Reply to The “target school” culture is extremely toxic

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "The “target school” culture is extremely toxic "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Then there are schools like Umich Ross, UVA commerce, which are supposedly the “best” business schools that will also place, but you must major in business while the Harvard people major in philosophy ( what makes a business school the “best” seems to be controlled by acceptance rate, which is in turn controlled by yield and popularity so it’s superficial in that sense). Lastly, the “target/non target” distinction is supposedly based on academics; however, strong academic schools are disregarded despite strong academic reputation if they never had a reputation for sending people into finance. U of Texas and U of Wisconsin are two of the strongest examples. By academic reputation, both of these schools are peers to UVa and Umich ( not necessarily exactly as good but they are in the same orbit). Nevertheless, a strong student from Wisconsin could get their resume ignored… [/quote]

What? Wisconsin is not in the same league as UVA or Michigan/Ross. Just as the latter two are not in the same league as ivies/stanford +

Companies recruit where there is the highest likelihood of finding academically talented students. 
It should be no surprise that ivies and a few more are the main targets. [/quote]

OP is talking about academic reputation, that is the reputation of the professors and the departments of the schools. In this sense, Wisconsin, Michigan, and VA are all academic peers ( just look at the U.S. News department rankings across all subjects).

In theory, the best schools have the best professors which makes them the most desirable to attract the best students. The paradox is when a school has [b]top departments, yet goes unrecognized. Wisconsin is clearly the foremost example of this phenomenon more than any other major university. Econ, Poly Sci, History, Math, Bio are all T10 or T15; yet, the yield for Wisconsin is remarkably low, signaling the student-market does not think too highly of its academic reputation. 
[/b]
As it turns out student yield is probably the best indicator of how the general public (including elite employers) view universities. Wisconsin is obviously not the only school like this; Purdue and CWRU are two other ones. But Wisconsin is by far the most well rounded and the most distinguished historically, making it the best example of what OP is talking about target schools being “arbitrary.”[/quote]

Correct. consequently the student body is not of the same level as UVA (and UVA's is not at the ivy+ level): top professors may be there but they cannot teach at the same pace and depth with a wisconsin student body. Companies know this and want to recruit at schools with the smartest students not the smartest professors. Frankly most T50 schools have very similar level of intelligence of professors, but talk to any of them who have taught at a T50ish and a T10 and they will be quick to tell you how they have to slow it down and change the format for the weaker student body. By the way law schools know this too and that is why top ones have algorithms for GPA that account for the rigor of the undergrad school and some have specific coursework included in that. Also why top med schools have a tier rating for undergrad (spouse is on a T10 med admissions committee and I am a lawyer who still has many contacts at my top school, DCUM likes to deny these truths but they are there). Undergrad rigor is small but not insignificant factor in admissions. It is no coincidence that a very similar group of schools is at the top for elite companies. That is why people chase the ivy+ universities plus the top 3-4 LACs: they have a self-propagating reputation for churning out well prepared students who navigated college surrounded by a highly competitive student body. Even a few years of TO that has now essentially ended is not enough to change anything: it is just a minor blip that makes course choice factor in slightly more when reviewing transcripts, and interviews matter more too. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics