<p>It depends on what you define as important. </p>
<p>In terms of payout and career, a great grad school degree is more important. </p>
<p>But the undergrad experience can really influence your development as an adult, which may also influence your career decisions, but the actual $$$ benefit isn't as great as a great graduate school.</p>
<p>Jesus. Are you people looking for every single loophole possible? In no circumstance, to an employer, will a person with a prestigious undergrad instituition be hired of a person with a prestigious graduate school all else equal.</p>
<p>Actually, there was a study a few years ago showing that, among people who graduated from top economics PhD programs, students who had also gone to a top undergraduate program also got better job offers. (study</a>)</p>
<p>It's not just about one or the other. Going to a top undergraduate school facilitates going to a top graduate school -- not just because of the name, but because of the opportunities available to students. And while it may be "more important" to have a top graduate degree, you have to get into that program first. It's not trivial to get into one of the top programs in your discipline.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There have been many longstanding debates over whether a prestigious undergrad institution is weighted more heavily by prestigious grad programs in the application process.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think you're discounting the 'homefield advantage' that many grad schools provide for their own undergrads. For example, I think molliebatmit would agree with me that MIT is one of the incestuous schools in the country: it is simply mind-boggling how many MIT grad students were former MIT undergrads; it has even been said that the best way to get into MIT for grad school is to just go there for undergrad and then stay there. Heck, MIT even runs certain grad programs, such as the EECS MEng program, that is specifically reserved only for its own undergrads. If you went elsewhere for undergrad, you're not even allowed to apply to that program. That's powerful home-field advantage. </p>
<p>The only school that I know that may arguably be more incestuous than MIT is, well, Harvard. It is simply unbelievable how many Harvard grad students were former Harvard undergrads. This is particularly so when you're talking about PhD programs, as one of the most effective ways to get into those programs is to work as a research assistant under a Harvard prof, and if the prof likes your project and wants you to keep working for him, then he will give you a very strong LOR which the adcom will find hard to deny. {After all, PhD adcoms, unlike undergrad adcoms, are made up not of "admissions officers" but rather of professors themselves, and they know that they are going to be stuck working with whoever they admit, so they are highly incented to admit people who they actually want to work with.} </p>
<p>
[quote]
My question is, which is more important in the long run.</p>
<p>A prestigious undergraduate or graduate school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course this all presumes that a particular person will even go to grad school. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. I remember lots of people who came into freshman year who said they were going to grad school, and then never did. Some people found they would rather get a job. Some people ended up with bad grades such that they couldn't go to any respectable grad school. {Heck, some people didn't even graduate at all.}</p>
<p>I don't think these are either or things. You can do both, and as pointed out, good under helps get to good grad. As for success it always depends on you, but better grad helps if you work in the area. While not necessarily in your area you might want to look at the Bus Week top MBA school list when it comes out. One of the measures they always give is salary in and salary out, a kind of measure of value for the top schools, plus you can see the actual average boost.</p>
<p>If you do in fact go to graduate school than it is more important. Yet, where you go for undergrad still is importance for the education you get, people you meet and the enhanced opportunities you find for grad school admission. It is not surprising that the best grad schools in the country are predominantly made up of the kids from the best undergraduate schools. If your smart from a lower college you can still make it, but its not as easy and there are no guarantee. TO put it simply, if your smart enough to go to an elite undergraduate school and have the money than it makes sense to go to the best school you can (taking into account fit).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I think you're discounting the 'homefield advantage' that many grad schools provide for their own undergrads. For example, I think molliebatmit would agree with me that MIT is one of the incestuous schools in the country: it is simply mind-boggling how many MIT grad students were former MIT undergrads; it has even been said that the best way to get into MIT for grad school is to just go there for undergrad and then stay there. Heck, MIT even runs certain grad programs, such as the EECS MEng program, that is specifically reserved only for its own undergrads. If you went elsewhere for undergrad, you're not even allowed to apply to that program. That's powerful home-field advantage.</p>
<p>The only school that I know that may arguably be more incestuous than MIT is, well, Harvard. It is simply unbelievable how many Harvard grad students were former Harvard undergrads. This is particularly so when you're talking about PhD programs, as one of the most effective ways to get into those programs is to work as a research assistant under a Harvard prof, and if the prof likes your project and wants you to keep working for him, then he will give you a very strong LOR which the adcom will find hard to deny. {After all, PhD adcoms, unlike undergrad adcoms, are made up not of "admissions officers" but rather of professors themselves, and they know that they are going to be stuck working with whoever they admit, so they are highly incented to admit people who they actually want to work with.}
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At Carnegie Mellon's School of Computer Science there's actually the opposite trend. My old roommate was a 4.0 student, did quality research every semester, and was involved with a number of different professors' research. They told him not to even apply since the SCS doesn't like taking its own students for grad school. I heard similar stories from a number of other students in the college with very respectable grades, as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Carnegie Mellon's School of Computer Science there's actually the opposite trend. My old roommate was a 4.0 student, did quality research every semester, and was involved with a number of different professors' research. They told him not to even apply since the SCS doesn't like taking its own students for grad school. I heard similar stories from a number of other students in the college with very respectable grades, as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am aware of that - the same is true at Berkeley. Frankly, I would say that that is a reason not to go to those schools in favor of those that do provide home-field advantage. The fact that Harvard, MIT, and to some extent Stanford and Caltech (as there are an exceedingly large number of Caltech undergrads who stay for grad school) provide such homefield advantage are a reason to prefer such schools.</p>
<p>Just look at all of the Caltech PhD graduates from 2008 who had also completed their bachelor's at Caltech. 8 of them did so, compared to 10 who came from MIT, which is an amazing figure when you consider that MIT undergrad is literally 4 times the size of Caltech. Lest you think it's a simple matter of geographic preference (i.e. maybe MIT students prefer to stay in the East Coast), I would also point out that only 4 such people did their undergrads at UCLA, a school that has more than 25x the number of undergrads as does Caltech. Granted, many UCLA students major in arts/humanities and hence won't be interested in a Caltech PhD, but still, there aren't that many local UCLA people at Caltech relative to its size. Furthermore, there isn't a single student who did their undergrad at USC. </p>
<p>I know there's an undergrad that's currently in my lab looking to stay at Caltech for grad school (going from Applied Physics to Materials Science) since he says his grades are pretty poor and his only chance of getting into a good school is having our advisor put in a good word for him here.</p>
<p>Perhaps the rigor of the Caltech curriculum has something to do with them not heading off to other school since they feel they wouldn't get a fair shot elsewhere?</p>
<p>(Two other people in MS that were Caltech undergrads are both staying in the area since they've got very strong family ties and didn't want to leave the LA area. And UCLA doesn't offer funding to pretty much anyone their first year. We have one first-year guy from USC that's also staying in the area due to family concerns.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know there's an undergrad that's currently in my lab looking to stay at Caltech for grad school (going from Applied Physics to Materials Science) since he says his grades are pretty poor and his only chance of getting into a good school is having our advisor put in a good word for him here.</p>
<p>Perhaps the rigor of the Caltech curriculum has something to do with them not heading off to other school since they feel they wouldn't get a fair shot elsewhere?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would argue that 'having to stay' at Caltech for grad school is not exactly the worst thing in the world. </p>
<p>You might argue that it's a mixed blessing because those poor grades may not have given that particular Caltech student in question any other choice but to stay. But hey, it's still a blessing, as, believe me, there are a lot of engineering/science undergrads at, say, Berkeley who also got bad grades, and they don't even get to stay as many Berkeley departments don't like to admit its own undergrads. For example, Berkeley ChemE won't admit its own undergrads as a matter of written policy. So if you go to Berkeley for ChemE and get bad grades, not only can you not stay at Berkeley for grad school, you can't get into other grad schools either. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Two other people in MS that were Caltech undergrads are both staying in the area since they've got very strong family ties and didn't want to leave the LA area. And UCLA doesn't offer funding to pretty much anyone their first year. We have one first-year guy from USC that's also staying in the area due to family concerns.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Caltech, UCLA, and USC are all in the same general area. Anybody who has local family considerations can still reasonably attend any of these schools. Yet the fact remains that, even on absolute terms, there are far more Caltech undergrads than UCLA or USC undergrads who end up in Caltech grad school despite the far greater size of the latter two. That points to very strong homefield advantage enjoyed by Caltech undergrads. I'm sure there were plenty of UCLA and USC undergrads who wanted to go to Caltech for grad school but just didn't get in, possibly because the seats were taken by former Caltech undergrads.</p>
<p>I just want to point out the the home-field advantage at Caltech depends on the department. There are departments, e.g., Chemistry, that actively push their students out. (I don't know if this is a formal policy or simply a strong preference)</p>
<p>Michigan undergrads are usually the most represented in Michigan engineering graduate programs. I think you only need a 3.2 for some programs and a 3.5 for others to stay for an MS for one more year after your BS.</p>
<p>The last school that you will have attended, whether it is UG or Grad, is really that counts in reality, and people will remember you as a graduate of the school that you got your final degree from.</p>