<p>Oh, in that sense I completely agree with you, there's no doubt about it. I thought you were speaking about the academic level of the schools - and its students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It ended with the line, "Harvard is marvelous, but you don't have to go there to get your foot in the door of life."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But it can sure help a lot. </p>
<p>I dunno, in terms of academics, a lot of other schools can match Ivy's. I terms of connections, Ivy's are probably #1.</p>
<p>I personally would rather go to a school that wasn't ALL focused on studies all the time. That's why I see University of Michigan as a great fit for me, because of it's balance.</p>
<p>When I'm in grad school, and concentrating on my future, I'll try for the Ivy's. But I want to hold onto my kid self for as long as possible.</p>
<p>negru, while I understand that that is what your friends tell you about Brown and Princeton, I find it extremely difficult to believe...who at Brown or Princeton is dumb or an idiot? If the admissions standards are so high, how could the academic rigor be as pathetic as your friends suggest? Even if this is true, I'm not totally sympathetic to your derision of the teaching style...I certainly don't think that a whole class should be derailed to explain something to one student, but even a "stupid grade 5 question" can be a good question that merits an answer. Not trying to pick on you, but I don't understand this at all. </p>
<p>I guess I'm just a bleeding heart idealogue, because the idea of going to Harvard, etc. just to make connections makes me so sad. I still don't think that going to a top school to make connections is that big of a deal anyway (there might be a few exceptions for certain professions, but I'm speaking in general), and even if connections are important to you, I think that you should look for more out of college than that. JMO.</p>
<p>Advantagious, not everyone that goes to Brown or Princeton are on the same academic level as the rest. Example, some legacies are really weak, as well as some of the athletes. Also, sometimes the adcoms make a mistake, and accept an average student who merely looks good on paper and can bs his/her essay well.</p>
<p>^^^Yeah, I guess, but I would think that the vast majority of Ivy and Ivy-level students are qualified to be at their intstitutions, and, personally, I find it tough to believe that classes are "dumbed down" (and I doubt these kids are dumb, but I understand that we are speaking in the relative sense) to the level of a small minority. I have read some articles about athletes who felt marginalized by professors, but not about classes at top-flight institutions that are dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but that I find it unlikely. Of course, it's a very long time ago now (light-years in the life of a college institution), but my parents would have serious issues with anyone who claimed that they did not have an academically rigorous experience at Princeton. Not saying that it couldn't have changed, but...I find it tough to believe. That's all.</p>
<p>advantagious- I am totally sympathetic to your posts. Agree wholeheartedly.</p>
<p>especially:
[quote]
I'm not totally sympathetic to your derision of the teaching style...I certainly don't think that a whole class should be derailed to explain something to one student, but even a "stupid grade 5 question" can be a good question that merits an answer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>However, you will find, especially as you go up the academic ladder to grad or professional school, that there will be some individuals that will surprise you in terms of how they ever got in.</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>"Example, some legacies are really weak, as well as some of the athlete"</p>
<p>Not true and 2nd example not fair. First of all, the legacies that the ivies accept are not REALLY weak, and are generally not weak at all (unless they are HUGE development cases, and those cases d/n happen very often). While they may not be at the top of the pool, the legacies that get in, get into the competitive pool by themselves, and have the legacy status to push them over the top. Kamikazewave's comment is a huge stretch.</p>
<p>Secondly, you're not judging the athletes fairly. Just because their GPA's are slightly lower doesn't mean that they're any dumber than the average applicant is. It just means that they chose to really excel at a certain activity that requires a lot of time... Kamikazewave, are you or the average competitive applicant a nationally ranked sports star or even an academic star for that matter???? Likely not. The athletes get in b/c of their committment to sports and their success in their chosen path.</p>
<p>
I'm willing to accept that. What is interesting is that according to the study of Jerome Karabel in "The Chosen" (as reported in the previously linked New Yorker article <a href="http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html</a> )and in William Bowen and Sarah Levin's book "Reclaiming the Game", "athletic ability, rather than falling under "extracurriculars," got a category all to itself, which explains why, even now, recruited athletes have an acceptance rate to the Ivies at well over twice the rate of other students, despite S.A.T. scores that are on average more than a hundred points lower."</p>
<p>So technically if one cannot tell the difference between Ivy athletes with lower GPAs and SATs over 100 points lower than other Ivy League students then technically one cannot tell the difference between the students at an Ivy League school and another school where students have slightly lower GPAs and SATs 100 points lower on average. Either 100 SAT points mean something or it doesn't. Is there any difference in the students who attend HYP and Cornell (about a 100 point difference)? If not, then one can make a similar claim that no difference exists in students who attend George Washington and Cornell (also about a hundred point difference).</p>
<p>werner, I can accept that that is probably true. I realize that negru's comments were probably made in a more joking matter, but I felt that they were a little too harsh, for my taste. As I have said earlier, my parent's have NOT represented Princeton as a holy grail institution, and they have made it abundantly clear that not every single classmate was as academically gifted. But most of those kids--even multi-generational legacies, prep-schoolers, and athletes--were qualified, in their opinion. </p>
<p>I also tend to agree with fhimas' assesment of legacies and athletes, although of course I am biased on the former :). I won't pretend that I know the stats for every top school, but for Princeton at least, less than half of the legacies were accepted. This is certainly an advantage over the devastatingly low overall acceptance rate, but assuming that the legacy pool is about the same as the overall applicant pool (I can't see why it wouldn't be), it's not like real stinkers are making the cut b/c they are legacies, generally. Again, I admit my bias--this is not a defense of the legacy boost, just a bit of sticking up for us.</p>
<p>
How right you are. Per IvySuccess ( <a href="http://ivysuccess.com/washingtonian_legacy.html%5B/url%5D">http://ivysuccess.com/washingtonian_legacy.html</a> ), as of a few years ago, "The Wall Street Journal recently put a statistical face on alumni clout in admissions. Children of graduates make up 10 to 15 percent of incoming classes at most Ivy League schools, according to the Journal. Harvard accepts 40 percent and Princeton accepts 35 percent of legacies but only 11 percent of all applicants." So that's at 4 times the normal rate at Harvard and three times the rate at Princeton. Thus it perhaps is easier to get into Harvard or Princeton as a legacy than regular admission into any of the USNews top 17 or so schools (with perhaps the exceptions of Chicago and Hopkins). Still difficult to do but not as steep a hurdle.</p>
<p>According to Bowen, Kurzweil and Tobin's book, "Equity and Excellence in American Education" legacy status at 19 elite institutions (including Harvard and Princeton) accounted for approximately 150 SAT point difference (so a 1350 was admitted at roughly the same rate as a 1500).</p>
<p>I would never try to suggest that the legacy advantage does not exist, nor am I trying to defend it, necessarily. I would be interested to see how the numbers compare for legacies--are they weaker than the rest of the pool statswise, as athlete's seem to be (not criticizing athletes--just going with the data), or are they pretty on par with overall pool. I suspect that it is the latter, or that legacies are not much weaker than the rest of the pool, but that's just my biased preference speaking :), not any data. I feel like I could prove myself qualified, but it would be nice to dispel a stereotype, if possible.</p>
<p>
I added this to my previous post after looking up the numbers:</p>
<p>According to Bowen, Kurzweil and Tobin's book, "Equity and Excellence in American Education" legacy status at 19 elite institutions (including Harvard and Princeton) accounted for approximately 150 SAT point difference (so a 1350 was admitted at roughly the same rate as a 1500).</p>
<p>Just for full disclosure, the studied schools were Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Penn, Yale, Barnard, Bowdoin, Macalaster, Middlebury, Oberlin, Pomona, Smith, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Williams, Penn St., UCLA, Illinois and Virginia. The year was 1995 and legacies did have less of a SAT boost than athletes and minorities. The 150 point boost was the average at all 19 schools not just Harvard and Princeton, but it is rather substantial, nonetheless.</p>
<p>So on the note of Ivies helping you out of college, i have heard from 3 or so businessmen (my dad, a family friend, and my friend's dad) that they prefer to hire state school graduates because they are more down-to-earth and NOT to hire Ivy League graduates because from their experience, they often are very self-oriented and have a lofty "i can rule the world" mentality, and although this mentality can be good in a leader, it is often bad when not in a leadership role. just throwing it out there, i do not mean to insult anyone. this may be complete bull**** but i don't know. of course it is apparent that Ivies cultivate leaders from many presitgious graduate, so in no way do i have any disrespect for Ivy graduates</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Example, some legacies are really weak, as well as some of the athlete"</p>
<p>Not true and 2nd example not fair. First of all, the legacies that the ivies accept are not REALLY weak, and are generally not weak at all (unless they are HUGE development cases, and those cases d/n happen very often). While they may not be at the top of the pool, the legacies that get in, get into the competitive pool by themselves, and have the legacy status to push them over the top. Kamikazewave's comment is a huge stretch.</p>
<p>Secondly, you're not judging the athletes fairly. Just because their GPA's are slightly lower doesn't mean that they're any dumber than the average applicant is. It just means that they chose to really excel at a certain activity that requires a lot of time... Kamikazewave, are you or the average competitive applicant a nationally ranked sports star or even an academic star for that matter???? Likely not. The athletes get in b/c of their committment to sports and their success in their chosen path.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stop twisting my words. I said some, not all. And yes, some athletes aren't on the same academic level as the other students. And yes, I am nationally ranked in a sport, which is a relatively minor sport in the US, but so's squash.</p>
<p>Having a legacy status to push people over the top is a pretty huge push, considering that there are many people at the top who are similar. And I think you're not considering that advantageous was complaining about the academic aspect of Princeton/Brown. Not who gets in.</p>
<p>this is a really interesting thread...having degrees from two ivies, i suppose i'm a bit biased, but i have to say that my experiences at these institutions as compared to many friends and peers at other schools were vastly different. the big difference is definitely your peers - who you are in class with, who you live with, who you study with. This makes a huge difference in the classroom - despite amazing faculty members, classes stink if you don't have other bright, motivated kids in the classroom with you. many of the students at the ivies are also very down to earth, friendly, humble people...not necessarily the snobs that a lot of people think they are ;)</p>
<p>the doors that the ivies open for their graduates are also amazing...i worked my butt off in high school and college and have no doubt that i would probably be just as happy and successful now if i had gone to, say, tulane or rutgers or nyu; however, being an ivy grad definitely has made things a <em>little bit easier</em> re: getting job interviews, etc...,. however, just because you get your foot in the door doesn't mean you're getting the job, etc...,.</p>
<p>this does remind me though that, although i am impressed at some of your citations on here, don't jump to too many conclusions just yet about athletes, the value of ivy, etc..., from reading excerpts of research as quoted in the new york times, wall street journal, etc....i've said this before in other threads - if you are interested in learning more about this stuff, read the full research, books, works, etc...,...many of these pieces are quoted or cited out of context or misinterpreted. others are quoted as gospel (like the krueger and dale research) without being critically reviewed for methodological flaws. </p>
<p>one final word...there are definitely ivies where all you get is a teaching assistant (harvard, cornell, columbia) whereas others you get a very intense, personal undergraduate experience (brown, dartmouth, princeton). if you are interested in going to an ivy, ask yourself what you want out of your education before jumping into the applications of each school. ta's can actually be quite good educators and going to a school with larger classes and more ta's does give you the ability to "hide" if you would like; schools where there is a lot of personal interaction do not give you that option, but you do get a much more intense experience. which do you prefer? ask yourself before applying.</p>
<p>
Where I heard this was specifically for Harvard Business School graduates. According to the WSJ, "Many corporate recruiters love to hate Harvard Business School. While acknowledging its talented faculty and students, they complain about the arrogant culture, graduates' excessive salary demands, and their ambitions to be CEO tomorrow." ( <a href="http://www.careerjournal.com/reports/bschool06/20060920-alsop-mbrecruiters.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.careerjournal.com/reports/bschool06/20060920-alsop-mbrecruiters.html</a> ) Which is why, according toan article a few years back, recruiters by far preferred hiring Northwestern Business School Graduates over Harvard Business School graduates and propelled Northwestern to the number 1 business school for so many years in the Business Week rankings.</p>
<p>
I actually have read all the studies, Jerome Karabel's "The Chosen" (an amazing book and a must read for any AdOfficer), Bowen and Levin's "Reclaiming the Game" and Bowen, Kurzweil and Tobin's "Equity and Excellence in American Education." I prefer to cite on-line citations to these works because I realize most posters don't have access to them. But in the case of lagacy SAT numbers I had to cite from the book, because there was no on-line reference that I could find.</p>
<p>Hmmm (taking AdOfficer's advice, I know that stats aren't gospel), those numbers both surprise me and confirm some of my suspicions. They surprise me in that I would not have guessed that the gap would be so large (although I would note, the competition for admissions has increased wildly since 1995 and I would think that the gap is probably not as large now). They confirm my suspicions in that I thought before that legacies recieved one of the smaller pushes of the special cases groups, and this does seem to be the case. </p>
<p>I alluded to it in my inital post, but I feel like elaborating now: for me, Why Ivies? ended up being the same why that I used for all of my schools. I considered a very large number of schools--big names, smaller names, schools of every size and location--and after all my research and visits, my 4 (out of 9) "reach" schools ended up being all Ivies. It just turned out that I leaned more towards universities, medium sized schools, and schools that were near/in urban or metropolitan areas. It also turned out that personality wise, I was more suited to these 4 Ivies than I was to the other top universities and colleges. So, it may not be everyone, but I can confidently say that there are at least a <em>few</em> people who pick the Ivies because of actual compatability, and not just prestige or the "Ivory Dream". I don't personally believe in those things, and they just didn't factor into my choices. I used the same process to pick the other schools on my list, and if I don't make it into the Ivies I know that I will be just fine :).</p>
<p>i read an article along the same lines, but a little bit different, which went Michigan's Ross, Dartmouth, Carnegie Mellen, Columbia, and had Harvard at number 18.</p>
<p>
Ding, ding ding! Exactly right. It's the peers that are the biggest influence, just like it was your friends in high school and your parents as youngsters. Otherwise you could just take MIT courses on-line and receive the same education. However, my argument is that virtually any of the COFHE schools will afford you this opportunity and not just the Ivys (or at least you can find a cohort of like-minded intellectual students to hang out with and learn from). It might be easier to find these students at HYPMS but at least some (and I would say the majority) similar students exist at any of the elite schools.</p>