<p>Dissing the little 5 Ivies makes little sense. HYP are Mercedes; Brown, Penn, Dartmouth and Cornell are Hyundis. What’s the big deal? They all get you there.</p>
<p>Ritchieboy,</p>
<p>You miss the point. I can major in the Poly Sci dept at ANY of the ives and get the top jobs because they RECRUIT at these schools. I will get into a top grad school too. An Ohio State person, even with a better “poli sci” dept will never have these opportinities unless they are at the top of their class. </p>
<p>The “lesser” Ivies are barely a notch lower than HYPS in student quality and get the same recruiters and the same placement at top grad schools. The difference in student body quality at Harvard vs. Brown is much less than the difference between the student bodies at Brown vs. Michigan.</p>
<p>I found this from Parents forum.</p>
<p>Harvard</p>
<p>Before I begin the lecture, I have a brief announcement concerning the class’s grading policy," he said that day. “As many of you know, I have often been, ah, outspoken concerning the upward creep of Harvard grades over the last few decades. Some say that this climbin which what were once Cs have become Bs, and those Bs are now fast becoming Asis a result of meritocracy, which has ensured that Harvard students today are, ah, smarter than their forebears. This may be true, but I must tell you that I see little evidence of it.”</p>
<p>He paused, flashed his grin, and went on. “Nevertheless, I have recently decided that hewing to the older standard is fruitless when no one else does, because all I succeed in doing is punishing students for taking classes with me. Therefore I have decided that this semester I will issue two grades to each of you. The first will be the grade that you actually deservea C for mediocre work, a B for good work, and an A for excellence. This one will be issued to you alone, for every paper and exam that you complete. The second grade, computed only at semester’s end, will be your, ah, ironic grade’ironic’ in this case being a word used to mean lyingand it will be computed on a scale that takes as its mean the average Harvard grade, the B-plus. This higher grade will be sent to the registrar’s office, and will appear on your transcript. It will be your public grade, you might say, and it will ensure, as I have said, that you will not be penalized for taking a class with me.” Another shark’s grin. “And of course, only you will know whether you actually deserve it.”</p>
<p>…What lay behind this trend? Writing in the college newspaper, the Crimson, Mansfield posited some historical factors. “Grade inflation got started when professors raised the grades of students protesting the war in Vietnam,” he argued. “At that time, too, white professors, imbibing the spirit of the new policies of affirmative action, stopped giving low grades to black students, and to justify or conceal this, also stopped giving low grades to white students.” (As you might imagine, this theory was hotly contested.) But the main culprit now was simply this: “The prevalence in American education of the notion of self-esteem.” Mansfield wrote, “According to that therapeutic notion, the purpose of education is to make students feel capable and ‘empowered,’ and professors should hesitate to pass judgment on what students have learned.”</p>
<p>Slipper, you are incorrect. Mean SAT at Harvard is 1490. At Brown, it is 1395 and at Michigan it is 1320. That’s including the schools of Kinesiology, Nursing, and Natural Resources as well as our Division I athletes, which have lower SAT scores. Ivy League schools, with the exception of Cornell, do not have to contend with such students because they do not have such departments. But at Cornell and Michigan, the students of Nursing and Kinesiology never take classes with students from the colleges of LSA or Engineering. And the SAT average score is Michigan’s achilles heel. Michigan focuses much more on high school grades and strength of class schedule, APs and class rank and it deemphasizes the SAT. 70% of Michigan’s students graduate in the top 5% of their High School class and 90% of them graduate in the top 10% of their high school class. The mean graduating high school GPA is 3.8. </p>
<p>I would say that the Brown and Michigan student bodies are closer to each other than the Harvard and Brown student bodies. Obviously, a mere 50 or 100 point difference in the mean SAT score does not mean there is a significant difference in the quality of student bodies. Indeed. I would say that Brown students, on average, are just as good as Harvard students. I would also say that Michigan students, on average, are just as good as Brown students.</p>
<p>Secondly, more companies recruit at Michigan than at any Ivy league and the many Michigan graduate gets as many offers and equal pay (when cost of living adjustments are taken into consideration) as most Ivy League students. Obviously, Michigan’s lower quartile is not that talented and their grades show it (they usually barely graduate from Michigan with 2.0-2.5 GPAs). Those students will not have the same type of opportunities handed to them as the remaining 70% of the student population. But when you graduate 5,500 students, 70% gives employers close to 4,000 students to chose from!</p>
<p>At Dartmouth the mean is a 1432. At Penn and Columbia its about a 1410. The difference between the average of Dartmouth/Brown/Columbia/Penn and Harvard is about 75pts, greater than the difference between those and Michigan. Also, Michigan also notoriously overlooks ECs (as most in-state schools do). You can have a 1400 and a 3.8 and be sure of admission to Michigan, not a chance with Brown or any of the Ivies.</p>
<p>Also Michigan is the size of almost all the Ivies (except Cornell) combined!! So yeah, there are similar numbers of recruiters, but alot more competition. And in no way does Michigan even compare to the Ivies in terms of percentage of its students at top grad schools.</p>
<p>Slipper, you are wrong…again. You say Michigan is as big as all the Ivy League put together minus Cornell? How do you figure?</p>
<p>Penn: 10,000
Columbia: 6,500
Harvard: 6,500
Yale: 5,000
Brown: 5,000
Princeton: 4,500
Darmouth: 4,000
Total: 41,500</p>
<p>Michigan: 24,000</p>
<p>The Ivy League, even without Cornell, is almost twice bigger than Michigan. And I did not say there are as many recruiters at Michigan as there are at other Ivies. I said there are more at Michgan. Last year, according to Newsweek, Michigan had 1,500 companies recruiting on Campus. Harvard had fewer than 600. Dartmouth had fewer than 400. </p>
<p>Secondly, when you have a class of 1,500-2,500 you obviously need to look at students ECs. But when you have a class of 5,500, you don’t have to. You are going to get world class artists, musicians, actors, athletes and intellectuals but the hundreds anyway. But do not think that simply because Michigan does not believe int the SAT and does not pay close attention to ECs, that its student body is weak or not well rounded.</p>
<p>As for graduate school matriculations, Michigan sends almost an many students/capita to top graduate schools as do Penn and Cornell. Obviously, the bigger the school, the harder it is because like I said, you will have a weaker bottom. At Michigan, roughly 25%-30% of the students are not that gifted. But the remaining students are. Last year, 150 Michigan students got into top 10 Law schools and another 200 or so got into Law schools ranked between #15 and #30. Last year close to 300 Michigan alums got into the top 10 MBA programs. Bottom line, if you are good, you can accomplish anything at Michigan. The main difference between Michigan and the Ivy League is that at Michigan, only 70% are good enough…compared to 90% or so at the Ivies.</p>
<p>Even with 1500 recruiters, compare that with Harvard and Dartmouth. Per student Dartmouth and Harvard have close to one recruiter per ten students, Michigan is about one per 14 students.</p>
<p>That said, I 100% agree that a gifted student can accomplish anything at Michigan, and that it opens doors. And I am glad that you acknowledge that Michigan lets in those weaker students. Look at the admitted students stats on the Michigan board, its considerably below the ivies.</p>
<p>My issue with your Michigan promoting is not even that you think Michigan is up there with the Ivies. My issue is how you try to distinguish between HYPS and the other Ivies, then somehow lump Michigan in with the “lower Ivies.”</p>
<p>I have always said that 25%-35% of Michigan’s student body is not up to scratch. That’s because Michigan is HUGE, has an obligation to the State of Michigan, has several non-academic programs (such as Nursing, Kinesiology and Natrual Resources) and is into Division I sports. But that does not affect the quality of the university. How many such students at Michigan take intermediate and advanced classes in Economics, History, Political Science, Engineering, Math, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology etc…? Almost none. When you are in an inetermediate or advanced Econ class at Michigan, you are dealing with a world class professor and an extremely talented bunch of students.</p>
<p>In short, most Michigan students could thrive in an Ivy League and an Ivy League student would be as succeessful in life if she/he attends Michigan instead.</p>
<p>Slipper, it is not an insult to lump Cornell or Dartmouth with Cal or Michigan. Cal and Michigan are not bad universities. They are different, but they are just as good. When I separate H,M,P,S and Y from the rest, I am not differentiating based on the average quality of the student body (which cannot be measured accurately or fairly), but by how those schools are perceived by recruiters, researchers and academics. I am talking about academic quality and academic reputation. Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale are considered to be, in general, in a league of their own. Cal and CalTech are the two schools who make a case for being part of that group, in the case of CalTech, because of its unreal student body and second to none science and Engineering departments and in the case of Cal because of its incredible academics. Most recruiters, be it Procter and Gamble or Goldman Sachs, will look at Michigan and Cal as they look at Brown or Duke. And students from Michigan will be as respected as students from Cornell or Dartmouth with similar majors and GPAs.</p>
<p>Uh…my school is a very competitive private school, but last year stats are as follows:</p>
<p>Michigan: 13 applied, 8 accepted
Dartmouth: 9 applied, 1 accepted (valedictorian, 1580 SAT…attended) </p>
<p>I am not arguing about the quality of the two schools, but generally, I believe admission to the Ivies is more selective.</p>
<p>The students at the elite eastern prep schools (Andover, Exeter, Choate, Loomis, Groton, St. Paul, Lawrenceville, Taft, Milton, Deerfield, etc. etc), who represent a very large portion of the best and brightest this country produces, are totally focused on the Ivies. In general, the best at these schools shoot for HYP and the others shoot for the remaining five ivies. Schools like Stanford, MIT and CalTech although recognized as quality schools do not generate the same level of enthusiasm. For the most part, the publics are considered backups. I say this at the risk of sounding like an elitist but the matriculation tables at these schools bear this out. Some of these schools place 35% of their classes in the Ivies.</p>
<p>Gatsby, that is not unusual. Michigan accepts 50% of its applicants. Dartmouth accepts 15% of its applicants. But that is not a fair comparison…nor is it fair to compare Michigan and Dartmouth academically, as Michigan is ranked in the top 10 in every single field of study with the exception of Chemistry and Dartmouth is not ranked in the top 10 in a single field of study. Like I said, both schools offer very different things…but both schools are excellent and will provide equal students with equal opportunities.</p>
<p>Alexandre, the primary focus of department rankings is graduate/research capability. As I am sure you are aware D, unlike UM, is primarily an undergraduate school. For an apples to apples comparison, you have to find rankings of just undergrad programs.</p>
<p>alphacdcd -the largest number of best and the brightest come from public schools not expensive private boarding schools. The schools you mentioned may produce the most economically priviliged this country produces. For the most part, they take kids with upper level test scores or bank accounts and then manage to maintain their status. A great school would be one that takes low performing students and turns them into high performing students. </p>
<p>The snobish attitude of ranking the Ivys and comparing other schools to their rank reflects an insecurity that cries out for a brand name that can prove they have been accepted (by society, their parents, their peers). The same could be said for Mensa’s comparison of cars to colleges. People overpay for certain brand name cars because they think it will make some people respect them. How sad.</p>
<p>There are numerous great places to go to study and attending a brand name school doesn’t mean you are getting the best education for you. You can look at the resumes of top executives, government officials and educators and see a plethora of schools mentioned.</p>
<p>Mr. B, I agree with you. I did state “at the risk of sounding elitist —” .</p>
<p>I merely stated a fact. Yes, many of those students are privleged, but many, more than people think, are not. At Andover and Exeter for example 30 to 40% of students are on scholarship and an equal number are minority. The majority of students at those schools are middle class or below. The schools use their hefty endowments to attract a diverse class constituted by the best and brightest they can find.</p>
<p>My point, in keeping with this thread’s topic, was that when these bright achievers are given a chance to choose a college, they, by a large margin, choose a certain route. Because of their intelligence and typical well roundedness, choosing a college is not so much a money issue (the ivies and other top schools are need blind). For these students the decision is based more on where they think their going to get the best education. Why they choose the ivies is a subject for another debate. But the fact that they do has some relevance to this discussion.</p>
<p>This comparison, bashing even, of elite private U’s with top public Unis is sad, unfair, and shows a crass misunderstanding about the goal of education, the reaction of the working world, and the true nature of higher ed.</p>
<p>In this case, the question itself is fatally flawed, and cannot be answered. Consider the following:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>comparing, say, U. Mich. to Princeton is like comparing a top public high school (not an exam school) to Phillips Academy in Andover. Which is better? It depends. It depends on the family, the kid, the goals of the folks involved etc. </p></li>
<li><p>the kids that graduate from strong so called (in this discussion, at least) 2nd tier do as well, and frequently better than, comparabe grads from elite privates. Note the term comparable. It is not fair to compare the less qualified students at a state u to any Harvard grad, for instance.</p></li>
<li><p>class size and quality? Compare honors college offerings at top publics to the ivies. Harvard has its share of large lectures and crappy ta’s too.</p></li>
<li><p>post graduate connections? This is an interesting one. Many Harvard grads, it is true, talk endlessly about the so called connections (breaks for summer jobs, for example) they make there. What those folks do NOT tell you is that those connections began long before college, may be driven by parents etc. In truth, all too many alums of elites that I know talk more about the social stratification that exists at elites. Yes, there are exceptions, but those same exceptions exist at state unis.</p></li>
<li><p>Prestige. Yes, the elites win here. I understand that, for some people, families and kids included, it is vitally important to go to the “right” college, just as much as living in the “right” neighborhood, having the “right” friends, wearing the “right” clothes etc. If that’s your thing, go for the elites. If not, think twice. And, please, flamers, fire away, but fire with data, not opinion or anecdotal stories if you want to defend your elites as being clearly superior.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
Are you serious? A 50 to 100 point difference is not a matter of degree, but of kind. For two people, 50 points may not mean much due to confidence limits of the test. For a student body, where random variation evens out due to large numbers, it is huge. Huge.</p>
<p>alphacdcd, I would suggest to you that private schools understand they are better able to market themselves as superior by directing their graduates into the brand name college market. They might fear that advertising how many graduates went to “Harvey Mudd” might not get them the alumni and recruitment support they want.</p>
<p>There is no question that the Ivies offer a great education to the appropriately matched student. On other sites you would find that I went to Cornell because it matched my list of things I wanted in a school. When I had a chance to attend Harvard for graduate school, I decided that it didn’t meet my needs at that time. At one point I considered the University of Colorado at Boulder as my top school, because I would have loved to have studied under Kenneth E. Boulding, an economist that I greatly respect. My point is that a student should choose a school based upon the match between their needs and what the school offers not just upon name recognition. Accordingly, after a school passes a certain hurdle (library size, professor quality, well equipted labs or theaters) the difference is in the fit. I think it is absurd to think that only three or eight or even 10 schools are the best at educating undergraduates. Uninformed people often cling to brands as an assurance of quality. Brands they haven’t heard of are avoided. This is true in colleges, there are lesser known schools of quality that are not considered as good as the well known schools primarily because they are not known by high school students or their parents. That is why application and rejection statistics are flawed as a comparison tool.</p>
<p>“alphacdcd, I would suggest to you that private schools understand they are better able to market themselves as superior by directing their graduates into the brand name college market”</p>
<p>Mr. B, Schools like Andover and Exeter do not market. They receive 5 apps for each slot. They have been in demand for 200+ yrs. They also do not steer (the dangers in doing such are all too obvious). ALL of the elite colleges and not so elite, private and public, come to their campuses to make presentations and recruit. The students are bright and independent (living on their own already for 4 yrs.). The college choices they make are the product of careful consideration. </p>
<p>What schools they choose is fact. Why they choose those schools is a much broader discussion. But to insinuate that such bright, well informed students choose schools merely on brand name is insulting. I think you would find their knowledge of colleges and the college app. process to pretty amazing.</p>
<p>This brings us full circle. Why do these, highly informed students, favor the ivies so much?</p>
<p>alphaabcd, have you said where you go to school or are going to school. It’s none of my business, I admit. But it might help me understand your positions.</p>
<p>Menza, I have not said because I would like my statements to be reviewed/analyzed solely on merit and not for who or what I am or where I have been.
Regards</p>