Schools Are big name schools really that different?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chemicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Schools Stanford
AI Thread Summary
Attending prestigious universities like Caltech, Stanford, or Harvard can provide significant academic benefits, particularly in competitive environments where rigorous curricula challenge students. While some argue that the quality of education can be similar across institutions, the caliber of peers and faculty at top schools often enhances the learning experience. The discussion highlights that the reputation of a school may not directly correlate with the quality of undergraduate education, as factors like faculty engagement and departmental focus play crucial roles. Additionally, students at elite institutions are typically more motivated, which can elevate the academic environment. Ultimately, while attending a top school can be advantageous, motivated students can still achieve a great education at less renowned institutions.
  • #51
Mépris said:
I didn't realize he went to Tisch (just checked; he did), but it was just an example off the top of my head. My point still stands: the big name schools really are different. But you can make it work if you don't make it in. Most people do. And some of them do brilliantly.

It's just very sad to see people getting to the point of obsession with those particular colleges. Some parts of College Confidential are just sad to look at.

I agree. I was watching an Sal Khan interview the other day that sheds light on this:

Khan: College is a confusing, muddled concept. There’s a learning part, a socialization part, and a credentialing part. The students and parents appreciate the experiential, the socialization parts, but they are paying that significant amount, if you really ask them, for the credential. If you went to students graduating at Harvard and said: “Look, I’ll refund all your tuition—you get all the experiences, all the friendships, all the learning—but you can never tell anyone that you went to Harvard University.” Would they do it? I suspect most will not do it. Which tells you that they were paying for the credential. The experience was kind of gravy on top of that. The universities think that the credential is nice but the main thing they’re giving is this experience. So that’s a huge transaction—a huge part of someone’s total lifetime income—where the person buying is buying something different from what the person selling [thinks he is selling].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
hsetennis said:
I agree. I was watching an Sal Khan interview the other day that sheds light on this:

Khan: College is a confusing, muddled concept. There’s a learning part, a socialization part, and a credentialing part. The students and parents appreciate the experiential, the socialization parts, but they are paying that significant amount, if you really ask them, for the credential. If you went to students graduating at Harvard and said: “Look, I’ll refund all your tuition—you get all the experiences, all the friendships, all the learning—but you can never tell anyone that you went to Harvard University.” Would they do it? I suspect most will not do it. Which tells you that they were paying for the credential. The experience was kind of gravy on top of that. The universities think that the credential is nice but the main thing they’re giving is this experience. So that’s a huge transaction—a huge part of someone’s total lifetime income—where the person buying is buying something different from what the person selling [thinks he is selling].

That makes no sense. An organization you joined that is top secret?
 
  • #53
atyy said:
That makes no sense. An organization you joined that is top secret?

It is a thought experiment. Its like how taking Mit open courseware courses doesn't land you the mit credentials.
 
  • #54
atyy said:
That makes no sense. An organization you joined that is top secret?

Context: Sal Khan is an American educator who makes video lectures on YouTube. My post refers to an interview he did with Reason TV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
hsetennis said:
Context: Sal Khan is an American educator who makes video lectures on YouTube. My post refers to an interview he did with Reason TV.


Theorem. said:
It is a thought experiment. Its like how taking Mit open courseware courses doesn't land you the mit credentials.

Yes, I know. If Sal Khan gave that argument, it is a poor one. Why would one pay to get one's education at a secret organization? For that matter, would one use Khan Academy materials if the use of them had to be top secret? I would just think that there was something deeply wrong with Khan Academy if it imposed such a condition.

Also, MIT does give exams, while OCW does not. MIT obviously believes it is selling a credential if it gives exams. And MIT awards degrees too. That the credential involves an experience is not an argument against MIT holding that view. So I find neither the argument, nor the conclusion convincing.

hsetennis, I notice you posted that remark in support of the view that the big name schools are not necessarily better than less famous schools. I do agree with that point, but not the argument attributed to Khan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
I think you are missing the point... Which is basically the question of what motivates students to study: a genuine desire to learn, just to get the credentials, or somewhere along the spectrum in between. No one is buildings 'secret organization's here and that most definitely isn't the point
 
  • #57
Atyy, I think you're misinterpreting Khan. He actually means to consider Harvard as a nameless institution, not a secret institution. For example, if just the name "Harvard University" was erased from the diploma, but the graduate would still keep the diploma.

A similar kind of thing happens in my home state (and I'm sure elsewhere also). Our top state schools IU and Purdue have a joint campus downtown, which is, by some, considered less prestigious. However, when a student graduates from there, her degree will say only IU or Purdue, and not the specific campus. Hence, many undergraduates and professional degree students choose to attend there due to the costs being significantly lower than the main campuses. These students often get less of the "college experience" (it's an urban campus), but get an amazing deal on the credentials.

Oddly, this reminds me of "The Great Gatsby", in which Jay calls himself an Oxford man.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
^
I recall the Fort Wayne campus offering a full tuition scholarship to anyone having scored at least 2100 on the SAT. An option worth considering.

As much as I dislike college confidential, they do have some useful posts amidst all the noise! Such as http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/16145676-post285.html one, listing automatic full ride scholarships.

Back on topic: It would not be surprising if a large number of students went to the top schools for the brand name. After all, a good portion of those schools seem to operate under the premise of "we are exclusive, and exclusive is better".

One thing I dislike about their apparent marketing strategy is that it is too effective. In a film I saw some time back (Roger Dodger), Roger's nephew visits him at work and asks him what he's doing. He says he's "figuring out how to make people more miserable". "But I thought you were worked in marketing," the nephew says. "Exactly. If I can make people feel miserable for not having the product I am advertising, then I am doing my job well, for they will believe that they need this product to fill the void and be happy."

And this is what they do with the Harvard experience.

I don't know how much truth there is to this, but an MIT alum who took some classes at Harvard posted this on Quora:
Harvard was set up as a school for teaching priests and as a result likes elitism and tradition. The priests that Harvard trained were Calvinists that believed that God would save only a few and that God knew from the beginning who they were (and so building a clubhouse for them is not a bad thing).

MIT was found by someone who left Virginia because slave owners weren't interested in labor saving machines, so there is a deep mistrust for any sort of social hierarchy or tradition.

If this is true, it is in line with my hypothesis that they operate with the "we are exclusive, therefore we are better" mindset. Of course, being smaller has its advantages, and of course, heavily marketing their school means they will have access to a bigger talent pool. And lots more people (as compared to 50 years ago) are going to college. But is it just a coincidence that they now receive something like 30k applications per cycle?

Also worth noting that the bigger their yield, and the lower their selectivity, the higher their rankings on some rankings tables. USNews is one, I believe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Chemicist said:
I've been working hard academically to meet the requirements to go to Caltech for a while now, though I was recently thinking, other than the benefit, albeit a major one, of having a big name school on your résumé, are there any benefits to going to universities like Caltech, Stanford, Harvard, etc.? My instinct is telling me that in things like physics, it's not a particularly differentiating science, so I'd assume that any university is going to teach the same physics as the next. Is this assumption correct?

My experience, albeit in the mid-'70s, was as an undergrad at Caltech. It's not a school I recommend to any but rather unusual people. To be successful there you should be very smart, hard working, serious, and narrowly focused on science or something very similar. You should also be sure that your interests are not going to change. The atmosphere is quite collaborative, as the students know they're doomed if they don't work together. It's a humbling experience: no matter how good you are in something, there's somebody else way better than you in something else.

Yes, it's much harder than most other top undergraduate schools, at least from what I hear from other people. When problem sets in similar classes elsewhere ask the student to calculate something, the ones at Caltech asks you to prove the relevant theorem. Graduates of Caltech will often tell you it's the hardest thing they've ever done. Graduate students who were undergraduates at Caltech will often tell you that grad school was easy compared to their Caltech undergraduate years, and they came into it better prepared than their peers.

So some of that is good. But if you are widely engaged in the world of the mind; if you love things other than science, math, engineering and such; if you wish to engage in intellectual challenges outside of the curriculum; then I would suggest someplace else. Caltech is too small for much variety (about 1000 undergrads, see http://admissions.caltech.edu/about/stats#student for stats). If you devote significant amounts of time to sports, music, etc. you will likely get into trouble keeping up. Consider carefully whether that is what you want, keeping in mind that many people change their minds about what they want as they go through college.

(Note: I flunked out of Caltech several times and never graduated. But I sure learned a lot.)
 
  • #60
mathwonk said:
top schools means Harvard , Stanford, MIT, CalTEch, Michigan, Chicago, the same schools that are usually considered the best on any top 10 or so list.

Any thoughts on Cambridge, specifically Trinity College? I'm thinking it might be the right place for my kid (now 17 and home schooled) who cares for little other than math. I don't think he could even get into any top school in the US because he would be unwilling to meet their breadth requirements, never mind jump through the various hoops to graduate.
 
  • #61
^
I'm no expert, but the gist of it is it doesn't really matter whether you're doing maths at Trinity or elsewhere. If I'm not wrong, you will have different people in the tutorials depending on which college you are in, but every student will take classes together.

Make sure your son achieves as many A*s as he can, and that he takes further maths (at least AS-Level - many colleges will require A2 though, there's a list on the website, including what subjects they'd rather see; for e.g, physics or history v/s media or business), and that he does brilliantly on the STEP papers he has to take. There's a different set for those taking further maths.

I also recommend watching the *mock interviews* that Emmanuel College, Cambridge has on their website. Google.

I recall seeing some threads on The Student Room where they help with STEP. Make sure you don't get sucked in. Among the useful posts, there are many that come from anxious and/or insecure kids.

An old poster here, who I think teaches computer science at Bristol now, went to Cambridge for maths - his username is matt_grime I believe. He posted in mathwonk's "who wants to be a mathematician?" thread, in the earlier pages.

I don't think American colleges are worth the money for most UK/EU students. It depends on what his priorities are, and in this case, it's mathematics. He doesn't need to apply to any of the top colleges. If you're not poor (financial aid), you will end up spending ridiculous amounts of money for a regular bachelor's degree. That said, if he wants to attend a certain school, he should apply by all means. But when you have the excellent UK student loans, why bother go through the tedious process of applying to school in the US when you can just go to UCL, King's, Endinburgh, Oxbridge, etc? All you need is a short written statement, a couple of As-A*s and sometimes, an interview, which is entirely academic. It is as straightforward as it gets.

If your son doesn't get into Oxbridge or his desired school in the UK, and wants to study in XYZ European city that he loves for whatever reason, he can just learn the language and apply there. Munich? Vienna? Zurich? Paris? With 3 A-Levels and 1 AS or 4 A-Levels, it's as straightforward as it gets there too. That said, the French are weird, and it would appear that the grandes ecoles are where it's at. That is not to say that people who go to regular universities can't make it. Grothendieck did it. Others have.

Note that I'm only about to start university myself, so take that into account while reading my post.
 
  • #62
Sometimes simply the "harshness" of marking is a big difference. e.g. now I'm dealing with a module that accepts nothing but strict rigorous mathematics. This is exceptionally difficult to get comfortable with especially in a course that is mainly about Engineering (and those mainly deal with methodologies and their application, rather than strict math). But.. due to this I guess I have to learn mathematical rigour or else.
 
  • #63
Well I sure hope it's not important because I'm studying with UNED.
 
  • #64
Mépris said:
Make sure your son achieves as many A*s as he can, and that he takes further maths ..., and that he does brilliantly on the STEP papers he has to take.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. I'm in the US. My son is home schooled. No further maths or official classes at all (although he's audited some math classes at local universities). He mostly just learns math on his own. He hasn't taken STEP. Will that be a problem?

I'm most curious whether Cambridge is the right place to be for a total math kid who's quite good. Is it a "top school" for undergraduates in mathwonk's sense, and particularly suited to students who just want to do mathematics? Perhaps it's better than Harvard because at Harvard he could take Math 55 but he'd also have to take a bunch of things he isn't interested in and won't do.
 
  • #65
IGU said:
My son is home schooled. No further maths or official classes at all (although he's audited some math classes at local universities). He mostly just learns math on his own. He hasn't taken STEP. Will that be a problem?
He will certainly have to produce some hard evidence of what he knows...

I'm most curious whether Cambridge is the right place to be for a total math kid who's quite good.
... and if he's only "quite good", he probably won't stand a chance anyway. In terms of UK qualifications, he woulld probably need straight A (or better, A*) grades to be a serious candidate.

Get in touch with the Admissions Office at Cambridge for advice on how to proceed: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/admissions/
 
  • #66
IGU said:
Sorry, I didn't make it clear. I'm in the US. My son is home schooled. No further maths or official classes at all (although he's audited some math classes at local universities). He mostly just learns math on his own. He hasn't taken STEP. Will that be a problem?

I'm most curious whether Cambridge is the right place to be for a total math kid who's quite good. Is it a "top school" for undergraduates in mathwonk's sense, and particularly suited to students who just want to do mathematics? Perhaps it's better than Harvard because at Harvard he could take Math 55 but he'd also have to take a bunch of things he isn't interested in and won't do.

I don't know if homeschooled students can do it, but international high school credentials (such as IB or something similar) will help when applying to Cambridge.
 
  • #67
I know in Ireland it wouldn't matter what school you went to as long as you have the same qualification as everyone else (some kind of school leaving exam).

But I was surprised when I applied for university in Spain that I had to had all my grades from high school.. They don't do that in Ireland and I had never made any effort whatsoever in school tests, which weren't taken seriously at all. The focus was very much on the Leaving Certificate, which anyone can sit even if they haven't been through high school (assuming they have studied for it, of course).

So it must be different in every country. In Spain I imagine it's very difficult for a home schooled kid to get into university.
There has to be a way though, there are home schooled kids in every country and you can't just leave some of the potentially best educated kids you have out in the cold because of paperwork.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
IGU said:
Sorry, I didn't make it clear. I'm in the US. My son is home schooled. No further maths or official classes at all (although he's audited some math classes at local universities). He mostly just learns math on his own. He hasn't taken STEP. Will that be a problem?

I'm most curious whether Cambridge is the right place to be for a total math kid who's quite good. Is it a "top school" for undergraduates in mathwonk's sense, and particularly suited to students who just want to do mathematics? Perhaps it's better than Harvard because at Harvard he could take Math 55 but he'd also have to take a bunch of things he isn't interested in and won't do.

Make a Google search for "Cambridge university home school". Refer to Aleph's post.

I can't speak for how well suited it would be for anyone, as I haven't been there myself. All I can say is that I've looked at their syllabus for the maths program a while back, and it is certainly intense.

I cannot say much about math 51 either, other than it being a bulky course. Much has been said about the course here on the forums. Mathwonk has written about it in his thread and elsewhere, I believe.

I recall that they require 4-5 AP courses (of course, he should do calculus!) with grades of 4 or 5. I don't know how they will use those grades, as A2 mathematics and further mathematics cover more material than AP calculus (complex numbers, differential equations, mechanics and/or statistics, some linear algebra too I think), but I have a feeling that he will need to do brilliantly at the interview. It would be much more straightforward to get into other great UK schools like Warwick, UCL, Imperial or King's, as they do not usually have an interview process. That said, I think that the AP exams are required in addition to an American high school diploma and the SAT reasoning test.

If your son wants to do maths and just maths, European universities are a good bet. Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, UK, Netherlands...3 year bachelor's too. General, the academic level is high, and entry is quite straightforward. i.e, proficiency in language and so and so grades achieved. I am not sure how AP exams are treated in other European countries. You will need to look that up. And outside the UK, European universities *tend* to be of a similar quality. So, apparently, it won't matter too much if one's bachelor's is from Munich, Zurich, Leuven, or Dresden.

Whereas in the US, studying at a flagship state U like Michigan is probably a better idea than studying at even a top liberal arts college like Williams, simply because the latter has a limited course offering. That said, at a smaller school, it may be easier to get research opportunities (but limited research areas, because of smaller faculty) than at a bigger school. But if you want more maths and less everything else, Europe (or a school with loose requirements like Brown) is a better option.

If your son wants to attend a top US university, he will need some kind of distinguishing trait (for e.g: writing a best selling book in a niche subject or co-author of some papers). Look up Cal Newport's "How to be a High School Superstar". I gather that the more impressive the applicant sounds, the higher the odds of him getting in *somewhere* in the top schools. But again, if one is going to try to be impressive just to get into a school, odds are one won't be too happy trying to be impressive, and odds are one won't end up doing something that is all that impressive anyway!

At least, this just my opinion. I will stop here, as I think others have tackled this very question far too many times already, and many of them are better qualified than me (former students, admissions officers, counselors, professors, etc) to write about this. Some have written books on the subject, i.e, Cal Newport.

Anyway, I think you should make another thread if you have further questions.
 
  • #69
This isn't related to what has just been posted, more of a general question.

So there are the "state schools" and the ivy league/stanford/mit, etc. But what about schools that have an average undergrad program but are top notch in a particular subject?

Exampe: UC Santa Barbara, 50% acceptance rate, okay ranking, physics department top 10 in the world. Considering I live in California, I'd be very happy there if I can't get into anywhere else.
 
  • #70
"Where any person can pursue the study of any subject..."

There are lots of reasons for picking one school over another school. It'd be a shame to just look at big name schools and ignore other selection criteria. My undergraduate degree is from Cornell U. in Ithaca, NY. It's an interesting mix of a school - partially an Ivy League school, partially a NY State school. The University's motto is attributed to its founder, Ezra Cornell. "I would found a University where any person can pursue the study of any subject". The punchline that goes with the joke version of that is "But Ezra. Everybody will want to go there." "Uh-uh. I haven't told you yet where I'm going to put it.". It is in a decidedly rural area, 30 miles from the nearest Interstate highway. If you hunger for bright lights in a big city, Ithaca isn't the place to look. If you aren't quite sure exactly what field you want to pursue, the diversity of the offerings at Cornell may well make it worth considering. Top quality libraries, notable levels of financial aid, talented students, remarkably rich thick course catalogs, with professors that do indeed know their stuff. Dress for the weather and take advantage of the place, but be prepared to work hard.

On the flip side, my daughter wanted to go to school in a place where she could pursue internships in the financial industry. She opted for Columbia U. in NYC, worked hard to take advantage of the metropolitan location and did fine, despite the misfortune of graduating at a low ebb time for the financial industry. Clearly for her, Ithaca wasn't a good match to what she was seeking.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top