What's In A (College) Name?

[Young Drachma]

Ivy League Crunch Brings New Cachet to Next Tier (NY Times) (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/education/16admissions.html)

The logjam is the result of supply and demand. The number of students graduating from high school has been increasing, and the preoccupation with the top universities, once primarily a Northeastern phenomenon, has become a more national obsession. High-achieving students are also applying to more colleges than they used to, primarily because of uncertainty over where they will be admitted.

Supply, however, has remained constant. Most of the sought-after universities have not expanded their freshman classes. The result, said Jonathan Miller, a senior at Mamaroneck High School in suburban Westchester County, N.Y., is that many classmates perceive institutions like Tufts University, Bowdoin, the University of Rochester and Lehigh in a new light. “I would say that high school students are looking more and more at these schools,” he said, “the way they used to look at the Ivies.”

I wasn't clear in my poll choices, so my apologies about that. Basically...there exist some people who tend to think that the "better" the school you go to, the "better" your life chances. And not in a "I went to xyz state and they're good at my particular field" as much as "if you don't go to a name school, your life will suck." I think this creature exists heavily in the northeast and not as much in other parts of the country, where flagship state schools tend to have more value.

So, I guess I was just seeing what the pulse was related to the article specifically, but if you don't read it..the question mostly comes down to, "how true is the statement that where you go to school really matters?" And the poll was simply intended to see what kind of school people went to, because obviously your own experiences would likely influence your choice.

For instance, some people at less than stellar state schools love to say things like "I'm getting the same education as someone at 'insert elite private school' for a lot less money."

[Young Drachma]

I screwed up the poll choices, I meant for it to be a bit more descriptive, but I just wanted to get it done. Oh well.

[Young Drachma]

You can choose more than one if you went to more than one kind of school as an undergraduate.

[Izulde]

Oops, I meant to check more than one.

Oh well.

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of the small to mid-sized public universities can actually have programs that are drastically better than names with bigger schools.

I know that's obvious, but until I went to UW-La Crosse, I didn't realize just how true that was. For example, the English department at UW-L, particularly in literature (my emphasis) is stronger than any other school I've been to, including U of MN.

[st.cronin]

The school does matter, but what matters is whether the school is going to bring out the best in a given student or not.

I'm attending college now. I don't think there's a better place for me to go to college than the school I'm attending (St. Johns College). But its not for everybody.

[NoMyths]

There are absolutely differences betweeen schools, and the biggest (aside from money) is the specific professors teaching at them. This is more pronounced in grad programs -- for example, the Creative Writing MFA program differs in terms of years required and the quality/networking abilities of the faculty. If you go on reputation alone, you may findyourself ata school that earned its reputation from departments and instructors you never encounter.

Schools tend to coast for years on their reputations, but smart students always investigate the faculty to help decide if a program will be a good fit. When I was looking at grad MFA programs, I wasn't interested in applying to Ivies, or even Iowa -- I chose Purdue over several other places because it offered three years paid, employment as adjunct faculty from day one, and my undergrad mentor had a great relationship with one of the faculty members there.

[wade moore]

I voted just elite public university, even though it was a small, elite public university...

Anyway.. to the bigger question...

I think the school certainly does matter in many ways. I did some coursework at a much less "prestigious" university and there was certainly a DRAMATIC difference. Those that make the claim that "college is college" have never seen what coursework is like at a truely elite school. And I don't mean to sound snotty when I say that, but it's true - all schools and coursework are not created equally.

That being said - I'm not claiming that everyone that comes out of an elite school is better off or more destined to do better than those from smaller schools. There are plenty instances on both sides to prove that that is not the case. However, I think on the whole that those at elite schools have several advantages - and I don't just mean "connections". In general that tougher course load has made them more prepared for challenging jobs, to immediately excel above their peers in their given field, etc.

There's a reason the schools are elite and it's not just a name.

[Young Drachma]

I was blogging about this, but my thoughts are sorta disconnected and so I think I'll try to work them out here, before I do anything else.


I started at Washington University in St. Louis. The experience was the best thing that ever happened to me during my time in the Air Force. I used to say that all I wanted to do was join the Air Force, do my time and then go to college. I never would've been in that part of the country, had I not been stationed at Scott AFB, a stone's throw away from St. Louis.

Wash U opened my eyes and really gave me the confidence that middle and mostly high school took from me. I mean, I had confidence in school, but I wasn't challenged nearly enough in high school to really warrant trying hard enough and as a result, I didn't end up going straight to college. And most of that deals with the sort of learning I am, not totally a flaw with the school, since I should've just applied myself more and surrounded myself with people who were interested in what I was, rather than not.

After a year of Wash U, I transferred to a small liberal arts college in Western Illinois called Monmouth College. It had its good points and its bad ones. All in all, it worked out okay. I'm not sure if I could do it again that I would've gone there, but I appreciated the small college experience a lot more when I came to a public university.

The University of Wyoming wasn't bad either. And it's a lot better if you can masters the politics of the place, but for the middling, middle of the road student...it doesn't really offer much and I think that contrasts the experience of a middle of the road student at other places.

And to me, that's the measure of what a place is like. Because anybody can be Joe or Jane overachiever. But it's the folks in the middle, who'll peak later in life maybe, that I worry about when it comes to colleges.

Mostly because I was that guy in high school and just a lack of information, perspective and the sorts of role models that an aspiring college graduate needs to get on a particular path (not that I had bad people in my life. I didn't..just none had gone to college, save for my best friend. But he was a peer..so he didn't count and he didn't 'go off' to college, so that made it less real, too.), can really lead to unproductive careers and lots of wasted dollars.

The answer is probably for less and less kids to go to college straight out of high school. The gap year is a good idea, but a more American way of doing it would be better. And I don't advocate volunteering as a way to spend one's time, because most folks can't afford to go a year without working and just giving up their time. But...I tend to think there have to be more programs -- perhaps through community colleges -- that offer some hybrid form of school/work/life experience, type of deal to give people the experience of being able to "live a bit" while still being able to stay connected to a school-type environment.

But that's probably too ambitious to conceptualize on paper, without something concrete behind it.

[Young Drachma]

Oh and I leveraged far more of my contacts during that one-year at Wash U, than I did over the three years of college after that at the other two schools. I think that's the biggest contrast between the places.

I learned how big a deal networking was, how relationships with people can give you access and that to me was probably a lesson I never would've learned so vividly otherwise.

[st.cronin]

The answer is probably for less and less kids to go to college straight out of high school. The gap year is a good idea, but a more American way of doing it would be better. And I don't advocate volunteering as a way to spend one's time, because most folks can't afford to go a year without working and just giving up their time. But...I tend to think there have to be more programs -- perhaps through community colleges -- that offer some hybrid form of school/work/life experience, type of deal to give people the experience of being able to "live a bit" while still being able to stay connected to a school-type environment.

But that's probably too ambitious to conceptualize on paper, without something concrete behind it.

I agree with this completely.

[wade moore]

The University of Wyoming wasn't bad either. And it's a lot better if you can masters the politics of the place, but for the middling, middle of the road student...it doesn't really offer much and I think that contrasts the experience of a middle of the road student at other places.

And to me, that's the measure of what a place is like. Because anybody can be Joe or Jane overachiever. But it's the folks in the middle, who'll peak later in life maybe, that I worry about when it comes to colleges.


I don't mean this as a personal afront to you at all DC...

My take - these people shouldn't be in college if they're middling and don't really want to be there. I don't think that we need to cater to these folks. The fact that there are so many schools out there that make it very easy to get a degree bothers me enough without catering to that concept even more than we already do.

College isn't for everyone. The more that we understand and accept that as a culture the better off we'll be.

[Young Drachma]

I don't mean this as a personal afront to you at all DC...

My take - these people shouldn't be in college if they're middling and don't really want to be there. I don't think that we need to cater to these folks. The fact that there are so many schools out there that make it very easy to get a degree bothers me enough without catering to that concept even more than we already do.

College isn't for everyone. The more that we understand and accept that as a culture the better off we'll be.

Oh, I agree TOTALLY with you. But they're going in droves and so, that's why I addressed them.

Because I was that guy in high school, but by the time I went to college (at 23 to start. Then I took a year off between my sophomore and junior year's), I wasn't that middling guy anymore. That one year at Wash U, helped me clarify stuff I'd always "talked" about, but hadn't really done much about before that.

So yeah, I'm with you 1000% and was even before I ended up working at a (community) college. That college isn't for everyone, that we should stop trying to sell it to our kids like Ritalin. It's not going to save their lives anymore than anything else, if they don't have their shit together or don't go there knowing what it's about.

And I think the problem with catering to them as colleges continue to do is the fact that it screws over the kids who are there to get an education and could benefit from those resources.

So...we're on the same page I think.

[wade moore]

Oh, I agree TOTALLY with you. But they're going in droves and so, that's why I addressed them.

Because I was that guy in high school, but by the time I went to college (at 23 to start. Then I took a year off between my sophomore and junior year's), I wasn't that middling guy anymore. That one year at Wash U, helped me clarify stuff I'd always "talked" about, but hadn't really done much about before that.

So yeah, I'm with you 1000% and was even before I ended up working at a (community) college. That college isn't for everyone, that we should stop trying to sell it to our kids like Ritalin. It's not going to save their lives anymore than anything else, if they don't have their shit together or don't go there knowing what it's about.

And I think the problem with catering to them as colleges continue to do is the fact that it screws over the kids who are there to get an education and could benefit from those resources.

So...we're on the same page I think.

Yeah, I must have totally mis-read that statement because we're on the same page for sure.

I do think that it should be easier for certain people to go to school after several years in the "real world" than it is now. Some people are ready right after high school (i think generally those who excelled in high school). Others (like yourself) didn't necessarily excel in High School, but after being in the real world they get their stuff together and apply their smarts. However, at say 25, unless you were in the military and have a GI Bill, it's basically impossible to go to school full time - which I think is the right way to do it.

So, I think now that that is sort of what you are saying, and I agree. But that didn't seem to be the question you were asking in your initial post. I think that issue/sugggestion is something I'd be all behind, but I think has very little (if anything) to do with the "what's in a name?" discussion... Your follow-up post just didn't seem to jive with the question and threw me off.

[Young Drachma]

My initial post was just me brainstorming largely so I could blog about this. So it was probably confusing because I wrote it that way. My bad. lol

Plus, it was just a smidge of my thoughts. Before the whole company side project got going and I took the job I have now, the plan was to get a PhD in Education Policy. So...I could go on about this crap for ages. I was just scratching the surface here really and wanted to get other people's take...because like I said initially, it's something that I hear come up from time to time and it tends to be touchy for some people.

[Swaggs]

I'm not sure I understand the poll question exactly.

I went to West Virginia University, which is, in no way, an elite academic school, but the best choice appears to be "Elite Public University," as the other choices seem clearly off to me.

Maybe if you clarify a bit in the first post, the poll will have a bit more value.

[Young Drachma]

Edited the first post for clarity. Watch it be less clear now. lol

[Mustang]

Went to Christopher Newport. For my goals in life, a degree is a degree is a degree. Wasn't worried about being L33T....

[Grammaticus]

My idea of Elite Public Schools are:

Univ. of Virginia
Univ. of Michigan
Univ. of North Carolina
UCLA
William and Mary

Most of the other large public state schools would probably be considered top tier in the above poll.

[MalcPow]

I actually lean a little more toward the "college is college" camp, but with a slightly different conclusion than most. I think your education is what you make of it, and that less prestigious or reknowned faculty members are often more interested and interesting teachers, but the bottom line with regard to 'education' in the vast majority of situations is the amount of effort and time that a student is willing to invest in themselves. Most teachers at the university level have the competence to craft an interesting syllabus and engage an enthusiastic student, so from a pure learning perspective many colleges offer a similar classroom experience.

Having said that, my life experience and current opportunities have been shaped in an incredibly positive way by the fact that I attended a 'name' university. It's less a question of knowledge or ability, and more a shared communal sense of ambitions or metrics for success. For every total blowhard I went to school with, there are two or three completely fascinating and amazing people that are founding charter schools or publishing articles or generally serving as a living challenge to be the better version of myself that's lurking down there somewhere. The top schools foster that kind of culture, often in an unhealthy way, but still, it's difficult for me to place a real value on how much my life has been enriched by the sense of obligation or challenge that I've gotten simply from being exposed to a different peer group.

Admittedly, this might not hold true for everybody, but for a silly kid from a mediocre public high school in Oklahoma, going to a prestigious university has made all the difference. There's no question that the top schools have an inflated sense of themselves or take everything too seriously, but doesn't every eighteen year old kid already have that? They might as well go some place that's going to put some pressure on them to back it up. *Shurg*

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Grammaticus you forgot The Ohio State University as well, dodo head.

[Young Drachma]

Grammaticus you forgot The Ohio State University as well, dodo head.

No he didn't. :):D

[Young Drachma]

Having said that, my life experience and current opportunities have been shaped in an incredibly positive way by the fact that I attended a 'name' university. It's less a question of knowledge or ability, and more a shared communal sense of ambitions or metrics for success. For every total blowhard I went to school with, there are two or three completely fascinating and amazing people that are founding charter schools or publishing articles or generally serving as a living challenge to be the better version of myself that's lurking down there somewhere. The top schools foster that kind of culture, often in an unhealthy way, but still, it's difficult for me to place a real value on how much my life has been enriched by the sense of obligation or challenge that I've gotten simply from being exposed to a different peer group.

Admittedly, this might not hold true for everybody, but for a silly kid from a mediocre public high school in Oklahoma, going to a prestigious university has made all the difference. There's no question that the top schools have an inflated sense of themselves or take everything too seriously, but doesn't every eighteen year old kid already have that? They might as well go some place that's going to put some pressure on them to back it up. *Shurg*

I liked this, a lot. Mostly because it summarized my experience pretty well and prepared me for other situations where I encountered those types of folks.

[wade moore]

My idea of Elite Public Schools are:

Univ. of Virginia
Univ. of Michigan
Univ. of North Carolina
UCLA
William and Mary

Most of the other large public state schools would probably be considered top tier in the above poll.

Shew, I made the cut ;)...

Admittedly, this might not hold true for everybody, but for a silly kid from a mediocre public high school in Oklahoma, going to a prestigious university has made all the difference. There's no question that the top schools have an inflated sense of themselves or take everything too seriously, but doesn't every eighteen year old kid already have that? They might as well go some place that's going to put some pressure on them to back it up. *Shurg*

This is a great way to put what I was trying to say - very well put.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"how true is the statement that where you go to school really matters?"

If that's the question you're really looking for answers to, I'd say that it's somewhat important to very important, depending upon the roads you travel after college.

I believe the difference in the quality of education varies widely from one school to the next and that the elite schools are, as has been mentioned, considered elite generally for good reason.

Regardless of the name on the diploma, there are no guarantees about the quality of the education (nor how beneficial that education will be over the course of the rest of the person's life) but on the whole, I'd say the difference tends to be significant.

[BishopMVP]

The answer is probably for less and less kids to go to college straight out of high school. The gap year is a good idea, but a more American way of doing it would be better. And I don't advocate volunteering as a way to spend one's time, because most folks can't afford to go a year without working and just giving up their time. But...I tend to think there have to be more programs -- perhaps through community colleges -- that offer some hybrid form of school/work/life experience, type of deal to give people the experience of being able to "live a bit" while still being able to stay connected to a school-type environment.My take - these people shouldn't be in college if they're middling and don't really want to be there. I don't think that we need to cater to these folks. The fact that there are so many schools out there that make it very easy to get a degree bothers me enough without catering to that concept even more than we already do.

College isn't for everyone. The more that we understand and accept that as a culture the better off we'll be.I agree with this and wish it could be the case, but the way society is trending it's not going to happen. I know I live in one of the more "educated areas" of the country, but it's basically impossible to get any office job without a college degree. At the same time, there aren't enough white-collar jobs around and many people with college degrees (particularly in fields like English or Communication rather than Engineering or Nursing) can't find work commensurate with their perceived worth.

I think the right answer would be to have fewer people go to college, especially the ones that are just there for a liberal arts degree as opposed to someone in the hard sciences, but you're gonna need to make bigger changes outside of the schools. I know people making close to 100k a year painting or doing other blue-collar jobs (particularly if you can get union jobs for the state) but they're still looked down upon as future professions.

No one wants to accept it, but a society can only support so many college graduates at the top at once, and without increasing immigration we've probably already passed that point.

[BishopMVP]

Dola. In terms of actual value the name schools don't seem to be much better in terms of educating (if you want to learn, you'll get a good education anywhere) but are much better in terms of networking. Myself and most of my friends are graduating this year, and my friends at Notre Dame, Dartmouth, Harvard etc. all had multiple offers to help, internships and interviews provided through the school/their major/alumni networks, while myself, other kids at UMass and friends at other state schools are more or less on our own; using contacts from back home and searching for opportunities.

[wade moore]

Dola. In terms of actual value the name schools don't seem to be much better in terms of educating (if you want to learn, you'll get a good education anywhere) Disagreeing with this statement was the crux of my argument. I don't think this is entirely true - and again, I think people that haven't taken courses at elite instituations don't understand that...

That being said, I consider UMass to be a pretty quality school, so that plays in as well. But I would almost guarantee that your friend has better professors and is challenged more on a daily basis than most kids at UMass.

[BishopMVP]

Disagreeing with this statement was the crux of my argument. I don't think this is entirely true - and again, I think people that haven't taken courses at elite instituations don't understand that...

That being said, I consider UMass to be a pretty quality school, so that plays in as well. But I would almost guarantee that your friend has better professors and is challenged more on a daily basis than most kids at UMass.Overall yes, UMass allows much more room for gut gen-eds and slacking to get a B if that's what the student wants to do (and I have certainly chosen that route occasionally myself.) But if someone here is in the Commonwealth (Honors) College - which is the only way to graduate Summa or Magna Cum Laude - or in one of the highly ranked programs like the Isenberg School of Management (ranked 2nd overall by Princeton Review for Business Schools behind only UPenn's Wharton School) the coursework is just as intensive as any of the "elite" institutions. Back when I was a freshman/sophomore I was taking the same intro to accounting/management/finance classes my friends were at those schools and they were the same classes. I've also taken classes at Tufts, Amherst and Harvard that weren't any more challenging than ones I could find on this campus (actually the Harvard one was, but that was an intensive Arabic language course.)

Maybe the answer is that UMass really should be considered an elite institution (which I could live with) but I know that's not true. While there are just as many challenging courses and great students here, there are many more easy classes and complete idiots here than at any of the prestigious private schools. Coming here, you could be one of the 3000 great students I'd put up against any of the Ivies, one of the 3000 that make UMass Top 5 in Party Schools and Most Violent Schools, or one of the 15000 in the middle.

[st.cronin]

One of the assumptions I see beneath a few various assertions is that college has a specific purpose, and its purpose is X. It seems to me that college serves different purposes for different students, and thats why we have a variety of "types." For some students, Harvard/Dartmouth/Oberlin meets their needs. For other students, UMass/Florida/Oklahoma meets their needs. The "advantages" that Harvard offers are real, but they are also not equally accessible to everybody that attends. There are people that flunk out of Harvard every year, right? Those people made a bad decision about college - maybe they would have been better off at UMass.

[wade moore]

Maybe the answer is that UMass really should be considered an elite institution (which I could live with) but I know that's not true. While there are just as many challenging courses and great students here, there are many more easy classes and complete idiots here than at any of the prestigious private schools. Coming here, you could be one of the 3000 great students I'd put up against any of the Ivies, one of the 3000 that make UMass Top 5 in Party Schools and Most Violent Schools, or one of the 15000 in the middle.

But see, what you're saying is that there are elite programs at UMass. The Gen-Ed courses are not so challenging. GenEd classes at "elite" schools are - that's the thing. You're saying people can be challenged at non-elite schools, but it is much because you can be challenged in a specific program.

[Young Drachma]

One of the assumptions I see beneath a few various assertions is that college has a specific purpose, and its purpose is X. It seems to me that college serves different purposes for different students, and thats why we have a variety of "types." For some students, Harvard/Dartmouth/Oberlin meets their needs. For other students, UMass/Florida/Oklahoma meets their needs. The "advantages" that Harvard offers are real, but they are also not equally accessible to everybody that attends. There are people that flunk out of Harvard every year, right? Those people made a bad decision about college - maybe they would have been better off at UMass.

QFT.

[Synovia]

The school does matter, but what matters is whether the school is going to bring out the best in a given student or not.

I'm attending college now. I don't think there's a better place for me to go to college than the school I'm attending (St. Johns College). But its not for everybody.

Thats the most important point. You'll do better in life coming out of a 2nd tier school with a 3.9 than coming out of a top tier with a 3.0


A lot of businesses aren't too fond of the Ivys right now. Theyre programs havent really gotten any better in the last couple of years, and a lot of the previously second tier schools have caught them.

[Synovia]

I believe the difference in the quality of education varies widely from one school to the next and that the elite schools are, as has been mentioned, considered elite generally for good reason


I completely disagree. I had friends who went to Harvard, and MIT, and they fully admit that my classes were a whole lot tougher than theirs (BU)



A lot of the ivys, the toughest part is getting in.

[wade moore]

Thats the most important point. You'll do better in life coming out of a 2nd tier school with a 3.9 than coming out of a top tier with a 3.0

I completely disagree. I had friends who went to Harvard, and MIT, and they fully admit that my classes were a whole lot tougher than theirs (BU)



A lot of the ivys, the toughest part is getting in.

I have to pretty strongly disagree with both of these statements. Sorry, courses at elite schools (i can't speak to Ivy's specifically) are on the whole more challenging than courses at the other schools. Period.

[Logan]

A lot of the ivys, the toughest part is getting in.

So much of the Ivies is based on reputation...so it's conceivable that professors and deans see to it that students do well enough in the courses so that the school's reputation doesn't get impacted by a bunch of students performing even mediocre.

[Crapshoot]

I don't know - there are clearly differences between an elite college and a mediocre college, especially in the intelligence of the people you find yourself surrounded with (and the depth - ie, everyone there is pretty smart, as opposed to just the top 5-10%) - I think that may be the biggest difference. I went to a school that's pretty elite in a few fields (Carnegie Mellon), but not quite Harvard.

[Young Drachma]

I have to pretty strongly disagree with both of these statements. Sorry, courses at elite schools (i can't speak to Ivy's specifically) are on the whole more challenging than courses at the other schools. Period.

I agree. Upper level classes I told at the elite school I went to were bar none better than where I ended up graduating from and where I went after that, hands down. It was almost as if, you needed to bring your A game to each class or else, there wasn't a point to showing up. Or mostly, you'd just be embarassed not to.

I do think there is a distinct difference between the Ivies where name truly about 'the name' and other elite, name schools that aren't Ivies just demand excellence and it's not really a second thought. So in some ways, comparing the Ivies to non-Ivies that are elite is still different. People have heard of Harvard, Yale, etc. Fewer have heard of Grinnell, Oberlin, Wash U or assume U Chicago is some sort of state university. And I mean this is folks who don't have access or everyday interaction with the "relative" level of what an elite school is versus which ones aren't. The average person doesn't give a damn.

But I think how those 'elite' schools get their rep is really about what the school churns out and what those grads end up doing day in and day out AFTER they leave. Whereas, the Ivies don't have to work that hard at it, because well...everyone knows them already.

I think it comes down to the quality of the students. At a school where the majority are the overachievers, there is less grandstanding from students because everyone knows that they're dealing with people who are just as kick ass as they are. You still get assholes, to be sure.

But at both the middle of the road private school I went to and the public university I finally finished up at, the so-called 'elite' were treated differently than everyone else and were almost coddled. They're the ones who would usually get mad when these sorts of conversations would come up, because they felt the need to 'prove' that they measured up.

I think those kids would do just fine at elite schools if they got in, I think the difference is, the ego stroking that they're accustomed to, just isn't going to happen. And for some kids, that's really a big part of what makes them motivated.

They're good at going to school and taking classes and not as sound at critical thinking and knowing stuff for the sake of knowing it.

Generalizations to be sure, but that's just my experience.

[Crapshoot]

I have to pretty strongly disagree with both of these statements. Sorry, courses at elite schools (i can't speak to Ivy's specifically) are on the whole more challenging than courses at the other schools. Period.

Yeah, without a doubt. I gotta say (without hating on St. Cronin), that 1 year living next to BU and interacting with BU students - well, I'm hard pressed to find that to be toughest school around. From a recruiting perspective at my last job,the only Boston schools we cared about where MIT, Harvard, and BC - BU was below a bunch of the small liberal arts schools (Colby, Bates, etc) on the list.

[Klinglerware]

Thats the most important point. You'll do better in life coming out of a 2nd tier school with a 3.9 than coming out of a top tier with a 3.0


A lot of businesses aren't too fond of the Ivys right now. Theyre programs havent really gotten any better in the last couple of years, and a lot of the previously second tier schools have caught them.

The GPA argument presumes that raw academic performance as an undergraduate equates with life success (however you chose to define it). Maybe, but maybe not.

As far as the statement about the Ivy league is concerned--again this goes to the debate about what college is about, is it vocational training or something else? It's okay for multiple answers on this: as some other posters here have mentioned, different colleges have different missions. At its fundamental core (obviously leaving out the engineering programs, and Cornell & Penn's undergrad professional schools), though, the undergraduate colleges of the Ivy League aim to provide a traditional liberal arts education.

[st.cronin]

I have to pretty strongly disagree with both of these statements. Sorry, courses at elite schools (i can't speak to Ivy's specifically) are on the whole more challenging than courses at the other schools. Period.

I don't think its as direct a correlation as you suggest. I have attended several colleges: Trinity, Maryland, CCNY, New School, Wisconsin, and St. Johns College. I would rate them in terms of eliteness like this:

Wisconsin
New School
Maryland
St. Johns
CCNY
Trinity

I would rate them in terms of how challenging the courses were like this:

St. Johns
New School
Wisconsin
CCNY
Maryland
Trinity

Granted that's just my own personal experience, and some of those schools I only took 1 or 2 classes.

[st.cronin]

Also I'm not sure that "how challenging the coursework is" is really meaningful.

[billethius]

Also I'm not sure that "how challenging the coursework is" is really meaningful.

"

Plenty of people still skate by when there's challenging coursework. Whoever said up above that college is what the student puts into it was exactly correct.

I went to a small private college with a pretty good academic reputation - especially in a few select fields. That said, the tech lead for my current job had a terrible experience with someone from the same graduating class as me. He was unable to do any of the technical work that the job required. And yet I'm not having any problem despite taking most of the same classes.