Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

The quality and breadth of basic science research at a Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, Hopkins is going to be pretty hard to match outside of a few flagships - Michigan, UCLA, UCSD.

At the undergrad level? There are at least a dozen schools that could offer better research opportunities than Harvard does.

Which SLACs have undergrads regularly co-authoring top tier papers? (Nature, Science, PRL, NeurIPS, etc)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

All these schools cost essentially the same and provide no merit aid, so why wouldn't you pick the school that "puts you on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street" or allows you to pursue medical research, tech, et al.

I can understand comparing say Ga Tech where even OOS saves like $40k/year.

For STEM, there are definitely some state schools that can rival the T10.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

All these schools cost essentially the same and provide no merit aid, so why wouldn't you pick the school that "puts you on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street" or allows you to pursue medical research, tech, et al.

I can understand comparing say Ga Tech where even OOS saves like $40k/year.

It’s just copium for not being admitted to an Ivy, the angst on that front this year on this site is off the charts.

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

All these schools cost essentially the same and provide no merit aid, so why wouldn't you pick the school that "puts you on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street" or allows you to pursue medical research, tech, et al.

I can understand comparing say Ga Tech where even OOS saves like $40k/year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How good is Brown when it comes to post grad opportunities compared to the other Ivys? DD is deciding between Brown or Rice.

Both a great schools but Rice is regional/local in a way that Brown is not. Look at percent of students from Texas and also focus on Texas related industries, like oil and gas.

Rice is not local!?! Not even regional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

Rice CMU and Swat (and a couple others) are effectively the same boost as ivy+ schools for pHD MD tech and in some areas CMU and Rice are much better than three of the ivies

How about Amherst and Pomona? Are they as good as the ones mentioned above for PhD MD Tech boost comparable to or even better than some Ivies?

We looked at one of those, so the answer is no. I guess those kids get the experience later in their academic careers, over summer, or just aren’t hard core basic science researchers. Plenty of funded researchers are not, although outcomes medical research seems to be hit harder by the NIH cuts.

Are you talking about undergrad or still talking about your PhD husband?

Why are you being obtuse? Less sophisticated bench science at slacs, by a good margin. For undergrads and everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

I agree it depends on the major/industry you're seeking. For example for a career in IR, I think Georgetown/Tufts/Hopkins/GW are as good or better than a degree at Dartmouth or Brown.

Also you may be interested to read this article that came out this week. It highlights the top private and public colleges that employers particularly like to hire from and which have incorporated AI realities into their education:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciapark/2026/04/08/the-new-ivies-20-great-employer-friendly-colleges-embracing-ai/

Why does it matter? All the schools listed by OP are expensive private schools which if anything provide worse need-based FA that most Ivy schools, but almost no merit aid.

I don't get the purpose of trading one $90k+ private school for another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

Rice CMU and Swat (and a couple others) are effectively the same boost as ivy+ schools for pHD MD tech and in some areas CMU and Rice are much better than three of the ivies

How about Amherst and Pomona? Are they as good as the ones mentioned above for PhD MD Tech boost comparable to or even better than some Ivies?

We looked at one of those, so the answer is no. I guess those kids get the experience later in their academic careers, over summer, or just aren’t hard core basic science researchers. Plenty of funded researchers are not, although outcomes medical research seems to be hit harder by the NIH cuts.

Are you talking about undergrad or still talking about your PhD husband?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spouse is a Md/phd educated at Harvard and Hopkins with lots of active NIH funding. We looked at some of the top slacs and he felt the research opportunities were not the equivalent of R1s in terms of basic science. Lots of analysis of common data sets and outcomes based research.

OP was specifically asking about undergrad, not PhD research

Yes, our kids would be applying to these schools as undergrads, was that not clear? Spouse started working ina basic science lab as a freshman in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

Rice CMU and Swat (and a couple others) are effectively the same boost as ivy+ schools for pHD MD tech and in some areas CMU and Rice are much better than three of the ivies

How about Amherst and Pomona? Are they as good as the ones mentioned above for PhD MD Tech boost comparable to or even better than some Ivies?

We looked at one of those, so the answer is no. I guess those kids get the experience later in their academic careers, over summer, or just aren’t hard core basic science researchers. Plenty of funded researchers are not, although outcomes medical research seems to be hit harder by the NIH cuts.

Anonymous wrote:Spouse is a Md/phd educated at Harvard and Hopkins with lots of active NIH funding. We looked at some of the top slacs and he felt the research opportunities were not the equivalent of R1s in terms of basic science. Lots of analysis of common data sets and outcomes based research.

OP was specifically asking about undergrad, not PhD research

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

The quality and breadth of basic science research at a Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, Hopkins is going to be pretty hard to match outside of a few flagships - Michigan, UCLA, UCSD.

At the undergrad level? There are at least a dozen schools that could offer better research opportunities than Harvard does.

Absolutely not. There are not a dozen non-ivy schools that are better at providing undergrad research experience than even the worst ivy for research.

Are you sure? When a lot of Ivy undergrads do research, they are working for grad students and PhDs doing chores the grad students find tedious. Rarely are undergrads directly working with the PI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that if you want to be on a CEO track or make big bucks on Wall Street, Ivy names could open more doors. But if you’re pursuing medical research, tech, natural sciences, are Ivies (undergrad) really that much better than schools a tier below?

With AI changing everything, is old-guard Ivy prestige still as important as it has been before?

Rice CMU and Swat (and a couple others) are effectively the same boost as ivy+ schools for pHD MD tech and in some areas CMU and Rice are much better than three of the ivies

How about Amherst and Pomona? Are they as good as the ones mentioned above for PhD MD Tech boost comparable to or even better than some Ivies?

Spouse is a Md/phd educated at Harvard and Hopkins with lots of active NIH funding. We looked at some of the top slacs and he felt the research opportunities were not the equivalent of R1s in terms of basic science. Lots of analysis of common data sets and outcomes based research.