Weight of undergrad institution reputation

[laplace]

Hello,

I wonder how much can the reputation of the undergrad institution hurt an application to a top program in pure math phd. I hear GPA, recommendations, number of advanced courses taken and grades in such advanced courses, all are very important for evaluation, however all these are strictly dependent upon the quality of the undergrad institution. Does good math gre remedy such problem if any. thanks

[Darth.Vegan]

I don't know specifically about math, but the general consensus is that prestige of undergraduate institution matters very little in graduate admissions. Where it makes the biggest difference is in the opportunities available to students, larger and more prestigious institutions often have better opportunities for research etc.

[cyberwulf]

I don't know specifically about math, but the general consensus is that prestige of undergraduate institution matters very little in graduate admissions. Where it makes the biggest difference is in the opportunities available to students, larger and more prestigious institutions often have better opportunities for research etc.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Grades are almost entirely relative, so that a student with a 3.6 from an Ivy League institution is almost certainly a better bet to succeed in graduate school than someone with a 3.9 from a local commuter school. That being said, there simply aren't that many above average students at elite insitutions, so going to a lesser known school doesn't preclude admission to good places. But the height of the bar (in terms of GPA and strength of letters) is basically inversely proportional to the reputation of your undergrad institution.

Now, with respect to the OP's question, I would suspect that the math GRE is a relatively strong equalizer, in that excellent performance could put you "in the discussion" at better places which might not otherwise give you much of a chance based on the rest of your profile.

[Darth.Vegan]

Well in my discipline this just isn't the case, at least not according to the countless faculty members i've spoken to at top 30 institutions. Also again, a "local commuter school" is not really what we're talking about here is it? Take for example, University of Oklahoma, a very large public flagship state institution but ranked something along the lines of 130-150. No one would be at a disadvantage going to a school like that if they did really well as opposed to going to an "ivy league school." Now, that is a bit different than say Cal State Fullerton, but the biggest difference is R1 vs non R1. If someone goes to a lower ranked R1 school and does well, it will not hurt their chances of admission to top programs.

[cyberwulf]

Take for example, University of Oklahoma, a very large public flagship state institution but ranked something along the lines of 130-150. No one would be at a disadvantage going to a school like that if they did really well as opposed to going to an "ivy league school."

That's simply untrue. I guarantee you that, if they had the same GPA, adcoms would take a (say) Stanford grad over your hypothetical Oklahoma student 9 times out of 10.

Now, if the Oklahoma student had a 3.9 but the Stanford student was running a 3.5 GPA, *then* I think there would be legitimate debate about who to accept.

... the biggest difference is R1 vs non R1.

Nope! Students from top liberal arts colleges fare very well in graduate admissions across a range of disciplines, indeed probably better than all except the top 10-20 R1 institutions.

Edited October 25, 2012 by cyberwulf

[Darth.Vegan]

Again, you're comparing apple's and oranges here. Top liberal arts colleges, say your Haverford's and Swarthmore's are in a very different class than a commuter school with low research activity. You also seem to be intentionally ignoring the fact that aside from Princeton, the "elite" privates are known for having some of the worst grad inflation. I don't think a student in the top 5% of their class from a large public university with multiple presentations and 1-2 years of research experience is going to be at a disadvantage applying to grad school. In fact, I am counting on this myself and the feedback I have gotten from top programs has been very positive thus far. That said, I really only have experience in my discipline, things could be very different for other disciplines but I know plenty of people that have had no problem making the jump from lower ranked schools if they have well defined research interests and quality experience.

[Quant_Liz_Lemon]

I agree with cyberwulf. I've actually experienced a significant difference in quality when I transferred from a top 50 r1 institution into a top 15 r1. The effort I expended to earn my As at my old school pales in comparison to the effort I had to expend in order to earn As and Bs at my new school.

Perhaps sociology is different, but the original poster isn't in sociology. He's in math and statistics.

[Shostakovich]

I don't think there's really a way to know unless you're on the admissions committee or know anyone that's on it. Cyberwulf is a faculty of Biostatistics at a school so I'm guessing he has a lot more info about this than we do as students.

However I also do agree it wouldn't be fair for the Stanford 3.9 to not have an advantage over a Oklahoma State 3.9 in the above example, all other things held constant. It's true many of the top schools are accused of grade inflation, but from what I've seen/heard students w those kinds of numbers are still quite rare at those institutions.

[cyberwulf]

All I really wanted to express is that, as you move down the US news rankings, the bar for what constitutes "excellent" performance (i.e. the performance that will get you into top grad schools) tends to get higher.

If you're in the top 5% of your class and have research experience, your school would have to be pretty weak for the typical adcom to be skeptical of your ability. But, if you're "merely" a top 20%er (or programs you're applying to get a ton of top 5%ers), then prestige/selectitivity of your school can matter, even when comparing two schools in (say) the top 50 nationally.

Edited October 26, 2012 by cyberwulf

[Darth.Vegan]

Well, my school doesn't publish class percentiles but having considered law school for a brief moment, I am in the top 3% of all students that submit transcripts to LSAC from my school (A top 100 public flagship public university in Hawaii, can you guess which one yet? haha). That point aside, my partner went to a top 10 liberal arts college and graduated with a 3.7 GPA. I assure you that the work she did there was not any better than the work top students in my department are doing. I also participated in the ASA honors program this past year with students from top soc programs like Berkeley and Wisconsin, and the research was on basically the same level with everyone else accepted to the program. My only point is that there are excellent students at schools up and down the prestige hierarchy as well as terrible ones. It would seem that at least in my discipline, that is acknowledged, as you see students at top 30 schools with BA's and MA's from middle of the road schools. In the top 10 however, you may have a really good point. It is rare if not damn right impossible to find students at top 10 soc programs that didn't go to very prestigious schools as undergrads. It may be that schools outside of the top 10 are willing to take students from "lesser" schools that have higher stats in the hope of increasing their standing in the rankings. But all in all, while institutional prestige probably has some weight in the admissions process, from what I can tell it is hardly a major factor.

Edited October 26, 2012 by xdarthveganx

[midnight]

All I really wanted to express is that, as you move down the US news rankings, the bar for what constitutes "excellent" performance (i.e. the performance that will get you into top grad schools) tends to get higher.

Cyberwulf, do you think that all of the other elements of an application can reasonably "make up for" (for lack of a better phrase) attending a less selective undergrad institution?

[33andathirdRPM]

My only point is that there are excellent students at schools up and down the prestige hierarchy as well as terrible ones.

This was never in question.

It would seem that at least in my discipline, that is acknowledged, as you see students at top 30 schools with BA's and MA's from middle of the road schools.

It seems that the issue is that some of us are looking at it from a significantly point of view. In math (particularly pure math), undergrad institution is huge. Of course this doesn't mean that an extraordinarily well-qualified candidate can't have success, but it does mean that most candidates who would fall into that category are already at one of the well-regarded schools.

[Seeking]

Well, like it or not - what Cyberwulf says is really true.

That doesn't mean it's also a fair practice - to the contrary, it's a highly unfair practice in the academia that candidates are often judged on the basis of the tags they carry and not on their knowledge, performance and experience. Students who didn't get a chance to go to an elite school for whatever reasons are at a disadvantage.

I have had the occasion to teach courses where I had students from Yale and Harvard sitting alongside those from much lesser known universities. And I can say that those from the less prestigious places were in no way worse off than those from Yale and Harvard - often they were actually better.

In every institution there are students ranging from poor, average to very good and exceptional. And prestigious schools are no exceptions to this.

I do feel that the academic world should stop making selections on the basis of the name on the degrees of the candidates rather than their actual expertise and performance.

But Cyberwulf has given a very realistic picture of how selections are made.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Seeking

[cyberwulf]

I do feel that the academic world should stop making selections on the basis of the name on the degrees of the candidates rather than their actual expertise and performance.

But Cyberwulf has given a very realistic picture of how selections are made.

 

I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that the academic reputation of a student's undergraduate institution matters in graduate admissions, AS IT SHOULD. Graduate programs want to find smart people, and a key indicator of smartness is a record of academic achievement at a good school. This is for two reasons: 1) You were deemed smart enough to be accepted into the school in the first place, and 2) You were competing for grades against a strong group of students.

 

So, to summarize: The academic reputation of the school you attended is ONE dimension which informs graduate admissions decision-making. The influence it has varies between disciplines and departments, but it is wrong to say that it carries NO weight and also incorrect to claim it is the ONLY thing that matters.

[Seeking]

Cyberwulf,

 

No, I didn't miss your point. Yes, I know that's the thought process running in the academia in this regard.

 

I was just trying to point out that not all top-ranking schools Graduate are all that smart and many lower-ranked schools graduate are often smarter than some of the candidates coming from the prestigious places.

 

The academic world should be sensitive to this variation that exists in all schools - regardless of their ranking.

 

I otherwise find your comments on this forum very helpful and insightful.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Seeking

[quinquenion]

Cyberwulf,

 

No, I didn't miss your point. Yes, I know that's the thought process running in the academia in this regard.

 

I was just trying to point out that not all top-ranking schools Graduate are all that smart and many lower-ranked schools graduate are often smarter than some of the candidates coming from the prestigious places.

 

The academic world should be sensitive to this variation that exists in all schools - regardless of their ranking.

 

I otherwise find your comments on this forum very helpful and insightful.

I don't think anyone in academia believes that all graduates of top-ranked schools are smart, or that there aren't many smart graduates of lower-ranked schools. Indeed, from what I've heard from friends at "prestigious" companies, industry is actually far less sensitive to this variation than academia is. (online post covering this phenomenon: http://www.pgbovine.net/advantages-of-name-brand-school.htm ). This is unfair of course, but unlike academia, industry does not have either an implicit or explicit mission of fairness.

 

At least in my field (mathematics), the academy tries very hard to be fair to students from lower-ranked schools. Obviously, the letters of recommendation play a huge role, so there are programs like REUs and the Budapest Semesters in Math, which give students from schools without top research programs access to better known professors whose letters will carry more weight. Standardized exams/contests like the Math Subject GRE and the Putnam also give students from lesser known schools the chance to shine, as grading is blind. However, a quick perusal of Putnam results will show that the vast majority of high scorers on these exams go to top schools.

 

It is the case that despite these efforts, most graduate students at top programs come from other top programs. However, I would attribute much of this to the selection effect mentioned above and to the differences in coursework rigor. Classes at MIT cover 50-100% more material than at my undergraduate alma mater, a reputable but not top-ranked R1 state school (hereafter referred to as State). For this reason, all else being equal, it makes perfect sense for an adcom to pick the MIT student over the State student. The MIT student is simply better prepared. Because there is such a marked difference in coursework difficulty, it falls to the State undergrad to make the other parts of their application stronger than that of the MIT undergrad.

 

TLDR: Unlike industry, the academy (at least in math) tries really hard to give students from lower-ranked schools a fair shot. However, because of differences in access to top researchers and more rigorous coursework, students from top-ranked schools have a built-in advantage.

Edited December 28, 2012 by quinquenion

[cyberwulf]

+ \infty

[vertices]

Here's an interesting thread on math PhD preparation started by a faculty member at an R1 program: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,63267.0.html

Some of the later posts allude to at least this one professor's feelings about undergraduate institutions and reputation.