Prestige versus Cost

[annasdad]

I do think, however, that a student that goes to a school significantly below his academic profile may not be forced to stretch himself intellectually in the way he would somewhere else.

Students who go to less-selective colleges can stretch themselves if they choose to do so. And students who go to the most prestigious colleges in the country can also slide through to a degree without stretching themselves. Read William Deresciewicz on how hard it is to get kicked out of Yale, once you're in.

[tk21769]

The data is clear, and supports your anecdotal evidence: the reputation and ranking of an undergraduate institution makes no difference in the quality of education or the career prospects, with a very narrow range of exceptions in the career area, and leaving aside the religious indoctrination institutions that masquerade as colleges.

Is academia one of the exceptions? If not, and if the data is so clear, then shouldn't it be easy to find many good counter-examples to NJSue's claims on college faculty web pages?

[NJSue]

Conditions in the field have changed since, for example, Marjorie Garber at Harvard got her undergraduate degree in the 1960s. You have to look at recent hires. A good measure would be a given college's placement rate of its students into funded PhD programs in the humanities within the last 10-15 years; don't just look at current faculty rosters. Or if you do, look only at people who are tenure-track assistant professors.

I also believe that certain posters are misreading me. I specifically said that a flagship state school is a good option for an aspiring academic. I am not a prestige hound or a USNWR snob. I do, however, believe that huge differences in program quality exist among undergraduate institutions. Is it possible for someone from an undistinguished obscure teacher-training or business college to get a funded PhD slot? Sure. It's also possible to win Powerball. But it's not likely.

Anyway, I hope this student finds an affordable quality option that will permit him a realistic chance of achieving his goals, whatever they turn out to be.

[annasdad]

Is academia one of the exceptions?

Nope - corporate law, Wall Street, some medical schools. That's it.

If not, and if the data is so clear, then shouldn't it be easy to find many good counter-examples to NJSue's claims on college faculty web pages?

Prestige versus Cost

[Marian]

Is academia one of the exceptions?
Nope - corporate law, Wall Street, some medical schools. That's it.

Also consulting (which happens to be the field in which one of my kids works).

As for academia, it's important for students who aspire to academic careers and therefore to Ph.D.s to have undergraduate research experience. This type of experience may not be available at all undergraduate institutions.

[alh]

Conditions in the field have changed since, for example, Marjorie Garber at Harvard got her undergraduate degree in the 1960s. You have to look at recent hires. A good measure would be a given college's placement rate of its students into funded PhD programs in the humanities within the last 10-15 years; don't just look at current faculty rosters. Or if you do, look only at people who are tenure-track assistant professors.

I agree except I would also consider carefully what has happened since 2008 when many programs began cutting fully funded PhD slots, while at the same time there seem to have been increases in applications to PhD programs in some fields because of lack of jobs available to new graduates. There have also been hiring freezes on faculty. In my opinion circumstances are sort of unprecedented. You can ask the undergraduate departments under consideration where they send their graduates to PhD programs. You can ask the PhD programs (when it's time) if their graduates get hired and into what sort of position.

Looking at where middle aged and older faculty got their PhDs seems rather meaningless to me. The whole model has shifted and changed.

[SlitheyTove]

I'd never heard of Cumberlands before this thread, so I googled around a bit. Most useful was looking at the alumni notes in the university's alumni magazine, especially looking at grads from the last 10-20 years. There are some K-12 teachers, and maybe a handful of alums teaching at college level (chemistry at U Alaska, history at a religious college).

Of course a motivated student can excel anywhere, but OP, if your son would truly like to consider college-level teaching as a career, Cumberlands does seem a tad limiting. I'd suggest digging to see if other low-cost options exist within your son's criteria. If not, he really should think carefully if he's willing to forego future opportunities in order to stay local/have a team to root for/etc.

[apprenticeprof]

Annasdad: First of all, to clarify, I don't consider a flagship state school significantly below anyone's academic profile, since those schools will invariably have a wide range of students, and it won't be hard to find the serious academic classes.

Of course a student can be ambitious and make opportunities for himself wherever he is. In fact, by that logic there's no reason to go to college at all, as there are any number of examples of succesful self-taught people. But except for rare cases, it is pretty hard to be entirely and adequately self-motivated in an undemanding environment, especially since, as I said in my initial post, it isn't purely a matter of whether or not you'll work harder than you have to, but of actual, real differences in course offerings, type of readings, and quality of faculty.

And no, it isn't hard to grasp the concept that, because a lot of top students would have succeeded regardless of where they went to school, the high acceptance rates of students from elite schools can be misleading. There are, however, a number of practical advantages a student from a very good school has in grad school admissions. Having letters of recommendation from professors that the admissions committee members may well know and respect certainly helps, as does the fact that "one of the best of my career" means a lot more coming from a school that attracts better students. A lot of top schools require or at least strongly encourage students to do some sort of culminating thesis or project, which gives these students a ready made, already edited and evaluated writing sample. The professors at a school where many people apply to grad school will be more likely to be savvy about PhD admission - which has changed a lot in even the last ten years - than someone where people only apply once in a blue moon.

These factors don't apply if the OP's son becomes a high school teacher. The question then is whether college is a trade school or an intellectual and social experience. There are a lot of places where you can get a great education, but when the disparity between the two schools is that great, I think there is a qualitative difference in what kind of four years the students will have.

[ucbalumnus]

Originally Posted by apprenticeprof

First of all, to clarify, I don't consider a flagship state school significantly below anyone's academic profile, since those schools will invariably have a wide range of students, and it won't be hard to find the serious academic classes.

Indeed, for schools which are not all that selective (or prestigious, since prestige tends to follow selectivity), the wider range of student abilities, motivations, and goals found at huge state universities may make them better fits for students who are significantly above average ability and motivation than smaller schools where the range is narrower -- the smaller narrow-range schools may not offer the most challenging courses or majors because there is not enough student interest in them.

[tk21769]

One can easily find many examples of students from less selective UG programs being admitted to prestigious med schools. (https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/adm...ls-represented). I'm having more trouble finding similar examples of young assistant/associate professors at "top" schools with UG degrees from schools like Kennesaw State or Lipscomb University.

Now, it's possible that the smartest students who gravitate to much less selective colleges do so largely for financial reasons; such students might be more inclined to choose careers in medicine than in academia. It also is conceivable that many young tenure-track faculty with degrees from highly selective UG schools could have stretched themselves even at obscure, low-cost schools with big classes, poorly paid professors, run-down facilities, and limited course offerings. Maybe it is more likely that they would have done so at moderately-priced state universities with pretty good teachers and numerous course offerings.

I'm sure it's not impossible to "stretch" into an academic career (http://www.summerchinaprogram.org/up...1029010935.pdf). However, if it is the case that many young professors chose highly selective colleges largely for prestige (not for truly superior academics), isn't it likely that many college hiring (or graduate admission) committees also are impressed by the same college names? These are the same kinds of people who submit the annual "peer assessments" to US News. Why would they be immune to the biases that allegedly influence corporate law or Wall Street?

[midwestdadof2]

Hello, if OP means original poster, then that's me. This is some good stuff that I have really enjoyed reading. My son is intent on running on a college team and I support that. I also think he would do better academically and socially in a smaller school so the big, public, flagship university is not an option.

My take seems to be that is if he wants to be a high school teacher the college choice is not going to make a significant difference on his future employability, earnings etc. However, if he wants to enter the world of academia, his undergraduate college choice COULD greatly influence his career in many regards. A more prestigious undergrad degree seems to smooth the future path.

I have been thinking about the words more prestigious college and whether that is the same as a better college. What is our most prestigious college? Most would say Harvard. What is the best college? Most would say Harvard. Are there exceptions to this, where a college has a big ole' bunch of prestige but is not considered to be a really good school?

[Catria]

Whether a more prestigious college is the same as a better college depends on the field. Harvard, for instance, has at least one weakness: engineering.

[giterdone]

Don't confuse "prestige" with "popularity" either. Harvard is popular, but its "prestige" is geographic. And its reputation can work against grads seeking opportunities west of Pittsburgh.

My research has uncovered that; prestige (or what I call beneficial "degree cred") is regional.

Beneficial degree cred = something that might "get you in the door" in some cities.

[oldfort]

I think Harvard's prestige is global/international.

[ucbalumnus]

Originally Posted by midwestdadof2

I have been thinking about the words more prestigious college and whether that is the same as a better college.

For a given student's goals, possibly, but not necessarily. For an aspiring English major comparing Kenyon and Cumberlands, yes, the more prestigious Kenyon has a better English department. But an aspiring mechanical engineering major comparing Harvard and Florida A&M may choose the latter despite its much lower prestige.

Look at schools based on the student's goals. Prestige may be relevant to the goals (depending on what they are), but is only one of many criteria that may possibly be relevant in determining a good fit. For your aspiring English major and teacher, look at the strength of the English department, as well as the available teacher education and credentialing programs.