Does undergrad institution matter? (article)

[elsie]

I don't think I've seen this one posted here. Any thoughts? Does your undergrad college matter? Should it?

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/01/professors-research-raises-questions-about-graduate-admissions

[Two Espressos]

I read this article shortly before I logged onto The Grad Cafe. It's an interesting discussion, one that I hope other readers of this site will notice and read as well.

[balderdash]

It doesn't really surprise, to be honest. Admissions rates at the best graduate schools are insane - within my own field, they're around 4-5% in the top 10, slipping only to 8-10% in the top 25. With twenty-five applications for each spot, it's no surprise that adcomms pass over the guy with a 3.9, 1540 GRE, and 1 published paper from the University of New Hampshire to accept the girl with a 3.9, 1540 GRE, and 1 published paper from Stanford.

Added to this is the fact that the professors at elite schools are generally known within their field, so their recommendation letters are viewed more favorably than from relatively unknown scholars at less prestigious schools.

Finally, there's the fact that elite colleges train their undergraduates to apply to graduate school; the recurring award of Rhodes, Marshall, Fulbright, Gates, et cetera to students from a specific set of schools evidences such programs' preparing kids to apply. My former academic advisor was a Yale undergrad, Rhodes Scholar, and later UW-Madison political science PhD. He had been picked freshman year at Yale to receive special training and advice urging him to take up a year-round sport, devote time to charity, and apply for research funding. Without this advice, he never would've done some of the things he did, and even though he'd have probably applied to graduate school anyway, having a few years to develop scholarly ambitions gave him an edge when it came time to apply.

Anyway, all of this is to say that in addition to the "name brand" of elite universities, there are numerous factors that help students from such colleges gain an edge in applying for graduate school.

[neuropsych76]

Well one thing that stands out from the article is that the author talked about history and philosophy programs only. These programs are not often funded so there is a little bias here. Many students who come from wealthy families go to top undergrad schools because they can afford them. Many of these same students can go to an unfunded grad program with their families money as well. I'm not sure how big of an impact that is, but I'm sure it accounts for some part of the variance.

Anyway, I think school name isn't a big of deal as what a person's undergrad provides for them. My undergrad is a pretty solid liberal arts college but very small (i graduated with about 200 other students). So not many grad schools across the US probably know about it. However, we have very very high acceptance rates to grad schools and med schools (something like 85% for med school and 6/10 of my fellow psychology majors i graduate with went strait to PhD programs). My school really focused on undergrad research and preparing for grad school. So even though it wasn't a big name, it still has good results.

[balderdash]

Well one thing that stands out from the article is that the author talked about history and philosophy programs only. These programs are not often funded...

That's not true. They're usually funded by the department or the university, especially at the top.

Edited November 2, 2011 by balderdash

[Eigen]

There's one other thing that doesn't get mentioned when talking about schools- competition.

Top tier undergraduate institutions have a *lot* of students from the same year applying to graduate school, often at the same places. Many of them have the same undergrad advisors, and the same courses. It can be harder to get LoRs that really make you stand out from the pack. That's not to say it's not doable, or that even a mediocre LoR from an elite PI won't take you places- but it's much rarer to have a professor be able to genuinely write, say, that you are the most talented student they've seen in the last 15-20 years.

It's also worth noting, as Neuropsych did that it depends on what the school provides. A lot of SLACs provide excellent grad school preparation and counseling, and have the benefit of very close student-teacher relationships that can lead not only to good networking and advice, but also to really good recommendations.

[Two Espressos]

There's one other thing that doesn't get mentioned when talking about schools- competition.

Top tier undergraduate institutions have a *lot* of students from the same year applying to graduate school, often at the same places. Many of them have the same undergrad advisors, and the same courses. It can be harder to get LoRs that really make you stand out from the pack. That's not to say it's not doable, or that even a mediocre LoR from an elite PI won't take you places- but it's much rarer to have a professor be able to genuinely write, say, that you are the most talented student they've seen in the last 15-20 years.

This is an excellent point, one that I haven't yet heard. I guess that's one of the few benefits, besides reduced cost, of attending a small, non-elite university.

Then again, while talking to my adviser about graduate school, she mentioned that four or five other students had talked to her about graduate school (in English) in the same week. I thought, "Four or five other students? . . .the fuck?" I come from a small university of <3500 students or so, so four or five other English majors applying to graduate school is a major event.

More competition. . .damn.

[Behavioral]

My undergrad advisor would get dozens of emails around Fall from students who've taken his class over the years asking to write a letter for them since they received an A in a class he taught.

[Eigen]

Although anecdotal, my experiences have been that you can come from very poorly known undergrad institutions and go on to very good places.

Of those in my cohort, at least one came from a smaller state school, and got admitted to at least one top 10 school. I went to a small state school (think very few graduate programs, second tier) and I got accepted to every school I applied to, with fellowships- including one in the top 10. Someone a year behind me in my undergrad program was admitted to Princeton the next year.

And this is from an undergrad institution that *might* make the top 300 rankings wise- it's not hugely well known, although it did provide a very solid education.

Your mileage may vary, but I know several success stories that indicate that is indeed quite possible.

[runonsentence]

It's also worth noting, as Neuropsych did that it depends on what the school provides. A lot of SLACs provide excellent grad school preparation and counseling, and have the benefit of very close student-teacher relationships that can lead not only to good networking and advice, but also to really good recommendations.

This was my experience (I attended a school that was <1400 undergrads).

I've heard that an insane number of students in grad school come from SLACs—of course I can't remember the numbers, or where I heard this—but the percentage is disproportionate to the percentage of the national undergrad population that is enrolled in SLACs. It makes sense to me, given what these schools can offer.

[Behavioral]

There's also a self-selection bias, too, involved with SLACs. SLACs have 'brand names', but they're definitely not at the same national level as big universities. Those who even consider applying to SLACs for undergrad are a pretty niche bunch, and from my experience (yes, purely anecdote) come from families whose parents (at least one) had attended one.

[bfat]

Either way, I'm screwed.

I think this will be my biggest hurdle--overcoming the "prestige" factor--when applying for a PhD next year. And it's really unfair. I did wonderfully in high school, had a 3.98 GPA, 1750 SATs, got into my dream school (a top-tier, large, private university)... and had to leave after 1 semester because I simply couldn't afford it, despite the nice financial aid package I got. My parents are blue-collar workers with 6 children, and banking institutions wouldn't even allow them to cosign, had I wanted to take out the more than $100 grand it would have cost for 4 years at the school I was attending. So my degree is from a crappy state school that I attended while living at home.

I guess, technically, it's my fault for thinking I could afford to go to that dream school, but I was 18 and everyone told me to "follow my dreams." I probably could have gotten a better award or a full ride from another "good" school, but I was hell-bent on the one that I wanted and I took that acceptance and ran... until I hit a financial brick wall.

It was humbling, and I grew a lot as a person because of it, but still... it seems like it might come back to kick me in the ass next year.

[Eigen]

Bfat:

If you read my post above, I came from a small state school and got acceptance into a top-10 program- and I know several others who did the same thing. If you're a good student, you have the experience and you have the drive, you'll probably fare pretty well.

[UnlikelyGrad]

Bfat:

Like you, I started out at a 'big name' school. Unlike you, I left because I couldn't hack it academically. I transferred to a Cal State U school, and eventually ended up getting accepted at a top-10 school. (I ended up not going there, but that's another story.)

[bfat]

Thanks for the encouragement--I know that there's still hope, it's just hard not to get upset when I know it would be easier if I had a more "prestigious" degree, that admissions committees would look at my application differently. With all the social changes of the last 50 years, you'd think that a little more of this elitism would have been alleviated by now. It's ironic that academia, one of the most "liberal" aspects of our society, clings to its old conservative ways so tightly. Boo.

[Eigen]

That's because in this case, there's a general trend that backs the elitism. The majority of students from top-10 or top-20 schools are much, much better prepared for graduate school than the majority of students at a second tier state college. Admissions committees know this.

They also know that just because the majority of students at an institution are better or worse doesn't mean that the individual student applying from that school might be better or worse than the average. There are plenty of cases of exceptional students form second tier state schools, and less-than-inspiring students from top tier schools.

Going with the educational trends isn't "conservative", it's a smart gamble if you need some way to sort things out.

[Sigaba]

Finally, there's the fact that elite colleges train their undergraduates to apply to graduate school[.]

For some, this training begins before college -- at prep school. There, some may ask college freshman who come back for a weekend visit. "Is [insert elite school name here] hard?" Unless the freshman is an engineering student and/or attending MIT, the answer is often an astonished "No."

There's one other thing that doesn't get mentioned when talking about schools- competition.

This dynamic works in another way. If you attend a top tier school as an undergraduate, you are competing with/against some exceptionally bright people. If you do well in these encounters (how ever one might define 'doing well'), your skills improve as does your confidence. This sense of confidence can still a lot of doubts when applying to graduate school.

Or so I've heard.

[mandarin.orange]

it's just hard not to get upset when I know it would be easier if I had a more "prestigious" degree

In the long run, I suspect your life is going to be easier without that 6-figure student loan debt.

[juilletmercredi]

Self-selection has a lot to do with this. Students who have money and connections often go to top 50 schools with the intention of going to graduate school, or they develop those intentions through research work and classwork during college. Many students who go to public universities and universities unranked by U.S. News (and I don't think professors are following U.S. News rankings, but moreso that the U.S. News ranks sometimes seem to parallel top programs in certain fields) don't have any intention of going to graduate school and don't develop those intentions through the sometimes huge introductory lecture courses that they have to take.

I went to a small liberal arts college of about 2300 students and about 100 psychology majors - but about 30% of us went on to graduate programs following college. It is not a top 50 institution; it is in the top 100 though. Like some other SLAC students have mentioned, my advisor was not very well known, but I worked closely with her for 2.5 years and got a lot of individual attention and mentorship - as well as research training through a great undergraduate fellowship program - that wouldn't have necessarily have been available to me if I had, say, come to my Ivy League graduate institution for undergrad. The undergrads in my lab do not work directly with our PI; they work with the grad students.

It also depends a lot on the program. I am in two departments. The psychology department is a lot more prestige-conscious; the students come from top schools generally. The public health department is not so much; I can't really remember my cohort's exact undergraduate schools, but only one or two of them come from schools that are top (and I'm talking about Michigan, not Brown. I don't think anyone in my PH cohort went to an Ivy or anything like that).

[juilletmercredi]

It isn't really "2 per state". When the article addresses elite institutions, it isn't talking about the majority of state flagship universities. The author is talking about the relatively small list of elite, mostly private and very expensive universities in the country - Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Kenyon, Grinnell, etc. This list only has a few state flagships on it, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Berkeley, UCLA, perhaps Georgia Tech, Penn State and a few others. It's overwhelmingly private and East Coast schools are overrepresented, particularly the tony private institutions of the Northeast/New England area. These statements don't reflect my personal feelings about college - I think public flagship institutions are underrated. But I talked to a lot of undergrads here at my university who turned down much more affordable and top-name public institutions in their home states (CA, MI, WI, WA) - often where they had earned some scholarship money - to spend $200K to come here.

There are over 3,000 colleges and universities in the United States. 100 colleges is only 0.33% of those colleges. And as you exemplified yourself, top scholars/students don't always end up at the top 100 colleges. They tend to be expensive, and you have to come from a family/background that is aware of them. That means first-generation college students often aren't there (they tend to be at their closest public university campus), low-income students often aren't there, and ethnic minority students often aren't there. These top private institutions often base their admissions on things that come with money - high SAT scores (which can be boosted with test prep courses), AP and IB classes, a variety of honors courses, some kind of long-term artistic ability like dance or music (purchased with lessons), and organized sports that often aren't offered in working-class and lower-middle class high schools (lacrosse, crew, squash, polo, sailing...) The students I know who consider themselves pretty normal and middle-class at my Ivy League took figure skating/violin/ballet/hockey/[insert expensive activity] lessons growing up, went to expensive private high schools, took thousand-dollar SAT prep classes, the whole nine yards.

I don't believe that "most deserving scholars" attend the top-ranked schools. I believe that students with money and connections attend the top-ranked schools. It's not that these students are not intelligent, driven, ambitious, and deserving - they are, I just don't think they are the MOST deserving by necessity. It's also not as if their achievements are unwarranted, as these top institutions often offer more resources by comparison and more prodding for students to think about graduate school.

There also needs to be some examination of the phenomenon I pointed out in my earlier post, which is that students who go to top schools are often far more interested in graduate school than students who went to lower-ranked schools. I don't think it's always that they just naturally are; they are far more likely to have parents and other adult models who have graduate degrees. They're also more likely to be familiar with a range of careers that require or recommend a graduate degree.

[Behavioral]

It is a bit difficult to make out where you refer to undergrad vs. grad students. I do get your point about it not being "2 per state". But then - do many small, New England states have that many extra top-100 universities to make up for other states not making the cut? I haven't looked at rankings or done my research, just wondering.

I think your 3000 number is too large though - community colleges and trade schools don't really count. gtg...

Total number of Colleges & Universities: 4084

Breakdown:

4 year: 2363

2 year: 1721

No. 257 Higher Education Summary

http://www.census.go...statab/educ.pdf

From 2002, but still relevant and encapsulates the idea that 100 is still a small proportion of 4-year schools.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Behavioral

[Eigen]

You actually have a good many more than 3:

• A.T. Still University of Health Sciences
  
• American Indian College of the Assemblies of God
  
• Arizona State University
  
  • Downtown Phoenix Campus
    
  • Polytechnic Campus
    
  • West Campus
    

  [*]Art Center Design College

  [*]DeVry University–Phoenix

  [*]Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

  [*]Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture

  [*]Grand Canyon University

  [*]Midwestern University-Glendale campus

  [*]Northcentral University

  [*]Northern Arizona University

  [*]Prescott College

  [*]Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences

  [*]Southwestern College

  [*]Thunderbird School of Global Management

  [*]University of Advancing Technology

  [*]University of Arizona

  [*]University of Phoenix

  [*]Western International University

You may dispute the validity of some of the above, but I didn't feel like picking through them. Certainly more than 3 legitimate institutions.

[rising_star]

It is a bit difficult to make out where you refer to undergrad vs. grad students. I do get your point about it not being "2 per state". But then - do many small, New England states have that many extra top-100 universities to make up for other states not making the cut? I haven't looked at rankings or done my research, just wondering.

I think your 3000 number is too large though - community colleges and trade schools don't really count. gtg...

Note: I'm taking the Top 100 from the US News and World Report list of National Universities, just for the sake of making the point below. Also, I chose each of the three states because they are the ones that come to my mind when I think of New England.

Massachusetts: Harvard; MIT; Tufts University; Boston College; Brandeis University; Boston University; Northeastern University; Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Clark University; UMASS-Amherst

New York: Columbia University; New York University; University of Rochester; Yeshiva University; Cornell University; Fordham University; Syracuse University; SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry; Binghamton University - SUNY

Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania; Lehigh University; Penn State; Carnegie Mellon; University of Pittsburgh; Drexel

That's a total of 10 in Massachusetts, 9 in New York, and 6 in Pennsylvania. Together, these three states have 1/4 of the Top 100 universities. And that's before you include the SLACs in these states.

A quick glance at the Top 50 National Liberal Arts Colleges:

MA: Williams College; Amherst College; Wellesley College; Smith College; College of the Holy Cross; Mount Holyoke College

NY: United States Military Academy; Vassar College; Hamilton College; Colgate University; Barnard College; Union College; Skidmore College

PA: Swarthmore College; Haverford College; Bryn Mawr College; Bucknell University; Lafayette College; Franklin and Marshall College; Dickinson College; Gettysburg College

That adds up to 6 MA colleges, 7 NY colleges, and 8 PA colleges, for a total of 21 colleges. That's 20% of the Top 100 found in three states.

For reference, Aaron, none of the schools you mention in Arizona are in the Top 100 National Universities List.

Also, jullietmercedi makes a great point about the affordability of these elite schools and their self-selecting nature.

[eco_env]

Note: I'm taking the Top 100 from the US News and World Report list of National Universities, just for the sake of making the point below. Also, I chose each of the three states because they are the ones that come to my mind when I think of New England.

technically, the only one of does in New England is MA. Also, a lot of those top schools are actually cheaper than state schools if you are really poor- they can afford to fill 100% of demonstrated need. But of course few college applicants think of it that way...

[rising_star]

technically, the only one of does in New England is MA. Also, a lot of those top schools are actually cheaper than state schools if you are really poor- they can afford to fill 100% of demonstrated need. But of course few college applicants think of it that way...

I realize that the three states aren't all geographically in New England. However, they are three well-known states of varying sizes. Also, the vast majority of those schools cannot and do not meet 100% of a student's financial need. That is limited to a few extremely well-off universities (as in, endowment > ~$10 million) and doesn't even include all of the Ivy League institutions, for example.

But at the same time, I never have people asking me "what's ASU"?

Do you frequently travel to the East Coast or Midwest? Because, if you do, you'll find that people there do not know whether the ASU you refer to is in Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, or Alaska. Just because they don't ask "What's ASU" does not mean that they know the full name of the university you're referring to, where it is, or anything about it. Just something to keep in mind. (BTW, I should point out that even "well-known" Ivy League schools like Brown are poorly known on the West Coast.)

So the idea is that it's a US News & World Report (or whatever other ranking system) popularity (brand name) kinda thing?

The idea of what? Your question here is unclear.