Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

Colleges with true "name recognition"

12346»

Replies to: Colleges with true "name recognition"

  • LeastComplicatedLeastComplicated Registered User Posts: 401 Member
    @Penn95 I'm pretty sure I'm not far off as far as my assumptions. It makes sense that people outside the U.S. are more likely to recognize colleges because of their academic reputation not because of their sports programs. We've got skewed priorities here.





  • MagnetronMagnetron Registered User Posts: 2,120 Senior Member
    For example, if the average parent saw an ad for tutoring and the person had a degree from ___, they'd go: "Whoa, he went THERE? He must really be worth the $300 an hour!"

    The guy who tried to sell my youngest SAT/ACT tutoring went to Yale and all I could think was, "He went to Yale and he has this lousy job?"

    I grew up in a town with a college and name recognition comes by osmosis. People without college educations would know way more colleges than someone from rural Arkansas. Syracuse had the most name recognition because of proximity - the sports teams were on the news.
  • Penn95Penn95 Registered User Posts: 1,748 Senior Member
    edited September 14
    @MrSamford2014 Yeah i agree. As I said it depends on where you are in the country, and how sophisticated the area is. But in the at least somewhat sophisticated circles globally and on the US coasts and major metropolitan areas the shift is noticeable. While Stanford is def not on par with Harvard (yet) in terms of sheer name recognition, it competes on overall strength and has come to be seen as part of the top pair in higher ed, mainly because it can challenge Harvard in areas that Yale (or Princeton, or MIT) has never been able to. I definitely agree the rise of pre-professionalism and technology and decline of liberal arts has had a lot to do with it, but Stanford didn't just happen to be near Silicon Valley, it was instrumental in building Silicon Valley and making it what it is today.
  • LeastComplicatedLeastComplicated Registered User Posts: 401 Member
    Another thing to consider: "Ordinary folk in ordinary towns in ordinary American "flyover" country" have probably never heard of many A list celebrity/movie-TV stars attending Stanford (although I just googled and found two or three like Reece Witherspoon, Sigourney Weaver, and Ted Danson). But they probably do know that Brooke Shields, Jodie Foster, Emma Watson, Natalie Portman, Matt Damon etc. attended the Ivies.

  • CU123CU123 Registered User Posts: 1,082 Senior Member
    edited September 14
    It's sad when this devolves to actors and actresses......hmmmmmmm, I winder where the Kardashians (sp) went to school........
  • LeastComplicatedLeastComplicated Registered User Posts: 401 Member
    Hey, I'm just giving my opinion on how most common folks develop "brand recognition" of prestigious colleges. Which is that it's through sports, TV, movies, books, and People magazine. It's not by buying and reading college guides - most people don't do that for pleasure.

    I just did a google search on the education levels of the most populated cities in the US. The amount of college educated people in most large cities is about 30% (and that number has increased by about 20% since 1970). So there's a huge percentage of the population who probably don't give a lot of thought about college rankings.

    I don't "winder" about the Kardashian's at all. Except maybe where Dad Kardashian went to school. I'll have to look that up now.
  • chippedtoofchippedtoof Registered User Posts: 101 Junior Member
    edited September 15
    I did a quick looksee on NCAA football rankings pre-Ivy league. AP was still what was considered the final say on rankings, and some of the results were interesting. In the first ten years of rankings (9 being pre-Ivy League) there ivy league schools were in the top 10 (at season end) four times (Penn x2, Dartmouth, and Cornell), Stanford once, and Cal once. Alabama was on there 4 times by themselves. Minnesota finished #1 three times which made it the Alabama of that time.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_NCAA_football_rankings

    Ivy League schools indeed have encouraged sports but from what I heard it was always as a part of the whole development of its students. Harvard's athletic website states:
    Harvard traditionally has considered athletics to be an integral part of the educational experience. [...] The essence of the Harvard philosophy has remained unchanged since the 19th century. [...] Yet as in the classrooms and laboratories, Harvard habitually has striven for excellence on the playing fields. The primary standard has been success against its seven peer institutions in the Ivy League, where Crimson squads have won more than 400 titles since 1956. But Harvard also has had notable achievements at the national level, collecting more than 140 team championships in sports ranging from ice hockey to lacrosse to fencing to crew.
    http://www.gocrimson.com/General/Core_Values/athletics_history

    This aligns with the idea that ivy league schools have been somewhat consistent with the importance they place on athletics, and that "success against its [...] peer institutions" is their "primary standard". Stanford has had different goals for a while now. Pac8/10/12 championships are one thing, but 22 years of winning the Director's cup takes a bit more than business as usual, since prime competition are bigger schools with long athletic traditions: Michigan, Texas, Florida, UCLA, Ohio St, etc. If one walks around the athletic area on campus (it was described as "the house that Arrillaga built" in the papers here), if one recalls the new stadium being built round the clock 24/7 in record time... one realizes Stanford takes its sports seriously.
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Silent-Partner-Billionaire-Arrillaga-has-2948340.php#photo-2260055

    Presently, Stanford is in a very enviable position of being able to attract athletes with high academic stats on the basis of great facilities and a culture of strong support for student-athletes, while maintaining their rep as an uber-selective school... so they are primed to ride this brand-recognition train on both fronts.

    [edited to add links]
  • 57special57special Registered User Posts: 228 Junior Member
    edited September 15
    Before I started researching colleges for S1, I really didn't know much about schools and their reps. I knew MIT, USC,
    UCLA, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Notre Dame, Dartmouth, Princeton....maybe some of the big football and basketball schools. No clue about NESCAC's, WUSTL, Chicago....vague idea about Caltech, Stanford and JHU.

    I mean, you could have told me that Tufts was a girls school in VA, or that Tulane or Rice was in Georgia and I wouldn't have corrected you.

    Since I was brought up in Canada I knew most of the big schools up there. McGill, Concordia( formerly Sir George Williams and Loyola), Toronto, Western, Queens, Dalhousie, UBC, U of A, Simon Fraser, etc..

12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.