State schools are more likely to employ "weed-out" courses for hard majors. These are intentionally brutal classes that cause ensure that marginal students don't make it to the core curriculum courses.

Of course, You could argue that the most selective schools don't need these courses since the admissions process is already tough.

State schools also tend to have fewer resources per student and more students per course. If a student is struggling, they are probably more likely to fail for this reason. And when they do fail, a state school is less likely to intervene or try to follow-up with struggling students. They just give you your grades and that's that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a STEM PhD. I would never go to H/Y/P, nor would I ever encourage one of my STEM-oriented kids to do so. They do not have a good reputation when it comes to STEM fields, and I'd honestly question the judgement of anyone who went to one of those schools for a tech-related or science-related field. Law is one thing, STEM is another thing entirely. I would never hire such a person, nor would DH who is also in the field.

We'd bet a lot of money that STEM courses would be a LOT easier at H/Y/P than other schools that are more highly regarded for those fields. I wouldn't consider it an issue of grade inflation etc, more just that they don't have the expertise or the good students in those areas to really have a challenging curriculum.

Stanford is the obvious exception. It's a good STEM school.

What area of STEM are you in, because in math and the life sciences all three are excellent. Physics too.
.

Applied math / computer science / software engineering / data science

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my first post. I concede that H/Y/P would probably be okay for more of the traditional-STEM-without-the-T-and-E academic pursuits - e.g. pure math, physics. But if you're adding technology into the mix in a big way, engineering, stuff about how businesses work today, then I can't see why anyone would even look twice at those institutions. They're almost certainly doing it for reasons of tradition, perceived prestige, etc.

The T-E parts are where the vast majority of jobs are, and certainly where most of the money is, so it's usually what people are referring to when they talk about STEM these days. But I should have been more clear.

DP...and your response is truly bizarre. You are in a pretty specific area of STEM (happens to be the one I'm in, though I have a background in physics)...and I don't know anyone who would go to Harvard to study CS unless they ended up there out of confusion. So it's weirdly harsh to bag on schools with excellent STEM departments just because they are not your departments. There are, however, many areas of T and E that are outside of the ones you are in...and Princeton, for example, has amazing departments in some of the more traditional engineering fields. I can assure you that people are not going their for reasons of prestige. And I'm not saying that out of any affection for Princeton (I turned down a fellowship from there because I didn't like the school) but simply because it's true.

I agree. And PP is showing the ignorance. Data science is really applied linear algebra. You need the math to understand the material. It may be true that HYP does not have any.many people doing data science per se. But they will learn the requisite math at any of the schools. I would not go to Princeton for grad school in data science; CMU is much better. But, in almost any field of physics, you can't beat princeton.

Don't understand all this bashing of the CS and Physics depts at Harvard, they are pretty great themselves and I don't think there's any reason to avoid Harvard when studying Physics.

Funny but true. The facilities are nice.

Harvard has a good tradition in CS and tech. A lot of industry heavyweights are Harvard alums. It is not Stanford or MIT but saying that no one would want to study CS at Harvard is far-fetched.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a STEM PhD. I would never go to H/Y/P, nor would I ever encourage one of my STEM-oriented kids to do so. They do not have a good reputation when it comes to STEM fields, and I'd honestly question the judgement of anyone who went to one of those schools for a tech-related or science-related field. Law is one thing, STEM is another thing entirely. I would never hire such a person, nor would DH who is also in the field.

We'd bet a lot of money that STEM courses would be a LOT easier at H/Y/P than other schools that are more highly regarded for those fields. I wouldn't consider it an issue of grade inflation etc, more just that they don't have the expertise or the good students in those areas to really have a challenging curriculum.

Stanford is the obvious exception. It's a good STEM school.

What area of STEM are you in, because in math and the life sciences all three are excellent. Physics too.
.

Applied math / computer science / software engineering / data science

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my first post. I concede that H/Y/P would probably be okay for more of the traditional-STEM-without-the-T-and-E academic pursuits - e.g. pure math, physics. But if you're adding technology into the mix in a big way, engineering, stuff about how businesses work today, then I can't see why anyone would even look twice at those institutions. They're almost certainly doing it for reasons of tradition, perceived prestige, etc.

The T-E parts are where the vast majority of jobs are, and certainly where most of the money is, so it's usually what people are referring to when they talk about STEM these days. But I should have been more clear.

DP...and your response is truly bizarre. You are in a pretty specific area of STEM (happens to be the one I'm in, though I have a background in physics)...and I don't know anyone who would go to Harvard to study CS unless they ended up there out of confusion. So it's weirdly harsh to bag on schools with excellent STEM departments just because they are not your departments. There are, however, many areas of T and E that are outside of the ones you are in...and Princeton, for example, has amazing departments in some of the more traditional engineering fields. I can assure you that people are not going their for reasons of prestige. And I'm not saying that out of any affection for Princeton (I turned down a fellowship from there because I didn't like the school) but simply because it's true.

I agree. And PP is showing the ignorance. Data science is really applied linear algebra. You need the math to understand the material. It may be true that HYP does not have any.many people doing data science per se. But they will learn the requisite math at any of the schools. I would not go to Princeton for grad school in data science; CMU is much better. But, in almost any field of physics, you can't beat princeton.

Don't understand all this bashing of the CS and Physics depts at Harvard, they are pretty great themselves and I don't think there's any reason to avoid Harvard when studying Physics.

Funny but true. The facilities are nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a STEM PhD. I would never go to H/Y/P, nor would I ever encourage one of my STEM-oriented kids to do so. They do not have a good reputation when it comes to STEM fields, and I'd honestly question the judgement of anyone who went to one of those schools for a tech-related or science-related field. Law is one thing, STEM is another thing entirely. I would never hire such a person, nor would DH who is also in the field.

We'd bet a lot of money that STEM courses would be a LOT easier at H/Y/P than other schools that are more highly regarded for those fields. I wouldn't consider it an issue of grade inflation etc, more just that they don't have the expertise or the good students in those areas to really have a challenging curriculum.

Stanford is the obvious exception. It's a good STEM school.

What area of STEM are you in, because in math and the life sciences all three are excellent. Physics too.
.

Applied math / computer science / software engineering / data science

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my first post. I concede that H/Y/P would probably be okay for more of the traditional-STEM-without-the-T-and-E academic pursuits - e.g. pure math, physics. But if you're adding technology into the mix in a big way, engineering, stuff about how businesses work today, then I can't see why anyone would even look twice at those institutions. They're almost certainly doing it for reasons of tradition, perceived prestige, etc.

The T-E parts are where the vast majority of jobs are, and certainly where most of the money is, so it's usually what people are referring to when they talk about STEM these days. But I should have been more clear.

DP...and your response is truly bizarre. You are in a pretty specific area of STEM (happens to be the one I'm in, though I have a background in physics)...and I don't know anyone who would go to Harvard to study CS unless they ended up there out of confusion. So it's weirdly harsh to bag on schools with excellent STEM departments just because they are not your departments. There are, however, many areas of T and E that are outside of the ones you are in...and Princeton, for example, has amazing departments in some of the more traditional engineering fields. I can assure you that people are not going their for reasons of prestige. And I'm not saying that out of any affection for Princeton (I turned down a fellowship from there because I didn't like the school) but simply because it's true.

I agree. And PP is showing the ignorance. Data science is really applied linear algebra. You need the math to understand the material. It may be true that HYP does not have any.many people doing data science per se. But they will learn the requisite math at any of the schools. I would not go to Princeton for grad school in data science; CMU is much better. But, in almost any field of physics, you can't beat princeton.

Don't understand all this bashing of the CS and Physics depts at Harvard, they are pretty great themselves and I don't think there's any reason to avoid Harvard when studying Physics.

harvard is widely considered #1 in math and physics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a STEM PhD. I would never go to H/Y/P, nor would I ever encourage one of my STEM-oriented kids to do so. They do not have a good reputation when it comes to STEM fields, and I'd honestly question the judgement of anyone who went to one of those schools for a tech-related or science-related field. Law is one thing, STEM is another thing entirely. I would never hire such a person, nor would DH who is also in the field.

We'd bet a lot of money that STEM courses would be a LOT easier at H/Y/P than other schools that are more highly regarded for those fields. I wouldn't consider it an issue of grade inflation etc, more just that they don't have the expertise or the good students in those areas to really have a challenging curriculum.

Stanford is the obvious exception. It's a good STEM school.

What area of STEM are you in, because in math and the life sciences all three are excellent. Physics too.
.

Applied math / computer science / software engineering / data science

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my first post. I concede that H/Y/P would probably be okay for more of the traditional-STEM-without-the-T-and-E academic pursuits - e.g. pure math, physics. But if you're adding technology into the mix in a big way, engineering, stuff about how businesses work today, then I can't see why anyone would even look twice at those institutions. They're almost certainly doing it for reasons of tradition, perceived prestige, etc.

The T-E parts are where the vast majority of jobs are, and certainly where most of the money is, so it's usually what people are referring to when they talk about STEM these days. But I should have been more clear.

you are in a very specific field that, frankly, only losers and misfits go to. your advice is worthless except perhaps at the special needs board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a STEM PhD. I would never go to H/Y/P, nor would I ever encourage one of my STEM-oriented kids to do so. They do not have a good reputation when it comes to STEM fields, and I'd honestly question the judgement of anyone who went to one of those schools for a tech-related or science-related field. Law is one thing, STEM is another thing entirely. I would never hire such a person, nor would DH who is also in the field.

We'd bet a lot of money that STEM courses would be a LOT easier at H/Y/P than other schools that are more highly regarded for those fields. I wouldn't consider it an issue of grade inflation etc, more just that they don't have the expertise or the good students in those areas to really have a challenging curriculum.

Stanford is the obvious exception. It's a good STEM school.

What area of STEM are you in, because in math and the life sciences all three are excellent. Physics too.
.

Applied math / computer science / software engineering / data science

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my first post. I concede that H/Y/P would probably be okay for more of the traditional-STEM-without-the-T-and-E academic pursuits - e.g. pure math, physics. But if you're adding technology into the mix in a big way, engineering, stuff about how businesses work today, then I can't see why anyone would even look twice at those institutions. They're almost certainly doing it for reasons of tradition, perceived prestige, etc.

The T-E parts are where the vast majority of jobs are, and certainly where most of the money is, so it's usually what people are referring to when they talk about STEM these days. But I should have been more clear.

DP...and your response is truly bizarre. You are in a pretty specific area of STEM (happens to be the one I'm in, though I have a background in physics)...and I don't know anyone who would go to Harvard to study CS unless they ended up there out of confusion. So it's weirdly harsh to bag on schools with excellent STEM departments just because they are not your departments. There are, however, many areas of T and E that are outside of the ones you are in...and Princeton, for example, has amazing departments in some of the more traditional engineering fields. I can assure you that people are not going their for reasons of prestige. And I'm not saying that out of any affection for Princeton (I turned down a fellowship from there because I didn't like the school) but simply because it's true.

I agree. And PP is showing the ignorance. Data science is really applied linear algebra. You need the math to understand the material. It may be true that HYP does not have any.many people doing data science per se. But they will learn the requisite math at any of the schools. I would not go to Princeton for grad school in data science; CMU is much better. But, in almost any field of physics, you can't beat princeton.

Don't understand all this bashing of the CS and Physics depts at Harvard, they are pretty great themselves and I don't think there's any reason to avoid Harvard when studying Physics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a STEM PhD. I would never go to H/Y/P, nor would I ever encourage one of my STEM-oriented kids to do so. They do not have a good reputation when it comes to STEM fields, and I'd honestly question the judgement of anyone who went to one of those schools for a tech-related or science-related field. Law is one thing, STEM is another thing entirely. I would never hire such a person, nor would DH who is also in the field.

We'd bet a lot of money that STEM courses would be a LOT easier at H/Y/P than other schools that are more highly regarded for those fields. I wouldn't consider it an issue of grade inflation etc, more just that they don't have the expertise or the good students in those areas to really have a challenging curriculum.

Stanford is the obvious exception. It's a good STEM school.

What area of STEM are you in, because in math and the life sciences all three are excellent. Physics too.
.

Applied math / computer science / software engineering / data science

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my first post. I concede that H/Y/P would probably be okay for more of the traditional-STEM-without-the-T-and-E academic pursuits - e.g. pure math, physics. But if you're adding technology into the mix in a big way, engineering, stuff about how businesses work today, then I can't see why anyone would even look twice at those institutions. They're almost certainly doing it for reasons of tradition, perceived prestige, etc.

The T-E parts are where the vast majority of jobs are, and certainly where most of the money is, so it's usually what people are referring to when they talk about STEM these days. But I should have been more clear.

DP...and your response is truly bizarre. You are in a pretty specific area of STEM (happens to be the one I'm in, though I have a background in physics)...and I don't know anyone who would go to Harvard to study CS unless they ended up there out of confusion. So it's weirdly harsh to bag on schools with excellent STEM departments just because they are not your departments. There are, however, many areas of T and E that are outside of the ones you are in...and Princeton, for example, has amazing departments in some of the more traditional engineering fields. I can assure you that people are not going their for reasons of prestige. And I'm not saying that out of any affection for Princeton (I turned down a fellowship from there because I didn't like the school) but simply because it's true.

I agree. And PP is showing the ignorance. Data science is really applied linear algebra. You need the math to understand the material. It may be true that HYP does not have any.many people doing data science per se. But they will learn the requisite math at any of the schools. I would not go to Princeton for grad school in data science; CMU is much better. But, in almost any field of physics, you can't beat princeton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is just complete B.S.

Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all rank in the top 25 for institutions producing the most PhD recipients from undergraduate origins on a size adjusted basis. Harvard and Princeton more than Stanford.

And elite LACs beat them all in the rankings.

Actually, no. Harvard and Princeton are above most LACs: www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-research/doctorates-awarded

Well, not above my alma mater.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is just complete B.S.

Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all rank in the top 25 for institutions producing the most PhD recipients from undergraduate origins on a size adjusted basis. Harvard and Princeton more than Stanford.

And elite LACs beat them all in the rankings.

Actually, no. Harvard and Princeton are above most LACs: www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-research/doctorates-awarded

I went to an engineering undergrad (e.g., RPI, Case Western) before getting a STEM PhD at UCLA (during which I TA'd for 5 years). By most objective measures the undergrad students at UCLA started out "smarter" than my undergrad. But grads from my school could destroy a UCLA undergrad by graduation. The education was leaps and bounds better. Professors were more engaged, there were more design projects, the labs were better resources, more undergrads did research and engineering/tech extracurricular, and the curriculum was better planned out. In my experience at UCLA, the profs didn't want to be teaching, waaaaay too many calculus and engineering exams were multiple choice, and the students were poorly engaged in their major. My undergrad curved to a 2.6 so I'm sure our GPAs were lower than UCLA, but it in no way reflected what we learned.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone out there ever transfer (or have a child who transferred) from an highly selective school (think H/Y/P/S/etc.) to some other top 25 top university or LAC who was a STEM major or who transferred in the other direction? Or anyone with siblings in each type of school who have actually made such comparisons? I am trying to evaluate whether STEM classes are any harder -- or graded any harder because of the curve (or a reverse curve) in the most selective universities vs. other very well regarded universities /LACs or flagship state U's? Putting aside here MIT, Caltech, Harvey Mudd -- assuming they are in a class by themselves. General comments about grade inflation would not be helpful here. Probably rare, but really looking for some first hand experience.

One of my best friends freshman year roommate at PSU (studying chemistry I think) in the honors college transferred to UPenn after his freshman year. They stayed in touch and he said that UPenn was significantly easier than PSU, at least the PSU honors college.

Anonymous wrote:
This is just complete B.S.

Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all rank in the top 25 for institutions producing the most PhD recipients from undergraduate origins on a size adjusted basis. Harvard and Princeton more than Stanford.

And elite LACs beat them all in the rankings.

The ivies are more inflated than state flagships in STEM.
Especially Harvard and Brown take the cake in terms of grade inflation. Quite ridiculous really.

On the other hand, state flagships do not have the same concentration of talent as the ivies on the undergraduate level.

Anonymous wrote: I am trying to evaluate whether STEM classes are any harder -- or graded any harder because of the curve (or a reverse curve) in the most selective universities vs. other very well regarded universities /LACs or flagship state U's?

My personal experience (BS in an "S" subject from HYP school, PhD from flagship state U) was that the grading curves were much harsher at flagship state U.

^^not going solely for reasons of prestige. Obviously prestige plays into why people choose Princeton.