportunities that their institutions had to offer. While they did participate in a handful, they had overestimated the currency of their bachelor's degree and underestimated the importance of experience and achievement. Many expressed to me regret for their past assumption that they would get where they needed to be on their stats and prestige alone.
I am not saying that is an assumption that has been made by anyone here, but it is one that bears some consideration

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I think this has less to do with the prestige of the school itself and more to do with WHAT you studied in that school. Let's face it. Certain majors are far more marketable than others. Majors like business (at the top B-schools like Wharton or Sloan, not at a no-name school), engineering, computer science, nursing, economics, accounting, etc. are all highly marketable degrees. Many other degrees are not.</p>

<p>As a case in point, consider the salaries of Princeton graduates in 2005. Notice how the average engineering student (from an average school) makes significantly more in starting salary than a Princeton student who majored in, say, Art. In fact, the average engineer in anby engineering discipline except CivE, as well as the average CS major, makes more money than the average Princeton graduate (aggregated over all of Princeton's graduates in all majors). </p>

<p><a href="http://web.princeton.edu/sites/career/data/surveys/CareerSurveyReport2005.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.princeton.edu/sites/career/data/surveys/CareerSurveyReport2005.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I don't want to be harsh, but it's hard for me to sympathize with somebody who majored in something that is not in demand, and then complain that they can't find a job. My first question to them is why they didn't study something more practical? For example, for all of those grads who ended up working in restaurants or retail stores, I have to ask, why didn't you major in engineering or CS instead?</p>

33

<p>well here's how one very good law school works: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I get my ideas about what grad schools are looking for by talking to my professors, some of which have been admissions people for top grad programs. For grad school, generally relevant experience is more important than GPA, though GPA is still very important. Name of school is really only taken into account, everything else being close between applicants. However, you have to remember these are imperfect people who are professors working grad admissions, so occasionally something which is imortant to one person might not be as important to another. Someone might favor a grad from their own undergrad institution, etc. It's an imperfect process.</p>

34

<p>I can understand this perspective, but sakky, demand isn't constant and in fact fluctuates for many reasons. Think of what the hot majors were 10 or 20 years ago. Think of where the most rapid expansion occured. Wasn't that expansion in the job market followed by a contraction? Demand at a given juncture in time hardly seems a stable enough basis for one's profession, especially in light of the fact that CS, engineering, nursing are all very specialized fields. </p>

<p>Furthermore, aptitude and interest are related. A nurse/nursing student who loves his studies/job, or an engineer/engineering student who loves her studies/job will excel at it simply because they are more willing to commit time and resources to it. They will be promoted more often, paid higher wages, and meet with greater success. Those who do not enjoy it, though they may demonstrate technical competence and ability, will do a mediocre job and be rewarded accordingly.</p>

<p>The truth is that in all but a few fields--and this may change--a graduate degree is critical to maintaining the same standard of living that past generations of college grads enjoyed. Art majors aren't the only ones starving these days.</p>

<p>ecape, thank you! You said everything I've been trying to say, only much better.</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
I can understand this perspective, but sakky, demand isn't constant and in fact fluctuates for many reasons. Think of what the hot majors were 10 or 20 years ago. Think of where the most rapid expansion occured. Wasn't that expansion in the job market followed by a contraction? Demand at a given juncture in time hardly seems a stable enough basis for one's profession, especially in light of the fact that CS, engineering, nursing are all very specialized fields.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that demand always fluctuates, but not by THAT much. In the last 25 years, engineering has always paid a better starting salary than an Art History degree has. I am willing to bet that this will be true for the next 25 years too. Yes, engineering will go through downturns, and Art History will go through upturns. But I doubt things would ever become so extreme to the point that Art History grads would be making more to start than engineers would. </p>

<p>The same could be said for things like nursing, accounting, and so forth. </p>

<p>Furthermore, nobody says that you HAVE to work as an engineer or a nurse or whatever it is that you majored in. I know plenty of enginering students who ended up taking jobs in management consulting or investment banking. In fact, it's become something of a running joke at MIT that the best engineering students will usually not take engineering jobs, but will instead run off to consulting or banking. I have heard the same thing happen at Stanford - many of the best Stanford engineering students end up in consulting and banking. I have heard of even more eclectic career choices. For example, I knowof one MIT engineering student who decided that she wanted to be a dancer and entertainer, even becoming a cheerleader for the San Francisco 49'ers for one season. </p>

<p>But the point is, engineering is an extremely flexible degree that allows you to do many things, and also gives you a 'backup career'. If they don't find some other job that they like better, they can just take a regular engineering job. For example, I know a number of MIT engineers who got job offers at places like HP and Dell but turned them down because they got investment banking offers on Wall Street. If they had not got those offers, then at least they could have taken those engineering jobs. They were never in any serious danger of having to end up taking a job at a restaurant because their engineering degree gave them a solid backup career. The same could be said for people getting degrees in nursing, accounting, and so forth. I know of a girl who got a degree in nursing from UPenn, and ended up taking a job in management consuting. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, aptitude and interest are related. A nurse/nursing student who loves his studies/job, or an engineer/engineering student who loves her studies/job will excel at it simply because they are more willing to commit time and resources to it. They will be promoted more often, paid higher wages, and meet with greater success. Those who do not enjoy it, though they may demonstrate technical competence and ability, will do a mediocre job and be rewarded accordingly.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but the same could be said for those less marketable majors. For example, one could say that somebody who really loves Art History ought to excel at it. Yet at the end of the day, this person may not be able to get a decent job and may indeed end up working at the mall. That's because there simply isn't much of a market for Art History graduates out there. Heck, there are plenty of people who get PhD's in Art History and can't find a decent job. If you can complete a PhD in something, then you obviously must be interested in the subject. Yet there really are people with PhD's out there driving taxis and working at the mall. Again, mostly it's those people who got PhD's in unmarketable subjects. People who get PhD's in engineering or business or computer science almost never end up working at the mall.</p>

<p>Even working as a mediocre engineer or a mediocre nurse or mediocre accountant is still better than working at the mall.</p>

36

<p>What makes you think that the graduates facing difficulty obtaining jobs have majored in the arts?</p>

37

<p>looking at the data from the web sites posted above- it appears that the national average starting salaries, (when adjusted geographically for the fact that most of Princeton's grads stay in the North East), it appears that the Princeton salaries are slightly higher but not that much higher than the country as a whole when the same majors are comparred.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
What makes you think that the graduates facing difficulty obtaining jobs have majored in the art

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look at the salary data. In particular, look at any school where salary data is available, and notice that the art students tend to get relatively low salaries. That's a simple indication of low demand. </p>

<p>For example, take a look at the salary data for Berkeley. Once again, you see that Art majors are low paid. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Majors.stm#salary%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2005Majors.stm#salary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, I don't mean to specifically pick on Art. I'm just using Art as an example. My general point is that there are groups of majors that tend to be less well paid and less marketable than other groups are. It's not just a simple matter of fluctuation. Sure, salaries fluctuate, but not THAT much. For example, the the tech crash of 2001, computer science majors were STILL doing far better than, say, Ethnic Studies majors. I am furthermore quite certain that computer science majors will continue to do better than Ethnic Studies majors for the next few decades. </p>

<p>The upshot is that I find it hard to sympathisize with people who threw caution to the wind in choosing an unmarketable major, and then later find out that nobody wants to hire them. That's what happens when you choose something that you ought to know is not marketable. It's like if I choose to start smoking, I shouldn't be surprised if I later end up with lung cancer. People can see that certain majors and certain professions make more money than others, and if they choose a low-paying major, well, unfortunately you have to reap what you sow. </p>

<p>
[quote]
looking at the data from the web sites posted above- it appears that the national average starting salaries, (when adjusted geographically for the fact that most of Princeton's grads stay in the North East), it appears that the Princeton salaries are slightly higher but not that much higher than the country as a whole when the same majors are comparred.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tomslawsky, you are correct.</p>

39

<p>Sure, but would you classify majors like urban planning, international relations, politics, and business among these fields? A lot of people choose to pursue "good" majors. At the very least, they choose majors that provide them with a solid footing in math/statistics, writing, foreign languages, and so on. </p>

<p>A lot of majors have not traditionally been low-paying fields, but that is changing. The people who choose to major in them do not knowingly take a vow of poverty when they selected them. I haven't met alot of art history or ethnic studies or anthropology majors, in part because there aren't that many out there. But the market for all but a handful of majors still stinks. So what is it?</p>

40

<p>A 4.0, at least in the same or similar major, is a lot better. Don't get so hung up on prestige that you think going to HYPS gives you some kind of god-like status. For law school, anyway, you're screwed with a 3.0.</p>