<p>I have a few friends who are Ivy League hopefuls and whenever I talk to them about going to Georgia Tech, they say “Why would you want to go there?” …I know Georgia Tech isn’t as selective as other colleges, but it’s an excellent school and for CS (of which for undergrad it is a top 5 program), which I want to do, it’s the perfect choice since it’s in-state for me and thus “basically” free through Hope. Now these friends I have look up to schools like Stanford, Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc… are they just overly stuck up or what?</p>
<p>Yes they are overly stuck up and probably don’t know better. You and they will get over it, especially you, since you’ll get to benefit from the solid education and employment prospects. Employers certainly don’t turn their nose up to it.</p>
<p>A few reasons:</p>
<p>A) It’s down south. If you’re from the south, you don’t notice it, but if you tell a northerner that you’re going to the south for college, they assume its inferior.</p>
<p>B) Like you said, the selectivity. </p>
<p>C) The fact that inside the state of Georgia, it often is looked at as on-par with UGA (which is isn’t).</p>
<p>D) The fact that it isn’t as old as the schools mentioned. It’s not an Ivy League, it started as a trade school.</p>
<p>Additionally, with many of the schools mentioned, while they are difficult, a large part of the difficulty is getting in. Georgia Tech will test every part of you, no matter how smart you are, and getting out is far more difficult than getting in. Is that worth it? I think so, because how can you find your limits until you look them in the eye and surpass them (or try). But just because you got in, you still will want to keep up your work to impress after graduation.</p>
<p>GT is one of the few schools that Microsoft visits for interviews…and GT has a terrific computing infrastructure that includes internet even on their buses.</p>
<p>Yeah, only MIT, Princeton (post grade deflated),Caltech, and maybe Johns Hopkins are particularly challenging in terms of graduating or getting a good GPA (mainly just getting the good GPA b/c even very tough privates are good at graduating students b/c the environment is challenging but nurturing). Tech is challenging w/o the grade inflation and nurturing environment. We private school folks have our grade inflation to save us in the event of a really, really hard class (although, I wish we had as much as Yale, Brown, or Stanford, that would be really nice). Also, it helps to compare the sciences. One reason why many top 20s appear easy is because folks look at GPA for the whole school (which includes notorious grade inflated majors). In reality, the sciences are really tough content-wise (In many cases even tougher than Tech). It’s just that the grading curve is a bit more generous in physics and math courses at such schools (so we get “pushed” to our limit w/o risking our GPA I guess). Biological sciences and chemistry at some of these (like here, MIT, JHU, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and UChicago) grade about the same as those at Tech. Most of the Ivies grade higher. Also, non-MIT/Caltech schools w/engineering probably have an engineering curriculum that doesn’t require the same amount of courses as a Tech engineering degree (more “flexible” I guess).<br>
- doesn’t hold up, because of Duke and the other 3 of us. Though, as far as engineering schools go, that’s a part of it.
- is tricky. Tech is “UChicagoish” and only attracts certain types of students. It may accept more (and receive less apps) than other selective institutions, but the incoming freshman stats. are more comparable to the top privates and surpasses all of the public schools I believe. We have the lowest SATs in the top 20 and y’all are only about 20-50 points behind if you only look at M/V. This should be considered selective. It means that the so many people apply to Tech w/high stats. that you can admit 50% and still yield a stronger class than most private institutions.</p>
<p>3) This does indeed get old, they are two completely different schools, and Tech is by and large better in areas that are shared between the two (minus stuff like English of course, but even liberal arts at Tech are pretty much on point). I think this is a case where many people are valuing the environment at UGA (more laid back, much less rigorous for non-honors students, more “fun”) over that at Tech. They aren’t really considering differences in academics. They mainly think UGA is just “a good place to be”.<br>
4) Most top private schools were founded in the 1800s. Caltech, for example, was founded after Georgia Tech</p>
<p>A lot of this has to do w/differences between top private schools and top publics and the ways they choose to educate/mentor, market, and grade. Tech just needs to put its name out there more (to someone besides employers). We have the same problem. You, should’ve for example claimed some credit for creating the science curriculum for the Buddhist monks that go here (this got national attention. I believe it made USA today. Also, their presence on campus makes a neat addition), because apparently y’all partnered w/us. Also, results of partnerships between us (primarily, BME) should be almost as visible as MIT/Harvard collaboration because the collaboration is just as meaningful. Basically, one must highlight any awesome/innovating thing happening that may be of interest to those concerned w/highered or education. As far as I’m concerned, Tech should be ranked in the 20s(perhaps high), but I think its student-faculty ratio holds it back. </p>
<p>tobeeducated: more people should know that then, and I don’t know about the buses, many/most of ours have (or had, we recently got many new buses, they may have been affected) it as well, but I don’t consider our computing infrastructure particularly amazing (It’s pretty good, but that’s as far as I’d go). However, I heard Tech’s is many more ways than just that.</p>
<p>some people just think the higher the SAT requirements, the better the school…which is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.</p>
<p>Well, yeah that’s problematic. For example, I would argue the Chicago is better than most of the top 10 schools and that Yale and Princeton generally provide better undergraduate education than Harvard (same w/MIT and Caltech). However, people just swear up and down that Harvard has such a superior student body (this is hardly true in the case of top 20s, many schools have very similar SATs now, if not higher) that it somehow stands alone. I don’t see how 20-50 differences in SAT make for a better educational environment. In fact, among the top 10, Harvard gets some of the lowest ratings for the undergrad. academic experience from its own students. Apparently the classes are very large for a top private, and the teaching is a huge disappointment compared to others, yet people say “they are better because they have smart students”. All top schools have smart students, that doesn’t mean they are being educated well. </p>
<p>Anyway, as far as Tech is concerned, if SAT was very important, it should be ranked in the low 20s (20-25). This is something people should know. Our SATs are hardly higher than y’alls or Berkeley’s, yet we rank higher than Berkeley (may not last) and Tech is all the way down at 35. Again, it’s the student-faculty ratio and graduation rate hurting y’all. Of course USNews doesn’t look at why you have a lower graduation rate, it just ranks you lower anyway. This punishes schools that are tougher than others. It’s one of the reasons our rank is lower than the others as well. We have one of the lowest graduation rates among top 20s.</p>