4 ms·

The fact that this looks at grad schools rather than undergraduate schools weakens its argument substantially. Students of all capability levels end up in all s

by qq66 12y ago

The fact that this looks at grad schools rather than undergraduate schools weakens its argument substantially. Students of all capability levels end up in all sorts of undergraduate institutions -- some community college students are brilliant, but didn't have the resources to go to fancy private colleges, while some students at Ivy League colleges struggle to keep up. The PhD programs, however, eliminate quite a bit of this variation in their own admissions. The student I know who got into Harvard but took the full ride to UCLA excelled at UCLA and had PhD programs actively recruiting her -- she had her pick of the "tiny minority" listed in this article. City College of New York has more undergraduate alumni who have won Nobel Prizes than almost any other university in the world. And since PhD programs are generally funded through fellowships, students don't have to come from wealthy families or take on large loans to attend. My pet theory is that the top PhD programs basically execute the main selection force -- identifying the students most likely to be tenured academics from hundreds of public and private colleges nationwide -- and thus it's no surprise that there appears to be a direct pipeline between them and university faculties.

qiqing 12y ago
I wrote this elsewhere, but there's actually a lot else at play. And if you're female, you'll get extra pressure from family, friends, significant other, etc., to choose the school that is close to them. Essentially, if you opted for a school in the 10-20 range for personal reasons (e.g., family, proximity to significant other, other obligations), you've opted into playing on super-hard mode, where you have to work twice as hard and be twice as good to get as far as someone who opted for the best school to which they were accepted. I definitely don't think I would have appreciated the difference if I hadn't experienced both in such a short time frame. The top universities often: 1. Send grad students to conferences (including travel costs) whether or not they have results to present that year. (If you're at a slightly suboptimal school, you might only get to go if you have results to present, which you probably don't your first year. My labmates and I would volunteer and spent a day and a half stuffing swag bags and registering attendees/handing out badges for a conference so that we could get access. Students from better schools just had their tickets covered by their schools.) 2. Hire lab techs and admins, giving grad students more time to do actual research or write papers. (Otherwise, you might spend more than 40% of your time doing work that doesn't move the needle for you, professionally. You may be picking up your professor's dry cleaning, or taking care of administrivia around getting them a visa for their next talk in another country, or booking them plane tickets.) 3. The name of the school makes it more likely that the student gets a grant proposal accepted by the NIH/NSF/other agency, even if the quality of the grant proposal itself is the same. Getting a grant/fellowship/award on your CV makes a HUGE difference when applying to post-docs or faculty positions. (You'll also have access to more people who will give you more valuable feedback for how to write a better grant proposal.) 4. Top schools often protect students from bureaucracy and streamline the procedures in place for everything from getting access to a new facility, to what happens when you need to replace your student ID. (See (2) above.) 5. You're more likely to get a smarter or harder working undergraduate student to mentor and help out with your research. This matters more in the life sciences and fields with "benchwork," (e.g., wielding pipettes) but it applies to tasks that involve coding as well. In better schools, a larger percentage of undergraduates opt to get some experience in a research group, and you get both someone to delegate actual research tasks to, and you get to level-up in people-management. There's a lot more, but you get the idea, I think.
- cli 12y ago
  > you've opted into playing on super-hard mode, where you have to work twice as hard and be twice as good to get as far as someone who opted for the best school to which they were accepted. Does this matter very much if the PhD student is not looking for a job in academia?
  - qiqing 12y ago
    Most of my classmates were, in fact, looking for jobs in academia. And there is the commonly held fear (due to lack of role models) that if you leave academia, you may as well be eaten by wolves. FWIW, I'm glad I left academia.
- qq66 12y ago
  Hm? You seem to be saying "If you go to a top PhD school, you'll have the best faculty opportunities." I agree with you there. What I'm saying is that "If you perform extremely well in your undergraduate degree, you have a high probability of being accepted to a top PhD program." If you get into a top PhD program and choose to attend a non-top PhD program, for whatever reason, I agree with you, you're electing to play on super-hard mode compared to someone who opted for the best school to which they were accepted. However, just like the arcade games, you shouldn't be surprised to win more often on easy mode than on hard mode.
JDiculous 12y ago
Let's not exaggerate the meritocratic nature of PhD programs. Brand names definitely still matter. I did my undergrad at a state school and my masters at an Ivy League school. During grad school, I recall speaking to my advisor (a professor who had only went to Ivy League schools) about my chances at getting into a PhD program at the university. He said my chances were very slim because I didn't graduate from a brand-name school. A couple other friends were told the same thing by their advisors. Maybe he's not a representative sample of Ivy League professors, but he was very much a prestige whore. I was in the meeting with another fellow student with a physics degree from a decent state school, and the professor basically just shat on our schools. Told us we might be able to get into PhD programs at inferior universities like our alma maters, where afterwards we might be able to get professorships at even more inferior schools or community colleges. Maybe that's the reality of it, but it was clear this guy was the type who placed a huge amount of value on brand names. Like the stereotypical Harvard grad who thinks everyone else is inferior.

by qq66 12y ago

qiqing 12y ago

I wrote this elsewhere, but there's actually a lot else at play. And if you're female, you'll get extra pressure from family, friends, significant other, etc., to choose the school that is close to them. Essentially, if you opted for a school in the 10-20 range for personal reasons (e.g., family, proximity to significant other, other obligations), you've opted into playing on super-hard mode, where you have to work twice as hard and be twice as good to get as far as someone who opted for the best school to which they were accepted. I definitely don't think I would have appreciated the difference if I hadn't experienced both in such a short time frame. The top universities often: 1. Send grad students to conferences (including travel costs) whether or not they have results to present that year. (If you're at a slightly suboptimal school, you might only get to go if you have results to present, which you probably don't your first year. My labmates and I would volunteer and spent a day and a half stuffing swag bags and registering attendees/handing out badges for a conference so that we could get access. Students from better schools just had their tickets covered by their schools.) 2. Hire lab techs and admins, giving grad students more time to do actual research or write papers. (Otherwise, you might spend more than 40% of your time doing work that doesn't move the needle for you, professionally. You may be picking up your professor's dry cleaning, or taking care of administrivia around getting them a visa for their next talk in another country, or booking them plane tickets.) 3. The name of the school makes it more likely that the student gets a grant proposal accepted by the NIH/NSF/other agency, even if the quality of the grant proposal itself is the same. Getting a grant/fellowship/award on your CV makes a HUGE difference when applying to post-docs or faculty positions. (You'll also have access to more people who will give you more valuable feedback for how to write a better grant proposal.) 4. Top schools often protect students from bureaucracy and streamline the procedures in place for everything from getting access to a new facility, to what happens when you need to replace your student ID. (See (2) above.) 5. You're more likely to get a smarter or harder working undergraduate student to mentor and help out with your research. This matters more in the life sciences and fields with "benchwork," (e.g., wielding pipettes) but it applies to tasks that involve coding as well. In better schools, a larger percentage of undergraduates opt to get some experience in a research group, and you get both someone to delegate actual research tasks to, and you get to level-up in people-management. There's a lot more, but you get the idea, I think.

cli 12y ago
> you've opted into playing on super-hard mode, where you have to work twice as hard and be twice as good to get as far as someone who opted for the best school to which they were accepted. Does this matter very much if the PhD student is not looking for a job in academia?
- qiqing 12y ago
  Most of my classmates were, in fact, looking for jobs in academia. And there is the commonly held fear (due to lack of role models) that if you leave academia, you may as well be eaten by wolves. FWIW, I'm glad I left academia.
qq66 12y ago
Hm? You seem to be saying "If you go to a top PhD school, you'll have the best faculty opportunities." I agree with you there. What I'm saying is that "If you perform extremely well in your undergraduate degree, you have a high probability of being accepted to a top PhD program." If you get into a top PhD program and choose to attend a non-top PhD program, for whatever reason, I agree with you, you're electing to play on super-hard mode compared to someone who opted for the best school to which they were accepted. However, just like the arcade games, you shouldn't be surprised to win more often on easy mode than on hard mode.

JDiculous 12y ago

Let's not exaggerate the meritocratic nature of PhD programs. Brand names definitely still matter. I did my undergrad at a state school and my masters at an Ivy League school. During grad school, I recall speaking to my advisor (a professor who had only went to Ivy League schools) about my chances at getting into a PhD program at the university. He said my chances were very slim because I didn't graduate from a brand-name school. A couple other friends were told the same thing by their advisors. Maybe he's not a representative sample of Ivy League professors, but he was very much a prestige whore. I was in the meeting with another fellow student with a physics degree from a decent state school, and the professor basically just shat on our schools. Told us we might be able to get into PhD programs at inferior universities like our alma maters, where afterwards we might be able to get professorships at even more inferior schools or community colleges. Maybe that's the reality of it, but it was clear this guy was the type who placed a huge amount of value on brand names. Like the stereotypical Harvard grad who thinks everyone else is inferior.