Prestige has no Utility?

College Search & Lists
1

<p>In being on these boards for the past few weeks, I’m constantly surprised by students using the phrase, “well, this school is an ivy” when looking for a reason to pick one school over another (similarly prominent) school. For example, picking Dartmouth over Stanford bc D is an ivy, or Penn CAS over Chicago bc UPenn is an ivy. </p>

<p>While people rightly stress FIT enough on this board, I have another assertion to make: when selecting between similarly situated schools, one school’s ivy league status does not offer the prospective student any actual utility. Here is the assumption I made to get to this point: a prospective student would want to pick the school that would best MAXIMIZE a student’s Happiness & Goals. In short, a prospective student wants to gain as much utility as possible from his/her college decision. </p>

<p>This being said, I don’t know if going to an ivy offers this sort of utility when compared to the non-ivy top schools. I certainly believe that the ivy league extends beyond a mere athletic conference, and these schools stand for academic excellence and have shared values within the league. At the same time, the large group affiliation does not endow a specific student with better resources or a higher levels of utility in comparison to similarly situated schools. Accordingly, using the ivy label as a factor in making a college selection is a useless process. </p>

<p>Am I wrong here? The schools I see as comparable to the ivies (taken on average) are: Stanford, Chicago, Duke, and Northwestern. These four schools have similar financial resources(which say Hopkins and Vanderbilt don’t have), good connections to the finance industry (which knocks out Wash U, Rice, and Emory), and boast good to very good academics across the board (which knocks out Georgetown, which lags in the sciences dept.). </p>

<p>I’m always surprised when I see someone picking Dartmouth over Duke because Dartmouth is an ivy, or Columbia over Stanford because C is a Stanford. With the schools I mentioned here, the decision should never, ever come to that.</p>

<p>With similarly situated schools, going by perceived prestige is the absolute worst reason to pick a school over another. Does Dartmouth’s rep help D’s grads in comparison to grads from Colby College? Sure. Do Columbia grads have a leg up on grads from GWU? Of course - in this case the school’s individual rep and ivy league status provide a boost to the school’s graduates. For comparable schools though, no such boost exists. I can’t imagine an employer saying “well this kid only went to Stanford, and this other guy went to Princeton - so lets take the Princeton kid.” It’s a level playing field at that point, and the ivy league status offers no utility on that level.</p>

2

<p>I agree with you to a point, but only to a point. I’ll give you a recent real world example. Both my kids went to Johns Hopkins. It was a terrific experience for both of them (I’m an unabashed Hopkins fan). My son moved on to a PhD program at Brandeis–one which is arguably the best in his specialized field. Most people’s reaction to that is “isn’t that nice.” Brandeis is an excellent if underappriciated school. </p>

<p>My daughter, on the hand, is going to Harvard for graduate work. Her program is good but, frankly, not as strong relatively speaking to the program my son is in at Brandeis. But it doesn’t matter. As soon as people hear she is going to Haaavard–their jaws drop. Instant credibility. The facts don’t matter to most people. </p>

<p>Choosing on the basis of prestige doesn’t mean you’ll get a better education or guarantee success. Nor is it necessary to achieve success. But the instant credibility it can bring does, I think, have some utility. </p>

<p>But does that mean it always makes sense to choose an Ivy? Of course not.</p>

3

<p>“But the instant credibility”</p>

<p>Credibility only would matter if it was a potential employer. The" jaw dropping" from friends or associates may boost your ego a bit, but is meaningless.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>Cue, I agree with both you and geeps that “credibility” in the eyes of the man on the street rather than employers and/or graduate admissions committees is pretty useless. But, I have a couple of questions just so I can follow the specifics of your argument.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>What numbers are you using to assert that Chicago, for instance, has greater financial resources for its undergraduate programs than Hopkins or Vanderbilt? Certainly in terms of up-front money for attendance that is not true.</p></li>
<li><p>Again, in my book ‘across the board’ academics includes engineering, as well as music. Your list does not reflect that.</p></li>
</ol>

5

<p>Cue, your financial assessment of these non-ivy schools is not true with the exception of Stanford and MIT. Just about every school’s endowment is made up of mostly legally-bound money. Meaning that even though Northwestern may have $7 Billion in Endowment, only, perhaps, $500 million of that is money that is is allowed to spend on student financial Aid, etc. </p>

<p>With all of these restrictions in mind, the financial resources at all of the non stanford/MIt schools is roughly the same. I would give perhaps more weight to the financial strength of Rice because of its very small size. </p>

<p>Overall, Just about any one here could tell you that Duke, Uchicago, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Wash U in St Louis, and Rice are peer academic schools. Slightly less academically respected, but equally fantastic are schools like Emory, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame that are also fine institutions.</p>

<p>ANy one of these schools can compete with the lower ivies in terms of academic programs, though it is safe to say that Duke, UChicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, WUSTL, and Rice would fare better than Emory, Georgetown, etc if strictly speaking about academics.</p>

<p>Stanford, Caltech, and MIT regularly compete with the top 3 Ivies i.e. Harvard, Princeton, and Yale</p>

<p>If you were to directly correlate them based on prestige levels in ivy vs. non-ivy, I would say:</p>

<p>Stanford = Harvard
Caltech = Princeton
MIT= Yale
Duke = Dartmouth
UChicago = Columbia
Northwestern = Brown
Hopkins = U Penn
WUSTL = Cornell</p>

<p>and even these can be interchanged, meaning to say that the Ivies are not too much ahead of non-ivies as a whole now as they use to be. </p>

<p>Note that I didn’t factor in ivy-caliber publics like Berkeley, UVA, UMich, UCLA, and UNC.</p>

6

<p>Bonanza - keep in mind, I said students want to maximize their utility, which I translate roughly to mean “fitness for a purpose or worth to some end.” What you mention, “instant credibility,” does not really offer any actual utility, because it doesn’t really affect real-world consequences. Your Harvard daughter’s exit opportunities from her program will still correspond more strongly to the actual worth of the program, rather than the signaling effect it may have on people not familiar with the program. If your gain some sort of utility or happiness from “instant credibility,” it makes sense to go to whatever school rightly or wrongly connotes excellence. The real-world consequences though, are not substantial and don’t offer any ACTUAL utility (using the traditional definition of the term).</p>

7

<p>hope2getrice - you bring up some very good points. In terms of financial assessment, sure, Hopkins and WashU should probably be included because they certainly rival the finances possessed by Cornell or Brown (or others).</p>

<p>At the same time, I used some other factors when determining what the ivy league schools had in common. I considered such noted commonalities as:</p>

<p>1.) A generally good, broad liberal arts college somewhere within the institution
2.) A strong connection to the finance industry (all the ivies still enjoy this status)
3.) Very competitive placement across the board to the professions that connote power and/or scholarly pursuits (law, medicine, business, and PhD programs). </p>

<p>So I then looked for schools that were similarly situated based on these factors that traditionally connected all the ivy league schools (from Penn to Dartmouth). </p>

<p>Point #1 knocks out MIT and Caltech. Given their specificity, they contain a very different institutional character than most of the ivies. MIT and Caltech simply do not have a spirit of liberal arts study that defined at least a significant part of all the ivy league schools. </p>

<p>Point #2 knocks out Hopkins and WUSTL. While these are amazing schools, they don’t enjoy the connections to the finance industry that students at Dartmouth, Columbia, etc. possess. While sciences, for example, are outstanding at Hopkins and WUSTL, you do operate at a disadvantage in the financial sector. That’s not to say you can’t get a plumb job in finance from Hopkins or WUSTL - you certainly can. The level of recruitment, however, is just not the same. </p>

<p>Finally, you’re right, Chicago can compete favorably with Columbia, or Stanford to Harvard. My major point is, Columbia and Harvard students get no boost in UTILITY over Chicago or Stanford. Students NEED to keep this in mind when comparing similarly situated schools. The ivy league status should be the LOWEST factor to consider, and should never really come into play - so many other factors (location, curriculum, strength of departments, vibe, campus, etc etc.) matter so much more, and should form the basis of the decision well before the petty factors come into mind. At the same time, how many threads do you see all over this board stating, “Stanford is great, but Dartmouth is an ivy,” or “I love Chicago, but Penn is an ivy”? Students should realize this is not actually a meaningful factor in distinguishing between these types of schools BECAUSE you cannot derive any utility from going to the ivy. In essence, saying “x is an ivy” has no real-world persuasive power. </p>

<p>In short, with comparable schools, students should realize the negligible utility they can reap from using the ivy label as a factor to make a decision.</p>

8

<p>Oh, yes, prestige does have value. I so agree with Bonanza. I can see people’s eyes glaze over when they hear where my kids are going to college. There is definitely a difference in the way you are perceived and treated when you go to a top name school. If that is something that is a big deal to a person, it should definitely be a consideration. </p>

<p>My latest one in college could not care less. He is happy and thriving and loves his life at his school. He visited his ivy acceptance and just knew this was not the way he wanted to spend his next 4 years, or even next year. Now, if it were me, I would have gone ivy and grit my teeth because, yes, it does mean something to me. Probably a mistake because I paid dearly for this sort of mentality. However, it is a real factor that you should not dismiss.</p>

9

<p>cptofthehouse - thanks for the honest post. You’re contention that would have rather gone to an ivy and “grit your teeth” rather than the school that would actually maximize happiness for four years though, seems irrational because of the nature of college life. </p>

<p>Once you attend a certain college, you’re spending most of your time interacting with people at your college. As you apply from similarly situated colleges, its then your performance - not the name of the school - that actually matters. </p>

<p>You even state that your college decision was “probably a mistake because I paid dearly for this sort of mentality.” You say this because its a classic tale of making a choice that does not maximize utility. Generally, when people make a rational choice that maximizes this factor, they are content with the results. Accordingly, I’m making these assertions because I would rather students not make the same mistake you did. OR, if they do still go ahead and use prestige as a factor, they realize and acknowledge what they could be forsaking. Giving up the perfect weather and laid back vibe of Stanford for the harsh winters and more aloof feel of Harvard could leave certain students disenchanted. Many students would still go to Harvard because it’s, well, Harvard - the absolute crown jewel of the ivy league. These students, though, need to understand the choice they are making, and what the choice costs. </p>

<p>Too many students don’t realize the cost of their decision, or that the perceived benefit is very marginal at best. Will you possibly get different treatment from strangers or from acquaintances at cocktail parties? Sure - but in terms of ACTUAL utility (worth to some end), the benefit is nill.</p>

<p>Moreover, taken down a longer path, you never receive additional, real benefits down the line because of ivy league status in comparison to opportunities from those at the immediate peer schools. In the past, people cited to club connections, networking events, etc. as a leg up the ivy league status provided. Now, I believe Penn Club of nyc has a reciprocal agreement with Chicago, Stanford alums can use Yale Club, ivy networking events now include “ivy +” schools (Stanford, Duke, Chicago, MIT etc.). Again, there’s no utility here for ivy league affiliation.</p>

10

<p>I am pleased to see this issue arise and am impressed with the insightfulness of the replies. Ivy schools are uniformly good schools but it is not the title of ivy that confers this quality. As was already pointed out, there are a large number of great schools that don’t bear the title of “ivy”. </p>

<p>I wouldn’t go so far as to say that name power is irrelevant. Two of my jobs (early in my career) were won on the strength of my undergrad institution. Before you have many professional accomplishments to your credit, employers have to judge people on something. Why not judge based on the quality of their undergrad school? This effect of course has worn off with time as the last several years of my career forms the basis of what employers judge me on instead of where I went to college.</p>

11

<p>Quite honestly the Ivies are about half of the best schools in the country. The others that fit are Amherst, Williams, MIT, Duke, Caltech, and Stanford. Places like WashU aren’t up there in my opinion. Just don’t do as well with grad placement or recruiting, and don;'t have the longstanding cred.</p>

12

<p>The Ivy League schools have earned their prestige because of the utilitarian benefits that accrue to those who attend. They are prestigious for utilitarian reasons.</p>

<p>Furthermore, prestige itself has utilitarian value. What is more utilitarian than:

  1. earning more money
  2. increasing the liklihood of finding employment
  3. gaining respect and admiration from others
  4. enhanced self-esteem
  5. the benefits that you can impart to your children
  6. absorbing the positive associations with the Ivy League</p>

<p>It is naive to think that prestige simply falls out of the sky for no reason. It is naive to think that prestige has no utility.</p>

13

<p>slipper1234, that assessment is pretty juvenile. UChicago, Northwestern, and Johns Hopkins have had and maintained their outstanding reputations for very very many years in the past, and will no doubt continue to grow their reputations in the future. WashU is a relatively new face, though it will probably increase as well.</p>

<p>There are more people who think highly of UChicago, for example, than Williams. It’s very ignorant of you to disregard some of the best names in education.</p>

14

<p>“Oh, yes, prestige does have value. I so agree with Bonanza. I can see people’s eyes glaze over when they hear where my kids are going to college. There is definitely a difference in the way you are perceived and treated when you go to a top name school.”</p>

<p>Again, if it’s not from a potential employer, what’s the value?</p>

15

<p>Williams does much better than Chicago in terms of old-school recruiting and its grad placement rate into top programs is much higher than chicago. Its also much richer per student and spends far more on advising.</p>

16

<p>^But then again, go anywhere outside of the United states and a Williams degree is basically worthless while UofChicago still enjoys name recognition and could probably swing you a few points for international job interviews.</p>

17

<p>I think there exists a difference here between “top-Ivy” and “lower-Ivy.” Some thread’s seem to compare places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton to those non-Ivy schools (Duke, Stanford, MIT), but Ivy or not, Harvard, Yale and Princeton are the best colleges in the world. Once the Ivy leagues become “lesser,” I have no doubt that people see other colleges in a better light. Brown vs. Stanford? There’s no way people would say “Brown is better because it’s an Ivy.” Even Cornell and Duke, Stanford, UChicago, etc., people would not support Cornell just because it’s an Ivy. After Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and possibly Penn, I think there is a gray area between Ivies and non-Ivies.
For many people, I think the list would go:
Harvard=Yale=Princeton>Penn=Stanford>Duke=Dartmouth=UChicago=Columbia>Brown=Cornell
Note, I didn’t include MIT or Caltech, because as an above poster said, they lack the liberal arts feel of the schools I mentioned. My point applies to them too, though. If someone is going for a physics/math major, I (and many others) would place MIT far above even Harvard and Yale.</p>

18

<p>collegehelp - please note, I said selecting an ivy league college over a non-ivy peer. Don’t students from Stanford, Duke, Chicago etc. gain all of those great utilitarian factors you mention in your post? In direct competition, I don’t think it’s fair to say a student gets more utility from attending Yale rather than Stanford, or Cornell rather than Chicago.</p>

<p>To flesh out my post, I mean when comparing schools of roughly equal reputation, ivy or not. So Stanford would like to Yale or Harvard, Chicago in comparison to Columbia, Duke to Penn, etc.</p>

19

<p>slipper1234 - I think people underestimate just how good Williams is. In a lot of ways, it is close to HYP level for placement when adjusted for size. I think you have to compare ivies to their closest non-ivy peers. So for example, I would never look to Chicago to match HYP for its overall placement. I do think, however, that overall, Chicago compares favorably to Penn or Cornell in terms of general placement in the professional world, and for academia, Chicago does as well as just about anyone.</p>

<p>Moreover, please note that Chicago is improving in the practical areas quite quickly. With a renewed emphasis on college selectivity, cognizance of rankings, etc. Chicago’s professional school placement should fall in line with all of the “lower” ivies quite quickly. I think Williams, Amherst, HYP etc. probably enjoy better overall placement than most of the lower ivies.</p>

<p>To conclude, I think Chicago is closing the gap quite quickly in professional school placement. Obviously, in terms of academics, Chicago is a powerhouse. When you mention Williams, don’t assume it’s anything less than near-top-ivy in terms of its caliber. Just because Chicago may not do quite as well as Williams on the placement front does NOT mean Chicago cannot compete favorably with the lower ivies.</p>

20

<p>Stanford is extra prestigious exactly because it doesn’t need or want Ivy affiliation. The school is singular and unique. None of the Ivy League schools can say that.</p>