Why should Ivies "count for more"?

[Tas]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Originally posted by Gleevec
First of all, ... 40k a year can be afforded by any family who has saved and is in the middle class. ...

wOw. wish my middle class family could support that, too bad we'd have to turn off the electricity and water and we'd have to live on dog food....the cheap kind...

 

[peterockduke]

Originally posted by Ernham
Well, let's see here where you are wrong, hrmm?
Am I middle class? Nope
Do I feel I deserve help? Nope.
Could I get into a competitive college? Well, UWM is not exactly easy to get into, and it's actually the only place I applied; I have no idea how i would('ve) fair elsewhere.
Let's see where you were right?
Hmmm.... looking..... looking.... hmmm. Well, you got my name right; that's better than most!

Look, you come onto this board with one cited resource and basically tell EVERYONE else that their statements are inaccurate or baseless. You accuse people of not reading your posts when you obviously don't read theirs (Ernham has a tiny penis!) I've done my own research on this matter as it is important to me. I still think you're a charlatan though sometimes it's hard to tell.

Nothing I said was remotely surprising or even arguable.
- people in their 40's and 50's are at the peak of their careers as far as salary is concerned...
-ivy ugrads are generally very wealthy, but the students there are generally academically outstanding
-ALL COLLEGES, not just ivies have a BIAS for the middle and upper class, after all, poor 20 somethings who cannot afford to not work and simultaneously pay for an education.

Now, get your head of your ass. In a lot of ways, I'm agreeing with you, and you can't even see the forest for the trees here... It's quite sad and frustrating. We have a very similar viewpoint in that we agree economic backgrounds should most certainly be considered, but you tend to think that ivy backgrounds should be discounted b/c most of the people who go there are rich (and hell, to me 60k+ a year is damn good living, thats my background ... not the US reality).

1) There is a 3% minority that still managed to get in @ ivies (don't they deserve a major bonus for competing w/ academically talented richies?)
2) UWM has PLENTY of people that are from backgrounds that make 6 figures+ / year
3) Any student from a uppermiddle to upper class background will have an advantage over you - no matter what the school
4) People at ivies are rich BUT at least they have shown that they are also extremely intelligent and/or dedicated.

I have a much bigger problem with the rich person from a less competitve college who competes with a student base of people who don't have a lot of academic or economic advantages. Hence the rich kid at UWM beating your butt in classes while you go to work. He sucks a lot more than the kid at the ivy, b/c he couldn't even get into the ivy.

To be quite honest... you come off as quite bitter and hateful. And for me to say that means something since I'm not exactly full of saccharine over here. Do you actually want to learn and educate or just continue to make diatribes?

 

[g3pro]

what's funny is that the people in the ivy leagues actually snub their noses at the people in the public schools.


to the arrogant: there is close to ZERO difference in the education of ivy league and public. do you actually think they teach the dumbed down version in publics?

people go to less expensive schools because they don't have the resources to go for $40,000 a year schools. get a clue, guys.



btw, my university is ranked in the top 5 for most of the sciences and most of the engineering fields, yet it is not an ivy league.

oh, the horrors! 🙄

 

[Rendar5]

Originally posted by g3pro
what's funny is that the people in the ivy leagues actually snub their noses at the people in the public schools.


to the arrogant: there is close to ZERO difference in the education of ivy league and public. do you actually think they teach the dumbed down version in publics?

people go to less expensive schools because they don't have the resources to go for $40,000 a year schools. get a clue, guys.

1. Actually, I don't snub my nose at people in public schools.

2. I'm not arrogant (most of the time), so I don't think you're addressing me, but I'll bite. I don't think they teach dumbed down versions in publics in general. But I would say that on average you can get a better educational experience at private schools because they can afford to keep the best teachers and generally have more funding for research (and because of their prestige, usually get stronger classes). It's all about money. I went to public high schools, and my parents teach at public high schools, and there are definite differences in the qualtiy of education in school districts that have more money.
I'm just going on average, though. I would say that if someone really tries, they can get just as good of an educational expericne at a public college, but it's not gonna be as easy as getting it at your average private school.

3. Duh =). Although I knew a few people that paid their way through private schools, they're definite exceptions.

 

[LauraMac]

ivys are much better. and no, i don't go to one. competition makes them much, much harder, and that is a fact.

i go to umich now, which i think is fairly competitive... not like an ivy, but enough that it makes me realize how competition really affects your grades.

before umich, i went to tristate university, this tiny piece of $hit school in the middle of nowhere with the lowest standards ever. i had a 4.0 my freshmen year of college and didn't even try. i mean, i used to get wasted the night before exams and everything... it was ridiculous! i skipped class, didn't study... no effort at all!

then i came to engineering at umich. boy was i in for a shock. i actually have to try pretty hard here. i've had to get totally new study habits, and going to office hours is a regular thing every week now. i definitely do not drink the night before exams. but guess what? i definitely do not have a 4.0 anymore.

so, i try much harder now, and i am learning a lot more, but i have worse grades. the reason for this is solely competition. at tristate everyone was stupid, so to get an a was simple. heck, in some classes i was the only one with an a. but at umich everyone is smart and i will never, ever have the highest grade in a class no matter how hard i try.

a 4.0 is much harder to get from an ivy than a state school, and that is a fact.

 

[Ernham]

No one has presented a logical reason for the bias yet. These schools are NOT on a bell curve, so if anything the competition improves your grade by motivating you; it does not lower your grade. This is easy to see by the fact that 30-40% of the grades are A's, while at a public U that number will be closer to 6-8%.

 

[TRUE]

Originally posted by Ernham
No one has presented a logical reason for the bias yet. These schools are NOT on a bell curve, so if anything the competition improves your grade by motivating you; it does not lower your grade. This is easy to see by the fact that 30-40% of the grades are A's, while at a public U that number will be closer to 6-8%.

who said there was no bell curve?

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by facted
who said there was no bell curve?

30-40% of the grades being As could NOT occur on a bell curve system. Uh, duh.

 

[TRUE]

and who said that 30-40% of grades account for A's? In most science classes I've taken, it's more like 20%.

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by facted
and who said that 30-40% of grades account for A's? In most science classes I've taken, it's more like 20%.

The data does. Are you done making a fool out of yourself?

 

[TRUE]

"the data"? Umm...the data = my transcript you fool and trust me, 20% of grades given out in science classes are A's. If you don't believe me (because evidentally you don't believe anyone about anything), then come over here, enroll, get your transcript and find out for yourself.

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by facted
"the data"? Umm...the data = my transcript you fool and trust me, 20% of grades given out in science classes are A's. If you don't believe me (because evidentally you don't believe anyone about anything), then come over here, enroll, get your transcript and find out for yourself.

So your transcript tells you the grades that all the other students received? Just knowing how many people get A's would not allow you to accept the argument that there is a bell curve. If there is a bell curve, according to the data I have here, it must sit in the B range. And if they are curving in that range, that's some incredible inflation.

 

[TRUE]

My transcript tells me what % of students got A's. In answer to the rest of your question, the classes are not curved to B range grades for the most part but rather B-'s/C+'s. There are of course exceptions but they work both ways (I took Calc freshmen year and it was graded to a straight C). As has been said, humanities classes are often "curved" to a much higher grade and I do agree that there is grade "inflation" there.

Also, in many of my classes, the professors post grade distributions for the class. They appear to be "bell-shaped" to me 🙂

 

[bullhorn]

Humanities classes at Ivies or rather my alma mater there isn't any competition amongst each other really..more against yourself. Your grade largely depends on how well you write or analyze a particular topic AND your previous work and whether there is improvement as you move along within the department. As an outsider (ie science major) My GPA in my humanities courses which spanned many topics...close to 4.0. I did the readings, I wrote the papers and did well. THIS LIFE is a FAR FAR cry from the science course taken at Princeton. And really that's where this argument should be focused, as obvious premed courses are mostly sciences. Curve is to the B- sometimes C+. You are definitely directly competing against your classmates in most situations. Orgo was my first experience NOT doing so..however, the benchmarks they outlined at the outset of class for particular grades were muchmore difficult to achieve...especially considering the professors wrote the book in which you studied from. THAT can be annoying. So, instead of asking questions that were more cut and dry...they tested how well you could guess on WAAAY more advanced things, based on knowing the basics.

This is kinda a dumb conversation. The bottom line is IN GENERAL (meaning I KNOW there are exceptions), an ivy or ivy--type school is the only place you are going to find alot of people (like myself) that got a C+ or B- in orgo, genetics, biochem and the like and still break 11 easily on that particlar section of the mcat.

 

[peterockduke]

Ernham: "Lies lies all of you lie! Only I can be right! UWM is the best school ever!"

Look Ernham, if your school was so damn fantastic your students would represent on the MCAT, LSAT, etc. At least law students push this information out.

http://www.jd2b.com/cgi-bin/undergrads/undergradinfo.pl

Hmmm Harvard prelaw students get a 165 (93.5%) ave.
Oh here we go, UWM students get a 152 (55%) ave.
Hmm want %iles? http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/scale.htm


http://www.deloggio.com/homepage/faq/academic/college.htm
"If the mean is 150-153, it's an average college." Why deny what you already know? That's the LSAT.

Multiple people have already posted that Harvard's ave. MCAT is ~33. What's UWM's average MCAT? Probably like a 25. An average premed at Duke gets a 32 and a B- in their science class, that average student would most likely get an A in your science classes according to the MCAT. Funny how that works. You can b1tch about how other schools grade inflate when quite frankly all the fair tests out there show that your school's ugrad population isn't as competitive as Harvard's. Again, these tests are very much like a national gpa. Where does UWM measure up? You've already been told that the sciences at ivies remains curved that means roughly 10-20% of the students get A's. Should Dartmouth students all be punished for being in a class where a B- = 33?

You wanna talk about how there are only rich kids at Ivies - sure, fine. I absolutely agree. But there are rich kids at your school who couldn't even get into these schools. Why should they be rewarded for achieving less? Give people who have less money an edge - I'd love that! But even if ivies are havens for the middle class and the rich, just about every last one of them has proven that they are generally some of the best students out there.

 

[Kashue]

A friend of mine somehow got on the medical student mailing list at the school he works at and in one email, they were looking for medical students who wanted to be volunteers to call the initial 30 accepted students to congratulate them. He told me of the 30 students accepted, 29 were ivy league, with about 15 from Harvard, 5 or 6 from Yale, several from cornell. Only 1 of the 30 student was from a non-ivy league school.

 

[Biffer]

I am all for ivy/7sister bias in the admit game--I posted earlier on this and got heckled to no end...I'm glad to see some supporters on this thread-

Medicine is an incredible field of study with great responsiblity and burden, its practitioners' standard is one of excellence---everyone should agree with this statement. Now, why is it so wrong to screen quality of ugrad--there will definitley be exceptions, ie the troubled yet highly gifted high school student who comes of age in second tier college as well as the cash strapped with similar abilities. Thats fine and no doubt he/she should be accepted to med school given that they do ok on the mcat and kill their science coursework. Most people realize that ugrad rep is quite important in securing future jobs, grad school spots, etc, and that this makes sense as ugrad rep represents the applicant pretty accurately. In reality, there is good reason for the fact that top U graduates gobble up a disproportionate number of high paying jobs, exclusive grad seats, etc, and this has much less to do with connections and $$ than pure talent otherwise they'd sink fast. I will end by saying that talent exists everywhere and that remarkable people attend 'just ok' schools and will rise to the ranks of their ivy peers without a doubt but most such students will not--. Undergrad institution is just the first in a long line of selective filters that stratify individuals based on ambtition and talent.

 

[Taleof50]

Originally posted by Ernham
So your transcript tells you the grades that all the other students received? Just knowing how many people get A's would not allow you to accept the argument that there is a bell curve. If there is a bell curve, according to the data I have here, it must sit in the B range. And if they are curving in that range, that's some incredible inflation.

So are you saying those of us at ivies don't work hard? I can tell you that I've worked my butt of to get the grades that I've gotten. The sciences are NOT inflated at the Ivies. If you don't freakin' go to one, don't comment because you can't. There's a reason why something like 75% of those going to UPenn or Cornell or others start off premed and then only about 15% apply. I cannot comment on state universities, and I won't. I respect those that go to college. Period. Be it Harvard or State U. And you should do the same.

 

[bullhorn]

Average MCAT for August 2003 at Princeton was 32.1

Other years are similar....

 

[ixitixl]

Originally posted by bullhorn
Average MCAT for August 2003 at Princeton was 32.1

Other years are similar....

Here's some more Princeton data:
32.7 Average MCAT score
94% acceptance rate into medical school
Acceptance rate for P'ton students at the following medical schools:

NYU = 32%
Columbia = 28%
MSSM = 20%
Harvard = 18%
PENN = 18%
Stanford = 13%

For comparison, UVA (a good state school)
28.2 Average MCAT score
66% acceptance rate into medical school

NYU = 2%
Columbia = 27%
MSSM = 9%
Harvard = 13%
PENN = 4%
Stanford = 1%

I'm not trying to imply anything. These are just numbers I found from the schools' respective sites.

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by ixitixl
Here's some more Princeton data:
32.7 Average MCAT score
94% acceptance rate into medical school
Acceptance rate for P'ton students at the following medical schools:

NYU = 32%
Columbia = 28%
MSSM = 20%
Harvard = 18%
PENN = 18%
Stanford = 13%

For comparison, UVA (a good state school)
28.2 Average MCAT score
66% acceptance rate into medical school

NYU = 2%
Columbia = 27%
MSSM = 9%
Harvard = 13%
PENN = 4%
Stanford = 1%

I'm not trying to imply anything. These are just numbers I found from the schools' respective sites.

They have an average undergrad GPA?

 

[ixitixl]

Originally posted by Ernham
They have an average undergrad GPA?

3.56 For University of Virginia

3.65 For Princeton

Slightly higher for the "Ivy"

 

[mmapcpro]

I went to Embry-Riddle University (tops in aerospace) for engineering physics/aerospace engineering for 3.5 years.

Grading was based entirely on the professor, and most of them would tell us that 75% is a good average, so the exams were curved at 75% (C). Beyone that, your grade was your own. There was no bell curve to fuel competition among the students.

The material was very difficult, the upper level physics professors did not care about grades. If you did not present a sufficient knowledge of the material, you didn't get the grade.

However, I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty. It was alot easier to do well there than at the college I am at now. The reason for this is that MOST of my classmates at Riddle were SERIOUS. There was very little partying. At the start of each semester, I would stand up in the class and ask if anyone wanted to form a study group, and I would get a group formed within 2 minutes, and hardly anyone every missed a session.

At the college I'm at now taking my prereqs, I tried to use the same system. I asked if anyone wanted to form a study group, and I got 1 offer. And she's such a friggin slacker, that I'm done wasting my time waiting for her to show up to scheduled meetings. Everybody has an excuse. I look at the grades on the exams, and out of 25-30 students, 3-4 of us are getting A's and the rest downhill from there, yet everybody seems to have this, "oh, this stuff is no big deal" attitude about studying. I find myself working harder now because there's no exchange of ideas.

So in my experience, I would say that who you are sitting next to in your classes certainly does make a difference on how well you LEARN (notice I didn't say anything about grades, because I don't give a damn if I get an A if I didn't master the material presented to me).

 

[Fish3715]

Originally posted by Taleof50
I respect those that go to college. Period.

Amen. Who cares where-you-are or where-you-could-have-been or where-you-"should"-be. Be grateful that you are able to receive an education.

 

[peterockduke]

Originally posted by Chrisobean
There is a huge huge spectrum in the quality of state schools, so trying to generalize them is missing the point.

I absolutely agree. There's a big difference b/t UNC and Appalacian U. For the most part, all the partiers/drugies from my HS went to App. Some state schools are quite good.... some are quite bad.

had she gone to an ivy, she would have just blended in with the rest of the "brilliant" people.

You always tell this story as if it is relevant or meaningful to this subject. Your professor's research means very little to the ave. ugrad at your school. Is it b/c she scooped some researcher at Stanford? Who cares. This has nothing to do with how intelligent/hard working the ave. ugrad is. Do you think by focusing on the irrelevant anyone will think you're right?
**Are you trying to say that your brilliant professor would not stand out at an ivy b/c all the people are brilliant? Interesting, who's side are you on?**

and you cant necessarily say the competition is greater at ivy's either. b/c there are plenty of people who went to state u's that turned down their ivy acceptances.

Most ivies sport yields between 30-50%. This is b/c most students who choose some ivy over the other or MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Duke, etc. There aren't exactly a lot of people turning down the offers.

Look, if you're school is so competitive than they'll show it on a fair standardized test of basic science (MCAT) or reading comprehension and logic (LSAT). Again, I attended classes with students who will most likely have a higher MCAT ave. than the medical school I want to go to. What do yo uthink that says about the competition of my ugrad hmm? (I'd like to add the best science students are generally phd only students as well and never even take the MCAT).

Why should Ernham get an A for competing w/ people who function at the 55th% while ixitixl has to compete with people who function at the 93rd%. Thats garbage, damn right med, law, grad etc needs to adjust. Being the 50th% at Princeton is a B-. Being 50th% at your school is a B-. Of course, on the MCAT ixitixl gets a 33. You'll get a 25. How that is fair to ixitixl again? He gets what, 35 more questions correct than you. Princeton's 50th% is your 90th.

I have yet to see a good counterargument to this. I'm all in favor of the 3.8/32 UWM student getting in, but I'm also in favor of the 3.3/32 Princeton student getting in as well.

 

[IrishOarsman]

Originally posted by Fish3715
Amen. Who cares where-you-are or where-you-could-have-been or where-you-"should"-be. Be grateful that you are able to receive an education.

Ditto. College = Privilege. The opportunity to have 4 years to largely devote to thinking, outside the clergy and the extreme upper class, is a benefit unheard of until quite recently. Everyone should be proud to earn it and proud to complete it.

Can those who go to competitive schools and succeed feel very proud? I would hope that they do.

 

[doctorcynical]

Is it the school that makes the man or is it the man that makes the school?

 

[IrishOarsman]

However...

🙂

The counter argument to an ivy league bias is not that there isn't concrete reasons to justify slanted admissions, but because the ivies are not a strict meritocracy-based admissions process. Not only is there the possibility of a personal connection (the networks at these schools are, undoubtably, some of if not the most extensive in the nation) to the school, but every medical school selects students during interviews and through essays looking for certain attitudes towards study, medicine, and future goals.

However again...

I think all that is good. The first because, well, I went to a great undergrad school and won't regret it at all should my daughter or son get a slight preference in the admissions process down the road. Why? Because there will always be people who will excell at the school yet not have a place due to physical constraints.

Which gets us to the second point- selecting to cultivate a certain type of student body... selecting legacy students helps create a sense of continuitity with the past and is one way of selecting people who share the school's values (assuming that the graduate probably had those values and they informed his or her family life in some way). Still, legacy is not the best way to create a student body that embodies a given set of ideals.

There is no one best way. The ways most commonly used: essays, rec letters, and (esp for med) interviews.

The bottom line, in my mind, is this: the best schools are always trying to balance their sense of identity with their desire to compete on the national level. Thus SATs and MCATs will always have a place, but so will the "soft" factors.


PS: By values, culture, etc. i did not necessarily mean harcore love of the school or its football program (although, I have respect for those too sometimes), but include intellectual curiosity, a slight tendency to overachieve, and a widely active but balanced student life.

 

[Chrisobean]

Originally posted by peterockduke
You always tell this story as if it is relevant or meaningful to this subject. Your professor's research means very little to the ave. ugrad at your school. Is it b/c she scooped some researcher at Stanford? Who cares. This has nothing to do with how intelligent/hard working the ave. ugrad is. Do you think by focusing on the irrelevant anyone will think you're right?
**Are you trying to say that your brilliant professor would not stand out at an ivy b/c all the people are brilliant? Interesting, who's side are you on?**

Most ivies sport yields between 30-50%. This is b/c most students who choose some ivy over the other or MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Duke, etc. There aren't exactly a lot of people turning down the offers.

**sarcasm?**
you'd be surprised at the amount of people turning down ivy's, to go to school there, or to work, or to clean toilets. maybe it has to do with some of their students attitude problems??
relax champ.
my point was, dont talk about schools that you have not attended b/c you have no idea what the student environment is like there. i personally dont give a crap what you think of my school, and i dont give a crap about your school either.

 

[peterockduke]

Originally posted by Chrisobean
**sarcasm?**
you'd be surprised at the amount of people turning down ivy's, to go to school there, or to work, or to clean toilets. maybe it has to do with some of their students attitude problems??
relax champ.
my point was, dont talk about schools that you have not attended b/c you have no idea what the student environment is like there. i personally dont give a crap what you think of my school, and i dont give a crap about your school either.

Sure thing princess, I will relax now. My point is to say no matter what the school, average MCAT and LSATs will say how competitive the school is academically, not your or my personal anecdotal evidence . (It may also say how wealthy it is as well... but alas wealth = college = privilege... and last time i checked medical school is ridiculously filled with wealthy people too)

I worked at a grocery store b4 I went to Duke. I cleaned toilets on a regular basis. I'd sell my left testicle to go to Duke over cleaning toilets (and I'd like to think my left testicle is definitely worth duke's tuition of $160k over four years!). Many people say they got into an ivy or ivy like college when it obviously wasn't the case. There are only so many high school students who can get 3.9+gpas and 1400+ SAT's.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

I'll toss my chips into the pot:

everyone quit whining

here's why:

-your school has easy classes with tons of legacies and super rad grade inflation- great, you'll leave with a good GPA...
however, if you've been coasting, be prepared to pay for it come mcat time

-your school has an average GPA of .07 and the bottom 10% of your class is killed and fed to the top 10% each year. yeah, it sucks that your .09 doesnt look as good as a super rad 8.0 GPA...
however, you will show up to the mcat with a loin cloth and a battleaxe, taking no prisoners.



either way it works out- there is some amount of fairness and balance in this whole mess, so lets not get all bent out of shape

 

[xerxes]

Originally posted by ixitixl
Here's some more Princeton data:
32.7 Average MCAT score
94% acceptance rate into medical school
Acceptance rate for P'ton students at the following medical schools:

NYU = 32%
Columbia = 28%
MSSM = 20%
Harvard = 18%
PENN = 18%
Stanford = 13%

For comparison, UVA (a good state school)
28.2 Average MCAT score
66% acceptance rate into medical school

NYU = 2%
Columbia = 27%
MSSM = 9%
Harvard = 13%
PENN = 4%
Stanford = 1%

I'm not trying to imply anything. These are just numbers I found from the schools' respective sites.

you mean of every 100 uva applicants to stanford, only one gets in? i find that rather suspect...

 

[SarahGM]

Originally posted by xerxes
you mean of every 100 uva applicants to stanford, only one gets in? i find that rather suspect...

I find it rather easy to believe...

Stanford's med school class is small- around 86, right? Out of HOW many applicants?

That's right about on the money.

 

[ixitixl]

Originally posted by xerxes
you mean of every 100 uva applicants to stanford, only one gets in? i find that rather suspect...

I guess, but don't quote me, that it means that there are many years when people apply to Stanford and nobody gets in. That is certainly the case with UVA applicants to NYU. I also noticed that of the 112 who applied for Wake Forest (small med school) only 3 got it. Since Stanford is arguably more competitive, I guess it 1/100 would not be an unreasonably acceptance rate.