If most careers require grad school does where you get your 4 year degree really matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

There's a lot to be said for being the big fish in a small pond. I ended up at a third rate undergrad for financial reasons and had no problem getting into a top grad school and top law school. Leaving undergrad I had tons of awards, glowing recommendations, and perfect grades. I don't know that my application would have been as stellar from a more competitive school.

How many other kids from your undergrad were at your top law school with you? How many of your law school classmates graduated from the undergrad of your law school?

Congrats to PP for threading the needle and getting into top law school the harder way. We have a very close relative at Yale law. They went to a different ivy for undergraduate. Over half of the YL entering class each year is from the same 20 or so elite undergrads. Most of the rest are from T25-40 types/6-15 ranked LACs. There are almost no students from colleges below the top100 and these students are either hooked demographics or truly genius.

Yale lists the 86 undergrad institutions that are represented at Yale Law School on their website. You'll see lots of non-prestigious schools listed, from Northern Arizona University to Florida International University to Southern Utah University.

https://law.yale.edu/admissions/profiles-statistics

That's 86 out of 204 students. 90 are from Yale, 30 odd from Harvard. Magically, that leaves your 84-odd figure because Yale, like Harvard, cherry picks the valedictorians from those other schools. That's how I got into both Harvard and Yale law schools. Both institutions brag these figures because to the unknowing it makes the schools appear less elitist. Fully one-third of my HLS class (560) were from Harvard undergrad ergo 185.

THIS. Med school is similar.

But is it easier to be the #1 student from Northern Arizona University or one of the top 10 applicants from Duke?

One does not have to be in the top 10 applicants from Duke to have a decent shot at Yale: three dozen or so have a shot.
Most years the top student at NAU will not get in to ANY T5 law school and maybe the top 1-2 kids will get into a T14. Every year about three dozen get into a top5 law school from Duke, these are not the very top 3 dozen at Dukeas very top kids do many different things: it correlates to the top 20-25% gpawise based on oublished gpas. Furthermore many dozen, just over half of all law applicants get into a T14 Law from Duke: this group represents the top half of law applicants and spreads all the way to the middle of the graduating class as the law applicants are distributed fairly evenly across the entire class. Same with med applicants, though premed gpas are slightly lower and the applicants skew slightly lower gpa relative to the class. Average students at Duke with average GPAs get into T14 and T25 med schools with regularity. Same with ivies.

You don’t need a T14 law school unless your only desirable outcome is a partner at a white-shoe firm. There are many, many successful attorneys in BigLaw making a lot of money who did not attend a T5. And there are many paths other than BigLaw, anyway.

You went from T14 to T5…but you are actually incorrect if you stick with just T14. There is one law firm…maybe Skadden where you can search by attorneys by law school and the results are staggering…especially if you just look at associates.

There are far more indebted, underemployed lawyers in this country from garbage law schools with huge student loans than perhaps you want to care about.

None of the BigLaw partners I know went to a T14. But they have a considerable book.

[Anonymous]

I've done grad admissions at several competitive graduate programs in the humanities (two PhD, one terminal MA), and I can tell you that acceptance to such a program (I'm not talking about law or med school! -- but this does probably generalize to graduate programs in the sciences) does not directly depend on an applicant's undergraduate school at all. Undergrad mentoring does matter in two respects: Has the applicant been put in touch with current knowledge in the field? And do the applicant's recommenders know how to write an effective letter of recommendation? Each respect concerns competence, not prestige: faculty at low-tier universities often do but sometimes do not know how prepare and present their students for graduate applications. Any school with research-active faculty can do this; the exceptions tend to be places that haven't made a new hire in 20 years or that serve a niche, only quasi-academic mission. In any case, what matters for the final cut in my field is the quality of the writing sample, which is entirely in the applicant's hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

This. The undergraduate reputation/prestige correlates to the grad schools where the students go.
Example: the top 5 grad schools from NC state, UGA —good but not top flagships—are similar level schools.
The top 5 grad schools coming out of Duke? MIT, Duke, Harvard, Columbia, NYU. Ivies are similar: the top 5 is almost always including the ivy itself, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and another top school.
PhDs which are fully paid /funded including stipends of $45k or so are about half of grad programs coming out of top schools, whereas at non elite /nonflagships of the ones not going to professional school, less than 10% go to phD, the rest are masters. Most masters, outside of elite programs at ivies or others, are not funded at all. Guess who gets into the funded masters.
Careers after phD or masters is highly dependent on the prestiges of program. Getting into the most prestigious grad programs heavily correlates with attending a top20 private or a top15 LAC or a top15Public. Those 50 schools boost . The ivy/plus group of 12 schools give the biggest boost.
Undergrad matters.

All of this is just a correlation of smart, motivated students with academic success. Nothing in here is causal, especially not the undergraduate university attended.

DP
in part it is just that. however being in an environment where average middle of the pack kids go to top phDs, MD, JD is a much more motivating environment of peers than being in a school where very few are aiming for this type of future, and the "average" kid is going to be a social worker or teacher or nurse. My wife and I were motivated by the peers around us at our ivy/plus; we made lifelong friends and are not the only ones who met mates there. We went off to top JD and MD programs as did most of our peers. Others run national nonprofits now, or are professors, or have started companies. We sent and are sending our kids to similar colleges for that reason. They thrive on the challenge of that type of peer group.

PP. Thinking that all of the things you mentioned don’t happen at schools across the top 100 is extremely out of touch with reality. “We are not the only ones who met our mates there.” “Others are professors or have started companies.” It sounds like you’ve been out of school for 50 years.

AVERAGE GPA students at schools ranked 60-100 do not go to med law or top phD schools. Pull up any of them and look at the most common careers, pull up the med and law school matriculation data--it rare from these schools, less than 10% of grads. Top14 LAW school is even more rare. T14 is easily accessible to average GPA(3.8) students from an ivy/T10.

We aren’t talking about average GPA students at schools ranked 60-100. We are talking about whether undergrad matters for grad school. The kind of kids who can get accepted to ivy+ are not average GPA students if they end up at 60-100, they will be top students there, surrounded by other top students in honors classes, Honors Colleges, etc. And they will get into the same grad schools because what matters is grades, test scores, recs. Even your 3.8 GPA average at Ivy example highlights this, as the average GPA at lower ranked schools is much lower. So you can be “average” at an Ivy but you can get into good schools in part because your grades are still high.

As I said earlier, all you are doing is positing a causal fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) because you see a correlation and have assumed causality, though there are obvious confounding factors (ivy+ kids are at ivy+ because they are good at the same things that also get one into grad school, like grades and test scores). It’s funny that you keep talking about how superior these schools and their education are yet you keep committing this extremely basic logical fallacy.

Maybe because you are a one-trick pony with the causation vs correlation argument.

Explain why if there are so many Honors kids at these schools why they still aren’t represented all that well at top grad programs. How does that make any sense?

For example if you believe DCUM there are tons of kids attending Alabama for free as NMSF kids coming from UMC families. So, why isn’t Alabama represented better at these top law / MD programs…again, these aren’t hard scrabble kids from rural Alabama but UMC DMV kids taking the free ride. In theory, they have the same notions about needing grad school.

Only because you keep committing the same elementary logical fallacy over and over and don’t seem to realize it. That’s not my fault.

These types of kids *are* well represented at top grad schools but they come from about 100 universities instead of a dozen or so Ivy+. It’s just a matter of dispersion. Quite simple, really.

And to be clear, I never said there were “so many honors kids” or “tons of kids” at these schools. You said that. It’s honors and associated programs, after all, so it’s selective. I just said the ones that are top are capable (and do) get into the same grad schools as equivalent kids at other schools. Because the causality runs from the metrics used to assess admissions to those schools (grades, scores, recs), not the name on the diploma, and many of the top students at lower ranked schools can and do get into better undergrads but choose the lower ranked school for a variety of reasons. And then end up at the same grad schools and in the same jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

This. The undergraduate reputation/prestige correlates to the grad schools where the students go.
Example: the top 5 grad schools from NC state, UGA —good but not top flagships—are similar level schools.
The top 5 grad schools coming out of Duke? MIT, Duke, Harvard, Columbia, NYU. Ivies are similar: the top 5 is almost always including the ivy itself, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and another top school.
PhDs which are fully paid /funded including stipends of $45k or so are about half of grad programs coming out of top schools, whereas at non elite /nonflagships of the ones not going to professional school, less than 10% go to phD, the rest are masters. Most masters, outside of elite programs at ivies or others, are not funded at all. Guess who gets into the funded masters.
Careers after phD or masters is highly dependent on the prestiges of program. Getting into the most prestigious grad programs heavily correlates with attending a top20 private or a top15 LAC or a top15Public. Those 50 schools boost . The ivy/plus group of 12 schools give the biggest boost.
Undergrad matters.

All of this is just a correlation of smart, motivated students with academic success. Nothing in here is causal, especially not the undergraduate university attended.

DP
in part it is just that. however being in an environment where average middle of the pack kids go to top phDs, MD, JD is a much more motivating environment of peers than being in a school where very few are aiming for this type of future, and the "average" kid is going to be a social worker or teacher or nurse. My wife and I were motivated by the peers around us at our ivy/plus; we made lifelong friends and are not the only ones who met mates there. We went off to top JD and MD programs as did most of our peers. Others run national nonprofits now, or are professors, or have started companies. We sent and are sending our kids to similar colleges for that reason. They thrive on the challenge of that type of peer group.

PP. Thinking that all of the things you mentioned don’t happen at schools across the top 100 is extremely out of touch with reality. “We are not the only ones who met our mates there.” “Others are professors or have started companies.” It sounds like you’ve been out of school for 50 years.

AVERAGE GPA students at schools ranked 60-100 do not go to med law or top phD schools. Pull up any of them and look at the most common careers, pull up the med and law school matriculation data--it rare from these schools, less than 10% of grads. Top14 LAW school is even more rare. T14 is easily accessible to average GPA(3.8) students from an ivy/T10.

We aren’t talking about average GPA students at schools ranked 60-100. We are talking about whether undergrad matters for grad school. The kind of kids who can get accepted to ivy+ are not average GPA students if they end up at 60-100, they will be top students there, surrounded by other top students in honors classes, Honors Colleges, etc. And they will get into the same grad schools because what matters is grades, test scores, recs. Even your 3.8 GPA average at Ivy example highlights this, as the average GPA at lower ranked schools is much lower. So you can be “average” at an Ivy but you can get into good schools in part because your grades are still high.

As I said earlier, all you are doing is positing a causal fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) because you see a correlation and have assumed causality, though there are obvious confounding factors (ivy+ kids are at ivy+ because they are good at the same things that also get one into grad school, like grades and test scores). It’s funny that you keep talking about how superior these schools and their education are yet you keep committing this extremely basic logical fallacy.

Maybe because you are a one-trick pony with the causation vs correlation argument.

Explain why if there are so many Honors kids at these schools why they still aren’t represented all that well at top grad programs. How does that make any sense?

For example if you believe DCUM there are tons of kids attending Alabama for free as NMSF kids coming from UMC families. So, why isn’t Alabama represented better at these top law / MD programs…again, these aren’t hard scrabble kids from rural Alabama but UMC DMV kids taking the free ride. In theory, they have the same notions about needing grad school.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

This. The undergraduate reputation/prestige correlates to the grad schools where the students go.
Example: the top 5 grad schools from NC state, UGA —good but not top flagships—are similar level schools.
The top 5 grad schools coming out of Duke? MIT, Duke, Harvard, Columbia, NYU. Ivies are similar: the top 5 is almost always including the ivy itself, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and another top school.
PhDs which are fully paid /funded including stipends of $45k or so are about half of grad programs coming out of top schools, whereas at non elite /nonflagships of the ones not going to professional school, less than 10% go to phD, the rest are masters. Most masters, outside of elite programs at ivies or others, are not funded at all. Guess who gets into the funded masters.
Careers after phD or masters is highly dependent on the prestiges of program. Getting into the most prestigious grad programs heavily correlates with attending a top20 private or a top15 LAC or a top15Public. Those 50 schools boost . The ivy/plus group of 12 schools give the biggest boost.
Undergrad matters.

All of this is just a correlation of smart, motivated students with academic success. Nothing in here is causal, especially not the undergraduate university attended.

DP
in part it is just that. however being in an environment where average middle of the pack kids go to top phDs, MD, JD is a much more motivating environment of peers than being in a school where very few are aiming for this type of future, and the "average" kid is going to be a social worker or teacher or nurse. My wife and I were motivated by the peers around us at our ivy/plus; we made lifelong friends and are not the only ones who met mates there. We went off to top JD and MD programs as did most of our peers. Others run national nonprofits now, or are professors, or have started companies. We sent and are sending our kids to similar colleges for that reason. They thrive on the challenge of that type of peer group.

PP. Thinking that all of the things you mentioned don’t happen at schools across the top 100 is extremely out of touch with reality. “We are not the only ones who met our mates there.” “Others are professors or have started companies.” It sounds like you’ve been out of school for 50 years.

AVERAGE GPA students at schools ranked 60-100 do not go to med law or top phD schools. Pull up any of them and look at the most common careers, pull up the med and law school matriculation data--it rare from these schools, less than 10% of grads. Top14 LAW school is even more rare. T14 is easily accessible to average GPA(3.8) students from an ivy/T10.

We aren’t talking about average GPA students at schools ranked 60-100. We are talking about whether undergrad matters for grad school. The kind of kids who can get accepted to ivy+ are not average GPA students if they end up at 60-100, they will be top students there, surrounded by other top students in honors classes, Honors Colleges, etc. And they will get into the same grad schools because what matters is grades, test scores, recs. Even your 3.8 GPA average at Ivy example highlights this, as the average GPA at lower ranked schools is much lower. So you can be “average” at an Ivy but you can get into good schools in part because your grades are still high.

As I said earlier, all you are doing is positing a causal fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) because you see a correlation and have assumed causality, though there are obvious confounding factors (ivy+ kids are at ivy+ because they are good at the same things that also get one into grad school, like grades and test scores). It’s funny that you keep talking about how superior these schools and their education are yet you keep committing this extremely basic logical fallacy.

Maybe because you are a one-trick pony with the causation vs correlation argument.

Explain why if there are so many Honors kids at these schools why they still aren’t represented all that well at top grad programs. How does that make any sense?

For example if you believe DCUM there are tons of kids attending Alabama for free as NMSF kids coming from UMC families. So, why isn’t Alabama represented better at these top law / MD programs…again, these aren’t hard scrabble kids from rural Alabama but UMC DMV kids taking the free ride. In theory, they have the same notions about needing grad school.

Only because you keep committing the same elementary logical fallacy over and over and don’t seem to realize it. That’s not my fault.

These types of kids *are* well represented at top grad schools but they come from about 100 universities instead of a dozen or so Ivy+. It’s just a matter of dispersion. Quite simple, really.

And to be clear, I never said there were “so many honors kids” or “tons of kids” at these schools. You said that. It’s honors and associated programs, after all, so it’s selective. I just said the ones that are top are capable (and do) get into the same grad schools as equivalent kids at other schools. Because the causality runs from the metrics used to assess admissions to those schools (grades, scores, recs), not the name on the diploma, and many of the top students at lower ranked schools can and do get into better undergrads but choose the lower ranked school for a variety of reasons. And then end up at the same grad schools and in the same jobs.

Except they aren’t well-represented. That’s your problem. If they were well-represented we wouldn’t have these arguments.

Someone posted actual data of the Yale law school and undergrads.

Post your actual data to prove your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've done grad admissions at several competitive graduate programs in the humanities (two PhD, one terminal MA), and I can tell you that acceptance to such a program (I'm not talking about law or med school! -- but this does probably generalize to graduate programs in the sciences) does not directly depend on an applicant's undergraduate school at all. Undergrad mentoring does matter in two respects: Has the applicant been put in touch with current knowledge in the field? And do the applicant's recommenders know how to write an effective letter of recommendation? Each respect concerns competence, not prestige: faculty at low-tier universities often do but sometimes do not know how prepare and present their students for graduate applications. Any school with research-active faculty can do this; the exceptions tend to be places that haven't made a new hire in 20 years or that serve a niche, only quasi-academic mission. In any case, what matters for the final cut in my field is the quality of the writing sample, which is entirely in the applicant's hands.

One of mine is in the process of phD applications, in a common humanities field, ivy: the professors give one on one feedback for the undergraduate thesis (typically used for writing sample), and different professors are the ones who work one on one with the personal statement. The work started months ago and the feedback is detailed and helpful. The track record of top PhD placement out of the department is impressive. DC’s roommate is applying to med school and has the same level of support and feedback. They applied for and got an undergraduate fellowship and their lab professor was the one who helped edit that application. These students are great, 3.8-3.9, but not top of the ivy types. The level of professor involvement and mentoring has been surprising. The hardest part may have been getting into the school in the first place.

[Anonymous]

^I believe it is a statement of purpose not a personal statement, but same idea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

There's a lot to be said for being the big fish in a small pond. I ended up at a third rate undergrad for financial reasons and had no problem getting into a top grad school and top law school. Leaving undergrad I had tons of awards, glowing recommendations, and perfect grades. I don't know that my application would have been as stellar from a more competitive school.

How many other kids from your undergrad were at your top law school with you? How many of your law school classmates graduated from the undergrad of your law school?

Congrats to PP for threading the needle and getting into top law school the harder way. We have a very close relative at Yale law. They went to a different ivy for undergraduate. Over half of the YL entering class each year is from the same 20 or so elite undergrads. Most of the rest are from T25-40 types/6-15 ranked LACs. There are almost no students from colleges below the top100 and these students are either hooked demographics or truly genius.

Yale lists the 86 undergrad institutions that are represented at Yale Law School on their website. You'll see lots of non-prestigious schools listed, from Northern Arizona University to Florida International University to Southern Utah University.

https://law.yale.edu/admissions/profiles-statistics

That's 86 out of 204 students. 90 are from Yale, 30 odd from Harvard. Magically, that leaves your 84-odd figure because Yale, like Harvard, cherry picks the valedictorians from those other schools. That's how I got into both Harvard and Yale law schools. Both institutions brag these figures because to the unknowing it makes the schools appear less elitist. Fully one-third of my HLS class (560) were from Harvard undergrad ergo 185.

THIS. Med school is similar.

I agree with all the above. I am a firm believer that good students will do well wherever they go if they work hard. I earned a PhD from the top school in my field. I went to undergrad at a midwest state flagship. I could have gone ivy, but my parents couldn't afford it. I graduated summa cum laude and had full ride merit scholarship. So many opportunities were thrown my way. When you graduate top of the class out of 5000 people, it felt like every grad school wanted me. When I got to grad school, most of the students were from SLAC or ivy or were top of their no name school like me. After graduating, I somehow managed to pass recruitment week at a top company and I work along side those who probably spent a half million+ more for an education I got for free. I went public all the way. My kids will go private all the way (its easier).

I love your post for several reasons:

1. You admit that you had to be nearly top of the class of 5,000 in order to get to the same place as average kids at top schools; AND
2. You are sending your kids to top private colleges because you saw how much easier it was for your colleagues to achieve the same thing as you.

You made the perfectly logical, rational decision. BTW, there are of course a number of highly rated midwest state flagships, so it's not even that you went to a school ranked #800.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

This. The undergraduate reputation/prestige correlates to the grad schools where the students go.
Example: the top 5 grad schools from NC state, UGA —good but not top flagships—are similar level schools.
The top 5 grad schools coming out of Duke? MIT, Duke, Harvard, Columbia, NYU. Ivies are similar: the top 5 is almost always including the ivy itself, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and another top school.
PhDs which are fully paid /funded including stipends of $45k or so are about half of grad programs coming out of top schools, whereas at non elite /nonflagships of the ones not going to professional school, less than 10% go to phD, the rest are masters. Most masters, outside of elite programs at ivies or others, are not funded at all. Guess who gets into the funded masters.
Careers after phD or masters is highly dependent on the prestiges of program. Getting into the most prestigious grad programs heavily correlates with attending a top20 private or a top15 LAC or a top15Public. Those 50 schools boost . The ivy/plus group of 12 schools give the biggest boost.
Undergrad matters.

All of this is just a correlation of smart, motivated students with academic success. Nothing in here is causal, especially not the undergraduate university attended.

DP
in part it is just that. however being in an environment where average middle of the pack kids go to top phDs, MD, JD is a much more motivating environment of peers than being in a school where very few are aiming for this type of future, and the "average" kid is going to be a social worker or teacher or nurse. My wife and I were motivated by the peers around us at our ivy/plus; we made lifelong friends and are not the only ones who met mates there. We went off to top JD and MD programs as did most of our peers. Others run national nonprofits now, or are professors, or have started companies. We sent and are sending our kids to similar colleges for that reason. They thrive on the challenge of that type of peer group.

PP. Thinking that all of the things you mentioned don’t happen at schools across the top 100 is extremely out of touch with reality. “We are not the only ones who met our mates there.” “Others are professors or have started companies.” It sounds like you’ve been out of school for 50 years.

AVERAGE GPA students at schools ranked 60-100 do not go to med law or top phD schools. Pull up any of them and look at the most common careers, pull up the med and law school matriculation data--it rare from these schools, less than 10% of grads. Top14 LAW school is even more rare. T14 is easily accessible to average GPA(3.8) students from an ivy/T10.

We aren’t talking about average GPA students at schools ranked 60-100. We are talking about whether undergrad matters for grad school. The kind of kids who can get accepted to ivy+ are not average GPA students if they end up at 60-100, they will be top students there, surrounded by other top students in honors classes, Honors Colleges, etc. And they will get into the same grad schools because what matters is grades, test scores, recs. Even your 3.8 GPA average at Ivy example highlights this, as the average GPA at lower ranked schools is much lower. So you can be “average” at an Ivy but you can get into good schools in part because your grades are still high.

As I said earlier, all you are doing is positing a causal fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) because you see a correlation and have assumed causality, though there are obvious confounding factors (ivy+ kids are at ivy+ because they are good at the same things that also get one into grad school, like grades and test scores). It’s funny that you keep talking about how superior these schools and their education are yet you keep committing this extremely basic logical fallacy.

Maybe because you are a one-trick pony with the causation vs correlation argument.

Explain why if there are so many Honors kids at these schools why they still aren’t represented all that well at top grad programs. How does that make any sense?

For example if you believe DCUM there are tons of kids attending Alabama for free as NMSF kids coming from UMC families. So, why isn’t Alabama represented better at these top law / MD programs…again, these aren’t hard scrabble kids from rural Alabama but UMC DMV kids taking the free ride. In theory, they have the same notions about needing grad school.

Only because you keep committing the same elementary logical fallacy over and over and don’t seem to realize it. That’s not my fault.

These types of kids *are* well represented at top grad schools but they come from about 100 universities instead of a dozen or so Ivy+. It’s just a matter of dispersion. Quite simple, really.

And to be clear, I never said there were “so many honors kids” or “tons of kids” at these schools. You said that. It’s honors and associated programs, after all, so it’s selective. I just said the ones that are top are capable (and do) get into the same grad schools as equivalent kids at other schools. Because the causality runs from the metrics used to assess admissions to those schools (grades, scores, recs), not the name on the diploma, and many of the top students at lower ranked schools can and do get into better undergrads but choose the lower ranked school for a variety of reasons. And then end up at the same grad schools and in the same jobs.

Except they aren’t well-represented. That’s your problem. If they were well-represented we wouldn’t have these arguments.

Someone posted actual data of the Yale law school and undergrads.

Post your actual data to prove your point.

I said the “types of kids” are well represented. We see that in how many schools these grad schools draw from.

Harvard MBA Class of 2026 has graduates from 143 domestic and 153 international universities.

Stanford GSB Class of 2026 has over 150 schools represented.

Wharton Class of 2026 around 200 undergraduate institutions represented.

Harvard Law 2023 class over 170 undergraduate institutions.

Harvard Kennedy over 200.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of good graduate schools. We could go on.

Are the highest ranked schools the best represented? Yes. Because that’s where the strongest students who get the best grades and test scores and academic accolades concentrate. But that’s just a correlation, it doesn’t make the university itself a causal factor. Because as grad school admissions officers will tell you, they don’t really care (I mean, they care past a certain point, but it’s reasonably far down the list as I already said).

Now show your data that demonstrates causality. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. You’ll just give me another correlation because you don’t know the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

There's a lot to be said for being the big fish in a small pond. I ended up at a third rate undergrad for financial reasons and had no problem getting into a top grad school and top law school. Leaving undergrad I had tons of awards, glowing recommendations, and perfect grades. I don't know that my application would have been as stellar from a more competitive school.

How many other kids from your undergrad were at your top law school with you? How many of your law school classmates graduated from the undergrad of your law school?

Congrats to PP for threading the needle and getting into top law school the harder way. We have a very close relative at Yale law. They went to a different ivy for undergraduate. Over half of the YL entering class each year is from the same 20 or so elite undergrads. Most of the rest are from T25-40 types/6-15 ranked LACs. There are almost no students from colleges below the top100 and these students are either hooked demographics or truly genius.

Yale lists the 86 undergrad institutions that are represented at Yale Law School on their website. You'll see lots of non-prestigious schools listed, from Northern Arizona University to Florida International University to Southern Utah University.

https://law.yale.edu/admissions/profiles-statistics

That's 86 out of 204 students. 90 are from Yale, 30 odd from Harvard. Magically, that leaves your 84-odd figure because Yale, like Harvard, cherry picks the valedictorians from those other schools. That's how I got into both Harvard and Yale law schools. Both institutions brag these figures because to the unknowing it makes the schools appear less elitist. Fully one-third of my HLS class (560) were from Harvard undergrad ergo 185.

THIS. Med school is similar.

I agree with all the above. I am a firm believer that good students will do well wherever they go if they work hard. I earned a PhD from the top school in my field. I went to undergrad at a midwest state flagship. I could have gone ivy, but my parents couldn't afford it. I graduated summa cum laude and had full ride merit scholarship. So many opportunities were thrown my way. When you graduate top of the class out of 5000 people, it felt like every grad school wanted me. When I got to grad school, most of the students were from SLAC or ivy or were top of their no name school like me. After graduating, I somehow managed to pass recruitment week at a top company and I work along side those who probably spent a half million+ more for an education I got for free. I went public all the way. My kids will go private all the way (its easier).

THIS x 1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've done grad admissions at several competitive graduate programs in the humanities (two PhD, one terminal MA), and I can tell you that acceptance to such a program (I'm not talking about law or med school! -- but this does probably generalize to graduate programs in the sciences) does not directly depend on an applicant's undergraduate school at all. Undergrad mentoring does matter in two respects: Has the applicant been put in touch with current knowledge in the field? And do the applicant's recommenders know how to write an effective letter of recommendation? Each respect concerns competence, not prestige: faculty at low-tier universities often do but sometimes do not know how prepare and present their students for graduate applications. Any school with research-active faculty can do this; the exceptions tend to be places that haven't made a new hire in 20 years or that serve a niche, only quasi-academic mission. In any case, what matters for the final cut in my field is the quality of the writing sample, which is entirely in the applicant's hands.

+100. Imagine thinking that grad school admissions is like DCUM, where everyone is blindly obsessed with school prestige instead of the actual output of the student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

This. The undergraduate reputation/prestige correlates to the grad schools where the students go.
Example: the top 5 grad schools from NC state, UGA —good but not top flagships—are similar level schools.
The top 5 grad schools coming out of Duke? MIT, Duke, Harvard, Columbia, NYU. Ivies are similar: the top 5 is almost always including the ivy itself, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and another top school.
PhDs which are fully paid /funded including stipends of $45k or so are about half of grad programs coming out of top schools, whereas at non elite /nonflagships of the ones not going to professional school, less than 10% go to phD, the rest are masters. Most masters, outside of elite programs at ivies or others, are not funded at all. Guess who gets into the funded masters.
Careers after phD or masters is highly dependent on the prestiges of program. Getting into the most prestigious grad programs heavily correlates with attending a top20 private or a top15 LAC or a top15Public. Those 50 schools boost . The ivy/plus group of 12 schools give the biggest boost.
Undergrad matters.

All of this is just a correlation of smart, motivated students with academic success. Nothing in here is causal, especially not the undergraduate university attended.

DP
in part it is just that. however being in an environment where average middle of the pack kids go to top phDs, MD, JD is a much more motivating environment of peers than being in a school where very few are aiming for this type of future, and the "average" kid is going to be a social worker or teacher or nurse. My wife and I were motivated by the peers around us at our ivy/plus; we made lifelong friends and are not the only ones who met mates there. We went off to top JD and MD programs as did most of our peers. Others run national nonprofits now, or are professors, or have started companies. We sent and are sending our kids to similar colleges for that reason. They thrive on the challenge of that type of peer group.

PP. Thinking that all of the things you mentioned don’t happen at schools across the top 100 is extremely out of touch with reality. “We are not the only ones who met our mates there.” “Others are professors or have started companies.” It sounds like you’ve been out of school for 50 years.

AVERAGE GPA students at schools ranked 60-100 do not go to med law or top phD schools. Pull up any of them and look at the most common careers, pull up the med and law school matriculation data--it rare from these schools, less than 10% of grads. Top14 LAW school is even more rare. T14 is easily accessible to average GPA(3.8) students from an ivy/T10.

We aren’t talking about average GPA students at schools ranked 60-100. We are talking about whether undergrad matters for grad school. The kind of kids who can get accepted to ivy+ are not average GPA students if they end up at 60-100, they will be top students there, surrounded by other top students in honors classes, Honors Colleges, etc. And they will get into the same grad schools because what matters is grades, test scores, recs. Even your 3.8 GPA average at Ivy example highlights this, as the average GPA at lower ranked schools is much lower. So you can be “average” at an Ivy but you can get into good schools in part because your grades are still high.

As I said earlier, all you are doing is positing a causal fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) because you see a correlation and have assumed causality, though there are obvious confounding factors (ivy+ kids are at ivy+ because they are good at the same things that also get one into grad school, like grades and test scores). It’s funny that you keep talking about how superior these schools and their education are yet you keep committing this extremely basic logical fallacy.

Maybe because you are a one-trick pony with the causation vs correlation argument.

Explain why if there are so many Honors kids at these schools why they still aren’t represented all that well at top grad programs. How does that make any sense?

For example if you believe DCUM there are tons of kids attending Alabama for free as NMSF kids coming from UMC families. So, why isn’t Alabama represented better at these top law / MD programs…again, these aren’t hard scrabble kids from rural Alabama but UMC DMV kids taking the free ride. In theory, they have the same notions about needing grad school.

Only because you keep committing the same elementary logical fallacy over and over and don’t seem to realize it. That’s not my fault.

These types of kids *are* well represented at top grad schools but they come from about 100 universities instead of a dozen or so Ivy+. It’s just a matter of dispersion. Quite simple, really.

And to be clear, I never said there were “so many honors kids” or “tons of kids” at these schools. You said that. It’s honors and associated programs, after all, so it’s selective. I just said the ones that are top are capable (and do) get into the same grad schools as equivalent kids at other schools. Because the causality runs from the metrics used to assess admissions to those schools (grades, scores, recs), not the name on the diploma, and many of the top students at lower ranked schools can and do get into better undergrads but choose the lower ranked school for a variety of reasons. And then end up at the same grad schools and in the same jobs.

Except they aren’t well-represented. That’s your problem. If they were well-represented we wouldn’t have these arguments.

Someone posted actual data of the Yale law school and undergrads.

Post your actual data to prove your point.

I said the “types of kids” are well represented. We see that in how many schools these grad schools draw from.

Harvard MBA Class of 2026 has graduates from 143 domestic and 153 international universities.

Stanford GSB Class of 2026 has over 150 schools represented.

Wharton Class of 2026 around 200 undergraduate institutions represented.

Harvard Law 2023 class over 170 undergraduate institutions.

Harvard Kennedy over 200.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of good graduate schools. We could go on.

Are the highest ranked schools the best represented? Yes. Because that’s where the strongest students who get the best grades and test scores and academic accolades concentrate. But that’s just a correlation, it doesn’t make the university itself a causal factor. Because as grad school admissions officers will tell you, they don’t really care (I mean, they care past a certain point, but it’s reasonably far down the list as I already said).

Now show your data that demonstrates causality. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. You’ll just give me another correlation because you don’t know the difference.
quote]

There is Yale law school data which shows number kids by undergraduate university.

Provide the same...then we can talk. I want to see how many from each university feeding into Stanford GSB or Wharton or Harvard Kennedy.

Oh yeah...you will just spew your one-trick causality vs. correlation nonsense but show no real data...when the only posting with real data doesn't at all support your nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

This. The undergraduate reputation/prestige correlates to the grad schools where the students go.
Example: the top 5 grad schools from NC state, UGA —good but not top flagships—are similar level schools.
The top 5 grad schools coming out of Duke? MIT, Duke, Harvard, Columbia, NYU. Ivies are similar: the top 5 is almost always including the ivy itself, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and another top school.
PhDs which are fully paid /funded including stipends of $45k or so are about half of grad programs coming out of top schools, whereas at non elite /nonflagships of the ones not going to professional school, less than 10% go to phD, the rest are masters. Most masters, outside of elite programs at ivies or others, are not funded at all. Guess who gets into the funded masters.
Careers after phD or masters is highly dependent on the prestiges of program. Getting into the most prestigious grad programs heavily correlates with attending a top20 private or a top15 LAC or a top15Public. Those 50 schools boost . The ivy/plus group of 12 schools give the biggest boost.
Undergrad matters.

All of this is just a correlation of smart, motivated students with academic success. Nothing in here is causal, especially not the undergraduate university attended.

DP
in part it is just that. however being in an environment where average middle of the pack kids go to top phDs, MD, JD is a much more motivating environment of peers than being in a school where very few are aiming for this type of future, and the "average" kid is going to be a social worker or teacher or nurse. My wife and I were motivated by the peers around us at our ivy/plus; we made lifelong friends and are not the only ones who met mates there. We went off to top JD and MD programs as did most of our peers. Others run national nonprofits now, or are professors, or have started companies. We sent and are sending our kids to similar colleges for that reason. They thrive on the challenge of that type of peer group.

PP. Thinking that all of the things you mentioned don’t happen at schools across the top 100 is extremely out of touch with reality. “We are not the only ones who met our mates there.” “Others are professors or have started companies.” It sounds like you’ve been out of school for 50 years.

AVERAGE GPA students at schools ranked 60-100 do not go to med law or top phD schools. Pull up any of them and look at the most common careers, pull up the med and law school matriculation data--it rare from these schools, less than 10% of grads. Top14 LAW school is even more rare. T14 is easily accessible to average GPA(3.8) students from an ivy/T10.

We aren’t talking about average GPA students at schools ranked 60-100. We are talking about whether undergrad matters for grad school. The kind of kids who can get accepted to ivy+ are not average GPA students if they end up at 60-100, they will be top students there, surrounded by other top students in honors classes, Honors Colleges, etc. And they will get into the same grad schools because what matters is grades, test scores, recs. Even your 3.8 GPA average at Ivy example highlights this, as the average GPA at lower ranked schools is much lower. So you can be “average” at an Ivy but you can get into good schools in part because your grades are still high.

As I said earlier, all you are doing is positing a causal fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) because you see a correlation and have assumed causality, though there are obvious confounding factors (ivy+ kids are at ivy+ because they are good at the same things that also get one into grad school, like grades and test scores). It’s funny that you keep talking about how superior these schools and their education are yet you keep committing this extremely basic logical fallacy.

Maybe because you are a one-trick pony with the causation vs correlation argument.

Explain why if there are so many Honors kids at these schools why they still aren’t represented all that well at top grad programs. How does that make any sense?

For example if you believe DCUM there are tons of kids attending Alabama for free as NMSF kids coming from UMC families. So, why isn’t Alabama represented better at these top law / MD programs…again, these aren’t hard scrabble kids from rural Alabama but UMC DMV kids taking the free ride. In theory, they have the same notions about needing grad school.

Only because you keep committing the same elementary logical fallacy over and over and don’t seem to realize it. That’s not my fault.

These types of kids *are* well represented at top grad schools but they come from about 100 universities instead of a dozen or so Ivy+. It’s just a matter of dispersion. Quite simple, really.

And to be clear, I never said there were “so many honors kids” or “tons of kids” at these schools. You said that. It’s honors and associated programs, after all, so it’s selective. I just said the ones that are top are capable (and do) get into the same grad schools as equivalent kids at other schools. Because the causality runs from the metrics used to assess admissions to those schools (grades, scores, recs), not the name on the diploma, and many of the top students at lower ranked schools can and do get into better undergrads but choose the lower ranked school for a variety of reasons. And then end up at the same grad schools and in the same jobs.

Except they aren’t well-represented. That’s your problem. If they were well-represented we wouldn’t have these arguments.

Someone posted actual data of the Yale law school and undergrads.

Post your actual data to prove your point.

I said the “types of kids” are well represented. We see that in how many schools these grad schools draw from.

Harvard MBA Class of 2026 has graduates from 143 domestic and 153 international universities.

Stanford GSB Class of 2026 has over 150 schools represented.

Wharton Class of 2026 around 200 undergraduate institutions represented.

Harvard Law 2023 class over 170 undergraduate institutions.

Harvard Kennedy over 200.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of good graduate schools. We could go on.

Are the highest ranked schools the best represented? Yes. Because that’s where the strongest students who get the best grades and test scores and academic accolades concentrate. But that’s just a correlation, it doesn’t make the university itself a causal factor. Because as grad school admissions officers will tell you, they don’t really care (I mean, they care past a certain point, but it’s reasonably far down the list as I already said).

Now show your data that demonstrates causality. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. You’ll just give me another correlation because you don’t know the difference.

There is Yale law school data which shows number kids by undergraduate university.

Provide the same...then we can talk. I want to see how many from each university feeding into Stanford GSB or Wharton or Harvard Kennedy.

Oh yeah...you will just spew your one-trick causality vs. correlation nonsense but show no real data...when the only posting with real data doesn't at all support your nonsense.

Lol that’s exactly the correlation vs. causality point, as well as my previous point about dispersion! I’m sorry you don’t understand it. Showing the universities demonstrates a correlation. It doesn’t demonstrate causality. And we know from the profiles of students that get in, from the wide range of schools that send kids to top grad programs, and from the schools and admissions officers themselves that the causal factors are things like grades, test scores, interest/prep (depending on the type of program), and recs. Kids at top undergrads are good at those things (which is how they got into those undergrads in the first place!), so they get into top grad schools. But that doesn’t make the school itself causal.

Maybe take a statistics and a logical reasoning class so you’ll stop thinking this is “nonsense.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

This. The undergraduate reputation/prestige correlates to the grad schools where the students go.
Example: the top 5 grad schools from NC state, UGA —good but not top flagships—are similar level schools.
The top 5 grad schools coming out of Duke? MIT, Duke, Harvard, Columbia, NYU. Ivies are similar: the top 5 is almost always including the ivy itself, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and another top school.
PhDs which are fully paid /funded including stipends of $45k or so are about half of grad programs coming out of top schools, whereas at non elite /nonflagships of the ones not going to professional school, less than 10% go to phD, the rest are masters. Most masters, outside of elite programs at ivies or others, are not funded at all. Guess who gets into the funded masters.
Careers after phD or masters is highly dependent on the prestiges of program. Getting into the most prestigious grad programs heavily correlates with attending a top20 private or a top15 LAC or a top15Public. Those 50 schools boost . The ivy/plus group of 12 schools give the biggest boost.
Undergrad matters.

All of this is just a correlation of smart, motivated students with academic success. Nothing in here is causal, especially not the undergraduate university attended.

DP
in part it is just that. however being in an environment where average middle of the pack kids go to top phDs, MD, JD is a much more motivating environment of peers than being in a school where very few are aiming for this type of future, and the "average" kid is going to be a social worker or teacher or nurse. My wife and I were motivated by the peers around us at our ivy/plus; we made lifelong friends and are not the only ones who met mates there. We went off to top JD and MD programs as did most of our peers. Others run national nonprofits now, or are professors, or have started companies. We sent and are sending our kids to similar colleges for that reason. They thrive on the challenge of that type of peer group.

PP. Thinking that all of the things you mentioned don’t happen at schools across the top 100 is extremely out of touch with reality. “We are not the only ones who met our mates there.” “Others are professors or have started companies.” It sounds like you’ve been out of school for 50 years.

AVERAGE GPA students at schools ranked 60-100 do not go to med law or top phD schools. Pull up any of them and look at the most common careers, pull up the med and law school matriculation data--it rare from these schools, less than 10% of grads. Top14 LAW school is even more rare. T14 is easily accessible to average GPA(3.8) students from an ivy/T10.

We aren’t talking about average GPA students at schools ranked 60-100. We are talking about whether undergrad matters for grad school. The kind of kids who can get accepted to ivy+ are not average GPA students if they end up at 60-100, they will be top students there, surrounded by other top students in honors classes, Honors Colleges, etc. And they will get into the same grad schools because what matters is grades, test scores, recs. Even your 3.8 GPA average at Ivy example highlights this, as the average GPA at lower ranked schools is much lower. So you can be “average” at an Ivy but you can get into good schools in part because your grades are still high.

As I said earlier, all you are doing is positing a causal fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) because you see a correlation and have assumed causality, though there are obvious confounding factors (ivy+ kids are at ivy+ because they are good at the same things that also get one into grad school, like grades and test scores). It’s funny that you keep talking about how superior these schools and their education are yet you keep committing this extremely basic logical fallacy.

Maybe because you are a one-trick pony with the causation vs correlation argument.

Explain why if there are so many Honors kids at these schools why they still aren’t represented all that well at top grad programs. How does that make any sense?

For example if you believe DCUM there are tons of kids attending Alabama for free as NMSF kids coming from UMC families. So, why isn’t Alabama represented better at these top law / MD programs…again, these aren’t hard scrabble kids from rural Alabama but UMC DMV kids taking the free ride. In theory, they have the same notions about needing grad school.

Only because you keep committing the same elementary logical fallacy over and over and don’t seem to realize it. That’s not my fault.

These types of kids *are* well represented at top grad schools but they come from about 100 universities instead of a dozen or so Ivy+. It’s just a matter of dispersion. Quite simple, really.

And to be clear, I never said there were “so many honors kids” or “tons of kids” at these schools. You said that. It’s honors and associated programs, after all, so it’s selective. I just said the ones that are top are capable (and do) get into the same grad schools as equivalent kids at other schools. Because the causality runs from the metrics used to assess admissions to those schools (grades, scores, recs), not the name on the diploma, and many of the top students at lower ranked schools can and do get into better undergrads but choose the lower ranked school for a variety of reasons. And then end up at the same grad schools and in the same jobs.

Except they aren’t well-represented. That’s your problem. If they were well-represented we wouldn’t have these arguments.

Someone posted actual data of the Yale law school and undergrads.

Post your actual data to prove your point.

I said the “types of kids” are well represented. We see that in how many schools these grad schools draw from.

Harvard MBA Class of 2026 has graduates from 143 domestic and 153 international universities.

Stanford GSB Class of 2026 has over 150 schools represented.

Wharton Class of 2026 around 200 undergraduate institutions represented.

Harvard Law 2023 class over 170 undergraduate institutions.

Harvard Kennedy over 200.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of good graduate schools. We could go on.

Are the highest ranked schools the best represented? Yes. Because that’s where the strongest students who get the best grades and test scores and academic accolades concentrate. But that’s just a correlation, it doesn’t make the university itself a causal factor. Because as grad school admissions officers will tell you, they don’t really care (I mean, they care past a certain point, but it’s reasonably far down the list as I already said).

Now show your data that demonstrates causality. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. You’ll just give me another correlation because you don’t know the difference.

There is Yale law school data which shows number kids by undergraduate university.

Provide the same...then we can talk. I want to see how many from each university feeding into Stanford GSB or Wharton or Harvard Kennedy.

Oh yeah...you will just spew your one-trick causality vs. correlation nonsense but show no real data...when the only posting with real data doesn't at all support your nonsense.

Lol that’s exactly the correlation vs. causality point, as well as my previous point about dispersion! I’m sorry you don’t understand it. Showing the universities demonstrates a correlation. It doesn’t demonstrate causality. And we know from the profiles of students that get in, from the wide range of schools that send kids to top grad programs, and from the schools and admissions officers themselves that the causal factors are things like grades, test scores, interest/prep (depending on the type of program), and recs. Kids at top undergrads are good at those things (which is how they got into those undergrads in the first place!), so they get into top grad schools. But that doesn’t make the school itself causal.

Maybe take a statistics and a logical reasoning class so you’ll stop thinking this is “nonsense.”

Awesome, now provide the breakdown of the number of kids entering GSB, Wharton et al by university so we have something to discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not all schools are equal.

A top honors degree from third rate undergrad may not get you into prestigious graduate school, especially if their programs suck in your field of interest.

This. The undergraduate reputation/prestige correlates to the grad schools where the students go.
Example: the top 5 grad schools from NC state, UGA —good but not top flagships—are similar level schools.
The top 5 grad schools coming out of Duke? MIT, Duke, Harvard, Columbia, NYU. Ivies are similar: the top 5 is almost always including the ivy itself, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and another top school.
PhDs which are fully paid /funded including stipends of $45k or so are about half of grad programs coming out of top schools, whereas at non elite /nonflagships of the ones not going to professional school, less than 10% go to phD, the rest are masters. Most masters, outside of elite programs at ivies or others, are not funded at all. Guess who gets into the funded masters.
Careers after phD or masters is highly dependent on the prestiges of program. Getting into the most prestigious grad programs heavily correlates with attending a top20 private or a top15 LAC or a top15Public. Those 50 schools boost . The ivy/plus group of 12 schools give the biggest boost.
Undergrad matters.

All of this is just a correlation of smart, motivated students with academic success. Nothing in here is causal, especially not the undergraduate university attended.

DP
in part it is just that. however being in an environment where average middle of the pack kids go to top phDs, MD, JD is a much more motivating environment of peers than being in a school where very few are aiming for this type of future, and the "average" kid is going to be a social worker or teacher or nurse. My wife and I were motivated by the peers around us at our ivy/plus; we made lifelong friends and are not the only ones who met mates there. We went off to top JD and MD programs as did most of our peers. Others run national nonprofits now, or are professors, or have started companies. We sent and are sending our kids to similar colleges for that reason. They thrive on the challenge of that type of peer group.

PP. Thinking that all of the things you mentioned don’t happen at schools across the top 100 is extremely out of touch with reality. “We are not the only ones who met our mates there.” “Others are professors or have started companies.” It sounds like you’ve been out of school for 50 years.

AVERAGE GPA students at schools ranked 60-100 do not go to med law or top phD schools. Pull up any of them and look at the most common careers, pull up the med and law school matriculation data--it rare from these schools, less than 10% of grads. Top14 LAW school is even more rare. T14 is easily accessible to average GPA(3.8) students from an ivy/T10.

We aren’t talking about average GPA students at schools ranked 60-100. We are talking about whether undergrad matters for grad school. The kind of kids who can get accepted to ivy+ are not average GPA students if they end up at 60-100, they will be top students there, surrounded by other top students in honors classes, Honors Colleges, etc. And they will get into the same grad schools because what matters is grades, test scores, recs. Even your 3.8 GPA average at Ivy example highlights this, as the average GPA at lower ranked schools is much lower. So you can be “average” at an Ivy but you can get into good schools in part because your grades are still high.

As I said earlier, all you are doing is positing a causal fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) because you see a correlation and have assumed causality, though there are obvious confounding factors (ivy+ kids are at ivy+ because they are good at the same things that also get one into grad school, like grades and test scores). It’s funny that you keep talking about how superior these schools and their education are yet you keep committing this extremely basic logical fallacy.

Maybe because you are a one-trick pony with the causation vs correlation argument.

Explain why if there are so many Honors kids at these schools why they still aren’t represented all that well at top grad programs. How does that make any sense?

For example if you believe DCUM there are tons of kids attending Alabama for free as NMSF kids coming from UMC families. So, why isn’t Alabama represented better at these top law / MD programs…again, these aren’t hard scrabble kids from rural Alabama but UMC DMV kids taking the free ride. In theory, they have the same notions about needing grad school.

Only because you keep committing the same elementary logical fallacy over and over and don’t seem to realize it. That’s not my fault.

These types of kids *are* well represented at top grad schools but they come from about 100 universities instead of a dozen or so Ivy+. It’s just a matter of dispersion. Quite simple, really.

And to be clear, I never said there were “so many honors kids” or “tons of kids” at these schools. You said that. It’s honors and associated programs, after all, so it’s selective. I just said the ones that are top are capable (and do) get into the same grad schools as equivalent kids at other schools. Because the causality runs from the metrics used to assess admissions to those schools (grades, scores, recs), not the name on the diploma, and many of the top students at lower ranked schools can and do get into better undergrads but choose the lower ranked school for a variety of reasons. And then end up at the same grad schools and in the same jobs.

Except they aren’t well-represented. That’s your problem. If they were well-represented we wouldn’t have these arguments.

Someone posted actual data of the Yale law school and undergrads.

Post your actual data to prove your point.

I said the “types of kids” are well represented. We see that in how many schools these grad schools draw from.

Harvard MBA Class of 2026 has graduates from 143 domestic and 153 international universities.

Stanford GSB Class of 2026 has over 150 schools represented.

Wharton Class of 2026 around 200 undergraduate institutions represented.

Harvard Law 2023 class over 170 undergraduate institutions.

Harvard Kennedy over 200.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of good graduate schools. We could go on.

Are the highest ranked schools the best represented? Yes. Because that’s where the strongest students who get the best grades and test scores and academic accolades concentrate. But that’s just a correlation, it doesn’t make the university itself a causal factor. Because as grad school admissions officers will tell you, they don’t really care (I mean, they care past a certain point, but it’s reasonably far down the list as I already said).

Now show your data that demonstrates causality. Oh, that’s right, you can’t. You’ll just give me another correlation because you don’t know the difference.

There is Yale law school data which shows number kids by undergraduate university.

Provide the same...then we can talk. I want to see how many from each university feeding into Stanford GSB or Wharton or Harvard Kennedy.

Oh yeah...you will just spew your one-trick causality vs. correlation nonsense but show no real data...when the only posting with real data doesn't at all support your nonsense.

Lol that’s exactly the correlation vs. causality point, as well as my previous point about dispersion! I’m sorry you don’t understand it. Showing the universities demonstrates a correlation. It doesn’t demonstrate causality. And we know from the profiles of students that get in, from the wide range of schools that send kids to top grad programs, and from the schools and admissions officers themselves that the causal factors are things like grades, test scores, interest/prep (depending on the type of program), and recs. Kids at top undergrads are good at those things (which is how they got into those undergrads in the first place!), so they get into top grad schools. But that doesn’t make the school itself causal.

Maybe take a statistics and a logical reasoning class so you’ll stop thinking this is “nonsense.”

Awesome, now provide the breakdown of the number of kids entering GSB, Wharton et al by university so we have something to discuss.

So we can discuss a correlation that doesn’t imply causation because of confounding factors (like the things admissions officers actually care about)? Sounds good, I’ll get right on that.