<p>See the title, please. Who would top grad schools believe as better? A student at an elite LAC in the 50th percentile for GPA with average to good LORs, and a lot of research; or, a student at say, UC Davis in the top 25th percentile with good LORs, and some research?
The LAC student has a better personal statement than the UC Davis student and the LAC student has a slightly higher GRE.
Who would get in?</p>
<p>A lot of research beats “some” research, regardless of where it was conducted, IMO.</p>
<p>Easy: the top student.</p>
<p>Someone with excellent performance at a middling university has proven their ability to excel academically. Someone with mediocre performance at a prestigious university has proven their ability to… be mediocre academically.</p>
<p>BTW, UC Davis is not a “mediocre U.” It’s one of the best public universities in the country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you explain what you’re trying to say? Because it’s not at all obvious that someone with an excellent performance at a mediocre school, or even a school like UC Davis is better off than someone with an average performance at a prestigious university. Obviously the Putnam isn’t everything, but the average math major at MIT gets at least a top 500 on the Putnam, whereas no one from UC Davis did so.</p>
<p>Since when did the Putnam have any significant weight in math Ph.D. admissions?</p>
<p>“Excellence” for Ph.D. programs is measured in research, and not just numbers. If you go to HYPSM and don’t do any research, you’ll be at a far disadvantage compared to someone at a middling university with plenty of experience.</p>
<p>This is the question:
</p>
<p>The “a lot of research” combined with the “elite LAC” may give the advantage to the first, depending on the raw GPA in the 50th percentile, simply because research usually trumps grades, and a known-to-be-rigorous undergraduate education trumps one that is not as admired. (Not saying that UC Davis isn’t admired.) The “top 25 percent” from the UC Davis may not make as much of a difference as one might think, since UC Davis is likely much larger than the “elite LAC.” Top 10 percent is something different.</p>
<p>Look at it this way: UC Davis has roughly 5500 students per class. Amherst has approximately 500 students per class. To get a GPA at the 75 percent level at UC Davis means that approximately 1375 students did better. To get a 50th percentile at Amherst, that means that about 250 people did better – and this is already from one of the most competitive applicant pools in the country. I would argue that the difference between 25 percent at UC Davis and 50 percent at an elite LAC is meaningless. What REALLY counts is the amount and quality of the research – and the question clearly gives the edge to the LAC. </p>
<p>But nothing is as simple as the question implies. There are too many variables to give an accurate answer.</p>
<p>To me, top student connotes something like top 5% rather than top 25%. So people answering your title may give you a different answer than people answering your post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I’m not saying that it does, but I do think that it shows that being a top student at a mediocre university isn’t always better being a mediocre student at a top university, by any metric. I just chose the Putnam because it’s easy to measure.</p>
<p>So, to take the ideas presented, and to apply them in a real life context, it is more advantageous to go to a good LAC than something mediocre?</p>
<p>^That’s a completely different question. It depends on what you plan to do with your education. If being at a good LAC will make you more motivated and likely to work hard, then sure. But many so-called “mediocre” schools have excellent opportunities - especially if UC-Davis is your standard of mediocre! (For the record, UC-Davis has some excellent research opportunities.)</p>
<p>re: #9…depends on the cost.</p>
<p>For example, if elite LAC costs you $60k/yr and ‘mediocre’ college offers a full-ride…hmmmmm</p>