Is Prestige Still about Ivies and Rankings?

[twoinanddone]

@Data10

I’d expect that the majority of the US population has heard of MIT.

I didn’t mean they hadn’t heard of MIT or Caltech, but that most don’t appreciate them like those who are trying to make a list of the most prestigious or most recognized. Many see ‘state’ in a college name and assume it is a public school like Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech.

My mother worked for a big engineering firm in Denver and if you asked her what the best engineering schools were she would have said RPI, Colorado School of Mines, Georgia Tech, and Purdue. Why? Because that’s where the engineers she knew went and they were all so smart. She also processed their reimbursement for continuing education and that’s where they took classes. She was from Mass so of course had heard of MIT, but she didn’t know it could be that much better than RPI. And to her it wasn’t that much better, just a nice school.

But I’m okay with any lists people want to make and if they think people at MIT are smarter than everyone else.

[IndySceptic]

Reminds me of a story.

My wife has two degrees from MIT, and while interviewing for summer internships in Atlanta, an interviewer asked “MIT. Is that like Georgia Tech?”

Prestige is fluid.

[MWolf]

@pa94306

And certainly they should not confuse “rankings” from magazines and newspapers with “prestige”.

The rankings from many sites are set up to provide ranking that matches the perceived prestige of the colleges. The people who create the ranking methodology look at colleges that they (the creators) perceive as “prestigious”, and they develop a methodology based on what these colleges do better than other colleges.

In many ways, most are not that different than “Hunt’s prestigiosity rankings”, mentioned by @Data10 above. They are simply methods to rank a college based on how similar this college is to the colleges that they think are the most prestigious.

As has been mentioned many times before, college “prestige” is a beauty contest, with the standards of “Beauty” generally determined by the influential (the wealthy and powerful), but with assorted groups having different standards of beauty.

Overall, the wealthy and powerful in the USA have decided that the Ivies+ (especially HYP) are the standard by which all other colleges should be measured, and demonstrate this by preferring these colleges for their kids above all others. Ultimately, that is the true measure of “prestige” among the general college-bound public who care about this prestige.

Prestige is a metric which is based on the average amount of power and influence held by the families of the students who attend the college modified the amount of resources and time that people are willing to invest so that their kids will be able to attend these colleges.

Harvard is full of the kids of the wealthiest and most powerful, and families are willing to put tens of thousands to millions and years into making certain that their kids will be able to attend Harvard. Families donate millions to ensure that their kid will be accepted, pay hundreds of thousands for consultants and for full pay. Kids and their parents are thinking about how to be accepted to “prestigious” colleges before they start high school, and spend their entire high school focused in ways to increase their chances t be accepted to a prestigious college. The $500,000 College Consultants often start working with the kid from the kid’s freshman year. Some families are so obsessed with their kid attending HYP that they decide which kindergarten to send their kid to, based on which kindergarten will feed into the elementary school that feeds into the elite high school, which a feeder into Harvard (or Yale, etc).

My point is that the “prestige” of a college is, in many ways, the result of the effort and money put into being accepted to the college, rather than just being the cause.

In other words, I think that “prestige” is more the result of popularity, especially among the wealthy and powerful, than it is the cause of popularity.

PS. I’m talking about general prestige among college-bound families. There are different groups that have their own definitions and determinants of prestige, like faculty, people who are mostly interested in specific majors, etc. I’ll also agree that sometimes, prestige and popularity is based on local connections, like state flagships which are generally popular in a state because they are state flagships (The Ohio State is popular in Ohio and both its prestige in the state and its popularity in the state derive from this fact, rather than from each other).

[cquin85]

The popularity argument is circular. I probably don’t need to expand on that statement but let me know if I do.

My somewhat tongue-in-cheek (man this place takes everything on the chin) posts above was but an attempt to do better. That is, to do better than, “prestige means my personal favorite schools” or “what USNews says” or “the most recognized even by people who don’t know the basics.”

Personally, I could not care less what uninformed people think. But for those of you who think that matters, you won’t get any argument out of me other than I just don’t agree.

Deconstructionist social arguments aside, I think people deep down admire those who get their prizes on the merits. No bribes, no fluff, no alternative standards, no BS. The best of the best, measured consistently. That’s why I went with the two I chose. No other reason.

Otherwise, if it’s just popularity, then this is a two or three post thread, tops.

[cquin85]

@Thorsmom66

Right. Most Americans couldn’t tell you what the Fields medal is, but that doesn’t take away from its prestige.

[ucbalumnus]

@cquin85

Deconstructionist social arguments aside, I think people deep down admire those who get their prizes on the merits. No bribes, no fluff, no alternative standards, no BS.

Probably not all people. Some posters on these forums favor the use of legacy status in college admission, for example. Politicians with family relationships to existing politicians seems to have significant advantages in attracting voters.

[MWolf]

@cquin85

The popularity argument is circular. I probably don’t need to expand on that statement but let me know if I do.

I disagree, because prestige and popularity are not synonymous, and in most instances, titles and awards can be prestigious without being popular, and their prestige is not affected by changes in their popularity, and changes in their popularity don’t affect their prestige.

A Nobel prize in literature is extremely prestigious, but it’s not a popular activity for writers to create work for the purpose of getting a Nobel Prize in literature. Furthermore, it’s extremely rare that a popular work of literature wins a Nobel prize, and an increase in the popularity of a work of literature really doesn’t increase its chances of winning a Nobel prize.

Being a Fellow of the AAAS is very prestigious, but the popularity of the people who are awarded these fellowships has nothing to do with the prestige of these fellowships. It is not even related to how popular it is among scientists to try and become a fellow.

In most awards and memberships, the prestige of the award or fellowship is not the result of the popularity of the award or fellowships.

However, in college admissions, the popularity of a college, as is seen in the number of applicants, is generally strongly correlated to the prestige of the institution, and an increase in the popularity of a college is correlated with a similar increase in the prestige of the college, at least among the people who care about prestige.

In college admissions, prestige and popularity are in a positive feedback loop, which is not the case of any of the various prestigious awards that have been mentioned on this thread.

[cquin85]

@ucbalumnus

Probably not all people. Some posters on these forums favor the use of legacy status in college admission, for example.

Goes without saying. I’m not sure I’ve ever said anything on this forum that applies to all people. But by “deep down” I mean what people really think regardless of how it fits with their interests or agendas. On the point of legacy, it’s generally something they favor because they hope to get something out of it or they got something out of it themselves. People tend to go quiet or offer fairly truncated arguments in support of that particular one.

Still, those same people can also admire or support those who didn’t benefit from such programs. I don’t see those as mutually exclusive points of view.

[cquin85]

@MWolf

I disagree, because prestige and popularity are not synonymous, and in most instances, titles and awards can be prestigious without being popular,

@MWolf

However, in college admissions, the popularity of a college, as is seen in the number of applicants, is generally strongly correlated to the prestige of the institution, and an increase in the popularity of a college is correlated with a similar increase in the prestige of the college, at least among the people who care about prestige.

I think I’ve said both things: that prestige and popularity are circular (as it applies to the argument that prestigious schools are popular schools), and separately, that there are a lot of things that are prestigious and not popular.

So, how do we disagree? You lost me.

[NiceUnparticularMan]

I again prefer framing things in terms of networking opportunities rather than “prestige”, but that aside I agree this is a useful way of thinking about things.

Like, some institutions are going to offer at least very good networking opportunities in many different fields, geographic locations, types of position, and so on. And that is valuable in that you can then go into such an institution not knowing what you want to study, do as a next step, and so on.

But if you do have a better idea of where your specific path might go, maybe there are even better choices for those specific paths. This is basically the rule when it comes to graduate programs, but could be true for some undergrads as well.

And then of course there is a question of where you can get an affordable offer. And I do think the more flexible colleges are not in fact limited to 5-10. Indeed, many flagships are basically on that model too. Sure, their BEST networks may be in state, but that isn’t necessarily a terrible thing to begin with. And often that doesn’t mean NO good opportunities elsewhere, like major research universities tend to have alums all over regardless of state.

So I think the good news, once you are thinking in terms of network opportunities, is you don’t have to see this as a world with a lot of scarcity. Sure, the absolute broadest, most flexible networks may be at the most selective colleges. But many other colleges will still have very broad, very flexible networks as well, even if they don’t score as the absolute extremes in these areas.

[Franklynn]

People assume MIT grads are smart but also socially awkward. So I don’t think MIT gets more of a wow factor than many other schools.

[MWolf]

@cquin85

So, how do we disagree? You lost me.

I read your previous post about it being “a circular argument” as disagreement, that’s all. Since it wasn’t, we clearly don’t disagree, and you can ignore the post you quoted.

[prezbucky]

@beefeater

I recently ran across a clip from the movie Moneyball on YouTube (please don’t ask what my YT algorithm looks like!). In it, Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt) is asking Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill), the new analyst that does data analytics, where he went to college. Peter answers “Yale”. Then Billy asks what did you major in. “Economics”. The implication was that Peter was smart and perhaps knew what he was talking about.

Conversely, in Don’t Look Up, the (spoiler alert!) PhDs who find and name the earth-destroying comet are from Michigan State. When they present their findings at the White House, Jonah’s Hill’s character (chief of staff) and Meryl Streep’s (president) respond incredulously.

Paraphrasing: You went to Michigan State? Let’s see what our Ivy League sources say before we take you seriously.

In the movie it is explained that MSU does indeed have a fine Astrophysics department, and the scientists are proved right.

[beefeater]

@prezbucky

In the movie it is explained that MSU does indeed have a fine Astrophysics department, and the scientists are proved right.

Kind of reminds me that in the movie Twister (and Twisters) that the protagonists attended Muskogee State University in Oklahoma (fictional). But the implication there is that Oklahoma is in the heart of tornado alley and obviously has researchers that study it well. And then the ruthless bad guy in Twisters is from evil MIT!

[cquin85]

By that I mean, “It’s prestigious because it’s popular.” Why is it popular? “Because it’s prestigious.”

I agree that many things that are popular are not widely viewed as prestigious.

[cquin85]

I have to say, I have never thought about academic prestige and social coolness being connected. You’ve given me something to ponder.

[tamagotchi]

@prezbucky

In the movie it is explained that MSU does indeed have a fine Astrophysics department, and the scientists are proved right.

Thank goodness! We need more movies to explain this kind of thing to the public.

[pa94306]

@NiceUnparticularMan I just ask you to consider that ‘prestige’ is actually not exactly the same as ‘networking opportunities’.

To me, ‘networking opportunities’ is when others react positively to your phone call | email | text message | mutual acquaintance introduction because of some past loyalty or good feeling about the school you are both connected to. As you say, that positive engagement can be driven by geography, field of study, types of position, etc. “Oh boy, you graduated from Notre Dame too? I’ve nothing but fond memories of those crazy traditions during finals week in Hesburgh Library. Let’s get together next week in Chicago and talk.”

But I see ‘prestige’ as different in that even when the party you’re trying to reach has no obvious connection to the school, the other party will still react positively to you simply because the school projects some “reputational signal”. The other party figures you’re smart and can add value, and decides on reputation alone to give you a shot. “Oh, I see you’re from MIT. Well, MIT alumni have a fabulous reputation among the people I work with, and so sure, I can meet you for coffee.”

[ucbalumnus]

@pa94306

But I see ‘prestige’ as different in that even when the party you’re trying to reach has no obvious connection to the school, the other party will still react positively to you simply because the school projects some “reputational signal”. The other party figures you’re smart and can add value, and decides on reputation alone to give you a shot. “Oh, I see you’re from MIT. Well, MIT alumni have a fabulous reputation among the people I work with, and so sure, I can meet you for coffee.”

“Oh, I see you’re from [one of HYPS]. You must have been an outstanding student in high school, or a typical excellent student in high school with some sort of inherited LDC-type advantage…”

[NiceUnparticularMan]

@pa94306

But I see ‘prestige’ as different in that even when the party you’re trying to reach has no obvious connection to the school, the other party will still react positively to you simply because the school projects some “reputational signal”.

So that is sometimes known as a halo effect. I tend to think halo effects have very little real significance among future gatekeepers. Specifically because of this part:

@pa94306

The other party figures you’re smart and can add value, and decides on reputation alone to give you a shot.

Honestly, if someone working for me insisted on choosing people for my organization in that way, I would fire them. Because clearly, they should be looking beyond what college you matriculated at. What did you study? How did you do? What else did you do those four years? We could ask for recommendations. We could do interviews. And so on.

Obviously in a variety of circumstances we could include what college you attended as part of the context for our evaluation. But to make it the ONLY basis of our evaluation? That again would be a fireable offense in my organization.

OK, so my feeling is network effects are a very real thing that actually happens throughout a typical professional career. Halo effects based on where you matriculated for undergrad are so well known to be problematic that organizations tend to make conscious efforts to prevent that from happening.