<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t seem to find the complete list, but I remember that the top 4 LACs in that ranking were Swarthmore, Williams, Carleton and Amherst, in that order. So Reed admission numbers to top science PhD programs would have had to be less than 25%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, again Amhest has as good reputation and students have access to Umass for research. Stiil they do relatively poorly. Counterintuitively, Williams is in the boondocks, remore from everything, and still places quite well. Carleton has one of the highest acceptance rates for PhD programs in general, but few grads place in the top 10 programs. Maybe Swarthmore and Williams have a better science faculty with stronger connections into top programs than other LACs.</p>
<p>
Given the range of academic abilities represented at a state school, these percentages aren’t necessarily making the case for the “elite privates.” It is not just the top students who apply to a top 10 Phd program; anyone can try. The fact that, for example Princeton has such a uniformly strong student body suggests to me that their applicants would all be relatively strong. In comparison, Berkeley, which has a presumably wider range of student abilities, is still close with its 48% – this seems even more impressive to me. Also, which science fields are included? I find it hard to believe engineering was part of this study.</p>
<p>I am trying to think how to phrase this. Over the years sometimes I have heard individuals on graduate admissions committees mention candidates in passing. And I have heard more than one candidate referred to as “from Swarthmore” thus indicating a certain type of exceptional student. I have never heard anyone say that about another LAC, even though students from those colleges have been successful with these admissions committees. In my very small world and based on a very subjective and random experience Swarthmore has a different kind of reputation than any other LAC. I am guessing it isn’t the norm for very focused, high-achieving math/science intel award winning types to choose Swarthmore. But I can imagine a Swarthmore student becoming enchanted with science during undergrad studies and deciding to pursue that study and that they would be very successful. Disclaimer: neither I nor my family have any ties to Swarthmore. And obviously this side trek doesn’t belong on this thread so again apologies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That isn’t what the Original Poster was talking about. He wasn’t touting a measly full ride, but a more bounteous kind of gold-plated uberscholarship. Such things are offered at far fewer schools and the selection is typically more stringent than Ivy League admission or National Merit Semifinalist status.</p>
<p>
Gee, I would hope so! NM finalist takes nothing more than a high score on one exam, and in some states not even that high. Faint praise.</p>
<p>What siserune must not realize is that this “gold plating” is available to a lot of students at elite private U. They may need to pay tuition because they can afford it, but the doors are wide open for other things like grants for research, summer travel grants and such. </p>
<p>Yes I guess these “uberscholarships” can make the winner feel real special at their public U, but they still won’t be ahead of others opportunity wise. And pity the rest of their classmates being left behind while every advantage is offered to these public elites. Kinda puts a new dimension on elitism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These all the STEM fields which includes engineering. The study is only for PhD programs. Most engineering students going on to grad school go for a Masters not a PhD. They would not be part of the study. </p>
<p>As far as the respective applicant pools, it is not clear that the Cal PhD applicant pool is not as qualified as the Princeton pool. Cal gets the majority of the top UC science applicants. Science and engineering majors are generally skewed towards the higher SAT scores. We are not talking recruited basketball players majoring in General Studies. </p>
<p>If you adjust for the undergraduate population, the differences become very apparent.</p>
<p>Here are the top 10 PhD producing insitutions in the STEM fields with total number from 1997 to 2006</p>
<p>1 University of California-Berkeley 3,199
2 Cornell University, all campuses 2,536
3 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 2,181
4 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2,057
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1,867
6 Pennsylvania State University, main campus 1,817
7 Harvard University 1,775
8 University of Wisconsin-Madison 1,721
9 University of Texas at Austin 1,700
10 University of California-Los Angeles 1,674 </p>
<p>Seven out of the top ten are public universities</p>
<p>When divided by the number of bachelor degrees awarded the PhD productivity becomes</p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 35.2
2 Harvey Mudd College 24.9
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 16.6
4 Reed College 13.8
5 Swarthmore College 12.9
6 Carleton College 11.7
7 University of Chicago 10.8
8 Grinnell College 10.5
9 Rice University 10.5
10 Princeton University 10.3</p>
<p>Among Public universities
39 University of California-Berkeley 5.7
45 College of William and Mary 5.6
62 University of California-San Diego 4.9
76 UVA 4.2
78 Georgia Tech 4.1
80 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 4.1 </p>
<p>PhD productivity is around 3 times higher at top private compared to top public universities.
UCLA and Illinois don’t even break the top 100.</p>
<p>So not only do the top private universities and LACs send a greater percentage to top PhD programs, they vastly outperform the public universities in even getting a PhD in the first place. We are not even talking your average state flagship where PhD productivity rates are even much lower. </p>
<p>Effectively, the chances for any given student at a top private university to get into a top PhD program is anywhere from 10 to 20 times greater than at a state flagship. You may want to think twice before taking that scholarship. Most of the time, it is a very bad deal.</p>
<p>^^Sorry to be incredibly dense but I have read your post several times and am not following. I see a list of top producing PhD institutions. Then the list is divided by bachelors degrees awarded? Awarded where? Where is the second list coming from? Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>Wow-- you guys rock!</p>
<p>We have gotten to know several physics grad students at Cal and Stanford. These are two of the top 5 graduate programs in physics in the country. In their labs, there are kids from elites and from top State U’s. Our family’s conclusion is that if you go to State U, you have a real shot at grad school, but you must be the best coming from that State U. These labs spread their slots around, but they are not going to go deep into the candidates from State U. If you go to State U, just be the best. We know how to do that.</p>
<p>Going to the elite for science is actually a bit more of a risk. We don’t know how to be the best there. We know the grad schools will go deeper from the elites, but how deep. There is no lab we know of that has a bunch of kids from one school. They spread their slots around. But we know that grad school admission, like undergrad, grows out of research and people who know what you are capable of. At that level, the diamonds are starting to sparkle!</p>
<p>We are not worried about getting to the next level. The ring that burns Frodo’s chest is this: After 4 years at Caltech, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Harvard-- science elites— will you be a much smarter scientist than if you had gone to State U?</p>
<p>For us, the cost is n/c for a good State U in science, $100K for a great State U in science, $200K for the science elites listed above. Maybe there will be some aid, but not much. The sums will be added to our mortgage, and that is a lot of money for us.</p>
<p>Most of what we have read on CC is always, “take the cheapest one, your student will be fine.” How can that be right? God has given them an unbelievable gift. How can you settle at this point. I would rather eat Top Raman in my old age while watching Wheel of Fortune in poverty. I did it in college, I can do it again!</p>
<p>But for someone on the ceiling, if the criterion is learning the most in the 4 years, do you guys recommend going to the elite science? Is there anything I am missing that I should be considering?</p>
<p>Thank you</p>
<p>The first list is total number of PhDs awarded in the last ten years in science and engineering.</p>
<p>The second list is obtained by dividing the number of PhDs by the number of total bachelor degrees awarded to students at the school in a given year: this is referred to as PhD productivity. </p>
<p>A high PhD productivity is an indication that a school is very efficient at producing PhDs, generally a sign of quality of its programs. For instance, Berkeley and UCLA have approximately the same student populations but Cal produces twice as many PhDs, hence its PhD productivity is twice as high. MIT has about a third the enrollment of Georgia Tech, but still produces a third more PhDs for a 4 times PhD productivity differential.</p>
<p>SRVR:</p>
<p>I think the data is pretty clear. </p>
<p>Not only are you much more likely to get into a top graduate program if you go to an elite private college, you are also much more likely to graduate in 4 years. As per the example above, compare the Berkeley and Princeton grads. First, the Berkeley student has only a 60% chance of graduating in 4 years, and more than likely it is the science and engineering students that have the highest workloads that will have the toughest time graduating on time. 90% of Princeton grads finish in 4 years. Additionally, they are twice as likely to get into a PhD program in the first place and also more likely to get into a top rated program which is key. </p>
<p>This is comparing an elite private to the very best public. As you go down the list, it gets much worse for the public university grad. Fewer and fewer even get into a PhD program let alone into a top rated program. It is going to be a rat race to try to get to the top and most candidates will be weeded out along the way. Nobody will weed you out at MIT or Princeton. It is just assumed you can make it and by being surrounded by strong academic peers, you will end up performing at a much higher level than if you are surrounded by average students. The faculty will be stronger, classes smaller and the research and internship opportunities will be greater. No wonder that elite private colleges lose very few admitted students to public universities even with the lure of scholarships. The bait is just not worth it in most cases.</p>
<p>Ok, first things first…all of you super acheiving CC parents please hold on to your seats while I reveal my stats that got me a big fat rejection from UGA : A 30 on the ACT and a GPA of 3.65 including AP physics, stats, lit, chem, and US history. Just so you know I worked my A** off to get those numbers so I don’t want to hear any remarks about how average I am. Yes, UGA rejected me, no wait list, no deferment. It is difficult to get into UGA as an average student much less an honors student!!!</p>
<p>Now, the OP was not trying to make the argument about public u being better than private u over all. He/she was just making the point that it could be better to graduate debt free from a great program, rather than going into debt to get the same education at an ivy. For those parents who are willing to take on a home equity loan or whatever to get their kids the best education possible, let me tell you this: I do not want my parents living with me when they are old because they can’t afford a retirement because of what they spent on my education!!! Save your money for your retirement mom and dad, so that I can live on my own and start my own family please…but thanks for the offer.</p>
<p>The OP graduated debt free and his family wasn’t burdened with debt for education either and I think that is a priceless thing…far more valuable than a degree from a name brand university! We wouldn’t be in this economic crisis that we are in if more Americans new the true value of being debt free! But hey, if you can pay for an ivy league education out of your own pocket without incurring debt then more power to you, but most of us can’t do that.</p>
<p>Cellardweller-- thanks</p>
<p>If we choose a top State like Cal, we would be in the top 2% of the kids coming in, so we know we can get through and go on to the next level. Actually, at the UC’s a lot of those AP classes earn credit, so it would be fairly easy to double major in four years.</p>
<p>And hooking up with a great professor is also very possible at the UC’s, and working in their lab as an undergrad. </p>
<p>With education as the criterion, I think where the difference comes in is the level of the average student, and the expectation everyone holds for each individual student. That determines the content and depth of the classes, it shapes the students free time, and, I think, vests the teachers in the process of teaching in a deeper way.</p>
<p>You can do your own thing at the UC’s, and slip quietly into the night if you give up. I imagine that is less likely, at least at the small techs like Caltech and Mudd.</p>
<p>“For instance, Berkeley and UCLA have approximately the same student populations but Cal produces twice as many PhDs, hence its PhD productivity is twice as high.”</p>
<p>Please tell me you reversed these schools or I am just totally lost. Or maybe just up too late to think clearly. I’ll be interested to see what if anything anneroku posts about these charts. Somehow it isn’t surprising to me that Caltech and MIT produce more science PhDs (percentage wise?) than other places since I sort of assume the majority of entering freshman at those particular schools plan on graduate school. It is not at all clear to me how many Georgia Tech students ever planned to attend grad school? How do we know from this chart that a stellar science student at Georgia Tech doesn’t have the exactly the same chance at a top grad school as anyone from Caltech or MIT? I am not trying to be stupid or challenging – just really not getting it.</p>
<p>The OP got into the top grad program so it wasn’t an issue in that case.</p>
<p>Boomu</p>
<p>Thank you! Exactly.</p>
<p>But, can we get the same education as the Ivy? And, this country was made great by people who invested everything they had to do something else, something more.</p>
<p>Look at the Chinese. Those people are determined when it comes to education. And my friends who have come here from India and China, they are the most willing to sacrifice everthing to get their children the best education.</p>
<p>I love the original posters story. It is every parents dream. </p>
<p>If your goal was to further Quantum Mechanics, lets say, and you were able to get 36’s and 800’s on everthing without studying, would you say that it would be better to go to free State U, so you wouldn’t have any debt? Would that be the best way to get you to the edge of physics, if you might be able to get there? That’s the problem I have with using dollars as the criterion, even though we might not have them right now!</p>
<p>On CC we hear that students who go to state schools or less than top ranked schools are going to have trouble even getting into a PhD program. In Outliers, Gladwell looks at a list of the undergrad schools attended by American Nobel Prize winners and finds many went to not very high ranked small schools and state universities that aren’t very high ranked.</p>
<p>I think that a student with those numbers and that desire would get a good scholarship to any school that they wanted to go to so I don’t think that is a valid argument. I think that this thread is relevant to the more average honors student…if such a thing exists. Someone who is a great student and who can get into the great schools but not necessarily get as much aid as they need.
And maybe in China or India parents will do anything for a child’s education, but in China there is probably only one child, and in India it is perfectly normal for multiple generations to live together. I’m just saying, I want my parents to enjoy the fruits of their labor…on their own turf. Love em to death, but I don’t want their fortune spent on my education when I could get a free one.</p>
<p>It could be that the elite sciences aren’t really that much better; they just start with a student who is better “on average.”</p>
<p>“For instance, Berkeley and UCLA have approximately the same student populations but Cal produces twice as many PhDs, hence its PhD productivity is twice as high.”</p>
<p>so sorry. silly silly me. got it now. maybe the rest of it will all become clear in the morning.</p>
<p>Boomu–</p>
<p>Dang-- you know that full ride looks good to a parent with more kids coming down the pike! As far as the kids that get 800’s and 36’s getting scholarships at the elites, I wish it were true. The truth is they get deferred, rejected, and if they are lucky, they get into one or two of them. It takes other things like winning a national or worldwide contest, or writing a book, or starting a company, or being good at sports, to get scholarships at the elites. Test scores and grades aren’t enough.</p>
<p>But you’re right about the “average honor student” being the main point. What do you think if they really are in the group that will become our future physicists. Any point on spending some mullah on them?</p>