<p>Yes, as far Ph.D. admissions in the Humanities is concerned, the following things are most important:</p>
<p>Letters of Recommendation
Statement of Purpose
Writing Sample</p>
<p>Prestige of the undergraduate institution has extremely little - or nothing - to do with the final decision.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to observe. My number 1 is much like the OP. He’s a laid back kid with no competitive bones in his body (at least about academics). He goes to a state school and plans on law school. We will see how he turns out. He’s an English and Business double major. It was a couple of his profs (one English and one business) who convinced hiim he should look at law school, so I’m sure his reqs will be just fine. He’s always done better than anyone expected on standardized tests because that’s the kind of kid he is. We will see what happens to him. Frankly, I don’t buy the school = grad school argument. I think the “student” = grad school regardless of UG. I’m more of a “plant the kid in the right type of soil for the kid” type of person. Consumers are brand loyalists. They attribute all kinds of factors onto the brands they prefer. You’ll never change their minds about the positive attributes of their preferred brands until the brand fails them.</p>
<p>edlmct1’s views sound balanced. However, it appears that costs are not a huge issue for the OP’s family (if his parents are steering him toward expensive schools.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason may have been discussed, but it was not settled. Hillary, what you offer is really an untested hypothesis, not a proven explanation.</p>
<p>I cited two studies showing more favorable graduation outcomes for students from elite schools. Now we have alternate explanations for those more favorable outcomes. One is that the students attending elite colleges are smarter or harder-working to start. Another is that the elite colleges provide a better learning environment (they do a better job of teaching or motivating students). I believe we really don’t know the relative impacts of these factors. We are speculating.</p>
<p>However, it would seem to me that, if money and competition were no object, then better facilities, faculty, class sizes, funding, etc. would be worth factoring into the decision. Perhaps the social networking opportunities, too.</p>
<p>Well I don’t think it can be attributed to a “better learning environment” because a better learning environment is not exclusive to the elite schools. Top-flight faculty, students, and academic resources can be found at schools that are not considered to be prestigious.</p>
<p>The elite schools offer opportunities that are more difficult to get at less selective schools. This doesn’t mean that aggressive, highly able students won’t be able to craft similar experiences for themselves at those less selective schools–but ONLY aggressive, highly able students will get that kind of experience at those schools, while more laid-back students at elite schools will still get lots of opportunities. Thus, I would argue that if a really smart student isn’t all that aggressive and competitive, that might actually be a stronger argument for going to the most elite school he can, as long as the program he wants is not a notorious pressure-cooker.
It’s kind of like shopping–you can get great high-fashion clothing at Loehmann’s if you’re willing to put in a lot of effort going through all the clothes they have there. But it’s not the same as a pricy boutique.</p>
<p>Hunt,</p>
<p>I agree (with most of that). That’s why I said in earlier post that a student would have to be ambitious and diligent to receive the same quality education at a lesser school as at an elite school.</p>
<p>You have to work harder to get it, but it’s available to the people who want it. (And working harder for it makes it all-the-more worth it, in my opinion).</p>
<p>This is all a matter of strategy. I guess another way to put this is that when we hear that “you can get just as good an education at ABC State University as at Harvard,” it really matters who “you” are.</p>
<p>Yes, though it is important to note that the person at ABC State University wouldn’t have needed to have gotten into Harvard in order to have been the kind of person to seek out a quality education at ABC State.</p>
<p>^^ O.K., then perhaps we’re in disagreement over matters of definition and fact. In post 61, I cited some factors that, in my opinion, affect the learning environment (such as class size, funding, library size, or faculty honors and salary). I’ve looked at a fair amount of data associated with these factors, and come to the conclusion that there is some objective justification for the reputations of most elite schools. Do you think I’m looking at the wrong data, or misinterpreting it? Do you have better data, or can you offer analternate interpretations that support your views?</p>
<p>For example, here’s a source for full-time faculty salaries:
[url=<a href=“USA University College Directory - U.S. University Directory - State Universities and College Rankings”>Top 500 Ranked Colleges - Highest Full-Time Faculty Salaries]Top</a> 500 Ranked Universities for Highest FT Faculty Salaries<a href=“Top%20schools?%20%20Harvard,%20CalTech,%20Penn,%20Princeton,%20Yale,%20Chicago,%20Columbia…”>/url</a></p>
<p>Here’s a source for university affiliations of Nobel prize winners:
[url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation]List”>List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia]List</a> of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<a href=“Top%20U.S.%20schools?%20Chicago,%20Harvard,%20Columbia,%20MIT,%20…”>/url</a></p>
<p>Here’s a source for average endowment per student:
[url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment]List”>List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment - Wikipedia]List</a> of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<a href=“Top%20schools?%20Princeton,%20Bryn%20Athyn,%20Yale,%20Rice,%20Harvard,%20Grinnell,%20Stanford,%20Pomona%20…”>/url</a></p>
<p>I could cite sources for average class size, library size, and other factors to support my point. “Elite” reputations are not entirely a figment of college marketing efforts. I’m not rejecting all your arguments, I’m calling for some balance on both sides.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the connection between salary figures and one’s ability to teach and communicate with students…</p>
<p>^ Really? You think if Harvard, CalTech, Penn, Princeton, etc. suddenly cut faculty salaries 25%, it would have no material impact on instruction quality? You don’t think experienced, much-published, prized faculty members command higher rates of pay?</p>
<p>This is ridiculous. Those professors have higher salaries because they are employed at schools with endowments that fall in the billions of dollars. Of course a school with an endowment of $1 billion or more will be paid higher than a school with an lesser endowment. </p>
<p>A higher salary doesn’t equate to better teaching standards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying they could get equal opportunities at any school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You say this a lot without offering any supporting evidence for your opinions.</p>
<p>
–Hillary</p>
<p>There is a study often cited here on CC by Kruger that argues just the opposite. While the study has been debunked for it’s methodology, Kruger believed he proved that people accepted into top colleges who chose to go to lesser schools did as well and made as much money as ivy grads. Note he started with the much believed hypothesis that you will do less objectively well and make less money if you do not attend a top school.</p>
<p>Next, here’s a recent salary survey that gives insight into future earnings based on college:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/college-salary-graduates-lead-cz_kb_0730topcolleges.html[/url]”>http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/college-salary-graduates-lead-cz_kb_0730topcolleges.html</a></p>
<p>
True. It is rather rude.</p>
<p>But let’s try to be nice and stick to the point. Does anyone believe that just because a school is wealthy, it will pay more than the market rate for its faculty? Presumably, the higher salaries these schools can afford will be sought by many professors, but only offered to the best who apply. Basic supply and demand factors are at work in the college faculty market just as they are in any other market. Unless college professors are all perfectly altruistic, independently wealthy, work wherever it is physically convenient, and rewarded at the pleasure of their schools.</p>
<p>So that’s Econ 101, and that’s faculty quality. One can examine feature after feature, and generally find objective evidence to justify the reputations of the country’s most prestigious universities. </p>
<p>I think the question we should be raising is, how much difference does extra quality make, and how much more should we pay for it? Assuming there are some minimum standards that make for a satisfactory learning environment (respecting class size, salaries, etc.), at what point beyond these minimums do we hit diminishing returns from the learning environment, per se? Beyond that point, it may well be true that what makes the biggest difference is the student’s effort. If so, just pick the first, most convenient school that satisfies those basic requirements, and invest your best effort there.</p>
<p>The trouble is, it is hard to determine what those minimum standards should be, what are the incremental benefits of exceeding them, and how much more we should pay for them.</p>
<p>Re: Post #89 and the link to faculty salaries:</p>
<p>At least half of those top-salary programs are law, medical and graduate programs-- completely irrelevant to a discussion of the quality of faculty who teach undergraduate courses.</p>
<p>In my experience, the salaries of assistant professors (generally, those who do not yet have tenure and who teach a large proportion of undergraduate courses) are not higher, and in many cases are lower, for those at “elite” universities. Many new PhDs are happy to trade salary for prestige at the beginning of their careers. </p>
<p>Also, a point that has been made many times on CC is relevant here: the high-priced faculty may have very little to do with undergraduates, in or out of the classroom. That isn’t always the case, and it is just as true at large public research universities as at private schools. I don’t think salary schedules alone are very useful tools for assessing the quality of undergraduate instruction.</p>
<p>
Yes, true, but you can tease out “New York Law School” etc., and the ones remaining at the top appear consistently to be so-called “elite” schools. The law and medical programs are just noise in the list that you can ignore.</p>
<p>If you disagree and think that, after filtering out full professors (or anyone else you think should not be counted), the average salaries at these elite universities actually are lower than at other schools, maybe you could share with us a better set of data to demonstrate that point. But if in fact the salaries of full professors inflate the average without adding to undergraduate quality, wouldn’t the same effect impact the salary averages at non-elite universities? Unless there are so many more (or so much more highly paid) “window dressing” professors at elite schools. I have in fact noticed what appeared to be that pattern in one prestigious school in my area.</p>
<p>By the way, for average class sizes, here’s the data list Hawkette compiled:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size.html?highlight=class+size[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size.html?highlight=class+size</a></p>
<p>And for largest libraries:
<a href=“http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0106201.html[/url]”>http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0106201.html</a>
(the latter is one feature in which publics universities seem to compete rather well with elite private universities, judging solely by size)</p>
<p>And a link to discussion of the Dale-Krueger study HMom cited:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/648129-how-much-does-going-ivy-matter-7.html#post1061810852[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/648129-how-much-does-going-ivy-matter-7.html#post1061810852</a>
(see post #96)</p>
<p>tk, </p>
<p>If I come across any actual data, I’ll share it. As I said in my post, my suspicion rests on several decades of personal experience, both my H’s and mine, at both private and public universities. </p>
<p>As for “window dressing” professors at elite universities, I think if you look into the career moves of Nobel prize winners and similarly awarded academics, you will find a lot of movement out of public research universities into elite private schools following the awards. This happened numerous times at the Univ. of Wisconsin back in the 70s (as I remember). Perhaps those numbers are not large enough to skew faculty compensation data–I can’t really say.</p>
<p>I won’t argue that, on average, the ‘quality’ of faculty at prestigious schools is not superior to that at most public universities. I don’t agree that straight salary data is a very useful tool, though, for making decisions about where to attend school. </p>
<p>Every once in a while our local newspaper decides to publish the salary of every professor at the flagship public U in town. It is always a joke, because the reporters and editors do not know the difference between 9-month and 11-month salaries, and the numbers never reflect the compensation from external research grants, which can make a considerable difference in total university-related compensation.</p>
<p>hmom5, </p>
<p>I’m saying that an ambitious and diligent student could receive the same quality education at an elite school as at a non-elite school. The study you cite isn’t surprising - the outcome can be attributed to the same reason that the best professional and graduate programs have an overrepresentation of the elite schools.</p>
<p>tk,</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that any sensible person would believe that there is a direct correlation between salary and one’s ability to teach material and intellectually connect with and mentor students. That’s like saying that just because lawyer A makes $600,000 a year and lawyer B makes $120,000, lawyer A is a more qualified and overall better lawyer. Lawyer B may have just chosen to work for the government or for a smaller law firm. Similarly, one cannot judge the capabilities of a professor by his or her salary.</p>
<p>Hillary, can we assume you are not studying logic?</p>