Anonymous wrote:"Fit" trumps prestige iMO. But it's not either/or and sometimes the higher prestige can be a better fit too.

I would not suggest picking a school that is high prestige but not a good fit (due to culture, size, location, program or community). 4 years is too long and you need to be able to feel a sense of belonging and community from peers.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure I graduated in the bottom half of my T10 - no actual class rank, but I missed the cum laude cutoff.

I then crushed the LSAT, went to a T14 law school and then on to BigLaw in NYC.

No regrets. I may have graduated in the bottom half, but my college actually WAS the perfect fit for me. Yes, my GPA took a hit the first two years - mostly because I was having a ton of fun and came in without the necessary time management and study skills to truly balance work and play.

But I never once wished I had gone to a less rigorous or intense school. I knew I belonged where I ended up. I was every bit as bright as my classmates and just as curious and interested in the rigorous curriculum. I just didn’t go the extra mile the first two years like many of my classmates did automatically. (Didn’t go to office hours, barely revised my papers, and didn’t always study properly for tests.)

So I finished with a lower GPA, but I got an incredible education, including learning how to kick it into a higher gear when needed. It all served me very well in law school (high grades) and as a lawyer, too.

I feel like this wouldn't happen these days - T14 law schools have tons of 3.9+ GPA applicants to choose from.

Just from what I see when recruiting law students for jobs -- everyone has a summa cum laude from their undergraduate institution. The grade inflation is absolutely ridiculous.

Yeah, so why would a top law school accept a student from a lower ranked school over one from a top school except as a token to increase the number of non-elite schools they can brag about admitting from

Anonymous wrote:For a certain subgroup of top kids, the top schools with the smartest peer groups are the best “Fit” for that very reason, the peers themselves. They are not mutually exclusive. The prestige is a happy side effect of the situation, not the reason for attending top10/ivy over T20-30.

OP was asking about bottom kids. How is your answer of any help?

For a certain subgroup of top kids, the top schools with the smartest peer groups are the best “Fit” for that very reason, the peers themselves. They are not mutually exclusive. The prestige is a happy side effect of the situation, not the reason for attending top10/ivy over T20-30.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure I graduated in the bottom half of my T10 - no actual class rank, but I missed the cum laude cutoff.

I then crushed the LSAT, went to a T14 law school and then on to BigLaw in NYC.

No regrets. I may have graduated in the bottom half, but my college actually WAS the perfect fit for me. Yes, my GPA took a hit the first two years - mostly because I was having a ton of fun and came in without the necessary time management and study skills to truly balance work and play.

But I never once wished I had gone to a less rigorous or intense school. I knew I belonged where I ended up. I was every bit as bright as my classmates and just as curious and interested in the rigorous curriculum. I just didn’t go the extra mile the first two years like many of my classmates did automatically. (Didn’t go to office hours, barely revised my papers, and didn’t always study properly for tests.)

So I finished with a lower GPA, but I got an incredible education, including learning how to kick it into a higher gear when needed. It all served me very well in law school (high grades) and as a lawyer, too.

I feel like this wouldn't happen these days - T14 law schools have tons of 3.9+ GPA applicants to choose from.

Just from what I see when recruiting law students for jobs -- everyone has a summa cum laude from their undergraduate institution. The grade inflation is absolutely ridiculous.

THIS. It is unbelievable and gets worse each year since 2021.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP — it depends on the kid’s professional aspirations.

For medicine, go where you will do well. A 3.3 from Caltech will make it hard to get into medical school, which is absurd, but that’s the reality.

Tech, finance, consulting: prestige of school can carry a kid far, even if UG academic record is mediocre.

100% agree. I’m on a med school faculty and have done some interviewing. Med schools want kids with mostly A’s. They prefer U Delaware 3.8 sociology major over Ivy 3.5 molecular biology/classics double major, which is ridiculous.

I too have served on admissions, T5 med admissions, and now do consulting with a few other physicians who have served on T5-T40 med school committees.
It is not that simple and you know it, if you really have been in the committee deliberation room and seen recent transcripts in this age of inflation.

While it is true a 3.8 UDel is generally better than a 3.5 ivy that is only because 3.5 is so far below the median at ivy, and the MCAT could be 510 for both students which is borderline, making the higher GPA a tipper. However, if the 3.8 UDel did not challenge themselves and take the the difficult upper level bios and other "recommended" courses, and had a bcpm(stem) gpa of 3.6, while 3.5 ivy kid had a great upward trend GPA, Bcpm GPA also 3.5, but upper level stem 3.9, and they of course took many difficult upper level stem with that major, the ivy kid would get in! Every single time. Taking the easy way around premed courses is a big NO.

The more common comparison that happens regularly:
3.8 Ivy or similar "Tier 1" undergrad will do much better in T25 med school admissions than a 3.9 UDel. The fact of the matter is the MCATs will not be close between these students: the 3.8 ivy will likely be between 515 and 520 and the 3.9 UDel is rarely going to be over 512. Just a fact.

Anonymous wrote:WTH do you mean? How do you even know before they even arrive on campus????

My kid is a college sophomore at an Ivy and he blew me away. He won a departmental award freshmen year and has been selected for numerous opportunities, e.g., paid internships, etc. The profs love him.

He is very smart and always obtained As easily, high test scores etc. growing up —but not a standout in anyway before college. He wasn’t the kid getting accolades and attention prior.

I love this! It’s great to hear about kids who truly come into their own and bloom in college! (Not like your kid was a slacker in any way previously, of course. But there’s something awesome about seeing a kid truly thrive in the right environment. I love it!)

Anonymous wrote:Well, I was top of my class at a small no-name school, did great on the LSAT, went to a T14 and then to BigLaw. I have done very well. After this, nobody cared where I went to college. But many of my college friends are still living hand to mouth 30 years later. I am sure, on average, it's less true of top school grads from the same year. Is it possible to be a big fish in a small pond? Absolutely. But you better be sure you can do it and things don't go off track.

Well-said. This right here is the truth in a nutshell.

"Fit" trumps prestige iMO. But it's not either/or and sometimes the higher prestige can be a better fit too.

I would not suggest picking a school that is high prestige but not a good fit (due to culture, size, location, program or community). 4 years is too long and you need to be able to feel a sense of belonging and community from peers.

I’d describe ES’s career as cancerous overachievement. If she had been in the top quarter of her Harvard class (rather than the bottom), you probably wouldn’t know her name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m pretty sure I graduated in the bottom half of my T10 - no actual class rank, but I missed the cum laude cutoff.

I then crushed the LSAT, went to a T14 law school and then on to BigLaw in NYC.

No regrets. I may have graduated in the bottom half, but my college actually WAS the perfect fit for me. Yes, my GPA took a hit the first two years - mostly because I was having a ton of fun and came in without the necessary time management and study skills to truly balance work and play.

But I never once wished I had gone to a less rigorous or intense school. I knew I belonged where I ended up. I was every bit as bright as my classmates and just as curious and interested in the rigorous curriculum. I just didn’t go the extra mile the first two years like many of my classmates did automatically. (Didn’t go to office hours, barely revised my papers, and didn’t always study properly for tests.)

So I finished with a lower GPA, but I got an incredible education, including learning how to kick it into a higher gear when needed. It all served me very well in law school (high grades) and as a lawyer, too.

I feel like this wouldn't happen these days - T14 law schools have tons of 3.9+ GPA applicants to choose from.

Just from what I see when recruiting law students for jobs -- everyone has a summa cum laude from their undergraduate institution. The grade inflation is absolutely ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my 10 years on faculty at a pretty famous medical school in Maryland, I’ve found that colleagues never mention their UG. We don’t even bring up our medical school very often. We chatter about residency and fellowship affiliation all the time.

Echo this.

Fascinating that DCUM folks find it objectionable.

You gamed the system by doing well at whatever UG you attended, and now you think about what you learned in your fellowship training rather than worry what people think of your college sweatshirt

I’m genuinely not following this. Are you praising or objecting to the behavior you describe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At places like top 10, half the class is going to be below the median, 25% of the class will be below top 75 percentile. That’s just how it works.

I get it that you’re still surrounded by smart people, big-name professors, and strong recruiting pipelines. But does that actually translate into good outcomes for students in the bottom half or bottom quartiel? Are they still landing solid jobs and grad school placements?

On the flip side, what if you went to a slightly less selective school and ended up in the top 10–20%? You might get more leadership roles, closer relationships with professors, stronger recommendation letters, and maybe just more confidence overall. Does standing out more beat having a big brand name on your resume?

How people think about this tradeoff. Is prestige worth it even if you’re below average there? Or is it smarter to pick the place where you’re more likely to shine?

Would love to hear from people who’ve actually seen this play out.

In theory, most of the students in the bottom quarter at a place like Harvard are bright, hardworking people who aren’t academic superstars and are going to succeed, if they do, more because of their creativity, artistic talents, networking skills, raw physical charisma, or other aspects other than grades.

As long as they’re comfortable with the idea that their grades might be mediocre, they may benefit from the networking opportunities and extracurricular opportunities at a top school even more than a lot of the high-stats students. The super high-stats students might be lonelier at less selective schools but would earn high stats anywhere; the bottom-quarter students at Harvard can get opportunities at Harvard that simply aren’t available at America University or JMU.

Funny. Elise Stefanik was a friend of a friend at Harvard. She was bright and did extremely well in high school. Her Harvard grades weren’t good enough for a law school that she wouldn’t be embarrassed to attend. So she used her “charisma” to go into politics. Not sure if I’d call it a success story.

lol. She sucks. But given what she has to work with, I’d say she’s very much overachieved in life. No doubt in part because she’s leveraged the “went to Harvard” thing in every possible way to help herself, while on the other hand bashing the “elites”. Ugh.

I was about to say she’s “the worst,” but I think that honor goes to Stephen Miller (the shame of Duke University) with Ted Cruz (Princeton) likely coming in second. As awful as ES is, it’s hard to see her having as much of an impact as the other two - possibly/likely because she’s just not that bright (to return to the point of this thread.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my 10 years on faculty at a pretty famous medical school in Maryland, I’ve found that colleagues never mention their UG. We don’t even bring up our medical school very often. We chatter about residency and fellowship affiliation all the time.

Echo this.

Fascinating that DCUM folks find it objectionable.

You gamed the system by doing well at whatever UG you attended, and now you think about what you learned in your fellowship training rather than worry what people think of your college sweatshirt

First, if you are a normal applicant without hooks like FGLI, Athlete, Legacy and etc, you are not likely to be in the bottom even if your SAT and GPA is lower than their reported media stats.

Second, if you will go to medical school or law school go to where you can get high GPA.

Last, if you will go to work after bachelor, higher ranking school is better.