<p>Yup, a mom. I believe kids need to find where they will be empowered- there are no fixed answers to that. Guess I agree with Mimk6 also.</p>
<p>Perhaps OP’s question should have been “Why would a pre-med risk taking weeder classes at a prestigious school and potentially getting a lower GPA and not getting into medical school?”</p>
<p>My young friends assure me that these schools are full of both successful medical school applicants as well as upperclassmen who are convinced that had they only taken gen chem or organic chemistry at their state school, they would have been viable candidates for medical school admission.</p>
<p>The reality is that those who didn’t do as well on the feeder courses don’t know that they would have done better elsewhere. They are making an assumption based on averages that doesn’t apply to individual students. Med school are familiar with the elite schools they attend, and are aware of the rigor of the classes they took.</p>
<p>Any study comparing schools would look at averages, and be relatively useless because there are too many uncontrolled variables. There are no identical pairs of student to compare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two of those anecdotes, #150 and #152, suggest that, at a more selective university, the pace of instruction typically is faster. In addition, it is suggested that at some of these schools, highly accomplished professors are available to students as research mentors and advisors.</p>
<p>Do 30 years of research studies bear out either of these claims? This isn’t my field; I’m not intimately familiar with all this literature; so, I really don’t know. However, they both strike me as plausible. My own personal experience, and other anecdotal evidence, seems to support both of them (especially the first). I think the burden of proof is to show specific research findings that, at more selective schools, the pace of instruction either is not faster, or that faster-paced instruction covering more material does not lead to better learning outcomes for students able to study at that pace. </p>
<p>These discussions have recurred often enough that maybe it would be helpful to stop referring vaguely to “30 years of research findings” anthologized in one or two books. Instead, it might be helpful to parse out the specific claims and describe what specific research papers have to say about them, as I tried to do above for the relationship between research and teaching. In that case, one researcher (Lawrence Aleamoni, cited in Pascarella & Terenzini 2005) finds no correlation positive or negative between research productivity and teaching effectiveness. An excellent researcher is no more or less likely to be an excellent instructor. Yet, he is still an excellent researcher. If that has no adverse impact on teaching quality, why wouldn’t that be a fine thing? The same could be said for some other features of selective, prestigious colleges. For example, I don’t imagine there is any correlation, positive or negative, between excellent financial aid and teaching effectiveness. Yet I’d say that generous aid is, rather self-evidently, a fine thing in its own right.</p>
<p>Are some people choosing to attend prestigious schools based on unfounded beliefs about their educational quality? Maybe so. That would not necessarily mean there is no value in what many of these schools offer (small classes; generous aid; good facilities; famous, accomplished professors; interesting, talented students drawn from all over the world; etc.). If you can afford the net costs, and it appeals to you, go for it. If you can’t, or it doesn’t, don’t.</p>
<p>curmudgeon - I went to Penn 100 year ago (Ok, it just feels like it was 100 years ago).</p>
<p>Even then, there was no merit aid. Aid was just based on financial need. If I remember correctly, all the Ivies were like that, even then.</p>
<p>Of course, tuition was just a few thousand dollars a year then (Ok, several thousand dollars a year) and I was able to earn almost all of that through my summer job.</p>
<p>With respect to the relationship between selectivity and academic rigor, here’s a specific article (cited in Pascarella & Terenzini 2005) that appears to be relevant:</p>
<p>[“Selectivity</a> and Rigor in Research Universities” by Braxton, John M. - Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 64, Issue 6, November-December 1993 | Questia, Your Online Research Library](<a href=“http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-14874871/selectivity-and-rigor-in-research-universities]"Selectivity”>http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-14874871/selectivity-and-rigor-in-research-universities)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(The article apparently goes on to examine the relationship between undergraduate admissions selectivity and the level of understanding required by course-examination question at research universities. The complete article is available on Amazon for $5.95.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a good reason to me if a top school can make one live 120 years and counting :)</p>
<p>Seriously, I’d think it’s better to hear from the authors of your textbooks and the researchers who did the findings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But then you’d expect some of the other big names to appear as well–Harvard, Princeton, etc. Something else must be going on.</p>
<p>Ah, the “does prestige matter?” death spiral again.</p>
<p>I think everyone is focusing on the wrong thing. We are all healthcare consumers…how often have you looked at the education of your doctors in deciding who to go to? Or do you make your decision based on other factors, like reputation, bedside manner, and so on? How about when you don’t have a choice (as with many plans)? Do you freak out when you find out your doctor went to a second-tier school for undergrad?</p>
<p>Just as an experiment, I looked up two of the best doctors I have encountered over the years. My former internal medicine doctor went to Illinois for undergrad and Michigan for med school. She was brilliant–a walking encyclopedia of knowledge, with a gentle manner and quiet confidence. My son’s eye surgeon went to University of Dayton for undergrad, Wash U in St. Louis for med school and Harvard for his residency. He did an amazing job with a tricky situation and my son is completely back to normal.</p>
<p>Yes, these are just two anecdotes, but the point is–there are smart people everywhere, and dedicated doctors can get their start at a variety of institutions. Back to the OP’s question, he/she should choose an undergraduate institution based on fit and cost. Everything else should fall into place, if the motivation and commitment remain.</p>
<p>*I think everyone is focusing on the wrong thing. We are all healthcare consumers…how often have you looked at the education of your doctors in deciding who to go to? *</p>
<p>I always do, actually.</p>
<p>Speaking as a medical spouse, that’s silly. Doctors themselves don’t do that. Assuming the doctor went to a US medical school, the training is very “flat.” There arent huge quality differentials in medical schools. The medical field is the antithesis of the brand-name-obsession in law.</p>
<p>So sewhappy, have you actually made decisions about which doctors you and your family would use based primarily on where they went to college or med school? More than asking your friends or coworkers who they might recommend, or talking with the doctors themselves to get a sense of their approach and capabilities? </p>
<p>I have never actually heard of anyone doing this, and of course before the internet it would have been harder to determine such information. What did you do back then (assuming you are old enough to have made healthcare decisions in that era)?</p>
<p>Sally, </p>
<p>I actually wonder at the approach of asking friends and co-workers to recommend a doc. </p>
<p>I don’t base my selection solely on pedigree, but it is a good place to start, imo.</p>
<p>For the older docs, I don’t weight it so much because I feel as if in earlier eras the kids who went to prestige schools tended to have more of a legacy, wealth entitlement to such schools. I think in this era in looking at younger physicians, the prestige of the education institution can be a valid signal as to the overall intelligence and discipline of the practitioner. I think it can indicate a person who has achieved at a very high level for a sustained period. </p>
<p>Sure, sure. I know that many, many of our top docs went to not-so-prestigious schools. I’m talking about parsing my own network of options, and I think there’s a good reason my insurer provides me with the information of where they obtained their degrees.</p>
<p>Of course, I also look at other indicators – malpractice allegations, Angie’s List reviews, what hospitals they practice at, etc.</p>
<p>But yeah, I think this insistence that medicine is above the fray of “education prestige” is just not true.</p>
<p>I find a better way to assess doctors is to find out which ones they would recommend to family or friends. I see extremely little correlation between fanciness of undergrad degrees and excellence of a doctor. And don’t forget my H has a fancy degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But–just to play devil’s advocate–what if the person went to State U or a lesser-known LAC for undergrad because of financial or other constraints? Is it fair to assume he/she had less “overall intelligence and discipline,” especially if he/she went on to get an MD from a reputable med school and a job at a respected practice or hospital? Would you really be less inclined to go to that doctor based on a history about which you have little to no in-depth knowledge?</p>
<p>I have absolutely trusted my friends for recommendations on pediatricians and women’s health doctors, in the same way I would ask their advice on other aspects of life. I guess we are all different.</p>
<p>My posts didn’t indicate undergrad or medical school or residency. The prestige of any or all would factor into my selection process.</p>
<p>^^^^
Why not just skip the middle-man and go directly to the undisputed source for everything -</p>
<p>[Find</a> the best doctor for you ? US News Top Doctors](<a href=“http://health.usnews.com/top-doctors]Find”>http://health.usnews.com/top-doctors)</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>A national engineering design competition took place at the DC mall. Groups of students from various universities from around the country built their project and were on hand to describe its various features to the public. The group from (public/state) University of Maryland won the competition. I talked to a few of the groups, including the kids from Harvard, UMBC and a few others. I must say, the Harvard kids were way and above the rest in terms of character qualities, ability to express themselves, communication skills, presentability, interest in engaging with the audience. There was nothing haughty or arrogant about them. I was really impressed. No doubt Harvard didn’t make the kids this way, they were selected by Harvard for their presentability and people skills. If my kid were accepted to Harvard I would be thrilled that he would have the opportunity to interact with such kids, and make long term friends from such quality people. I drive by UMBC regularly, and see the kids slouch to and from class. I despair as I know that to many, partying and figuring out which classes to skip is a priority.</p>
<p>
Well, that’s important, since apparently they aren’t all that great in engineering design. It is pretty impressive that a group of students can spend all their time partying and skipping classes and still win the competitiion. :)</p>
<p>In the end, a great doc is a great doc, no matter. But the question here is about getting admitted to med school. Or possibly grad school. Lack of excellence, flying under the radar, lower grades (and accepting that) at a big name- or- academic and personal achievement at a lesser known? </p>
<p>At the former, prestige alone won’t get one far, in this example. At the latter, just getting the grades doesn’t always prove enough. It’s not the school, it’s the student. And later, it’s not the school, it’s the doc.</p>
<p>I work with docs in an educational setting- the great ones can come from anywhere. They share qualities of compassion, interest, commitment, scientific expertise and continued pursuit of knowledge, an interest in problem-solving, abilty to accurately analyze and much more. As a patient, that matters to me. No matter where they went, I want them to have worked their best.</p>