Choosing a Undergrad Instiution?

[JerryC]

Who would top grad schools believe as better? A student at an elite LAC in the 50th percentile in terms of GPA, with average to good LORs(Letters of Recommendation), and a lot of research; or, a student at say, UC Davis in the top 25-30th percentile with good LORs, and less research?

The LAC student has a better personal statement and a slightly higher GRE(50-60pt difference)?

Who would get in?

[JerryC]

LAC=Liberal Arts College

[neuropsych76]

Who would top grad schools believe as better? A student at an elite LAC in the 50th percentile in terms of GPA, with average to good LORs(Letters of Recommendation), and a lot of research; or, a student at say, UC Davis in the top 25-30th percentile with good LORs, and less research?

The LAC student has a better personal statement and a slightly higher GRE(50-60pt difference)?

Who would get in?

So basically the only thing the UC Davis has going for them is a slightly higher GPA?

Considering how important research experience, good LOR's and a good personal statement are i would have to say the LAC student has better chances.

The grad school app process with so convoluted with some many idiosyncrasies its really impossible to accurately chance anyone though.

[JerryC]

So basically the only thing the UC Davis has going for them is a slightly higher GPA?

Considering how important research experience, good LOR's and a good personal statement are i would have to say the LAC student has better chances.

The grad school app process with so convoluted with some many idiosyncrasies its really impossible to accurately chance anyone though.

Well, the UC Davis student has better LORs and a higher class rank. But, the LAC student has higher GREs, and a lower class rank. This isjut paart of my thinking process as to where I want to go... somewhere mediocre where I can excel or somewhere prestigious where I may in the middle of the pack instead.

[fumblewhat]

Well, the UC Davis student has better LORs and a higher class rank. But, the LAC student has higher GREs, and a lower class rank. This isjut paart of my thinking process as to where I want to go... somewhere mediocre where I can excel or somewhere prestigious where I may in the middle of the pack instead.

I'm not sure you're asking the right questions here... I'd go to whichever institution would give you the most personal attention. Which school is going to help you develop most as a scholar? Which has better teaching? Where will you learn the most from your peers? You're not going to "excel" some place mediocre if there's no one there to push you.

In reality, your undergrad institution is going to have very little weight compared with the rest of your application. If you're going to spend a lot of money on an education, get an education! Go to the place that suits you best, where you can develop and grow! That will have a much bigger impact on your graduate admissions chances than a name on an application.

(And the admissions committee will take into account that a high GPA at a "mediocre" school may be equivalent to a lower GPA at a more challenging school. So go to where you want!!!)

[JerryC]

The reason I have asked this question is because I am trying to decide between attending a prestigious undergrad, or a mediocre one. The following inferences are generalizations, and of course do not apply to every single person at the institution:

The same person might appear to have a better LOR because at a mediocre school, people are less competitive. When one is placed in an environment filled with skilled people, then they have a better chance to fail to "stand out", so to speak. In other words, if one attends a prestigious university, they might be with smarter/more determined kids, so they may get overshadowed and appear "less intelligent or less (fill-in-good-trait)" to the professor. In addition, those who attend LACs tend to have a knack for writing or are trained to write so much, that they naturally become better at it. At a research university such as Davis, writing won't be as focused on as it is at a liberal arts college, which stresses writing. Also, most of the time, students who attend more prestigious universities have a harder curriculum/stronger foundation or knowledge, so GPA is lower and GREs are higher, respectively.

[fumblewhat]

You might "stand out" at a "mediocre" school, but you're less likely to stand out in a pile of graduate applications.

Two things.

1) There are a lot of fantastic state schools out there, but LAC schools generally tend to offer more opportunities to do research with tenured faculty -- which means your research s likely to be of better quality and your LORs will be more personal and (therefore) of a better quality, as well.

2) --And this one is a doozy -- Keep in mind that your LORs are not going to be focusing on how you compare to your peers. That may be mentioned (if at all) in passing, but the main focus is going to be on your own abilities and characteristics and acheivements. It'd be hard for a professor to speak to these if you were one student in fifty or a hundred, where a TA was doing most the grading.

So, go to a place where you can best cultivate yourself and get personal attention. There's no easy way or shortcut that gaurantees you'll have a better shot into graduate school. So you might as well go where you can grow and be excellent. If you feel you can do that at Davis, go for it! I'd be looking more closely at the mentorship and research opportunities at your prospective schools, than trying to "beat the system" somehow.

Good luck with your choice!

[PsychGirl1]

The reason I have asked this question is because I am trying to decide between attending a prestigious undergrad, or a mediocre one. The following inferences are generalizations, and of course do not apply to every single person at the institution:

The same person might appear to have a better LOR because at a mediocre school, people are less competitive. When one is placed in an environment filled with skilled people, then they have a better chance to fail to "stand out", so to speak. In other words, if one attends a prestigious university, they might be with smarter/more determined kids, so they may get overshadowed and appear "less intelligent or less (fill-in-good-trait)" to the professor. In addition, those who attend LACs tend to have a knack for writing or are trained to write so much, that they naturally become better at it. At a research university such as Davis, writing won't be as focused on as it is at a liberal arts college, which stresses writing. Also, most of the time, students who attend more prestigious universities have a harder curriculum/stronger foundation or knowledge, so GPA is lower and GREs are higher, respectively.

Coming from a "prestigious undergrad", I'd have to vote for it over a mediocre school. Yeah, your GPA may suffer a bit and your ego will get a bit bruised, but there is nothing like being in an environment of motivated, smart people. Keep in mind that college can be an exhausting 4 years, filled with personal growth, highs and lows, and life changes. If the people around you are motivated and smart, it's easier to stay on track (in my opinion). You don't want to go to class and lose motivation cause everybody makes stupid questions and your professors have low expectations. If you want to learn the most, it's best to go to the place with the best learning opportunities.

Like someone else mentioned, the more prestigious school is more likely to have prestigious faculty. Also, I feel like at some of the "smarter" colleges, there is more of a sense of meritocracy- the faculty is used to undergrads walking up to them and asking for opportunities, and doing well when given an opportunity. And while it seems callous, a prestigious undergrad can get you invited to some interviews that you might not otherwise get (both for grad school and the real world).

That being said, I think there are other factors to consider when choosing a college. Life plans change. I went into college on one clear path, with one clear major, and jumped in headfirst. A semester later, I realized I hated my major. I flopped around for awhile before I found something else I really enjoyed and worked in the field for 1-2 years. Now, I'm going to grad school for something unrelated. My school had a very strong science and math core that everybody was required to take, and all of the majors had a strong analytical focus. This let me flop around a bit in majors/careers- because I had a strong foundation that crossed barriers (math, data, science). Also, once I decided that engineering wasn't for me, there were other departments that were equally as prestigious that I could switch to. So I'd consider foundation and options as very important. No matter how convinced you are that psychology is for you, there is a good chance you will find other things that interest you more in the next 4 years. Also- the ability to switch majors/schools (apparently at other colleges it is difficult- it wasn't at mine) is something to consider.

So I guess that's about it: foundation, options, culture (meritocracy, research, professor attitude), and the other students (fit with your personality, drive, etc.). Those are all very important when choosing an undergrad and will affect your career path.

Good luck!

[cogneuroforfun]

1) There are a lot of fantastic state schools out there, but LAC schools generally tend to offer more opportunities to do research with tenured faculty -- which means your research s likely to be of better quality and your LORs will be more personal and (therefore) of a better quality, as well.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but how does this work? Larger, research-oriented state or private schools are just that, oriented towards research. Professors frequently focus more on research and their labs than teaching (although this is a generalization, and there are fantastic instructors at big schools, too). For all the advantages of smaller LACs, greater opportunity for research experience is not one of them.

Just to be clear, I am differentiating between LACs (four-year universities) and big universities (undergraduate + graduate programs), not state vs. private or prestigious vs. mediocre, which some of the posts seem to be mixing up. Harvard and Yale are prestigious and research universities, not LACs. In any case, research trumps most everything else, as long as the "everything else" passes some threshold of being good enough.

[juilletmercredi]

There's a difference between "prestigious v. mediocre" and "LAC vs. university". You've raised both here.

First things first: follow the money. Unless the difference isn't that large and you can comfortably afford the more expensive school, choose the one at which you have the most financial aid/is the cheapest. I don't see the point of going into big debt for undergrad.

That said, in the LAC vs. university debate, both schools have their pros and cons. I am undoubtedly biased: I got my BA at a small LAC (not elite, but not mediocre either - it's in the middle of the top 100, and I was definitely in the top 5% of admitted students there) and am now getting my PhD at a large Ivy League university that has far more graduate students than undergrads. I'm not impressed with undergraduate education here so much. Being intimately acquainted with the professors in the department, I know that many of them (won't say most) aren't as...invested in undergrad education. It's not that they don't care; they just don't have the time, since their tenure and promotion relies on their research output and as one bluntly put it to me, "Teaching takes away time from research." I will also say that the teachers here are on average not as good as my LAC teachers, and another colleague who came from my undergrad has said the same. However, that's only comparing two isolated institutions, and is not necessarily true of LACs and universities as a whole.

Most of the pros for either has a counterpoint from the other. Universities may have more prestigious professors, but chances are you the undergrad won't work directly with them and LACs offer the opportunity for closer interaction with professors. Universities may have more cutting edge and better funded research but LACs will offer you a greater role in the research that you do because LAC professors don't have grad students and postdocs to do the heavy duty stuff. LACs may have smaller, more intimate classes but universities usually have a wider range and more offerings. LACs offer an intimate environment but research universities usually have better resources. And so forth.

Ultimately, it depends on you and your personal preference. Personally, I loved the intimate atmosphere at my LAC: it prepared me for serious one-on-one work with my advisors here, and since my professors at my LAC treated me like a junior colleague I was used to that treatment when I got here. Since in a 20-person class it's obvious that you're missing, I was used to notifying professors when I would be gone for class. I was used to professors knowing my name and all my business. Funnily enough, despite a large university being a closer environment to where I am now, I feel like LAC-land was the best prep. If you are more motivated to find your own opportunities and push yourself, and you want a challenging environment (as far as go-getter wise, not prestige-wise), a bigger university may be the way to go. If you don't want everyone in the department to know all your business, bigger uni may be the way to go. (I had people I didn't know that well walking up to me and asking me to tutor them on the GRE three days after I took it. I told some friends my score and they told some friends and well, when you go to a school with 2300 women, everyone knows you through someone else.)

Do realize that you can get the best of both worlds; my small LAC was in a big city with a lot of other unis nearby: a prestigious public technical university, a flagship state university campus, and a top 20 private university, as well as some other smaller schools. Many of my friends did research at those campuses with better-known professors. Also, if you live in a city with a lot of universities chances are there are cross-registration agreements, so even if Tiny LAC doesn't offer Psychology of the People of That Obscure Mountainous Region, you may be able to take it at Big U. And vice versa - if a tiny LAC doesn't appeal to you you can take more intimate classes at the tiny LAC in your college town if there is one, plus most big universities' upper level classes are smaller.

As to mediocre vs. prestigious...since I already wrote a book I'll just say this. Prestige does matter, all other things being equal. People respond to me a little differently when I tell them the name of my doctoral institution. (Or a lot differently, in one amusing anecdote.) However, I enjoyed being a big fish in a relatively small pond at my LAC. Doesn't mean my colleagues weren't motivated - lots of us ended up on Wall Street, in top law and medical and grad schools, TfA, whatever. But knowing I was hot shit at my LAC gave me this insufferable confidence that has served me well in grad school ;D For some people this backfires though - they are so used to being the big fish that when they get to the ocean, they get intimidated at the first sign of not being the biggest fish in the pond.

[psychapplicant2011]

First-hand statements from an admissions chair for a major PhD program.

Students from smaller but quality programs tend to do better.

Why?

Well, if it is not a quality program, it has hard to gauge what those As really mean. It is also hard to gauge the letters of recommendations, too.

But why smaller colleges?

Students at big universities, even (if not especially) at top-ranked PhD universities tend not to devote as much individualized attention to undergraduate students. (Of course, there are a million exceptions to this "rule", but this is pretty much the information exactly as it was relayed to me.)

If you can find a respectable, regional state school with at least a few good, mainstream researchers in your department, you are good. If you can find a respectable LAC with at least a few good, mainstream researchers in your department you are good.

But in keep in mind, your interests/major is bound to change! So find a program that offers these qualities across departments! (Smallish but mainstream, quality researchers and good teachers/mentors.)

[benders_antenna]

One of the posters above said that there are a lot of idiosyncracies in the graduate admissions process. You may have great scores and GPA, but still not get into the program you want.

One thing to consider is how well you connect with the folks you want to get graduate training from. Sometimes students with lower GPAs and GREs get into grad school because they were able to develop rapport with their graduate advisor. Sometimes lower GPAs and GREs get in because they make a better match for the researcher's lab. If I study personality and you are interested in learning & memory, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for me to go bat for you to the admissions committee even if you had a 4.0 and 1600 GRE. That would be like a carpenter taking on an apprentice who wants to become a plumber.

Some graduate programs will have interviews, so it could boil down to who has good grades, GREs, and that extra something. Sometimes the faculty who are new to the department will get priority or have more weight to get graduate students and that could affect your chances. So GPA and GRE are great, but will not decide everything.

Edited May 27, 2011 by carlosivanr