Matter where you go to UG?

[Plue00]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know this thread gets posted every week, multiple times but I had a question about competitiveness.

I used to think that where you went to didn't matter as long as you had a good GPA/MCAT but then I got to thinking about competitiveness.

Why shouldn't medical schools take into account the UG of the applicant? It's a lot harder to make As at schools like MIT, Cornell, UCB and other top 25 schools than it is at most middle and low tier schools. Students are generally a lot smarter at top schools than just an average school. Someone who received a B at MIT in their intro bio class probably worked harder for that B and knows more about biology than someone at some random college who earned an A (usually the case). This is probably just because the curve at top schools are probably a lot rougher.

I know people say that the MCAT standardizes everything, but one can study and prep for the MCAT for months and can even retake it. A person probably has more time to study for the MCAT at a lower tier school because it's probably not as rigorous or demanding.

So shouldn't med schools take into account things like this?

 

[Charles Darwin]

So presumptuous it's scary...

 

[Plue00]

You can't argue that higher ranked schools don't have smarter students on average.

 

[Charles Darwin]

You can't argue that higher ranked schools don't have smarter students on average.

So they should have an advantage when applying to medical schools?

 

[KLycos]

Just because med schools SHOULD do something doesn't mean theyre going to. From what I heard on my interviews the adcoms just look at numbers and don't really focus on the school. My roommate who is also applying this cycle went to a VERY hard school that is notorious for not giving easy As. He hasn't gotten in yet.

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

I know this thread gets posted every week, multiple times but I had a question about competitiveness.

I used to think that where you went to didn't matter as long as you had a good GPA/MCAT but then I got to thinking about competitiveness.

Why shouldn't medical schools take into account the UG of the applicant? It's a lot harder to make As at schools like MIT, Cornell, UCB and other top 25 schools than it is at most middle and low tier schools. Students are generally a lot smarter at top schools than just an average school. Someone who received a B at MIT in their intro bio class probably worked harder for that B and knows more about biology than someone at some random college who earned an A (usually the case). This is probably just because the curve at top schools are probably a lot rougher.

I know people say that the MCAT standardizes everything, but one can study and prep for the MCAT for months and can even retake it. A person probably has more time to study for the MCAT at a lower tier school because it's probably not as rigorous or demanding.

So shouldn't med schools take into account things like this?

Are you just picking this out of thin air? Even if it is true, how are medical schools supposed to know this? They can't just start guessing how hard students work based on US News rankings. Plus, not all top schools are known for grade deflation, so the opposite could theoretically be true in some cases.

 

[methylethyl88]

From someone who went to a small state school to a highly ranked medical school I can share my perspectives:

At every top 10 medical school interview I attended, there were only one or two state school kids out of the 12 or 13 interviewers. The rest of the interviewers were from ivy league schools, stanford, MIT, and some UC berkley. At one school in particular, I was the only state school kid, but there were 5 kids from Harvard, 3 from Stanford, 1 from Yale, and 1 from MIT. I thought initially that it was just random due to my interview dates but it was like that at multiple interviews. I'd be lying if I were saying it wasn't a little intimidating...

In my opinion, I think it the name of UG matters much more when looking at the top medical schools compared to just any allopathic school. At interviews for my state medical school, the distribution was completely opposite as above. Maybe 1 harvard kid at my state school interview.

 

[Xiao]

From someone who went to a small state school to a highly ranked medical school I can share my perspectives:

At every top 10 medical school interview I attended, there were only one or two state school kids out of the 12 or 13 interviewers. The rest of the interviewers were from ivy league schools, stanford, MIT, and some UC berkley. At one school in particular, I was the only state school kid, but there were 5 kids from Harvard, 3 from Stanford, 1 from Yale, and 1 from MIT. I thought initially that it was just random due to my interview dates but it was like that at multiple interviews. I'd be lying if I were saying it wasn't a little intimidating...

In my opinion, I think it the name of UG matters much more when looking at the top medical schools compared to just any allopathic school. At interviews for my state medical school, the distribution was completely opposite as above. Maybe 1 harvard kid at my state school interview.

This is very true. I've observed this at all the top ranked medical school interviews I went to as well. One school I interviewed at made it a point to mention the % of their class that came from Harvard. UG name definitely matters.

 

[Mountaineer12]

You can probably guess from my username what low tier school I go to. While I'm sure my classes aren't as hard as Harvard, my school gets a lot of money and therefore has a lot of great professors who are pretty tough. I have friends in much better schools than me who seem to have much easier classes and some that have harder classes. It's just too hard to tell because there's a lot more variables involved than just saying a student at a top tier school automatically worked harder than someone who goes to a lower tier school.

 

[Poisson]

I know this thread gets posted every week, multiple times but I had a question about competitiveness.

I used to think that where you went to didn't matter as long as you had a good GPA/MCAT but then I got to thinking about competitiveness.

Why shouldn't medical schools take into account the UG of the applicant? It's a lot harder to make As at schools like MIT, Cornell, UCB and other top 25 schools than it is at most middle and low tier schools. Students are generally a lot smarter at top schools than just an average school. Someone who received a B at MIT in their intro bio class probably worked harder for that B and knows more about biology than someone at some random college who earned an A (usually the case). This is probably just because the curve at top schools are probably a lot rougher.

I know people say that the MCAT standardizes everything, but one can study and prep for the MCAT for months and can even retake it. A person probably has more time to study for the MCAT at a lower tier school because it's probably not as rigorous or demanding.

So shouldn't med schools take into account things like this?

This is complete bumpkis. I took classes at a community college that were many times harder than my university. Going to a top school is not any different in difficulty usually. You are getting favoritism by the prestige and brand of your degree. Better degrees create better perception. Typically also motivation is very high with ivy league type of people (this helps with your collaboration; meeting people with money; meeting people with drive; meeting people that can help you). I'm sorry but there is no way I will agree that a top institution is harder. Once you get passed the weed out courses (actually with such low attrition at elite schools, one might think that there are low failures in even weed out classes), those teachers are going to let up and any monkey can pass those courses. This is the way life is. Yeah, some bum off the street given the right tools could probably make millions on wall street. Who is getting the job though? Most likely the lazy Harvard student (who even at the bottom level is probably highly polished; but doesn't have to prove as much to get in the firm). Going to a good school is like getting in a good research group. Just being around top people will generate higher impact thinking and production from bottom tier researchers (if you notice in history, many people have been accused of stealing ideas, or maybe one person in a group is a star, and everybody benefits; you get 10 joes at podunk school, 7 joes from daddy admissions and 3 superstars at ivy, the 7 joes benefit). You can be a bum and have a smart friend, get into the same wall street firm, and they both become rich. You can get into an ivy league school because of dad and grandpa and greatgrandpa, have a low gpa, study hard for the mcat, and boom you are in, and you didn't break a sweat. Yeah I have heard some rumers that some english courses and this and that course only give out so many As at this school, but the reality is that I have read many profiles of low gpa people from top instiutions getting multiple acceptances, and then the ackward 3.8 student that was begging for acceptance, gets 1 interview, fails it, and ends up in the caribbean by stupid decision. The sad thing is even in life medicine can be about perception, when it should be the most of any field about substance. The reality is though all types of people can be good and even great doctors, and high stats does not make someone do a perfect featherlift, the most compassion in the world isn't going to make a great doctor, and even the best stats and techniques in the world dont prevent a doctor from geting sued big time because they are hated by their patients, and thus losing their licensees wrongfully. All types of people can be good doctors. Medicine is a marathon, and we need different minds to solve complex problems. Work with what you got and go with it. I have seen low GPAs from the bottom institutions get into medical school with only 5 applications and military background. On average though, yes UG institutions are taken into account, but maybe not for the right reasons, and false, uninvestigated assumptions.

 

[Charles Darwin]

Maybe there's a self-selection bias going on whereby students at top UGs tend to perform better on standardized exams, thus having higher MCAT scores and making themselves more likely to be interviewed by top medical schools. It has very little to do with the name of the school and more to do with the type of student they tend to attract.

 

[StoicJosher]

Maybe there's a self-selection bias going on whereby students at top UGs tend to perform better on standardized exams, thus having higher MCAT scores and making themselves more likely to be interviewed by top medical schools. It has very little to do with the name of the school and more to do with the type of student they tend to attract.

👍

Self selection all the way.

 

[kpcrew]

I've found that grades have a lot to do with the professors you've had and the amount of work you put in. The name of your school matters, but it's for general trends. Also, not every top school has tough grading; harvard is known for grade inflation.

 

[Charles Darwin]

I've found that grades have a lot to do with the professors you've had and the amount of work you put in. The name of your school matters, but it's for general trends. Also, not every top school has tough grading; harvard is known for grade inflation.

+1

Ivies are known for their grade inflation. Certain Ivy League schools have average GPAs in the 3.5-3.6 (B+ to A-) range.

 

[circulus vitios]

Someone who received a B at MIT in their intro bio class probably worked harder for that B and knows more about biology than someone at some random college who earned an A (usually the case). This is probably just because the curve at top schools are probably a lot rougher.

It depends. I go to a god awful state school and my organic chemistry professor bragged about pulling exam material from MIT Open Courseware's website. (That's probably why organic chemistry is my lowest grade in my entire undergraduate career.)

 

[anegron519]

.

 

[Stumpyman]

Nobody said adcoms are completely blind to UG institution, just that it doesn't play a huge factor. Yes a school like Cornell or Princeton will get a little more lenience over a well-curved state school, but still the MCAT is a good method of standardization.

 

[mybubbles627]

Schools don't just consider where you went to UG. What you majored in and what courses you take are considered as well. Majors vary in difficulty and that is why schools deliberately say they look at the rigor of your academic career as well. A more challenging major at a state school could definitely be seen as more appealing than an easy major at an ivy.

 

[Danlee07]

You went to whatever undergraduate that you did. One reason you'll get a higher pool from Ivys/top 25s is because these schools want to keep it that way. So, you just get the highest numbers that you can. Graduate level schools will take the name of the school in consideration but not to the level that you'd think.

Have we yet to recently have a president that's not from an Ivy (aside from Reagan because a movie star president is also a rarity) ? This has no relation to what we're talking about, but it just gives a very vague idea of the superficial protection that a name brand provides.

And if you still didn't have an Ivy name by the time you're done with med school, you have a chance for an Ivy league residency placement or a fellowship... you'll have your chance.

 

[seafood92]

UG prestige definitely matters. Maybe not to the point that you will get denied with great numbers if you are from a state/small liberal arts school but it is definitely taken into account.

 

[CoolWhipp]

I've personally taken classes at UCB that are easier than community college classes I've taken, so stop dreaming that being in a top university makes your class and effort somehow greater by virtue of it being offered at that college.

Doesn't matter to you or me, but it matters.

How much it matters is what is usually up for debate.

 

[JRWPREMED]

.

 

[Shmemifly]

People misunderstand grade inflation.

Grade inflation acknowledges: yes, the material is the probably same, the difficulty is the probably the same -- and for the kids in the A and B range, everything's probably similar at both schools. BUT this SuperSelectiveSchool doesn't HAVE many of the students that would have gotten the D's and F's that brought the median down to a C at state school.

 

[rexxx]

Maybe there's a self-selection bias going on whereby students at top UGs tend to perform better on standardized exams, thus having higher MCAT scores and making themselves more likely to be interviewed by top medical schools. It has very little to do with the name of the school and more to do with the type of student they tend to attract.

Agreed. While at times I wish I had actually gone to an easier school like my brother, where he's taking the same exact classes and admits some of them are a joke, I think the purpose of the MCAT is to account for the difference.

I hope so, anyway.

 

[vayntraubinator]

Agreed. While at times I wish I had actually gone to an easier school like my brother, where he's taking the same exact classes and admits some of them are a joke, I think the purpose of the MCAT is to account for the difference.

I hope so, anyway.

The MCAT is obviously used to extrapolate your probable scores on the USMLE and should have little to do with your class difference and your GPA. The MCAT just means you're a good test-taker.

To be particular, from Wikipedia: "The Physical Sciences section assesses problem-solving ability in general chemistry and physics and the Biological Sciences section evaluates these abilities in the areas of biology and organic chemistry. The Verbal Reasoning section evaluates the ability to understand, evaluate, and apply information and arguments presented in prose style. The Biological Sciences section most directly correlates to success on the USMLE Step 1 exam, with a correlation coefficient of .553 vs .491 for Physical Sciences and .397 for Verbal Reasoning.[2] Predictably, MCAT composite scores also correlate with USMLE Step 1 success.[3]"

GPA represents your work ethic. An MD/PhD friend of mine who participated in admission explained that if you have a 3.9+ it's essentially all counted the same; it means you have a very tough work ethic. Med Schools take into account your GPA, but only relative to your classmates in that college/University. For example, Cornell has grade deflation so a 3.7 may be comparable to a 3.9 at a school with grade inflation like Harvard.

At a certain point particular to each Medical school you are applying to, the cutoff point, the objective becomes subjective. And this is the point at which the whole of your application is judged. Obviously, all things being equal between two candidates, one factor will outweigh the other (in terms of prestige of the school and adcomm bias). But such consideration are moot at this point because this process has so many chaotic factors playing a role behind the scenes.

Therefore, you just do the best you can do.

 

[ranson]

The UG you go to matters to some extent, but it's a high risk high reward case. If you go to a top UG and do well, you will be favored over someone who has the same GPA at a lower ranked school. But it's harder to stick out and do well among students who are all hard workers and expect an A in every class.

 

[BigBear123]

I'm not debating if undergraduate doesn't matter. I'm arguing that a class at a top 25 doesn't necessarily mean is tougher than a class at a non-top 25.

On /average/ classes are going to be harder and more competitive at a top 25 than at a community college or non-ranked school. I go to UCB, and every transfer student I know says that community college did not prepare them well for the classes here. Of course, these are all Molecular & Cell Biology/Microbial Bio/other bio majors. It may be different for majors like sociology which are not very rigorous here. Also, if you take classes from UC Berkeley Extension (don't know if that's what you took) then they also be a lot easier because there are not "real" UCB classes.

 

[EnergyDrink]

This is why the MCAT is so important, and should be weighted much, much more than GPA

 

[Hipster]

My uni isn't a top 25. We have a lot of smart kids, and the classes here are not easy by a longshot. So why should I be disadvantaged? I don't think its fair if admissions people make decisions based on generalizations 🙁

 

[osprey099]

I think LizzyM posted in one of her threads that there is a list that each med school has that ranks UGs by how hard it is to get an A there. It doesn't really have anything to do with the school name but rather how competitive/hard the school is. I think some of the schools at the very top of the list (hardest to get an A) included 2-3 Liberal Arts schools that I cant remember the names of and Carnegie Mellon. Each med school's list differs and it doesn't follow the US news rankings.

 

[StoicJosher]

I think LizzyM posted in one of her threads that there is a list that each med school has that ranks UGs by how hard it is to get an A there. It doesn't really have anything to do with the school name but rather how competitive/hard the school is. I think some of the schools at the very top of the list (hardest to get an A) included 2-3 Liberal Arts schools that I cant remember the names of and Carnegie Mellon. Each med school's list differs and it doesn't follow the US news rankings.

I also remember her mentioning (Disclaimer: could be source amnesia) that this comes into play when a good GPA comes hand in hand with a bad MCAT.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

I've been known to ask questions that have already been answered, but......

 

[Charles Darwin]

[...]And honestly, anyone who thinks students from different schools always learn the same things is delusional. You mean to tell me that everyone learns quantum mechanics in their organic chemistry classes (yes, it is relevant)? Or that everyone learns about the molecular biophysics of the ribosome in their biochemistry classes? Hell, I know people at well-regarded state schools that don't even cover surface integrals in their Calculus 3 classes (i.e. the only remotely difficult part of calculus)[...]

Likewise, those individuals at top state schools may be learning topics you haven't learned either.

 

[deleted357625]

you have to go to harvard UG to get into Harvard med
you have to go to yale UG to get into Yale med
you have to go to johns hopkins UG to get into johns hopkins
and so on.....................

 

[catzzz88]

I went to a small private liberal-arts school outside of Philadelphia. My school was part of a consortium of schools that included University of Pennsylvania.

It was a well known fact that if you were struggling with your GPA in any subject, one should go to take a class or two at UPenn for an "easy A." This pretty much guaranteed a 4.0/3.7 or two for your GPA and helped people bring up their cumulative scores.

So... what makes you think that "Ivy" schools make you work harder for the same grades? I believe it for some classes at some schools (e.g.: MIT with its math integration or Cornell with it's strict and normalized grade deflation), but many ivys have pretty severe grade inflation. UPenn is one that I can say has grade inflation based on my own experiences and those of many many others.

Just FYI.

Best,
C

 

[catzzz88]

I think LizzyM posted in one of her threads that there is a list that each med school has that ranks UGs by how hard it is to get an A there. It doesn't really have anything to do with the school name but rather how competitive/hard the school is. I think some of the schools at the very top of the list (hardest to get an A) included 2-3 Liberal Arts schools that I cant remember the names of and Carnegie Mellon. Each med school's list differs and it doesn't follow the US news rankings.

I know she has specifically mentioned Reed as one of them.

 

[MinitorV]

 

[MinitorV]

I went to a small liberal arts school that none of my interviewers had every head of and was accepted. A classmate had much better stats than me and was accepted at WashU, Mich, Case Western, and other upper tiered MD's.

It's not going to make or break you.

Regardless of where you go you have to have the stats

 

[Plue00]

Likewise, those individuals at top state schools may be learning topics you haven't learned either.

Yes, top state schools like UCB/UCLA/UVA, which are in the top 25 schools. I doubt schools like VCU would teach those subjects. Maybe to the few super students there.

At a top university, it is much harder to get better grades (maybe not some ivies, but most other top universities). You are competing with the best of the best. You will usually have much harder tests on average and your classmates will always be smarter on average. At an average state school, you might very well be the smartest student there along with a few others near you but at a top school, you'll be an average student. You can't possibly compare Calculus I from MIT to Calculus I at at UT.

 

[Charles Darwin]

Yes, top state schools like UCB/UCLA/UVA, which are in the top 25 schools. I doubt schools like VCU would teach those subjects. Maybe to the few super students there.

At a top university, it is much harder to get better grades (maybe not some ivies, but most other top universities). You are competing with the best of the best. You will usually have much harder tests on average and your classmates will always be smarter on average. At an average state school, you might very well be the smartest student there along with a few others near you but at a top school, you'll be an average student. You can't possibly compare Calculus I from MIT to Calculus I at at UT.

Prove it.

Also, you're assuming that because classes tend to be more challenging at top universities (this is debatable too, but we'll leave it go for now 🙄) that you're necessarily going to get a lower grade. Grades are inflated much more at top universities than they are at state flagship universities.

 

[Plue00]

Prove it.

Also, you're assuming that because classes tend to be more challenging at top universities (this is debatable too, but we'll leave it go for now 🙄) that you're necessarily going to get a lower grade. Grades are inflated much more at top universities than they are at state flagship universities.

Are you serious? Don't you see the differences in SAT/GPA of the incoming class for schools like MIT vs University of Colorado? It's probably around 2250/4.0+ vs 1600/3.4ish.

 

[StoicJosher]

nvm.

 

[235788]

 

[fudGez14]

Prove it.

Also, you're assuming that because classes tend to be more challenging at top universities (this is debatable too, but we'll leave it go for now 🙄) that you're necessarily going to get a lower grade. Grades are inflated much more at top universities than they are at state flagship universities.

the reason why the top schools get so much cred is due to the students that go there. these were the student who averaged a 2300+ SAT's/3.9+ GPA's and worked their asses off throughout high school to get into these schools. The classes themselves usually are harder (as in more material taught, harder tests), but not all the time. But what allows for these top schools to stand out from the rest is how hard the students work. Even though a class like orgo could be notoriously difficult, the average on these exams will still be incredibly high (mid 70's or so). An orgo class at HYP could have about 300 students, all of who were near or at the top of their respective high schools. Even if there is what you call 'grade inflation' and 25% get A's, and 35% get B's, there are still 40% of students, students who most likely had 4.0's at their high schools, who are getting C's and below. whereas in state schools, im sure there are very smart people in classes like orgo, those who could have succeeded at ivy leagues. however, your competition, the other 500 people in your class, won't be like the rest. there will probably be like 10-20 students who are really smart and do well (those of you who are on SDN), and then the other 400+ students who scraped by in high school or don't care that much about school makes the overall grading easier. So even if your class is hard, the overall competition at state schools is at a much lower level, allowing for the few at the top to rise, while at ivy leagues, every single student is contending to be at the top, while nearly half of them will barely pass a class.

The competition amongst students at ivy leagues and the sort is why everybody wants to get into these top schools, to increase their chances of subsequently getting into better graduate schools/jobs. And there are still some ivy leagues that practice grade deflation (princeton even has stated that deflation IS their grading policy)

 

[NickNaylor]

Are you serious? Don't you see the differences in SAT/GPA of the incoming class for schools like MIT vs University of Colorado? It's probably around 2250/4.0+ vs 1600/3.4ish.

And we all know that SAT scores and GPAs are the ultimate measure of intelligence and future performance, right?

 

[Anonymous01]

I went to a small private liberal-arts school outside of Philadelphia. My school was part of a consortium of schools that included University of Pennsylvania.

It was a well known fact that if you were struggling with your GPA in any subject, one should go to take a class or two at UPenn for an "easy A." This pretty much guaranteed a 4.0/3.7 or two for your GPA and helped people bring up their cumulative scores.

So... what makes you think that "Ivy" schools make you work harder for the same grades? I believe it for some classes at some schools (e.g.: MIT with its math integration or Cornell with it's strict and normalized grade deflation), but many ivys have pretty severe grade inflation. UPenn is one that I can say has grade inflation based on my own experiences and those of many many others.

Just FYI.

Best,
C

You go/went to Swarthmore? That's the only one I can think that fits your description...Bryn Mawr or Haverford maybe, but I doubt it. Anyways, assuming Swarthmore, every program knows they have ridiculous grade deflation there...not to mention the misery poker you guys play! In general, when these whole "does my school rank matter" threads pop up, I tend to not even consider top LACs. If name recognition matters at all, these top LACs (especially the perpetually top 3) will always have name recognition in addition to their known grade deflation.

Anyways, with that said, people I know at Penn say that you can generally get an A in most classes if you do the work. This statement excludes science classes, though.

PS. They refer to the University of Pennsylvania as Penn, not UPenn. That's one way to tell who doesn't go there.

 

[Anonymous01]

It depends. I go to a god awful state school and my organic chemistry professor bragged about pulling exam material from MIT Open Courseware's website. (That's probably why organic chemistry is my lowest grade in my entire undergraduate career.)

I think the worst part about your statement is that you not only knew where your professor was pulling exam material from, but the class was still your lowest grade in your undergraduate career. I don't mean to judge you, but if he tells you where he's pulling the exams from, and you had access to all the materials he did in terms of exam questions, and this was your hardest class, your other classes were probably pretty easy.

Any class in which you have access to the test questions before the test is not a hard class. (assuming it's not a take home exam or something)

 

[Hotshy]

Are you serious? Don't you see the differences in SAT/GPA of the incoming class for schools like MIT vs University of Colorado? It's probably around 2250/4.0+ vs 1600/3.4ish.

I go to a state flagship University and I'm sure I scored did just as well on the MCAT than most of the students applying to med school that went to an Ivy for UG. A strong SAT score and high school GPA just means that someone started playing the game at a younger age, it is not the end all for determining someone's intelligence or future accomplishments.

 

[ur2l8]

i go to a state flagship university and i'm sure i scored higher on the mcat than most of the students applying to med school that went to an ivy for ug. [bold]a strong sat score and high school gpa just means that someone started playing the game at a younger age, it is not the end all for determining someone's intelligence or future accomplishments.[/bold]

+1

 

[ranson]

I went to a small private liberal-arts school outside of Philadelphia. My school was part of a consortium of schools that included University of Pennsylvania.

It was a well known fact that if you were struggling with your GPA in any subject, one should go to take a class or two at UPenn for an "easy A." This pretty much guaranteed a 4.0/3.7 or two for your GPA and helped people bring up their cumulative scores.

So... what makes you think that "Ivy" schools make you work harder for the same grades? I believe it for some classes at some schools (e.g.: MIT with its math integration or Cornell with it's strict and normalized grade deflation), but many ivys have pretty severe grade inflation. UPenn is one that I can say has grade inflation based on my own experiences and those of many many others.

Just FYI.

Best,
C

Premed courses at Penn are curved to a C+/B- with a little over 20% receiving A/A- grades. Any person can go to any school and take an easy courses and get an "Easy A."

I have taken courses at a state university when I was 16, the same courses that I repeated at Penn. I barely studied and got a 4.00 GPA; finals week was like Christmas break. At Penn, I've studied much more and my GPA is not 4.00. Many people here claiming that it's not harder to do well at Ivy's have never taken courses at one; I've taken courses at both an Ivy and a state university, and there's a huge difference.