Do you non-Ivy Leaguers feel inadequate?

I don't know if Deep Springs is that much harder to get into, besides the application process being more taxing. A friend of mine went there; it seems like an amazing experience for those who are cut out for it.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Nobody gets a 2.0 at Harvard. I doubt many people even leave with a 3.0. The only places that grade hard any more are Berkeley, MIT, and Cal Tech (hardest of all, legendary). I may have left out one or two.
Not to toot the Hopkins horn too much, but it's my understanding that our average GPA is somewhere in the midst of those schools you mentioned.

Originally Posted by Connemara

Click to expand...

I was talking with a distant cousin of mine last night. He is a recent graduate of the University of Virginia, a school far from mediocre (to say the least). We got to talking about college and he mentioned that a fair number of his classmates were rejected from Yale, Princeton, Harvard, etc. and that they've developed a pretty serious inferiority complex. He claims that one of them said he will not be able to get a job without an Ivy League graduate degree.

I think the whole "Does the Ivy League really matter?" question is settled (it doesn't) but how do you feel about it?

A lot of students at MIT (both grad and undergrad) feel inadequate, but not when they compare themselves with students from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. Their source of insecurity comes from comparing themselves with the rest of MIT students. Simply put, the coursework is too much for some of the undergrads, and that hugely magnifies the difference between them and other students. For grads, there are many superstar students, which triggers feelings of insecurity as well. Note, that the undergrads probably finished top of their high school, and the grads top of their undergrad, and many never had serious competition. They also get to meet professors which simply put, are way smarter than them. Every year, there are 1-2 students who commit suicide at MIT. For a school with less than 10k students overall (1.2k per year in undergrad), this is a lot. When I was in my freshman year, I saw a guy jumping from a tall building right in from of my window -- splash. I also know too many people who were depressed and dropped out. (mostly grads, but also a couple of undergrads)

This phenomenon is less true for Harvard, Princeton or Yale. The difference is that MIT students usually concentrate on academics while H, P and Y undergrads concentrate on softer skills, business degrees, etc. They care more about extracurriculars than being in the latest research seminar.

--trajan

Neither Harvard nor Yale nor Princeton offer business at the undergrad level (though Princeton has a Certificate in Finance). Only Penn and Cornell do.

Originally Posted by zbromer

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. You forget many great small schools:

The Los Angeles Times ran an article in July 1997 "Grading the Grades: All A's Are Not Created Equal "

This article discussed how the admissions department from UC Berkeley's School of Law - Boalt Hall re-formulated the law school's applicant's G.P.A. The formula ranked each college according to how its students perform on the standardized law board exam, the LSAT, and how common a certain G.P.A. is at that school.
The following is UC Berkeley's rankings of the toughest schools to get an "A"

Conclusion: Some schools grade easier. In other words, an A doesn't always equal an A.

Rank according to UC Berkeley \tCollege \t
1 \tSwarthmore College \t89.5
2 \tWilliams \t89.0
3 \tDuke \t88.5
4 \tCarleton \t88.0
4 \tColgate \t88.0
6 \tJohns Hopkins \t87.5
7 \tChicago \t87.0
7 \tDartmouth \t87.0
7 \tWesleyan \t87.0
10 \tCornell \t86.5
10 \tHarvard \t86.5
12 \tMiddlebury \t86.0
12 \tPrinceton \t86.0
14 \tBates \t85.5
14 \tMIT \t85.5
16 \tHaverford \t85.0
16 \tPomona \t85.0
16 \tVirginia \t85.0
19 \tAmherst \t84.5
19 \tReed \t84.5
19 \tVanderbilt \t84.5
19 \tWilliam & Mary \t84.5
23 \tBowdoin \t83.5
23 \tTufts \t83.5
23 \tVassar \t83.5

This is not relevant because it's law school specific. The law bar exam doesn't measure the quantitative quality of the undergrad, but rather softer skills, memorization and debate skills. Also the sample of people is skewed as it has only students who go into law. For Harvard that's their best students. (the worst do economics or political science -- the easiest concentrations) For MIT, that's a lot of failed scientists, who couldn't keep up with the math. (although the worst go into "business management", who btw academically speaking beat the crap out of Sloan School MBAs, one of the best MBA programs in the country. That's why they have different grade curves for MBA and non-MBA)

--trajan

Originally Posted by leftover_salmon

Click to expand...

Neither Harvard nor Yale nor Princeton offer business at the undergrad level (though Princeton has a Certificate in Finance). Only Penn and Cornell do.

Yes, you're right. I meant economics.
--trajan

I think it all depends on Person + Program + School, school alone is simply not enough to justify anything.

Originally Posted by trajan

Click to expand...

The difference is that MIT students usually concentrate on academics while H, P and Y undergrads concentrate on softer skills, business degrees, etc. They care more about extracurriculars than being in the latest research seminar.

--trajan

Originally Posted by trajan

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. I meant economics.
--trajan


Not to completely derail this thread (is that even possible anymore) but how is economics (or any other discipline) not "academic"?

And while we're on it, since you're talking about MIT which is known for its engineering and math whizzes, I'll tell you that I've seen more math genuises perform very poorly in economics classes than I can count. As good as they are at the math, they could not grasp the intuition or put the mathematics into words. It was all equations and numbers with no meaning.

b (an economist, obviously)

Originally Posted by trajan

Click to expand...

This is not relevant because it's law school specific. The law bar exam doesn't measure the quantitative quality of the undergrad, but rather softer skills, memorization and debate skills. Also the sample of people is skewed as it has only students who go into law. For Harvard that's their best students. (the worst do economics or political science -- the easiest concentrations) For MIT, that's a lot of failed scientists, who couldn't keep up with the math. (although the worst go into "business management", who btw academically speaking beat the crap out of Sloan School MBAs, one of the best MBA programs in the country. That's why they have different grade curves for MBA and non-MBA)

--trajan

It was relevant merely to my point: that there are schools other than Cal Tech, MIT, and Berkeley that grade hard. It's not some great evidence, just a sampling of other academically strong schools that challenge their students.

The LSAT does not measure memorization and debate skills. That's simply wrong. It tests analytical and logical reasoning, as well as reading comprehension. In fact, I know many engineers and technically-skilled people who did quite well on it because of the analytical and logical skills portion.

Originally Posted by blackplatano

Click to expand...

Gordon Gekko went to City College.

+1...and he got Harvard MBAs sucking on his kneecap.

I went to Michigan, just graduated in 2007 and iammatt is right, it's barely been a year since I got out and I don't really give a **** no more...i am sure i am worldlier and have been through more interesting life experiences than many who have attended ivy league schools.

Originally Posted by Fade to Black

Click to expand...

...I went to Michigan....

Another very, very good school.

Originally Posted by whoopee

Click to expand...

I don't know if Deep Springs is that much harder to get into, besides the application process being more taxing. A friend of mine went there; it seems like an amazing experience for those who are cut out for it.
By cut out for it, do you mean gay?

Originally Posted by zbromer

Click to expand...

It was relevant merely to my point: that there are schools other than Cal Tech, MIT, and Berkeley that grade hard. It's not some great evidence, just a sampling of other academically strong schools that challenge their students.

The LSAT does not measure memorization and debate skills. That's simply wrong. It tests analytical and logical reasoning, as well as reading comprehension. In fact, I know many engineers and technically-skilled people who did quite well on it because of the analytical and logical skills portion.

+1.

Math and physics majors actually score the highest of anybody on the LSAT.

http://www.uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/eco...grad/table.htm (it's old, but I don't see how these could have shifted much).

Originally Posted by leftover_salmon

Click to expand...

+1.

Math and physics majors actually score the highest of anybody on the LSAT.

http://www.uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/eco...grad/table.htm (it's old, but I don't see how these could have shifted much).

And look which two majors did the worst on that list: pre-law and criminology.

My brother graduated U Penn, pre-med, with honors. He's working at a scrap yard.