Dealing with a massive prestige boost from undergrad-grad

[moderatedbliss]

I'm interested in how people that went to a relatively low-ranking undergraduate school fare when facing a massive prestige/"ranking" boost of their university in graduate school. 

This is entirely subjective and based on speculation, so feel free to correct me. I attend a state school, and in both of my majors I've been treated like I'm the best thing since sliced bread. I feel like most people at my university are just there to get a degree and move on (which I can't fault them for) but I'm usually one of only a few people in my classes who is genuinely interested in learning and always participates (yeah, I'm THAT guy). My basic question is: if you're at a significantly lower ranking school than where you get accepted for graduate work, what is the transition like from being a star in your undergrad program to being adored in your undergrad program to being just another student in a more academically intense environment? Basically, what is it like no longer being considered the smartest person in the room? Is it liberating being with kindred spirits, or is is no longer being considered especially intelligent or special stressful and alienating? I feel like I haven't really been challenged during my undergraduate career, and frankly I'm afraid that I'm going to look like a fool. I suppose it's a bit of imposter syndrome. 

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? 

[Munashi]

I'm interested in how people that went to a relatively low-ranking undergraduate school fare when facing a massive prestige/"ranking" boost of their university in graduate school. 

This is entirely subjective and based on speculation, so feel free to correct me. I attend a state school, and in both of my majors I've been treated like I'm the best thing since sliced bread. I feel like most people at my university are just there to get a degree and move on (which I can't fault them for) but I'm usually one of only a few people in my classes who is genuinely interested in learning and always participates (yeah, I'm THAT guy). My basic question is: if you're at a significantly lower ranking school than where you get accepted for graduate work, what is the transition like from being a star in your undergrad program to being adored in your undergrad program to being just another student in a more academically intense environment? Basically, what is it like no longer being considered the smartest person in the room? Is it liberating being with kindred spirits, or is is no longer being considered especially intelligent or special stressful and alienating? I feel like I haven't really been challenged during my undergraduate career, and frankly I'm afraid that I'm going to look like a fool. I suppose it's a bit of imposter syndrome. 

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? 

 

This isn't so much about ranking as it is about department culture in a way, but I definitely see what you're getting at.  I have always felt that if you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room.  It may be an adjustment if you are not used to being challenged, but I think people that genuinely enjoy learning thrive in environments where the material is challenging and you have the opportunity to learn from not only your professors, but also your peers.

You may need some time to adjust to being challenged, but I think if you're aware that challenges will come and you're open to taking them as a learning experience and not as a blow to your ego, you will be great.  Be excited!  You might look like a fool, but so does everyone at some point.  Your peers face the same risk.  Learning is hard, and that's why it's so damn rewarding.  Just anticipate the challenges/struggles, don't take them personally (easier said than done, I know), and do your best.  You will grow so much more when you are being pushed!  I think you'll do very well.

[maelia8]

i am in a similar situation to you, moderatedbliss - I went to a small, not very well-known or high-ranked private liberal arts college and will now be going to a top-ranked research university for my grad degree. For me, I'm much more in awe/worried that I am going to look stupid in a group of people who mostly attended more prestigious institutions for undergrad and are used to a more competitive environment. At my college I felt like I knew where I stood and when my work was good enough, but now I am a bit afraid that I will land in a group of people who are somehow much better than me and i won't be able to complete with them. Makes me a bit afraid to open my mouth! I know this is probably a silly thing to be worrying about, and I'm sure I'll feel better once I know where I stand after spending some time with the other grad students in my cohort. Right now I worry about being the DUMBEST person in the room and thus finding out that it's the wrong room

[moderatedbliss]

i am in a similar situation to you, moderatedbliss - I went to a small, not very well-known or high-ranked private liberal arts college and will now be going to a top-ranked research university for my grad degree. For me, I'm much more in awe/worried that I am going to look stupid in a group of people who mostly attended more prestigious institutions for undergrad and are used to a more competitive environment. At my college I felt like I knew where I stood and when my work was good enough, but now I am a bit afraid that I will land in a group of people who are somehow much better than me and i won't be able to complete with them. Makes me a bit afraid to open my mouth! I know this is probably a silly thing to be worrying about, and I'm sure I'll feel better once I know where I stand after spending some time with the other grad students in my cohort. Right now I worry about being the DUMBEST person in the room and thus finding out that it's the wrong room

I completely empathize with you. I noticed you applied to multiple California schools, did you go do your undergrad in Cali?

I'm afraid of answering the dreaded, "So where did you do your undergrad?" question, and getting an "Oh, that's interesting!" Which is secretly code for, "Wow, why are you here?"

 

[moderatedbliss]

This isn't so much about ranking as it is about department culture in a way, but I definitely see what you're getting at.  I have always felt that if you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room.  It may be an adjustment if you are not used to being challenged, but I think people that genuinely enjoy learning thrive in environments where the material is challenging and you have the opportunity to learn from not only your professors, but also your peers.

You may need some time to adjust to being challenged, but I think if you're aware that challenges will come and you're open to taking them as a learning experience and not as a blow to your ego, you will be great.  Be excited!  You might look like a fool, but so does everyone at some point.  Your peers face the same risk.  Learning is hard, and that's why it's so damn rewarding.  Just anticipate the challenges/struggles, don't take them personally (easier said than done, I know), and do your best.  You will grow so much more when you are being pushed!  I think you'll do very well.

Sorry for the double post- I like that saying about being in the wrong room. I enjoyed being pampered, but I'm tired of being the only person in any my classes that's actually interested in the subject matter -- not a commentary on intelligence whatsoever, I just care more... 

You bring up a good point about department culture as well; or the wider cultural in general. I'll be heading overseas, I don't know if I can deal with the traditionalism of some of the UK universities. I grew up in California, the idea of wearing robes aka "academic dress" seems absurd. Tradition for tradition's sake is moot, I say. MOOT. 

[zipykido]

I don't agree that you shouldn't be the smartest person in the room. Because if you are then you have the opportunity to teach others what you know and take a leadership position.

 

I got my undergraduate degree from a small low ranked engineering school but I worked at an ivy for two years before accepting a graduate position at another ivy school. Honestly the trick is to have some confidence in yourself. You will not be the dumbest person in the room for very long, just learn to ask questions to build up knowledge. Also don't be afraid to look stupid, I know a lot of people who ask simple questions to help boost their knowledge and you eventually realize that these people are incredibly profound in their ability to learn. If you were chronically dumb then you probably wouldn't be accepted in the first place so don't worry. 

[St Andrews Lynx]

Grad school anywhere is composed of the smart people who want to be there. So in that sense you are likely to face imposter syndrome where-ever you attend university. 

 

As a note about UK universities (it sounds like you're talking about Oxford/Cambridge) - they really aren't that traditionalist. You wear the weird robes only once or twice - most people think it's a bit silly, but also kinda fun - the rest of the time it will be quite ordinary. In some ways the hierarchy within British universities is less rigid than in their American counterparts (no tenure system, grad students are better-protected, the moderately cynical British attitude towards authority).

[Munashi]

I don't agree that you shouldn't be the smartest person in the room. Because if you are then you have the opportunity to teach others what you know and take a leadership position.

 

 

I understand this sentiment and I appreciate you pointing it out since I'll admit to not having considered it.  Still, I think there are benefits to not being "#1" when you're in a learning environment with the goal of educating yourself.  I recognize this is a personal preference, though.  There is clear value to being able to help others improve, as you noted.

[maelia8]

I completely empathize with you. I noticed you applied to multiple California schools, did you go do your undergrad in Cali?

I'm afraid of answering the dreaded, "So where did you do your undergrad?" question, and getting an "Oh, that's interesting!" Which is secretly code for, "Wow, why are you here?"

 

@Moderatedbliss, no, I did my undergrad at a small liberal arts college in Oregon - even worse for answering that "So where did you do your undergrad?" question. At the visit day for "Big Name California Research University" last week, almost everyone else admitted in my department had received their undergrad degree from an Ivy, and I got a LOT of those "wow, how did you get here?" looks from the other admitted students (not in a mean way, but it was still pretty humbling).

[pears]

Grad school anywhere is composed of the smart people who want to be there. So in that sense you are likely to face imposter syndrome where-ever you attend university.

 

Very well said, St Andrews Lynx, per usual! I actually had the opposite experience of those who've posted so far: I went from a highly selective  "Top 25"-type Liberal Arts college in a big city to a medium-sized state university in a small city with a mediocre reputation. However, I also went from being a wild child underachiever — at least I grew as a person, right..? — to happily putting my nose to the grindstone, being completely immersed in my studies & research, & generally working my buns off 24/7.

 

It's been... a very interesting experience, to say the least. The undergrad culture here couldn't be further from the undergrad culture at my alma mater, & the campus culture in general is very different, too, from how people study to how people party. However, as Lynx said, grad school anywhere is composed of the smart people to be there; I get the impression that grad school culture is more homogenous than undergrad cultures are between schools — but within disciplines, e.g., my archaeology program sounds similar to friends' archaeology programs at different schools.

 

Most grad students, if not all, seem to experience imposter syndrome at some point for any number of reasons. I often feel as though my peers who went to state universities have had far more field training & practical experience than I ever did in college, & it always seems like everyone else in my department is way better at managing their time & never procrastinating. However, I know that my strong writing skills are without a doubt a major advantage that my undergrad experience gave me. Writing is probably 75% of what we do & where our grades come from here. I also have my alma mater to thank for my basic knowledge of how other fields relate to my own, my ability to communicate & dress in situationally appropriate ways, & my understanding of how to use my library resources to the fullest (hooray, mandatory workshops!). 

 

I just have to remind myself that I am where I am for a reason, & that the opportunities I've been given were given with the understanding that I'm capable of taking it all on & thriving (as opposed to just surviving). I have lots of advantages due to my undergrad & work experiences, but so does everyone else in my program; we're just coming from different backgrounds with different strengths & weaknesses. Fortunately, my cohort & peers are mostly cooperative, i.e., non-competitive, so I think it makes for a nice experience that helps all of us forget our academic insecurities.

[danieleWrites]

The very Podunk U I did my undergrad and MA has a name very similar to a major R1 university. An international student accidentally enrolled there, thinking that had been at the major university. Imagine the disappointment. The school paper and website had student's beaming face for a while, telling the world about the happy accident that brought our international friend to the fold. Surprising to no one (but the administration, apparently), the international student enrolled elsewhere the next semester. My department chair told us about an episode with the Library of Congress, that gave her keys and privileges because they thought she'd come from the R1; until she signed a book out and they discovered that while these universities sound the same, they aren't. They were very kind, but when she came back the next do to continue her research, suddenly she wasn't allowed to do what she'd been doing.

Those tales could have intimidated me when it comes to rankings. But, a very long time ago, before most of the students I teach were born, my guy was a PFC in the US Army doing some temporary duty with the big wigs in his battalion down in Fort Hood. He had the exquisite pleasure of dining in some new addition with the commanding general, who was something of a good ol' boy in the Texas fashion, not the rich and powerful fashion. The general (two stars, if I recall correctly), liked to talk with the bottom of the food chain of visiting brass because he got a better feel for who the brass were as commanders and as people. So, he asked my guy what he thought about Fort Hood. My guy said, "It's a great post, sir, except that it's in Texas." The general told my guy how everyone in his family had been from Texas, his wife was from Texas, he'd sent his wife home to Texas so their kids could be born in Texas, and then asked my guy, my PFC guy, what he thought about Fort Hood. My guy's entire chain of command, the ones standing where the general couldn't see them, were all looking terrified and waving their hands in the whole don't-do-it fashion. My guy said, "Like I said, sir, it's a great post. Except that it's in Texas."

The general laughed and said the Army version of liking my guy's guts. Even said that my guy was good enough to be a Texan. Later, when he was getting yelled at by the colonel, and eventually asked what the heck he was thinking, my guy said, "What is going to do? Bend my dog tags and send me to Saudi?" (This was around Desert Storm time.)

The lesson that I very much took to heart: there exists inequity in social class, prestige, rank, economics, power, knowledge, and all of those things; but those inequities only have the power to affect a person's individual worth when that person believes they exist.

Sure, Cooley's idea of the Looking Glass Self is right on, and, sure, just because I think I'm as worthwhile as the spawn of our nation's version of royalty doesn't mean that anyone else will, or has to. But, I know that just because they might have the better end of the inequity stick, that doesn't make them better than me in any other way. In fact, I'm full of myself enough to believe that the person carrying around the short end of the inequity stick in the more prestigious places is better than those who've had that prestige all along. The dues they paid to get there were cheap and easy. The dues I paid weren't.

So, to answer your question, yes. You are going to feel like an imposter and you are going feel like a duck out of water, like someone behind your cohort, and so on.

Another thing I learned from my guy: the fight is won before the first swing is every taken. When you size up your future battlefield (and grad school is its own version of battle), and you question your own competence for that battle, you will turn that into a self-fulfilling prophecy. The good news is that everyone else is doing exactly what you're doing, except for the undergraduate star at that university that has moved into the grad program at that university. They're used to being coddled and told how fabbo they are in that context, so they're already convinced of their own superiority.

But I don't think I'm saying anything that everyone here hasn't already learned on their own.

[MastersHoping]

^Did you go to Georgetown College in KY? 

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I had an interesting situation somewhat similar to yours. I went to (actually still go to... graduating in 6 weeks) a low-tier state university in Florida. This was actually a step up, believe it or not, because I attended a community college before this. Anyway, I was originally a Linguistics major (completed that degree a year and a half ago) and I was, like you, in a league of my own. 

 

Now, I have my theories. I believe I am a very quick learner and of well-above average intelligence. When I was in Linguistics classes, I would master the material within a week, and for the rest of the semester it was a conversation between me and the professor while the rest of the class sat there lost. And I didn't even work that hard. I just got it. Anyway, I think the reason is because in a field like Linguistics, everybody usually comes into Intro to Linguistics 101 with little to no knowledge of the field. So we're all at the same level at the beginning of the semester. From then on, the fastest learners (or hardest workers) do the best. 

 

So I finished up my Linguistics BA requirements about a year and a half ago, and I became interested in Computational Linguistics for grad school. I realized that I'd need a minor in Computer Science in order to apply to the program I wanted. So I decided to postpone graduation and pursue a minor in Comp Sci at the same university. Now, as I said, this is a low-tier state school in Florida, so I thought I'd breeze through the Comp Sci classes too. What I found out was, I wasn't that exceptional in those classes. And the reason is, unlike Linguistics, a lot of the classes required prerequisites and corequisites, and since I was only getting the minor, I didn't have many of those classes. Also, since Comp Sci is more of a real-world field than an academic one, a lot of the people came in having already worked in the field as professional programmers for years. Like in Linguistics, I did well in the beginning-level Comp Sci classes when I was around a bunch of people with equal prior knowledge, but I was just average in the higher-level Comp Sci classes when I was around a lot of people with much more prior knowledge than I had. 

 

Anyway, I guess my point is, it was a bit humbling not being the exceptional student anymore. I also didn't let it depress me though. I realized Comp Sci is a field unlike most academic fields, where people come in with a vast amount of previous knowledge. 

Edited March 23, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[ExponentialDecay]

if you're at a significantly lower ranking school than where you get accepted for graduate work, what is the transition like from being a star in your undergrad program to being adored in your undergrad program to being just another student in a more academically intense environment?

 

Well, if you're really good, you will continue being a star in your postgraduate institution. The field of comparative literature is especially prone to this, from what I've gathered. I actually think this isn't a function of prestige as much as it is a function of graduate school. Nobody goes into comparative literature for the career prospects (although few people, I think, can handle a PhD in any subject for the career prospects alone), so you're gonna end up nose-to-nose with equally nerdy and insufferable people. Such a situation definitely psyches me out, so I'm developing a coping strategy that involves lots of arrogance, brown-nosing, and martinis.

[quincepessa]

I went to a fancy-pants top Ivy undergrad. Anyone who gives you a "why are YOU here" is a tool and not worth your time. You got in because the admin folks believe you should be there.

 

Be the one who isn't afraid to ask questions, to get the most out of your education. Good luck!

[victorydance]

Honestly, it really doesn't matter at all how 'smart' you are. There are always going to be people who know more than you do.

 

The only thing that matters IMO for school and/or academia is how hard you are willing to work and how many sacrifices you are willing to make (as long as you are at some certain level of intelligence of course).

 

I was of average intelligence in high school, average intelligence in my community college, and average intelligence in the top 2 university in my country. I finished first class honours and won awards for the best honours thesis.

 

You know what I learned? The people who think they are smart and are 'all-stars' really aren't. The people who knew their limitations and worked to improve them are the real 'smart' kids in the class.

 

If this feels like a 'if you work hard enough you can beat anyone' post, it isn't. The sooner you realize that everyone is smarter than you in a certain way, or on a certain topic, the better.

 

Because at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if you can beat someone in an argument in class, or know a bunch of stuff about X, Y, and Z. 

[Vene]

@Moderatedbliss, no, I did my undergrad at a small liberal arts college in Oregon - even worse for answering that "So where did you do your undergrad?" question. At the visit day for "Big Name California Research University" last week, almost everyone else admitted in my department had received their undergrad degree from an Ivy, and I got a LOT of those "wow, why are you here?" looks from the other admitted students (not in a mean way, but it was still pretty humbling).

Here's what I think, if anything it means you are better than them. It's easy to come from a position of prestige, it's far more difficult to come from the bottom.

[MastersHoping]

@Moderatedbliss, no, I did my undergrad at a small liberal arts college in Oregon - even worse for answering that "So where did you do your undergrad?" question. At the visit day for "Big Name California Research University" last week, almost everyone else admitted in my department had received their undergrad degree from an Ivy, and I got a LOT of those "wow, why are you here?" looks from the other admitted students (not in a mean way, but it was still pretty humbling).

 

Are you absolutely sure you weren't just imagining it/felt self conscious?

 

At my grad school open house, I met current and admitted students who went to places as varied in prestige as Harvard vs. Michigan State, and other mid-tier state universities. Maybe it was just me, or maybe just this program, but I don't anyone was like "wow Harvard you so smart!" or "wow Michigan State not so smart!" , after all, we're all here now, aren't we? And to be perfectly honest, I can't even remember where most of the people went to undergrad even after they told me (hey, gimme a break, there were probably over 30 people ) and definitely wouldn't hold against them a lower-ranked undergrad. In fact, one of the people I talked to who I was most impressed by was the one who went to Michigan State.

 

Edit: I should add that the grad school I'm going to is also fairly prestigious.

Edited March 28, 2014 by MastersHoping

[heyo]

It's easy to come from a position of prestige, it's far more difficult to come from the bottom.

 

This is not always true.

 

 

I'm interested in how people that went to a relatively low-ranking undergraduate school fare when facing a massive prestige/"ranking" boost of their university in graduate school. 

This is entirely subjective and based on speculation, so feel free to correct me. I attend a state school, and in both of my majors I've been treated like I'm the best thing since sliced bread. I feel like most people at my university are just there to get a degree and move on (which I can't fault them for) but I'm usually one of only a few people in my classes who is genuinely interested in learning and always participates (yeah, I'm THAT guy). My basic question is: if you're at a significantly lower ranking school than where you get accepted for graduate work, what is the transition like from being a star in your undergrad program to being adored in your undergrad program to being just another student in a more academically intense environment? Basically, what is it like no longer being considered the smartest person in the room? Is it liberating being with kindred spirits, or is is no longer being considered especially intelligent or special stressful and alienating? I feel like I haven't really been challenged during my undergraduate career, and frankly I'm afraid that I'm going to look like a fool. I suppose it's a bit of imposter syndrome. 

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? 

 

You may not be the smartest person in the room, but you may be lucky enough to learn how capable you really are. Be grateful that you've made it to a great program and realize that it's much better to have your peers dragging you up rather than down. I am going to be facing a downgrade, and it's saddening. Being at the top sucks.

Edited March 28, 2014 by heyo

[Queen of Kale]

This is going in a different direction but you should prepare yourself to not be awed by everything at your new top-notch institution.  

 

I went from an unranked school to a top 20 & was disappointed to find that while the quality of research was exponentially better, the quality of teaching was much worse.  At my unranked school my professors made $40k a year tops, and were either adjunct professors who worked in the field full time or were professors who began teaching after working in industry.  They were not there for the money and were expected to do very little research. The quality of teaching was pretty high though.

 

At my new institution teaching is considered a sideline at best and often an annoyance or hurdle, and that comes across in the classroom.  My fellow "upwardly mobile" grad students and I often get together over a beer and joke about how if we had worked our asses off in high school to pay $40k a year to have poorly taught classes we'd be pretty irate - but of course most of the undergrads feel that they are getting what they (or their parents) paid for. And maybe they are; maybe the name recognition is more important than the quality of teaching.

 

But right off the bat my gut feeling is that I'm not cut out to work in an R1 if I have to choose between teaching and research. And I understand theres only so much time in the day, so I'm sympathetic to everyone in this scenario.  It just seems like an unsustainable system.  Like, eventually top-notch schools are going to have to have two parallel faculty branches: one of star studded researchers who make guest appearances in classrooms and another of top notch educators that make it worth while to pay out the nose for an education.  Just my long ramble thoughts - there's more that will be potentially different from your undergrad than just how smart the students are. 

 

As a small addition; you may also be surprised by how the students are similar to those at your first school.  What I have noticed is that the top students at both schools are similar but that the spread is just much wider at my first school. Also, my newer & higher ranked school has more grade inflation but also covers more material in courses over similar timescales (but with lower quality teaching). 

[QASP]

At my grad school open house, I met current and admitted students who went to places as varied in prestige as Harvard vs. Michigan State, and other mid-tier state universities.

 

Another thing you may discover is the wide gap between your perception of prestige and that of others; for example, I don't see the huge gap between Michigan State and Harvard that the above poster does, Michigan State is a well-known school with a very solid reputation, I don't think anyone would be shocked that you could go from there to any grad program. I met people during grad school interviews who had attended state schools and tiny non prestigious private schools many have never heard of, D-II and D-III athletics type schools or schools with no official athletics; some of them had a bit of a complex about coming from a place like that, and some of them didn't, but clearly if you're admitted it's because the school thinks you are on par or better than those from the elite institutions. I had a bit of a concern myself, coming from a non-flagship state school that is looked down upon in my area; what I found out was that people from outside my area actually thought great things of my UG institution and were impressed I had been there, it's just that locally we're in the shadow of some other big well-known schools.

[MastersHoping]

^that was just an example. If you don't see a difference between Michigan State and Harvard, a) you are unique in your way of thinking, b ) it was just an example, replace msu with like ohio state or with st. john fisher college or something if it helps you see my point better.

my point is that it didn't seem like anyone in my program looked at anyone any differently for going to a prestigious or non-prestigious undergrad, whereas the person I was responding to in my original post said he/she felt like other people were wondering what he/she was doing at a top school

Edited March 28, 2014 by MastersHoping

[QASP]

^that was just an example. If you don't see a difference between Michigan State and Harvard, a) you are unique in your way of thinking, b ) it was just an example, replace msu with like ohio state or with st. john fisher college or something if it helps you see my point better.

my point is that it didn't seem like anyone in my program looked at anyone any differently for going to a prestigious or non-prestigious undergrad, whereas the person I was responding to in my original post said he/she felt like other people were wondering what he/she was doing at a top school

 

I'm not saying "no difference," but I am saying, "not a huge difference." Maybe a huge difference to the man on the street, but when we're talking graduate school, then no. Ohio State and Michigan State I would see as having similar prestige also; I am aware there's a lot of stratification at the top, but  those are ranked in the top 75 out of the 2,000+ bachelor's granting institutions in this country. I am just trying to say, I could see somebody looking down on someone who went to some true no-name school, even though they don't look down at Michigan State/Ohio State. And also that the different people may have a different perspective on prestige of institutions.

[ExponentialDecay]

I would urge you to consider that prestige (of the undergraduate or graduate institution) is weighted differently in different fields. In the OP's field, admission straight from UG hinges very much on a) a proven track record of engagement with critical theory, and b ) a successful undergraduate thesis. Many prestigious institutions require a thesis or its equivalent for graduation, and many prestigious institutions can provide a breadth and quality of faculty from whom to choose your first and second readers (though size of school is also a factor). In addition, I have encountered undergraduates at colleges which do not have a theory requirement for Literature majors, or colleges where the theory requirement is not rigorous. Adcomms can assume, as I'm sure many do, that a student coming from a prestigious undergrad will have, by means of a and b, been exposed enough to the world of real academic research in the humanities to be able to gauge their own interest and ability level, which surely reduces the risk of wasting funding on a student who might fail their comps or decide they don't like it and drop out a year later.

 

It's extremely bad form to look down on people from lower-ranked institutions, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the (perceived or actual) difference in academic rigor between Harvard and Ohio State is negligible.

Edited March 28, 2014 by ExponentialDecay

[Vene]

This is not always true.

You don't think that the person who did their undergrad at Harvard and can get into the labs of the top researchers in the field doesn't have an advantage compared to the person who went to a small state university where maybe one or two professors even have a slot available for undergrads to do research? You don't think that the people who select potential applicants have explicit or implicit biases towards big name schools compared to some university they never heard of before? What world are you living in? And that's not going into how the graduate from a small college is far more likely to have different socioeconomic disadvantages compared to a graduate from a top 20 university.