The problem with the “public Ivy” list is that is too big, with 30+ schools on it. If you were to make a “public Ivy” list limited to just 8 schools like the actual the Ivy League, Penn State does not make the list. I’ve lived in the Midwest my whole life, and I would never consider Penn State to be prestigious. Obviously, everyone has their own definition of “prestigious”. I guess mine is limited to just a small number of schools, maybe 20 or so.
Since prestige is so ill-defined, it makes it basically impossible to meaningfully debate whether a given institution is or is not prestigious.
What we can actually observe about Penn State is it is a very important research university. Like EduRank again is purely empirical in its approach, and it scores Penn State as the #22 research university in the world, #17 in the US:
Reasonable people could quibble a bit, but I think it is quite true that Penn State is at least one of the most important research universities in the US, and by extension the world.
Penn State’s main undergrad program (University Park), however, “only” has around a 60% acceptance rate. There is a lot going on there. Part of it is that Penn State is very large, as part of de facto commitment to share its resources with a relatively large number of students. In fact, Penn State is usually a bit under 60% in-state these days, which is not the lowest but on the lower side for such research universities.
And then it also has a bunch of satellite campuses in addition to University Park, which in turn feed a decent number of transfers to University Park. All that may not directly impact its reported statistics for specifically first-year admissions, but arguably undermines the “exclusivity” of its “brand”.
OK, so for some people, Penn State’s undergrad program being less exclusive than some other comparable research universities’ undergrad programs makes it less “prestigious”. Since there is no consensus definition of prestige in this context, those people are not inherently wrong, or right, since “prestige” means whatever they want it to mean.
But that is the sort of thing I would personally counsel kids not to take too seriously. Like, if Penn State has a great program for something they are interested in studying, and would be comfortably affordable, I would not hesitate to recommend it simply because it is not as exclusive as some other institutions.
I’m on the West Coast and would challenge the idea that USC is seen as the prestige equivalent of Stanford. And the average person has no idea what Cal Tech really is, and among those who do USC is not generally perceived as a peer.
In the West, USC is seen by many as a school that has made great strides and has effectively burnished its image. Those of us over 50 knew a time when USC was perceived a bit differently.
Fine school but Stanford it is not.
8 Likes
Really? That is news to me and I live on the west coast. 
USC is a good school but it is not the same as those. (are you a Trojan by any chance?)
7 Likes
I’ve lived on the West Coast, the East Coast, and many places in between, and beyond your first sentence, none of these examples make any sense to me.
Specifically re: USC – those of us who lived in California decades ago are probably still a little surprised that USC has moved beyond the “University for Spoiled Children” reputation. It’s certainly gained prestige, but it would not be confused for Stanford or Cal Tech (which are both prestigious but in very different ways, so no one would think them interchangeable). On the East Coast, it would never be confused for University of South Carolina (though in the Southeast, people might ask which “USC” you’re referring to). It’s a national university,even if it might still draw disproportionately from its region (you could say the same about most elite public flagships – and I know USC is not public, but it’s comparable to a school like Michigan, or of course UCLA).
In California, people might not give Penn State the respect it deserves, but they would never confuse it for something like a Cal State school, most of which draw from a regional or even local population (then again, many of the Cal State schools have risen quite a bit in reputation and are no longer little-known regional schools themselves). Penn State would would never be in the same conversation as CSUN or similar. I also think that Penn State, while a terrific school, is not on most people’s ”Public Ivy” lists.
3 Likes
That’s pretty similar to how it is seen in my more Eastern circles as well.
I think its closest Eastern comparator might be NYU. Similar sort of deal, didn’t necessarily have the most selective reputation back in the day, but I think a lot of people are aware that has changed at least somewhat. But probably not to the point they would consider it “Ivy+” or such.
5 Likes
Again just speaking for my circles, but usually Penn State is most likely to be considered by Engineering kids, and specifically the sorts of Engineering kids who might have, say, Michigan as their top choice, rather than an Ivy. Sometimes, not always, they may also apply to MIT, or possibly Cornell (if they apply to any Ivies at all). But otherwise it might more be colleges like Georgia Tech, Illinois, or Purdue.
I tend to use the term “engineering powerhouses” for such colleges, and in some sense calling them “Public Ivies” would be sort of missing the point.
3 Likes
That makes sense to me, because in some fields, the most respected schools are not necessarily the most all-around and across-the-board elite schools. Engineering is one of those fields, and it seems like CS is, too, along with business (and some even more specialized STEM-adjacent areas like aviation).
1 Like
Yep. Also BFAs, BMs, BArchs, maybe sometimes nursing programs, truly robust International Relations schools (like Georgetown’s SFS), and so on. In my experience, “specialty” undergrad programs like that have their own “prestige” notions, which of course makes sense.
1 Like
I agree! (Also my husband is an NYU grad, and he also thinks it is a good comparison.)
2 Likes
As an example, USC’s and NYU’s film programs are prestigious and top choices for those considering film school (as our son was during his early HS years).
7 Likes
Yes, film schools are another great example.
Actually, Harvard’s relationship with East Boston is a perfect illustration of this. Joseph P. Kennedy was basically the first of his generation to attend college:
Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. - Wikipedia He certainly didn’t get in because of his SATs nor was it because the body politic felt “guilty” about its treatment of Irish immigrants. It was purely out of self-interest.
NYU also has Stern, which is an elite B school that places powerfully on Wall Street. That is a strong proxy for prestige these days.
3 Likes
I would like to challenge the point of view that because “prestige” is not precisely definable, that you should not have prestige as one of your decision factors in choosing a college.
You can understand a person is handsome or beautiful without needing to nail down a precise definition of handsomeness or beauty.
So yes, while some individuals can have different personal standards of attractiveness, and some individuals can have different personal standards of college prestige, it is pretty clear that certain schools are generally regarded as more prestigious compared to others by large fractions of the population who know or care about colleges …. and I’m not talking about those people who only know about colleges because of their SPORTS teams.
To say that “it is not clear” that Harvard, MIT, Yale and Stanford are more prestigious than WUSTL, Georgia Tech, Rice or NYU is just as nonsensical as saying that Jennifer Lawrence and Ryan Gosling are not widely regarded as more attractive than most other Americans. Or that UIUC’s or CMU’s strengths in Computer Science means it is more prestigious than Princeton, as if the undergrad experience is like a trade school.
Is it more socially palatable to substitute “brand” or “aura” or “signal” or “high reputation” instead of the word “prestige”? They are all getting at the same thing, which is the ability to “shift the burden of proof” – the gatekeepers you care about in life will assume having an elite school in your background means you are smart and will add value… unless and until you demonstrate otherwise.
I also find it nonsensical that some commenters say in these forums that it makes a big difference to your life and career where you attend law school but if your terminal degree happens to be your bachelors degree, then it doesn’t matter where you go to college. What? Why?
1 Like
The gatekeepers are well aware who the powerhouse schools are for their target majors.
Some industries don’t recruit at the “prestigious” schools you mention because the students are not as well prepared.
Intended major does matter.
8 Likes
pa94306, meet pa94306:
1 Like
I think it is more useful to think in terms of networking opportunities, including because that then often leads to appropriately detailed and thus nuanced discussions.
Like, top film schools have excellent networks in the film industry. Why is this a discussion we would want to avoid? It is very relevant to people interested in film careers.
5 Likes
Can’t two things be true at once? One, college chat boards and the mainstream media cover the super-wealthy elite colleges disproportionately. Two, for kids who care about attending a prestige school (and of course not all college-bound kids do), we can advise such kids that it is indeed possible to consider a general order of “prestige” among colleges.
Just as humans can easily assess a general idea of “attractiveness” among human beings (and actors). That’s my parallel.
I’m pushing back on three overly simplistic ideas:
(1) That prestige is a silly decision criteria because prestige is not precisely measurable, or because it varies by individual gatekeeper.
(2) That prestige should only be evaluated at the department or major level – and cannot at the ‘general prestige’ level – as if colleges should be compared to a trade school where you spend 4 years learning a craft. We all know college is much more than that.
(3) That prestige is a silly decision criteria because the purpose is mainly to impress peers and your parent’s friends…. when in fact, the driving factor for many wise high school students is the “signaling” effects (to the next-level gatekeepers that are important to them) when they attend an elite / high reputation / strong brand / ‘prestige’ college.
1 Like
Your arguments would be MUCH more convincing if you didn’t indulge in absolutes.
Many kids attend whichever public U is within commuting distance, take the bus to and from classes, hang on to their HS job at the pizza shop or Target, and work very, very hard to get out of a college with a degree and not an overly burdensome amount of debt.
These kids would hoot with laughter at the notion that “college is much more than that”. For them, college is the ticket to the middle class/professional employment, and the fact that they didn’t go to frat parties to mingle with the kids who play lacrosse and invite their friends to Granddad’s “cottage” in Bermuda over Spring break doesn’t even enter their minds.
If your posts were more nuanced, folks wouldn’t be responding in the way they are.
I don’t believe that “prestige” is a trivial or irrelevant factor in choosing a college. But I have sincere doubts about the way many students and their families define and recognize prestige. And using the “prestige factor” as a sorting device– some way to cut through the noise of thousands of colleges- makes lots of sense. Using it as the most significant criterion in making a final selection- nah, I’m not buying that. Especially when I see mismatches between college and kid which could have easily been avoided. Kid wants urban and warm but Dartmouth is the “most prestigious “college he’s been admitted to? So off he goes to the land of ice and snow. Some kids adjust beautifully and others just can’t hack it.
6 Likes