<p>Another tactic the OP can consider is applying to some large, highly ranked public universities, like the University of Wisconsin at Madison or U Mich Ann Arbor or U Washington Seattle. Schools with a very large student body tend to have students of a wider range of abilities, while offering the opportunity to excel if one wishes to. Certainly in a school with a student body in the ten of thousands, one would not feel surrounded by “over-achievers”.</p>
<p>I think the whole concept of grade-grubbing super-competitive aggressive students at top colleges is very much exaggerated. At what school is this the norm? It certainly wasn’t at Yale when I was there. Maybe it’s true of pre-meds at some schools, I don’t know.
Just to add–a lot of those “overachievers” are very friendly and nice people who are fun to be around.</p>
<p>
Whether we’re talking about top professional school placements, or Ph.D. completions, there does appear to be a very high correlation with elite undergraduate institutions.
<a href=“WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights”>WSJ in Higher Education | Trusted News & Real-World Insights;
[REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]REED”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>
<p>Of course, neither of these tables proves that students at these schools actually “learned more”. Correlation does not equal causation. And the correlation is not to graduate admissions in general; it is to more specific (but arguably more remarkable) outcomes (earning a Ph.D., or being admitted to elite medical/law/business schools, after attending specific colleges).</p>
<p>Also, I agree with Hunt.
Maybe we need to talk about what we really mean by “overachiever”. Is anyone admitted to a highly selective school presumed guilty of overachieving until proven otherwise? Is achievement a zero sum game, such that anyone else’s high achievement diminishes my own by comparison?</p>
<p>tk21769,</p>
<p>OF COURSE elite schools are heavily represented in graduation programs. It’s because the undergrads at elite schools will be the ones working hard, doing well on tests, and generally have the ambition and the smarts to get to the grad programs. </p>
<p>It is not because the grad programs are impressed with the name on their diploma.</p>
<p>“It is not because the grad programs are impressed with the name on their diploma.”</p>
<p>It’s more likely to be the name on a good recommendation letter. Grad schools learn which profs send top candidates.</p>
<p>Yes, and good profs have sent great candidates from schools all across the country, both presigious and not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I stand by my statement. </p>
<p>Future opportunities are very directly related to where you go to school in many fields and the networks formed are of utmost importance to many. In other fields it’s more subtle. One can certainly overcome odds to do anything in life, but it’s just plain factual that in many arenas the odds will be MUCH more in your favor if you go to a top school.</p>
<p>Sure, the odds may be in your favor, but going to a “lesser” schools does not limit your opportunities. </p>
<p>You probably mean to say that it may be EASIER to get what you want when you go to a more prestigious school. But to say that your opportunitiesa are limited by not going to a prestigious school is, once again, ridiculous.</p>
<p>“But to say that your opportunitiesa are limited by not going to a prestigious school is, once again, ridiculous.”</p>
<p>Note that no one has said that; you’re making a straw man argument.</p>
<p>At 9:55 PM yesterday, hmom5 wrote:</p>
<p>“Going to a lesser school just limits your future opportunities.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it’s reasonable to assume that the caliber of the students is a very significant factor. Yes, some students are good at making the most of any circumstances. However, does that mean the school environment contributes nothing? Do better facilities, a larger per capita operating budget, more talented faculty, or smaller classes play no role at all in the instruction quality? What about the motivational effects of different school environments, including the student community? Isn’t that likely to have some impact on success? </p>
<p>In the charts I cited for Ph.D. productivity, notice that not all the top schools are equally selective. In fact, some are much less so than the most famous, state flagship schools. However, they are nearly all private and at least somewhat selective. A common feature appears to be a high faculty:student ratio, if not small size overall. I doubt Wabash, Earlham or Wooster make these lists because their students are far more smart and ambitious than those at Michigan, Berkeley or UVa. </p>
<p>If the OP truly would be uncomfortable in an “elite” college environment,for whatever reason, that’s important. Ultimately he needs to go on some visits and sort this out for himself. What many of us are recommending - many of us who attended these schools or sent our own kids there - is to keep a variety of options open at this point, and not make too many assumptions about what they are really like. There are subtle (sometimes not so subtle) variations in style and atmosphere among selective schools.</p>
<p>Sorry, I forgot, and didn’t look on the previous page. 
Gotta be more careful!</p>
<p>The things you cite in a schools environment are a) not exclusive to elite schools or even b) characteristic of elite schools.</p>
<p>I do not think it would be accurate to say that elite schools categorically have more talented faculty than less elite schools.</p>
<p>And smaller classes? Well, Berkeley is just as good of a school as Yale, yet has much larger classes.</p>
<p>There’s no escaping it: A student at non-prestigious public school can be just as successful in medical, bussiness, law, and Ph.D. programs as one at the Ivy League.</p>
<p>What I meant to say is that students graduating from lesser schools have fewer desirable opportunities than those graduating from top schools. Again, just talking odds.</p>
<p>I just don’t think that’s true. Doors don’t close because of where you went to school - they close because of what you did (or didn’t do) where you were.</p>
<p>Hillary, except for a big name or elite status, are all schools equally good?</p>
<p>I would say the difference in the quality of the education that a dedicated, diligent, and ambitious student would receive at any top 100 school over another top 100 school is extremeley minimal.</p>
<p>Many doors in the world I’ve lived and worked in for 3 decades are only open to those from a handful of schools except in rare cases.</p>
<p>I’m curious Hillary, how old are you?</p>
<p>A guess: 19</p>
<p>Ok, so instead of a dedicated, diligent, and ambitious student, how about an average college student? (It’s scandalous, but half are below average!)</p>
<p>An average student will receive an average education, whereas an excellent student is much more likely to receive an excellent education, regardless of the presitge of the institution.</p>