Question for the Ivy Leaguers
6 comments
I think there's more to it than social milieu as other commenters have suggested.
One way to look at it would be to think about a university as a series of (populations of students, professors, alumni networks, recruiters, athletes, extracurricular options, etc) that can be thought of in terms of their means not their maxima.
It is probably true that you can get as good (or nearly as good, or perhaps even better) an education from a good state school as from an ivy, but the "average" student, class, social outing, etc. is not going to be great. You will have to be in the top decile of students in terms of work and effort, identify and select the top decile of professors, etc. to get a top-notch education. From a social point of view, if you want to associate yourself with interesting, smart people and engage with interesting social activities, you will have to identify and seek those out from among everything else. (Whereas, the average social behavior might be frats and football culture.) These things are not always easy to do when there are sources of friction in the mix -- everything from popular classes that fill up to human nature are going to get in the way here.
At an ivy or comparable elite school, the average class you pick, the average dudes on the hall you clown around with, the average group of people in any given extracurricular population, these are all going to be strong, and i would assert as roughly equivalent to a top 5 or 10% orientation at more average schools.
And, of course, if you've got the brains/talent/work ethic to be top 5% at an elite university, you can have a world-class outcome.
I do think that non-ivy elites are absolutely equivalent to ivies though (e.g. Stanford), at least at a general level; it gets down to school-by-school comparisons on specific dimensions after that, e.g. if you want a world-class education in literature and the arts vs physics and math.
(edit: minor, for grammar)
One way to look at it would be to think about a university as a series of (populations of students, professors, alumni networks, recruiters, athletes, extracurricular options, etc) that can be thought of in terms of their means not their maxima.
It is probably true that you can get as good (or nearly as good, or perhaps even better) an education from a good state school as from an ivy, but the "average" student, class, social outing, etc. is not going to be great. You will have to be in the top decile of students in terms of work and effort, identify and select the top decile of professors, etc. to get a top-notch education. From a social point of view, if you want to associate yourself with interesting, smart people and engage with interesting social activities, you will have to identify and seek those out from among everything else. (Whereas, the average social behavior might be frats and football culture.) These things are not always easy to do when there are sources of friction in the mix -- everything from popular classes that fill up to human nature are going to get in the way here.
At an ivy or comparable elite school, the average class you pick, the average dudes on the hall you clown around with, the average group of people in any given extracurricular population, these are all going to be strong, and i would assert as roughly equivalent to a top 5 or 10% orientation at more average schools.
And, of course, if you've got the brains/talent/work ethic to be top 5% at an elite university, you can have a world-class outcome.
I do think that non-ivy elites are absolutely equivalent to ivies though (e.g. Stanford), at least at a general level; it gets down to school-by-school comparisons on specific dimensions after that, e.g. if you want a world-class education in literature and the arts vs physics and math.
(edit: minor, for grammar)
> From a social point of view, if you want to associate yourself with interesting, smart people and engage with interesting social activities, you will have to identify and seek those out from among everything else.
Other than less desirable job opportunities, this was the worst part about going to a school that isn't top ranked. Most of my classmates and people in my social circles were there to go through the motions and weren't interested in anything academic. Although I enjoyed college, the whole experience really made me regret not taking high school seriously.
Other than less desirable job opportunities, this was the worst part about going to a school that isn't top ranked. Most of my classmates and people in my social circles were there to go through the motions and weren't interested in anything academic. Although I enjoyed college, the whole experience really made me regret not taking high school seriously.
This is a very insightful comment.
It's hard to imagine most high-school seniors having the sophistication to make good choices here without the guidance of sophisticated parents or supporters, let alone imagine younger students making them early enough to have good options.
It's hard to imagine most high-school seniors having the sophistication to make good choices here without the guidance of sophisticated parents or supporters, let alone imagine younger students making them early enough to have good options.
I think your peers at an Ivy League school are much more likely to be wealthy, and slightly more likely to be interested in academics. Perhaps some of this disagreement comes from the other schools used for comparison. I figure the OP is looking at good schools either way.
You should also be careful about the top professors. The best professors are experts in their field, but you may be better off taking a class from someone who loves to teach, rather than someone who is an excellent scientist. Famous professors are much less valuable to an undergrad.
You should also be careful about the top professors. The best professors are experts in their field, but you may be better off taking a class from someone who loves to teach, rather than someone who is an excellent scientist. Famous professors are much less valuable to an undergrad.
I think it depends on the Ivy in question(re your first point). On your second, absolutely agree. But again, say you want to do research work, or take a graduate course. In a "best in the world" environment, the average of your opportunity set there is going to be higher than a non-best-in-class environment.
Its not just about the classes and education. Its about the resume.
The Ivy League doesn't teach you anything you can't get at another school, but it makes it easier to get your next job which is what college is all about.
Ivy League schools do tend to offer slightly better than average educations partially because of their funding. The alumni are successful, and tend to give a lot of money back to the schools which offsets some of the cost for the undergrads. When my wife was attending undergrad, for example, she filled out the FASA paperwork, and then they paired her up with an alumni who just wrote a check to cover the portion of the cost that would otherwise be a student loan. If you are interested in any kind of research science, the Ivy League schools do tend to have well funded research programs also.
I am married to a Princeton grad, but I went to USMA myself. My school was similar in some ways, but its in a different sports league, and offers less undergraduate research options.
The Ivy League doesn't teach you anything you can't get at another school, but it makes it easier to get your next job which is what college is all about.
Ivy League schools do tend to offer slightly better than average educations partially because of their funding. The alumni are successful, and tend to give a lot of money back to the schools which offsets some of the cost for the undergrads. When my wife was attending undergrad, for example, she filled out the FASA paperwork, and then they paired her up with an alumni who just wrote a check to cover the portion of the cost that would otherwise be a student loan. If you are interested in any kind of research science, the Ivy League schools do tend to have well funded research programs also.
I am married to a Princeton grad, but I went to USMA myself. My school was similar in some ways, but its in a different sports league, and offers less undergraduate research options.
Does having a piece of paper from stanford stand out more than a piece of paper from somewhere else?
I'm from australia, we don't really care where you got the piece of paper, just that you did your time and even then you could probably argue your way into an interview without it.
We value education sure but we don't really have the whole ivy league elitism thing going on. I don't think there is even much of a deal to do with alumni.
Economies of scale I guess.
I'm from australia, we don't really care where you got the piece of paper, just that you did your time and even then you could probably argue your way into an interview without it.
We value education sure but we don't really have the whole ivy league elitism thing going on. I don't think there is even much of a deal to do with alumni.
Economies of scale I guess.
Most of the extra signaling value comes from the competitive admissions.
(Which I think as much as anything means they have a great pool of applicants to choose from, meaning they would have to do something pretty radical to screw it up)
(Which I think as much as anything means they have a great pool of applicants to choose from, meaning they would have to do something pretty radical to screw it up)
I really enjoyed reading all of the replies! Thank you all for the input.
To be a little more specific, I want to know if the classes themselves were significantly more effective in transferring knowledge to students. Do the classes at Ivy Leagues have a measurable superiority to classes of other colleges (as in, do the students learn more because the classes are way better, or do the students learn more simply because they are smarter, more hard-working, more interested and engaged than the average student)? Why do the Ivy Leagues have classes if it does not seem to be the main value added? It looks to me that Ivy Leagues are great because they figured out a way to attract all the smartest people to a central place. Is it really the Ivy League that transforms people, or would highly motivated people turn out the way they are regardless of the formal classes that seem to go hand-in-hand with the concept of "education?"
To be a little more specific, I want to know if the classes themselves were significantly more effective in transferring knowledge to students. Do the classes at Ivy Leagues have a measurable superiority to classes of other colleges (as in, do the students learn more because the classes are way better, or do the students learn more simply because they are smarter, more hard-working, more interested and engaged than the average student)? Why do the Ivy Leagues have classes if it does not seem to be the main value added? It looks to me that Ivy Leagues are great because they figured out a way to attract all the smartest people to a central place. Is it really the Ivy League that transforms people, or would highly motivated people turn out the way they are regardless of the formal classes that seem to go hand-in-hand with the concept of "education?"
I went to a state school and Caltech, which is not an Ivy League school but it is well regarded. The math courses were definitely much more difficult at Caltech. The incoming student caliber is much higher than at the state school, so even the introductory courses are very challenging in comparison. This sets a high bar immediately, which allows every succeeding course to maintain that high bar.
College-aged students are highly motivated, but they are often highly motivated simply to do well at school. Only a minority know what they are passionate about otherwise, which is evidenced by students switching their majors all the time.
I strongly believe that who you surround yourself with determines what you strive to become. Ivy League schools constantly tell you that you can become a superstar, so students believe it and your friends all strive to become superstars.
If your friends are all starting tech startups and you know people who have sold companies, suddenly it becomes something you strive to do. If you hang out with drug dealers then you will strive to get respect in a different way. This social factor transforms people just as much as the classes.
College-aged students are highly motivated, but they are often highly motivated simply to do well at school. Only a minority know what they are passionate about otherwise, which is evidenced by students switching their majors all the time.
I strongly believe that who you surround yourself with determines what you strive to become. Ivy League schools constantly tell you that you can become a superstar, so students believe it and your friends all strive to become superstars.
If your friends are all starting tech startups and you know people who have sold companies, suddenly it becomes something you strive to do. If you hang out with drug dealers then you will strive to get respect in a different way. This social factor transforms people just as much as the classes.
I went to graduate school at a state school and at an Ivy League school, and my twin went to an Ivy League school for college while I went to a prestigious non-Ivy League school. So I will try to answer your questions based on my experience. YMMV.
No, I did not find that the classes were significantly more effective in transferring knowledge in either type of school. My impression was this: depending on the school, the class may be more "ambitious", i.e., may cover a little bit more material. However, many times the material is basically the same, especially in the introductory classes.
The main pedagogical effects of going to a prestigious school is: (1) Your classmates tend to be stronger students. They tend to be a little smarter, harder-working, more interested and engaged. Yet you can find the same type of people in less-prestigious schools, although there are fewer, percentage-wise. (2) Your professors tend to have accomplished more in their field of study. However, this often does not translate to having better classes than other schools. You could have lots of crappily-taught classes even if you're attending the most prestigious school in the world if that school (or a department within that school) does not care that much about educating its students. (3) You might have a little more variety in the interesting things you could learn in upper-level or graduate-level courses. (These things tend to be very department-specific, rather than school-specific.)
Off-topic observation: MOOCs are democratizing education nowadays. Ten years ago, say, if I wanted to take a thorough, competent class on database query languages, I would have to pray my institution, or another, sister institution, offered a class in that topic. Nowadays, I can go to Stanford's Class2Go website. I don't need to spend any time (a) applying to Stanford, (b) pray that I get admitted, (c) if admitted move to Palo Alto, (d) wait for that class to be taught, and (e) focus on that class while taking four other classes. Today I can stay where I am and take that class at any time.
No, I did not find that the classes were significantly more effective in transferring knowledge in either type of school. My impression was this: depending on the school, the class may be more "ambitious", i.e., may cover a little bit more material. However, many times the material is basically the same, especially in the introductory classes.
The main pedagogical effects of going to a prestigious school is: (1) Your classmates tend to be stronger students. They tend to be a little smarter, harder-working, more interested and engaged. Yet you can find the same type of people in less-prestigious schools, although there are fewer, percentage-wise. (2) Your professors tend to have accomplished more in their field of study. However, this often does not translate to having better classes than other schools. You could have lots of crappily-taught classes even if you're attending the most prestigious school in the world if that school (or a department within that school) does not care that much about educating its students. (3) You might have a little more variety in the interesting things you could learn in upper-level or graduate-level courses. (These things tend to be very department-specific, rather than school-specific.)
Off-topic observation: MOOCs are democratizing education nowadays. Ten years ago, say, if I wanted to take a thorough, competent class on database query languages, I would have to pray my institution, or another, sister institution, offered a class in that topic. Nowadays, I can go to Stanford's Class2Go website. I don't need to spend any time (a) applying to Stanford, (b) pray that I get admitted, (c) if admitted move to Palo Alto, (d) wait for that class to be taught, and (e) focus on that class while taking four other classes. Today I can stay where I am and take that class at any time.
Did you find yourself enjoying the Ivy League environment (being around other high achievers) more? Has being at an Ivy League changed your world view? Which one did you like more?
I don't know if MOOCs will take off (in terms of being reliable for hiring). Just an unjustified gut feeling. Maybe they already have. I know they offer "certificates" that you can pay for.
I don't know if MOOCs will take off (in terms of being reliable for hiring). Just an unjustified gut feeling. Maybe they already have. I know they offer "certificates" that you can pay for.
For small departments, your experience can vary strongly from the school in general.
I went to UC Irvine in physics, which both has an extremely high teacher:student ratio (42 teachers, graduating class of 18 students) and abundant funding. While the university is known for its research, having that kind of ratio can have a drastic effect on your education. My favorite class ever had only five students in it. It was an upper division math class.
Just my two cents - look at the departments you're interested in. It can make a much bigger difference than the schools, especially in terms of research.
I went to UC Irvine in physics, which both has an extremely high teacher:student ratio (42 teachers, graduating class of 18 students) and abundant funding. While the university is known for its research, having that kind of ratio can have a drastic effect on your education. My favorite class ever had only five students in it. It was an upper division math class.
Just my two cents - look at the departments you're interested in. It can make a much bigger difference than the schools, especially in terms of research.
Wow, that teacher to student ratio sounds seems like it would make for a great educational utopia! That's crazy and I have never heard of such a thing! :)
I asked this question more so for potential-start-up research purposes. I have already graduated from college, though I did think about getting a graduate degree, but I am not so sure I want to do that anymore. I concluded that it would be more effective for me personally to study on my own (if I were to pursue computer science). Classes sort of make me lose motivation. It feels so forced much of the time.
I asked this question more so for potential-start-up research purposes. I have already graduated from college, though I did think about getting a graduate degree, but I am not so sure I want to do that anymore. I concluded that it would be more effective for me personally to study on my own (if I were to pursue computer science). Classes sort of make me lose motivation. It feels so forced much of the time.
[deleted]
Quality of education varies with the professor, as always, and what you get depends on how hard you work.
The Ivy League - and other high-prestige schools like Stanford - are primarily useful for the connections you make and the status they convey to others. On many people, knowing that you went to [prestigious school here] has a "these are not the droids you're looking for" effect that comes in handy all over the place, even in areas totally unrelated to your education.
The Ivy League - and other high-prestige schools like Stanford - are primarily useful for the connections you make and the status they convey to others. On many people, knowing that you went to [prestigious school here] has a "these are not the droids you're looking for" effect that comes in handy all over the place, even in areas totally unrelated to your education.
While quality of education varies with the professor, I would argue that it also varies with the student...possibly even more so.
Let's assume Instructor A teaches Introduction to Nordic Studies at a non-selective university. Two of the factors that control the design of that course (there are many, I'm just isolating two) would be: -the instructor -the students
In ideal conditions, the course iteratively develops into some dynamic equilibrium where aggregate student learning is optimal (yes, I realize this is fantasy). Replace those non-selective students with students from a highly-selective university, while keeping the same instructor. Imagine how different the course might develop.
From a learning standpoint, if you are a student that is talented enough to be admitted to a highly-selective university, the latter course would likely result in you learning more. In reality, there are a lot of other factors that impact the growth and development of any individual student, but all things being equal, if you are a smarty, you will probably learn more in a class with other smarties.
Let's assume Instructor A teaches Introduction to Nordic Studies at a non-selective university. Two of the factors that control the design of that course (there are many, I'm just isolating two) would be: -the instructor -the students
In ideal conditions, the course iteratively develops into some dynamic equilibrium where aggregate student learning is optimal (yes, I realize this is fantasy). Replace those non-selective students with students from a highly-selective university, while keeping the same instructor. Imagine how different the course might develop.
From a learning standpoint, if you are a student that is talented enough to be admitted to a highly-selective university, the latter course would likely result in you learning more. In reality, there are a lot of other factors that impact the growth and development of any individual student, but all things being equal, if you are a smarty, you will probably learn more in a class with other smarties.
> The Ivy League - and other high-prestige schools like Stanford - are primarily useful for the connections you make and the status they convey to others.
I emphatically disagree.
I taught math at Stanford for three years as a postdoc, and got a permanent job at a second-tier state school. The Stanford students are getting a WAAAAY better education.
A lot of students here are weakly prepared, uninterested in academics, and/or have burdensome part time jobs. (I was amazed at how many full-time students here also work 30 hours a week.) This means the expectations are lower, the peer pressure to succeed is not there, and teachers can't get very far in their syllabi. We do okay, but we sure as heck don't compare to Stanford.
For me as an undergrad the choice of schools would have made a major difference. I always depended at least a little on being pushed by others -- those lucky few that do not can probably thrive anywhere.
I emphatically disagree.
I taught math at Stanford for three years as a postdoc, and got a permanent job at a second-tier state school. The Stanford students are getting a WAAAAY better education.
A lot of students here are weakly prepared, uninterested in academics, and/or have burdensome part time jobs. (I was amazed at how many full-time students here also work 30 hours a week.) This means the expectations are lower, the peer pressure to succeed is not there, and teachers can't get very far in their syllabi. We do okay, but we sure as heck don't compare to Stanford.
For me as an undergrad the choice of schools would have made a major difference. I always depended at least a little on being pushed by others -- those lucky few that do not can probably thrive anywhere.
I'm sure there are a lot of people here on HN who have graduated from or are attending an Ivy League school. I was curious about how the classes are different from other schools (or if you don't know, what is it that makes the schools so elite? How do you feel about the education that you received?) I am really curious. What sets the education apart?