Poor performance at top university--> strong performance at average college

[resiroth]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I know you don't have a 4.0, and have a chip on your shoulder about it. I bet half of SDN know by this point. You've made a ton of comments about how a WUSTL GPA should be +.6 relative to normal schools too. In the end you're not going to change the system before you apply, and that's something you'll come to accept.

I think we fundamentally disagree on a lot of things, but I think you'll be surprised at how little undergrad rep matters relative to GPA/MCAT/life story/clinical/research.

You made a thread about this very topic: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ious-undergrad-gpa-bump-really-exist.1102400/ which had pretty much everyone (adcoms, attending physicians, people that went to top 5 undergrads etc.) tell you that the bump, if there even is one (talking about top 5, not top 25) is minimal.

If you want to believe that schools care, great...but a more likely situation is that those that manage to get into harvard undergrad, also manage to get into top medical schools because they're good applicants.

For what it's worth I do agree with you. Some compensation should be present, but all evidence suggests at best that the compensation is far from adequate to make up for the discrepancy with rigor. You can deny it, you can complain, or you can accept this fact.

 

[lifetothefullest]

FWIW I go to a school that would get a "bump" but I know it's very minor and I think I would have been better off going to a lower tier school and using my spare time spent on studies to improve EC. That being said, there is more to life than crafting the perfect med school app 🙂.

I go to a school that gets a non-trivial bump as well. I feel the opposite actually - that whether I make it to med school or not, I feel like I learned so so much from my advisers and my peers just from the resources that have been invested in me (kind of relates to the more to life than crafting the perfect app). And I don't think my choice will hurt me for med school.

 

[efle]

I know you don't have a 4.0, and have a chip on your shoulder about it. I bet half of SDN know by this point. You've made a ton of comments about how a WUSTL GPA should be +.6 relative to normal schools too. In the end you're not going to change the system before you apply, and that's something you'll come to accept.

I think we fundamentally disagree on a lot of things, but I think you'll be surprised at how little undergrad rep matters relative to GPA/MCAT/life story/clinical/research.

You made a thread about this very topic: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ious-undergrad-gpa-bump-really-exist.1102400/ which had pretty much everyone (adcoms, attending physicians, people that went to top 5 undergrads etc.) tell you that the bump, if there even is one (talking about top 5, not top 25) is minimal.

If you want to believe that schools care, great...but a more likely situation is that those that manage to get into harvard undergrad, also manage to get into top medical schools because they're good applicants.

For what it's worth I do agree with you. Some compensation should be present, but all evidence suggests at best that the compensation is far from adequate to make up for the discrepancy with rigor. You can deny it, you can complain, or you can accept this fact.

I've repeatedly made arguments that a large magnitude bump would make sense based on MCAT vs GPA data, and common sense (that curved class difficulty varies with peer ability in the class), but always acknowledged that no such large magnitude bump appears to actually be applied by anyone. I've also many times stated that it's not something which actually impacts me.

Check inbox for continued

 

[efle]

University of Penn has always been considered a core Ivy League school, but, well, whatever. Rutgers and W&M are colonial but not included in the 8 "ivies." But yea, I think the term is becoming of much less value anymore, especially since all the schools are pretty much outrageously expensive, and that is what bites the hardest in the end--unless you get a full ride.

Here you go, as per Wikipedia, if you consider it worthy enough. 🙂

"The eight institutions are Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, and Yale University. The term Ivy League has connotations of academic excellence, selectivity in admissions, and social elitism.

The term became official after the formation of the NCAA Division I athletic conference in 1954.[3] Seven of the eight schools were founded during the United States colonial period; the exception is Cornell, which was founded in 1865. Ivy League institutions account for seven of the nine Colonial Colleges chartered before the American Revolution, the other two being Rutgers University and College of William & Mary."

Nobody contests that Penn is an official member of the Ivy League, they're commenting on how some of the Ivies (specifically Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn) get crap from the others for being not quite as elite

 

[caffeinemia]

... then transferred to a public ivy...

What is this abomination?

 

[efle]

What is this abomination?

To be fair it's a pretty accurate term, there's a handful among state schools that stand out and you should be flattered they used "Ivy" to capture that 😉

 

[LizzyM]

Adcoms are trying to answer a few questions when choosing a class: 1) is this candidate academically strong enough to survive here? if not, then game over. 2) if yes, will the candidate thrive here? 3) if yes, is this candidate among the best of the pool? 4) if not, does the applicant bring something to the class that is not present among the candidates labeled "best"?

We tend to know our top feeder schools, both public and private and in many cases we know the pre-med advisors/committee letter writers by reputation and in some cases have met with them personally at events that the med school puts on to showcase itself. We're given lists of the top 25/top 50/top 100 research universities and liberal arts colleges. We also keep tabs on which schools tend to be grade inflating and which are grade deflating. We know the difference between Penn and Penn State, UChicago and Chicago State, "WashU" and GW.

A 3.90 from a public ivy is going to be stronger than someone who earned a 3.4 at the same school but ended up with a decent gpa from a less competitive school. Again, it comes down to, "does the applicant bring something to the class that is not present among "the best"?"

 

[mimelim]

Adcoms are trying to answer a few questions when choosing a class: 1) is this candidate academically strong enough to survive here? if not, then game over. 2) if yes, will the candidate thrive here? 3) if yes, is this candidate among the best of the pool? 4) if not, does the applicant bring something to the class that is not present among the candidates labeled "best"?

We tend to know our top feeder schools, both public and private and in many cases we know the pre-med advisors/committee letter writers by reputation and in some cases have met with them personally at events that the med school puts on to showcase itself. We're given lists of the top 25/top 50/top 100 research universities and liberal arts colleges. We also keep tabs on which schools tend to be grade inflating and which are grade deflating. We know the difference between Penn and Penn State, UChicago and Chicago State, "WashU" and GW.

A 3.90 from a public ivy is going to be stronger than someone who earned a 3.4 at the same school but ended up with a decent gpa from a less competitive school. Again, it comes down to, "does the applicant bring something to the class that is not present among "the best"?"

+1

 

[mimelim]

To be fair it's a pretty accurate term, there's a handful among state schools that stand out and you should be flattered they used "Ivy" to capture that 😉

I thought that it just pointed out the ridiculousness of using the term 'Ivy' at all. Maybe I'm jaded from hanging around the Harvard crowd too much.

 

[efle]

We also keep tabs on which schools tend to be grade inflating and which are grade deflating.

"WashU" and GW.

Re the bold: Good to hear it's internally tracked because it's so damn hard to find any information on it! Do most schools track this? If only someone would leak this info

The common confusion is with University of Washington, everyone jokes about being asked what the weather is like in Seattle

 

[efle]

@LizzyM @mimelim

Do you two/your adcoms agree or disagree with the survey finding of "highest importance" along with GPA and MCAT? Mimelim I believe has said it's a very minor contextual factor for him, and LizzyM you say you recognize certain schools but is alma mater highly important?

 

[lifetothefullest]

Nobody contests that Penn is an official member of the Ivy League, they're commenting on how some of the Ivies (specifically Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn) get crap from the others for being not quite as elite

Will everybody please remember that the Ivy league is simply an athletic conference? One could hypothetically add Rutgers to the Ivy league conference (which would make more sense than the Big Ten if you ask me) and it would be an "Ivy." Simply being an "Ivy" does not necessarily say much about quality of education. That's why schools like Stanford and MIT are considered on par with the very top schools despite not belonging to the athletic conference.

But if you want to talk about "elitism," then it is true that the elite send their kids to Harvard, Yale, Princeton over Brown, Dartmouth, etc.

 

[cloudmurder1]

Why, oh why, does the term "public ivy" exist? (Btw, I go to a top public school, and I disagree with the usage of this term as it is sort of embarrassing)

 

[efle]

Will everybody please remember that the Ivy league is simply an athletic conference? One could hypothetically add Rutgers to the Ivy league conference (which would make more sense than the Big Ten if you ask me) and it would be an "Ivy." Simply being an "Ivy" does not necessarily say much about quality of education. That's why schools like Stanford and MIT are considered on par with the very top schools despite not belonging to the athletic conference.

But if you want to talk about "elitism," then it is true that the elite send their kids to Harvard, Yale, Princeton over Brown, Dartmouth, etc.

These days it's just a layperson shorthand for school full of scary smart people. If you asked a bunch of random people to name Ivies they'd probably say Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Duke, etc. That's how it's usually used on SDN, sort of like Top 20. I'd say being Ivy still says a lot about quality of education, as every member of the athletic conference is among the best schools in the nation by most metrics.

It's funny how much preference HYPSM and really all the ivies get over less-known schools of similar caliber. It seems like most gifted high schoolers build their application lists off prestige a lot more than school size, location, finances, whether they have your major of interest, student happiness, whether they have clubs for the things you enjoy etc.

 

[LizzyM]

Re the bold: Good to hear it's internally tracked because it's so damn hard to find any information on it! Do most schools track this? If only someone would leak this info

The common confusion is with University of Washington, everyone jokes about being asked what the weather is like in Seattle

It is more a word of mouth thing... someone will say "he's not among the best; he has only a 3.65" and someone will point out that given that the applicant is from Princeton (or UChicago or Reed another grade deflating school) that the 3.65 does place the applicant among "the best". We might have had a list at some point of the average GPA and average MCAT for applicants from different schools and it was quite obvious which schools had a depressed GPA at a given average MCAT but mostly it is an oral tradition among adcom members as various applicants are discussed.

 

[justadream]

Why, oh why, does the term "public ivy" exist? (Btw, I go to a top public school, and I disagree with the usage of this term as it is sort of embarrassing)

Why is it embarrassing?

Roughly speaking, "Ivy" translates to "prestige".

So going to a public Ivy means you are going to a prestigious public school (e.g., UCB, UVA, etc.). It's some sort of way to provide a distinction between these schools and most other colleges in the country.

Prestige matters in the world. Controlling for GPA, major, and other relevant variables, a degree from UC Berk is likely going to look better than a degree from [insert your favorite non-UVA/UNC/UCLA/UM/UIC state school here]

Will everybody please remember that the Ivy league is simply an athletic conference? One could hypothetically add Rutgers to the Ivy league conference (which would make more sense than the Big Ten if you ask me) and it would be an "Ivy." Simply being an "Ivy" does not necessarily say much about quality of education. That's why schools like Stanford and MIT are considered on par with the very top schools despite not belonging to the athletic conference.

But if you want to talk about "elitism," then it is true that the elite send their kids to Harvard, Yale, Princeton over Brown, Dartmouth, etc.

The "Ivy League" is just a shorthand for referring to a group of prestigious schools. If you add Rutgers, then the "Ivy League" label would lose some of its luster.

Put it this way. Let's say you are on a trivia team (teams of 8). You put 8 of some of the most knowledgeable people on one team. This team names itself team "Team A". Now, it's not necessarily because being in Team A makes you good at trivia. It's just that the people in Team A are good at trivia. Thus, "Team A" becomes a shorthand for referring to people who are good at trivia.

Now, if you took the worst person at trivia and put them on Team A, then Team A would lose some of its luster.

Coming back to reality, it is well established that all of current schools that comprise the "Ivy League" are some of the best in the country. Thus, if someone refers to "Ivy League", we can be assured that that person is referring to an elite school.

Now, just because you don't belong in the Ivy League does not mean that you are not elite (Stanford and MIT come to mind). But no one has said that the Ivy League is the only group of elite schools.

 

[Goro]

We have almost word for word the same conservations at times! But at our school, it only occasionally seems to salvage a borderline candidate!

It is more a word of mouth thing... someone will say "he's not among the best; he has only a 3.65" and someone will point out that given that the applicant is from Princeton (or UChicago or Reed another grade deflating school) that the 3.65 does place the applicant among "the best". We might have had a list at some point of the average GPA and average MCAT for applicants from different schools and it was quite obvious which schools had a depressed GPA at a given average MCAT but mostly it is an oral tradition among adcom members as various applicants are discussed.

At my school it's extremely minor. You know my example: "A 4.0 is nothing to sneeze at, even if it comes from Kutztown State."
Do you two/your adcoms agree or disagree with the survey finding of "highest importance" along with GPA and MCAT? Mimelim I believe has said it's a very minor contextual factor for him, and LizzyM you say you recognize certain schools but is alma mater highly important?

 

[jl lin]

"Community colleges, while not the focus of my work, are where grade inflation does not seem to be common and grades have actually dropped. I don't have a lot of data on community colleges but I do have one very big piece of information: over a decade of average grades over the entire California Community Colleges system. That's a population of over two million students."-- http://www.gradeinflation.com


I found the above interesting, given the "push" to have college grads forgo doing science pre-reqs at CCs--and especially where you may have a professor that actually cares about being with the students and teaching, as opposed to being caught up in his/her research domain--hence, most CC profs actually teach as opposed to having TAs mostly teach students at many universities. I was fortunate that 99% of teaching at my university was done by the actual professors.

For the love of God, mostly it really isn't about the school you attend. Seriously, it's about the student, his/her motivation and focus and desire to know. Professors, instructors, TAs, they can tell which students really are into learning and which are not. It's great, good, and helpful to have excellent teachers, resources, etc. Still, nothing will trump a highly determined and motivated student with average or better intelligence and true intellectual curiosity. This is why there are homeschoolers that do well and those that don't. It's not where you go to school necessarily, it's about your determination to learn and understand. Of course I will make an exception for those that have a true learning disability or those that have truly severe, interfering circumstances.

 

[jl lin]

BTW, one of the deciding factors for schools for me as well as choosing professors, where possible, has been word of mouth from known REPUTABLE students/sources. Can't just listen to any old review from say a student that has partying as a number one or even number two priority.

 

[justadream]

BTW, one of the deciding factors for schools for me as well as choosing professors, where possible, has been word of mouth from known REPUTABLE students/sources. Can't just listen to any old review from say a student that has partying as a number one or even number two priority.

Yes, quality of teaching matters. But where the differences in attaining a certain GPA really lie is in the peer group quality.

You can have the best teacher in the world teach organic chemistry. Or, you can have the worst teacher in the world. No matter what, you need to outperform your peers in order to get an A. And it's hard to deny that outperforming your peers at Harvard is a lot harder than it is at 99% of other schools (and likely 100% of even the most grade-deflated community colleges).

 

[jl lin]

Yes, quality of teaching matters. But where the differences in attaining a certain GPA really lie is in the peer group quality.

You can have the best teacher in the world teach organic chemistry. Or, you can have the worst teacher in the world. No matter what, you need to outperform your peers in order to get an A. And it's hard to deny that outperforming your peers at Harvard is a lot harder than it is at 99% of other schools (and likely 100% of even the most grade-deflated community colleges).

To some degree yes; but overall, it's one's own ability to learn well on their own. Harvard was listed in some material as having "grade inflation" issues, whilst Princeton has been pretty steady/consistent in not going in that direction. So much of this is all relative and there is no hard science behind it other than law of averages. Seriously, you may find that the "What's in a Name," attitude is taking over; especially since all higher education has gotten so out of control in terms of expense.

I've said a million times here. Schools are businesses. I am not placing a judgment value on that necessarily. Heck, healthy market competition can be a good thing as compared with socializing everything. It just is as it is. I have always been and will remain a person that looks past the suit to the person that is in the suit. Ultimately most businesses will work that way too--maybe not in terms of initial impressions, but they will ultimately see the person that get the job done and done well, well, they won't just be the birds that get the worms but the whole nest too.

Sure, there will always be issues of crappy politics at play; but overall, people want those that can get the job done well--hence a lot of savvy people in higher administration surround themselves with people that can do this, rather than riding off of the mere status associated with their education. I mean some top dogs might be riding off of their elite education, but they want people that make them look good, even though in many cases, these higher ups know that they are holding on by a fluffed-up diploma. So, they look for those people that know how to rock the work and expand profits, regardless of what their education background is. The piece of paper may help you get there, but it won't necessarily keep you there or move you vertically speaking.

 

[justadream]

To some degree yes; but overall, it's one's own ability to learn well on their own. Harvard was listed in some material as having "grade inflation" issues, whilst Princeton has been pretty steady/consistent in not going in that direction. So much of this is all relative and there is no hard science behind it other than law of averages. Seriously, you may find that the "What's in a Name," attitude is taking over; especially since all higher education has gotten so out of control in terms of expense.

I've said a million times here. Schools are businesses. I am not placing a judgment value on that necessarily. Heck, healthy market competition can be a good thing as compared with socializing everything. It just is as it is. I have always been and will remain a person that looks past the suit to the person that is in the suit. Ultimately most businesses will work that way too--maybe not in terms of initial impressions, but they will ultimately see the person that get the job done and done well, well, they won't just be the birds that get the worms but the whole nest too.

Sure, there will always be issues of crappy politics at play; but overall, people want those that can get the job done well--hence a lot of savvy people in higher administration surround themselves with people that can do this, rather than riding off of the mere status associated with their education. I mean some top dogs might be riding off of their elite education, but they want people that make them look good, even though in many cases, these higher ups know that they are holding on by a fluffed-up diploma. So, they look for those people that know how to rock the work and expand profits, regardless of what their education background is. The piece of paper may help you get there, but it won't necessarily keep you there or move you vertically speaking.

With regard to the bolded, I think schools like HYPMS excel in this capacity (perhaps intentionally or not). From what I have heard and seen, in HYPMS BCPM lectures, you learn some high-level theoretical concepts but the psets/exams are a whole different beast. They are usually not problems straight from the textbook but instead are problems that require a lot of analytical ability (in other words, they're a lot harder and trickier). Thus, you spend a lot of time outside of class actually learning the intricacies of the concepts. Basically, what you "learn" in lecture has fairly limited utility in terms of actually doing well (relative to others) on exams. The exams have to be designed in such a way to ensure that the average score is not 97/100.

Also agreed that a a fancy degree means nothing unless you can actually perform in the job. It's just that in many fields, the barrier to get that job is pretty high. Sometimes, just having the Harvard degree will get you an interview or make someone look at your resume for 5 seconds longer. Obviously, as you get older, your work experience matters more and you your degree matters less. But you entry-level job can often be a major factor in whether you "make it" to the top or not.

Even with Harvard's grade inflation, I'd still argue that getting an A at Harvard is harder than getting an A at 99% of colleges. At the VERY best, at Harvard, science classes are probably curved to A- (although its likely B+ or lower). So you still need to be above average to get an A at Harvard. Being above average in BCPM classes is actually really difficult unless you are actually super smart. So if you can be above average at Harvard, you probably deserve the A anyways.

I would, however, fully support any "GPA correction factor" when comparing Harvard and Princeton since the two schools have peer groups of roughly equal ability/intelligence/achievement.

 

[jl lin]

Personally I believe that tests/exams can be strong learning tools, not just tools of evaluation. If you hook up with a good group of people, small group sessions are valuable everywhere. If you can get the small group to take advantage of professor's insights during office hours or such, even better.
Ultimately, it's the individual's skill and determination and not the uniform that will get him to the end zone; but having a good team of individuals that have the same determined mentality is awesome. It's great when you can get it or make it happen. Like the work world, however, you don't always get to pick the players and team and coach. You have to learn how to make the utmost out of what you have. To be able to do this is priceless.

 

[lifetothefullest]

It's funny how much preference HYPSM and really all the ivies get over less-known schools of similar caliber. It seems like most gifted high schoolers build their application lists off prestige a lot more than school size, location, finances, whether they have your major of interest, student happiness, whether they have clubs for the things you enjoy etc.

You forget that the "Ivy League" schools are incredibly diverse in terms of all of those factors. Columbia has NYC, Harvard has Boston, Dartmouth has small-town USA, Yale is in between. Dartmouth is quite small while UPenn is large. These schools have the largest endowments in the nation - while you can't spend the money in your endowment, a larger endowment means a larger return, which you can spend on students and operating costs. These schools consistently have the top academics in the world and are extremely flexible with the majors they offer. That's why gifted high schoolers come to these places. Prestige and quality of education usually go hand in hand.

Coming back to reality, it is well established that all of current schools that comprise the "Ivy League" are some of the best in the country. Thus, if someone refers to "Ivy League", we can be assured that that person is referring to an elite school.

You are also conveniently lumping many different schools into a single category. Quality of education at Harvard is not the same as it is at Dartmouth is not the same as it is at UPenn. If you actually go to one of these schools, you'd know that there is a culture of elitism within the Ivy League itself. Harvard is not mentioned with the same breath as Brown in professional circles (referring to jobs, etc.). I'm not saying that Ivy league schools are not elite - just that to lump all of them together based on what was and is a sports conference borders on the absurd. Kind of like referring to every other school as a "non-Ivy." Well, there's UMich and then there's unknown state school. Very very different. But hey, if you're into grouping things and generalizing, I'm not going to stop you.

With regard to the bolded, I think schools like HYPMS excel in this capacity (perhaps intentionally or not). From what I have heard and seen, in HYPMS BCPM lectures, you learn some high-level theoretical concepts but the psets/exams are a whole different beast. They are usually not problems straight from the textbook but instead are problems that require a lot of analytical ability (in other words, they're a lot harder and trickier). Thus, you spend a lot of time outside of class actually learning the intricacies of the concepts. Basically, what you "learn" in lecture has fairly limited utility in terms of actually doing well (relative to others) on exams. The exams have to be designed in such a way to ensure that the average score is not 97/100.

Exactly. More about exams than psets though. We are never assigned book problems and I've had exams that had averages of 30/100. You start to learn that learning is not about being perfect on every exam, but rather it is truly understanding the material and realizing that you will never understand it completely. It would take a lifetime to understand a field completely and being able to understand a small but significant part of it is an achievement unto itself. It's really a humbling experience. I really would like to see these type of exams to be administered across the board. It would teach grade-grubbing pre-meds that what's important is not the difference between a 94 and a 96 but what's important is that you understand the material.

 

[justadream]

You are also conveniently lumping many different schools into a single category. Quality of education at Harvard is not the same as it is at Dartmouth is not the same as it is at UPenn. If you actually go to one of these schools, you'd know that there is a culture of elitism within the Ivy League itself. Harvard is not mentioned with the same breath as Brown in professional circles (referring to jobs, etc.). I'm not saying that Ivy league schools are not elite - just that to lump all of them together based on what was and is a sports conference borders on the absurd. Kind of like referring to every other school as a "non-Ivy." Well, there's UMich and then there's unknown state school. Very very different. But hey, if you're into grouping things and generalizing, I'm not going to stop you.

There is no doubt that there is a difference between the "Ivy League" schools.

Roughly, we can break them into three tiers (HYP, PCD, BC) where the order within each of my tiers is arbitrary. This also tends to be why HYP students refer to themselves as "HYP" or "HYPMS" instead of "Ivy".

My point was that saying "Ivy League" is similar to someone saying "I go to a top 15" or "I go to a top 20". It's a way to express the general prestige of the school without expliciting stating or listing out the exact schools.

 

[North meets South]

The OP had a 29 on the MCAT in 2011?

 

[efle]

If you actually go to one of these schools, you'd know that there is a culture of elitism within the Ivy League itself.

There is no doubt that there is a difference between the "Ivy League" schools.

Now this is odd. What grounds is there to say there's a difference/some are more elite among the very top? Iirc for example the accept rate and test score ranges are negligibly different for Columbia vs Princeton and the student body at the latter would only then be more distinct in how cool their high school ECs were. Especially regarding Stanford vs some other top schools, you need to be more interesting or special somehow to get an acceptance, but the academic climate there would pale compared to say U Chicago going on test scores.

 

[Demosthenes1]

OP, I hate to sound like "that guy," but it shouldn't make too much of a difference where you went. If you think the "Public Ivy" you attended was too rigorous to maintain the same level GPA you had in community college and a state school, then you will die a spiritual death when you get to med school.
As a person who was at UChicago for a semester before transferring to an instate private school I can (personally) state it shouldn't make too much of a difference where you are.
Adcoms probably won't care too much with all those 3.9+ from top schools sitting on their desks.
Maybe mention it in your personal statement, especially if there was reason behind your lower performance.

 

[justadream]

Now this is odd. What grounds is there to say there's a difference/some are more elite among the very top? Iirc for example the accept rate and test score ranges are negligibly different for Columbia vs Princeton and the student body at the latter would only then be more distinct in how cool their high school ECs were. Especially regarding Stanford vs some other top schools, you need to be more interesting or special somehow to get an acceptance, but the academic climate there would pale compared to say U Chicago going on test scores.

The difference between Princeton and Columbia is perhaps not that great (still not negligible IMO) but you would see the difference between Princeton and Cornell. Surely you do not believe the selectivity of HYP compares to say, Cornell.

For students who get into multiple, they almost always choose HYP over the rest of the Ivies. So the best of the best end up at HYP (MS).

There are also other advantages of HYPMS like having the best FA, more financial resources for research grants, access to best alumni network, etc.

 

[efle]

The difference between Princeton and Columbia is perhaps not that great (still not negligible IMO) but you would see the difference between Princeton and Cornell. Surely you do not believe the selectivity of HYP compares to say, Cornell.

For students who get into multiple, they almost always choose HYP over the rest of the Ivies. So the best of the best end up at HYP (MS).

There are also other advantages of HYPMS like having the best FA, more financial resources for research grants, access to best alumni network, etc.

I recognize a clear difference between HYP and Brown/Cornell in test scores, which is the only metric that imo can let you approximate a tangible difference in the academic arena. Accept rates reflect applicant quantity not quality (I know in high school EVERYONE was reach-applying to Stanford, perhaps a third of them had stats giving them a shot; and according to accept rates Caltech would be equivalent to Dartmouth). Reputation is very sloppy, eg a lot more people know the name Berkeley than stats would predict

What makes HYPSM so incredibly selective is that they want not only top percentile scores but also some kind of unique life story and/or passionately pursued and interesting extracurriculars. But, while such an interesting and talented crowd + reputation makes them the most preferred universities, those features don't make for tougher classmates to beat on a curve. I'll argue that strong performance at a uni with 33 median ACT says the same regarding academic ability regardless of whether it's Stanford or Vanderbilt.

I obviously can't comment on how much help the alumni network is or whether research is more accessible, but the FA isn't so distinctly superior - Vandy gave a higher average aid package than MIT did for example

 

[justadream]

I recognize a clear difference between HYP and Brown/Cornell in test scores, which is the only metric that imo can let you approximate a tangible difference in the academic arena. Accept rates reflect applicant quantity not quality (I know in high school EVERYONE was reach-applying to Stanford, perhaps a third of them had stats giving them a shot; and according to accept rates Caltech would be equivalent to Dartmouth). Reputation is very sloppy, eg a lot more people know the name Berkeley than stats would predict

What makes HYPSM so incredibly selective is that they want not only top percentile scores but also some kind of unique life story and/or passionately pursued and interesting extracurriculars. But, while such an interesting and talented crowd + reputation makes them the most preferred universities, those features don't make for tougher classmates to beat on a curve. I'll argue that strong performance at a uni with 33 median ACT says the same regarding academic ability regardless of whether it's Stanford or Vanderbilt.

I obviously can't comment on how much help the alumni network is or whether research is more accessible, but the FA isn't so distinctly superior - Vandy gave a higher average aid package than MIT did for example

I can't speak about Vandy but HYP(MS) FA is almost assuredly better than the rest of the Ivies. They just have more money to give out and have more generous policies (see Stanford's 125k policy that was in the news).

Academic Ability:
As you know, I am a huge fan of standardized test scores. However, when you are talking about test scores that are very high, then their utility is more limited.

I would still argue that HYP(MS) has a hugely disproportionate share of the top students in almost every field. For example, let's say you are USAMO-level for math. If you get into HYPMS and some other Ivy (e.g., Penn), it's highly unlikely that you will choose that over Ivy over HYP(MS). It's this self-selection that leads to almost all the "top" students in every field to go to HYPMS (if they have the choice).

That being said, if the test scores are similar, then my argument is harder to make. What I wrote about is what I believe to be true. I have other reasons for why I believe test scores at a place like Stanford are lower than the rest of HYPMS.

Reputation:
By reputation, I mean like "good reputation" - not just any random reputation (e.g., Bernie Madoff is well known). In almost all regions and for almost all employers, HYP will be more recognized than the rest of the Ivy League. Even in SF where UCB is well-recognized, I bet most people consider HYP > UCB.

Note:
Also, when I was referring to the "tiers" within the Ivy League, I was not considering only academic performance (which is what we are discussing here). I was also talking about alumni network, general "prestige", job opportunities out of school, etc.

It's similar to how in Law school, HY are in their own tier. Test scores may or may not tell the whole story here but the fact of the matter is that HY are widely recognized to be the best of the elite. For business school, it would be HBS/GSB. Wharton is elite too but not in the HBS/GSB tier.

 

[jl lin]

It's all nice, good, and can vary and be quite relative. No getting around this though:

One's education is what one chooses and is capable of putting into it. It's no different from work/employment/career, etc. People love to make things more complicated then they are. Passive learners, regardless of where the receive their education, are at a major disadvantage with regard to actual learning and applying what they have learned. As long as someone doesn't have the "eye of tiger" and "thrill of the fight" in learning, they are at a disadvantage to those that do.

 

[justadream]

It's all nice, good, and can vary and be quite relative. No getting around this though:

One's education is what one chooses and is capable of putting into it. It's no different from work/employment/career, etc. People love to make things more complicated then they are. Passive learners, regardless of where the receive their education, are at a major disadvantage with regard to actual learning and applying what they have learned. As long as someone doesn't have the "eye of tiger" and "thrill of the fight" in learning, they are at a disadvantage to those that do.

Yes, obviously personal factors (your own motivation) matter but if you have the exact same person with the same personal factors (in other words, controlling for all those factors that you talk about) go to HYPMS vs. top 100 school, it is likely that going to HYPMS will accelerate your career, provide more opportunities, give you access to a powerful alumni network, etc.

I would also argue that going go to HYPMS will allow one to develop some of those positive personal factors you mention. For example, when you see extremely smart people doing amazing things, you may be more motivated to do them as well. Or, you might become friends with someone who greatly influences your personal career path (e.g., maybe you become friends with a future successful businessmen or politician). It's not to say that these types of peers don't exist else - they just exist in a disproportionate amount at HYPMS.

 

[efle]

I can't speak about Vandy about HYP(MS) FA is almost assuredly better than the rest of the Ivies. They just have more money to give out and have more generous policies (see Stanford's 125k policy that was in the news).

Academic Ability:
As you know, I am a huge fan of standardized test scores. However, when you are talking about test scores that are very high, then their utility is more limited.

I would still argue that HYP(MS) has a hugely disproportionate share of the top students in almost every field. For example, let's say you are USAMO-level for math. If you get into HYPMS and some other Ivy (e.g., Penn), it's highly unlikely that you will choose that over Ivy over HYP(MS). It's this self-selection that leads to almost all the "top" students in every field to go to HYPMS (if they have the choice).

That being said, if the test scores are similar, then my argument is harder to make. What I wrote about is what I believe to be true. I have other reasons for why I believe test scores at a place like Stanford are lower than the rest of HYPMS.

Reputation:
By reputation, I mean like "good reputation" - not just any random reputation (e.g., Bernie Madoff is well known). In almost all regions and for almost all employers, HYP will be more recognized than the rest of the Ivy League. Even in SF where UCB is well-recognized, I bet most people consider HYP > UCB.

Note:
Also, when I was referring to the "tiers" within the Ivy League, I was not considering only academic performance (which is what we are discussing here). I was also talking about alumni network, general "prestige", job opportunities out of school, etc.

It's similar to how in Law school, HY are in their own tier. Test scores may or may not tell the whole story here but the fact of the matter is that HY are widely recognized to be the best of the elite. For business school, it would be HBS/GSB. Wharton is elite too but not in the HBS/GSB tier.

I'll agree that the small handful of true-blue geniuses tend far more towards HYPSM, and being the very very best in your graduating class would be astronomically different there. But when two schools have the same test scores I'm inclined to think landing top third/quarter for A's in huge prereq courses will be a similarly difficult experience. HYPSM is undoubtedly full of brilliant students, but by the best estimate the degree to which their academic rigor differs from Columbia/Penn or Vandy/Northwest etc is not the leap most people seem to think.

My argument isn't about HYPSM having a far higher reputation than any other schools to anyone informed, I'll concede that easily. My point is that said reputation doesn't logically point to a gnarlier academic experience than what you face at less known places (so what I was saying is, it makes no sense to argue Berkeley's rep > Northwestern in any way indicates that the student body at Berk is > Northwestern).

 

[lifetothefullest]

Now this is odd. What grounds is there to say there's a difference/some are more elite among the very top? Iirc for example the accept rate and test score ranges are negligibly different for Columbia vs Princeton and the student body at the latter would only then be more distinct in how cool their high school ECs were. Especially regarding Stanford vs some other top schools, you need to be more interesting or special somehow to get an acceptance, but the academic climate there would pale compared to say U Chicago going on test scores.

You seem to be preoccupied with the statistics of it. Fine. Scoring above a 2200 on the SAT is not difficult. You put in the time, you get out the reward. So let's say the top 1-2% of high school students score that high - high enough to get accepted to all of the Ivy league schools. There are approximately 17 million high school students in the U.S. So approximately 0.25 million or 250,000 high school seniors are capable of acceptance at an Ivy. Let's say 100,000 of them apply. There are, what, 30,000 seats at all of the Ivies (high estimate) combined? Now, if all 30,000 of those students are randomly distributed among the Ivies, you're right, there would be no basis for any differences between the Ivies in terms of student body.

Now, however, say that there is a bias. Let's say kids from upper class families tend towards HYP. Now you have a skew. Because all of these kids have similar SAT scores (>2200), you would see similar mean SAT scores no matter how you distribute them. Because all Ivies are similarly selective, you'd also see no difference how you distribute the admitted kids. But where you do see the difference is not in the students' ECs, but their entire background. You'll see that children of famous people, upper class, wealthy, etc. gravitate towards HYP. You will also see academics flock to those places because of the employment benefits, resources given to them, etc. That's what I'm saying when I say there is a culture of elitism within the Ivy League itself. Statistics can only tell you so much. When you're looking at students with essentially similar scores, you'll get the same means no matter how you distribute them. The real question is, how do those students distribute given other factors such as socioeconomic background.

I'll agree that the small handful of true-blue geniuses tend far more towards HYPSM, and being the very very best in your graduating class would be astronomically different there. But when two schools have the same test scores I'm inclined to think landing top third/quarter for A's in huge prereq courses will be a similarly difficult experience. HYPSM is undoubtedly full of brilliant students, but by the best estimate the degree to which their academic rigor differs from Columbia/Penn or Vandy/Northwest etc is not the leap most people seem to think.

There is quite a distinct difference between HYPSM and, say, Brown/Penn. On top of what I mentioned above, the SAT cannot provide good measures of success/intelligence/whatever you think it measures at the ends of the spectrum. People who score a 2250 and a 2300 are not that different in terms of the exam. And it's usually the result of several stupid mistakes everybody makes. That doesn't mean that the guy who scored a 2300 is similar in intelligence to the guy who scored a 2250. It just means the first guy took the test better. Here's a reductio ad absurdum argument. International math/science olympiad winners frequent HYPSM schools. I happen to know two myself. Now, I am not the brightest guy. I just work hard. I have similar SAT scores as these people and we all had near 4.0s in high school. That doesn't mean I'm as smart as them. In fact, they started out taking real analysis freshman year when I was struggling with Calc II. What I'm saying is that the top of the top go to HYPSM because of the resources offered them (and probably somewhat for the name). If you sat for an Orgo exam at UPenn and then at Princeton, you'd be quite surprised at the difference - not necessarily in terms of the material covered but more in terms of the grade distribution.

 

[justadream]

I'll agree that the small handful of true-blue geniuses tend far more towards HYPSM, and being the very very best in your graduating class would be astronomically different there. But when two schools have the same test scores I'm inclined to think landing top third/quarter for A's in huge prereq courses will be a similarly difficult experience. HYPSM is undoubtedly full of brilliant students, but by the best estimate the degree to which their academic rigor differs from Columbia/Penn or Vandy/Northwest etc is not the leap most people seem to think.

My argument isn't about HYPSM having a far higher reputation than any other schools to anyone informed, I'll concede that easily. My point is that said reputation doesn't logically point to a gnarlier academic experience than what you face at less known places (so what I was saying is, it makes no sense to argue Berkeley's rep > Northwestern in any way indicates that the student body at Berk is > Northwestern).

Got it. With this, I agree but only when the peer groups are of (roughly) equal ability. From Harvard to UChicago, I'd say Harvard's peer group is slightly better. However, since they are roughly similar, then differences in grading (Harvard's grade inflation vs. Chicago's grade deflation) become the much more significant factor. Thus, if someone were to say "premed is harder at UChicago", I can definitely believe that.

Now I've heard that BU is grade-deflating. However, I would still believe that getting an A at Harvard is harder than getting an A at BU because in this comparison, the difference in peer quality is highly significant and likely outweighs the difference in grading scheme (inflation vs. deflation).