What's the REAL difference between an Ivy and any other decent private university

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. A lifetime of not having to prove how smart you are...especially important for women.

2. Some organizations only hire Ivies (especially in high-level finance and top law firms)

3. You never have to apologize for where you went.
(For example...why would you go to Bates and pay private tuition when a great state university would be cheaper/better).

4. If you have to ask...

Wow. This, +100.

doesn't number 2 apply to their graduate programs, not their undergraduate programs? I think the real question is whether an ivy undergrad degree helps you get into a top graduate program (for law, mba)

I worked in an admissions office for a top 10 business school. Good test scores and a 3.7 from an Ivy, MIT, Stanford, Duke, a few notable SLACs, a couple of flagship state schools (UVa, Michigan, Berkeley, UT Austin) or other top ranked school meant you were admitted, even though grade inflation meant that a good chunk of the graduates from these schools had this type of GPA. You would have to be close to valedictorian of your graduating class to be admitted from other schools. The business school had no problem admitting a disproportionate number of people from top tier schools because employers liked it.

[Anonymous]

Please define top ranked. Is it top 10, 20, 30?

[Anonymous]

Top 20 USNWR + top 4 LACs.

[Anonymous]

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

For a URM kid do you think an Ivy ( Brown, Penn or Dartmouth) is better than being special "scholar" at a another university?

[Anonymous]

I can't speak to being a special scholar, but research shows that an "elite" degree makes the most difference for URMs.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read through the replies.

I have taught in a liberal arts field at Harvard and at school very similar to Bucknell. I can tell you that the expectations and requirements were in every way much lower at the small liberal arts college. Not a little lower, much, much lower.

The Harvard kids were much more ambitious, had a lot more chutzpah, were more over-committed, and many were shameless bullshitters. They often didn't do their homework and (annoyingly) tried to get by on their wits and eloquence. The liberal arts students were much more... I am not sure what the right word is... earnest about being students. They tended to do a much higher percentage of their homework and were much less likely to pretend they had done it when they hadn't.

When I think back I remember really appreciating that I could count on the students from the small college. Lesson plans pretty much always went as I hoped. But there was definitely a spark missing. As annoying as the Harvard students could be (obviously prioritizing XYZ club or ABC activity--which of course they founded not merely participated in--over the class assignments, they were really fun to teach. They were extremely engaged and excited to learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read through the replies.

I have taught in a liberal arts field at Harvard and at school very similar to Bucknell. I can tell you that the expectations and requirements were in every way much lower at the small liberal arts college. Not a little lower, much, much lower.

The Harvard kids were much more ambitious, had a lot more chutzpah, were more over-committed, and many were shameless bullshitters. They often didn't do their homework and (annoyingly) tried to get by on their wits and eloquence. The liberal arts students were much more... I am not sure what the right word is... earnest about being students. They tended to do a much higher percentage of their homework and were much less likely to pretend they had done it when they hadn't.

When I think back I remember really appreciating that I could count on the students from the small college. Lesson plans pretty much always went as I hoped. But there was definitely a spark missing. As annoying as the Harvard students could be (obviously prioritizing XYZ club or ABC activity--which of course they founded not merely participated in--over the class assignments, they were really fun to teach. They were extremely engaged and excited to learn.

I'm confused by this post. I guess that's because there is little I dislike more than shameless bullshitters.

[Anonymous]

West Pointers and Navy grads are better than anything the Ivys produce? Why? They are taught to be leaders? They also are taught to realize that success or failure will come from how well you work with the man or woman to your left or right. I've heard at the Ivies, esp. Harvard, there is a degree of cutthroat competition where students will actually engage in a bit of schadenfreude at the failure of a classmate or friend. We did a tour of Harvard and one student said she loves the school but hates her classmates.

[Anonymous]

There are some who argue that the service academies have become less than mediocre - overrun by students who need remedial courses, an overweaning desire to be Division 1 sports powers, and especially pernicious drunken frathouse cultures. Most graduates leave the service as soon as their required commitment ends. Here's an article from a professor at Annapolis who thinks replacing the academies with ROTC programs at stronger academic institutions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21fleming.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Do you have a more recent article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:West Pointers and Navy grads are better than anything the Ivys produce? Why? They are taught to be leaders? They also are taught to realize that success or failure will come from how well you work with the man or woman to your left or right. I've heard at the Ivies, esp. Harvard, there is a degree of cutthroat competition where students will actually engage in a bit of schadenfreude at the failure of a classmate or friend. We did a tour of Harvard and one student said she loves the school but hates her classmates.

I had a different experience. At Harvard, I was very close with, and still have wonderful relationships with, a good number of my classmates. I did not feel at all competitive with my friends, but rather felt that we were in it together, and that we would float or sink together and our classes. We worked together and study groups, bounced ideas off of each other, and generally supported each other both academically and personally. This may have been because we had the luxury of not really having to compete with each other for limited spots in the top graduate and professional schools. Many, many of us went on to graduate or professional education together, and even continued on with the same study groups we had in college. I hope that students are able to find these types of supportive friendships wherever they go to college or beyond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connections.

Will someone please explain these "connections". Are there really employers where everyone went to the same school and they only hire people from that school?

I know a Federal judge who only hires law clerks who went to law school at Harvard or Yale. She uses it to weed out candidates. She went to Yale and Harvard Law. These are the "connections" pps are talking about.

You're talking about the "credentialing" or "signaling" effect of an Ivy degree. Basically, it says to readers of your resume that you worked hard enough and were smart enough to beat 5-10% admissions odds to get into the Ivy. This speaks to your work ethic or art/sports/other talent, if not necessarily to your ability to think creatively or lead others. Some hiring managers will stop there and hire you (maybe they want the degree on their staff to impress clients?) The smart ones will interview you to look for the creativity/leadership pieces. Either way, you'll be one of the lucky few to get an interview.

FWIW, connections =/= the sort of name recognition that opens doors. The first involves a person helping you directly. The second involves a person being awed by your degree. Any way, EVERY college has alumns in the real world who look out for each other. That's why I think that name recognition is more important than connections.

Signed, Ivy parent of Ivy DC who has gotten some amazing interviews and internships via name recognition (more so than connections) and hasn't even graduated from the Ivy yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a URM kid do you think an Ivy ( Brown, Penn or Dartmouth) is better than being special "scholar" at a another university?

Ivy - it's not even a question. Even the idiots like Bruni, who dump on Ivy League as not being better, concede that for URMs and low SES types, ivies can really help accelerate your station in life.

The companies that recruit at ivies, also have special URM programs that'll help you even more - Jpm, GS, etc.

[Anonymous]

My black kid is about to go off to an Ivy. Do you have any more information on companies that recruit at Ivies and have special programs for URMs. Just curious.