TestMagic Forums - View Single Post - At what point does undergrad reputation hurt you?

pookie bear · 07-11-2008, 04:53 PM

First let me clarify, I'm not bitter that someone is at Harvard. My life has had many chances to pick a different path. At one point that path could have led to Stanford undergrad. I chose otherwise so that I could race motorcycles professionally. I'm not bitter because someone is at Harvard. I am where I am right now because at every point in my life I have chosen to do what leads to the most personal enjoyment and fulfillment. This isn't a thread about how to get me into MIT/Harvard. I see a lot of assumptions about undergrad prestige and it seemed appropriate to clarify.

Second, we have heard of a handful of cases of people from top schools with minimal preparation getting into top programs. Often this is attributed to the undergraduate institution. On the other side of the coin, we have seen several seemingly brilliant applicants who came from unknown institutions get turned away by these same schools. This is often attributed to the undergraduate institution.

I agree with Golden Rule and Jeeves that this may be confusing causality. The most respected Profs are at the most respected institutions. The most respected Profs write the most respected LORs.

Lastly, I think that there is still a certain amount of discrimination by undergraduate brand name. It is unlikely that a 4.0 at a directional state school is considered equal to a 4.0 from a top school. This information deficit can be remedied in the LOR, but if you are coming from some unknown school your LORs are unlikely to hold as much weight.

07-11-2008, 04:53 PM	#26 (permalink)
pookie bear Eager! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 84	First let me clarify, I'm not bitter that someone is at Harvard. My life has had many chances to pick a different path. At one point that path could have led to Stanford undergrad. I chose otherwise so that I could race motorcycles professionally. I'm not bitter because someone is at Harvard. I am where I am right now because at every point in my life I have chosen to do what leads to the most personal enjoyment and fulfillment. This isn't a thread about how to get me into MIT/Harvard. I see a lot of assumptions about undergrad prestige and it seemed appropriate to clarify. Second, we have heard of a handful of cases of people from top schools with minimal preparation getting into top programs. Often this is attributed to the undergraduate institution. On the other side of the coin, we have seen several seemingly brilliant applicants who came from unknown institutions get turned away by these same schools. This is often attributed to the undergraduate institution. I agree with Golden Rule and Jeeves that this may be confusing causality. The most respected Profs are at the most respected institutions. The most respected Profs write the most respected LORs. Lastly, I think that there is still a certain amount of discrimination by undergraduate brand name. It is unlikely that a 4.0 at a directional state school is considered equal to a 4.0 from a top school. This information deficit can be remedied in the LOR, but if you are coming from some unknown school your LORs are unlikely to hold as much weight.