<p>If you are self-motivated to pursue an excellent education, is there anything stopping you from having it anywhere? Students at Holy Cross use the same calculus textbook as in classes at several Ivy League schools. The reading list at Shimer College doesn’t look terribly different from Columbia’s. So educationally what is the difference exactly?</p>
<p>Resources ($, professors, connections, quality of student body…)? I think colleges like HYPSM will offer more of these than the averge Podunk U. </p>
<p>In the end, a motivated student will succeed (or I like to believe so…as a non-HYPSM student xD), no matter where he/she goes to college. </p>
<p>I guess it’s kind of like going to a really bad public vs. an expensive private high school. Hard-workers tend to receive back what they put in.</p>
<p>There is much more to a college education than what textbook you use. The intangibles (resources for undergrads, strength of peer students, grants, rectuiting on campus, attention from professors, fellowships, ability to do a thesis, etc) are what makes the biggest difference but they make a huge difference.</p>
<p>Strictly speaking in academic terms, there is almost no difference if you’re a motivated student. I am sure InquilineKea will have a LOT to say about self-studying methods.</p>
<p>Going to an elite school is a nice extra. However, people focus too much on the schools and too little on themselves. The school matters much less than the individual. People should think more about their own interests, what they hope to do and accomplish in college, and their future careers.</p>
<p>I haven’t read the book in a while, but Freakonomics mentions a study that compared graduates of top universities to those of average universities. The results found that those from top universities were more successful (higher income) than those from average universities. However, the study also found that students who were accepted at top universities, but chose to attend average universities were just as successful as the graduates of the top universities. This suggests that college choice doesn’t matter nearly as much as most people claim. Ostensibly intelligence and hard work, the main factors in garnering admittance into a top school, are the same factors that lead to success after college.</p>
<p>I agree with slipper1234. While top universities don’t have a monopoly on excellent educations, they do have an incredible advantage on the ancillary factors that make the process more fulfilling. When given the choice between a top school and an average school, the top school is the better option. However, if finances are an issue, the choice is not so easy. How much are the intangibles worth?</p>
<p>It’s a lot easier to get opps (outside of the university, through programs like REUs) if you screw up if you’re at an elite school. People with 2.8 GPAs at Caltech can still get into PhD programs at Caltech - those with 2.8 GPAs at state schools can only rely on phenomenal recommendations (and yes, students qualified for Ivies do fail out of state schools - just ask sakky)</p>
<p>It has been my experience that the tests are harder at elite schools. The harder tests make you learn the material in more depth. I noticed a big difference between the accounting tests at community college versus University of Texas, for example. I also took two similar courses at Rice and at Santa Clara and found the tests harder at Rice. Of course, there is overlap. Not all courses at elite schools will be harder than the same courses at all other schools.</p>
<p>The biggest difference is that the students at an elite school are, on average, smarter.</p>
<p>It’s the students and the professors (and the money behind them) that make these institutions great (that and they’re all very old).</p>
<p>But a student who could get into a top college would be just as sucessful anywhere else.</p>
<p>ses: I think the students seem smarter only at the top tech schools, MIT, CalTech, etc. The English major at Harvard doesn’t seem to me to be much smarter than the English major at Trinity, Ursinus, or even Penn State, especially Honors col. students. </p>
<p>I could be wrong though - it’s just an impression. I don’t have stats to back it up.</p>
<p>
But it would be easier at a top college because of the better resources (especially in job placement) and networking connections.</p>
<p>Courses are taught in relation to the caliber of students. The textbooks may be the same, but the depth of coverage and expectations would be much higher at a school which is very selective and has academically strong students. The differences become even more pronounced for upper level classes.</p>
<p>fencersmother-</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that the hundred smartest kids or 10, depending on the size of the school, are just as smart as any Ivy League kid (and smarter than most of their football teams), but the average kids, the middle of the packers at an elite institution would be smarter than the middle of the pack kids elsewhere.</p>
<p>The hardest part about some elite schools is getting in. A kid at Syracuse and a kid at Yale may both end up in the same job, making the same amount of money 20 years from now, but the kid at Yale looked better on paper at the tender age of 18.</p>