does a prestigious undergrad degree count that much?

[JShon]

My friend, who now goes to MIT for grad school, went to UChicago for undergrad. I was talking to him today and the topic of value of elite undergrad education came up. He said that "I think education at say Chicago or Harvard is worth every penny of the outrageous tuition bill. Actually it's not the education one pays for... it is for that elite school pedigree."

Of course my friend is a freaking genius who graduated valedictorian from his high school at the tender age of fifteen, got a merit scholarship at Chicago (given to 100 students out of 10000 something applicants), and graduated Phi Beta Kappa in three years. He simply would have ended up at MIT no matter where he went for undergrad. But would relatively average person at Chicago or MIT or Harvard be significantly better off compared to top students at non name-schools when it comes to grad school?

[corpfin2006]

I believe any type of student would be better off if s/he went to an elite college. The thing is that elite colleges such as Harvard offer gifted students opportunities to grow, excel and outperform anyone (be it in terms of coursework or research activities etc.). These opportunities are rare at "normal" colleges.
And even if you are just not that smart, you are better off at Harvard because a 3.5 GPA from H looks better than a 3.5 GPA from nowhere simply because the admission to Harvard is supposed to be a strong signal.

But, as always, true talent is what lasts, not the brand behind which you attempt to hide sometimes. On the other hand, it is obvious that there are incredibly intelligent guys at Harvard etc. - nevertheless, there are other talents who are looked down upon for their 4.0 GPA at whatever not-so-elite institution, especially in the admissions process (for graduate school). So, my conclusion is that a brand helps a lot - no matter how smart you really are.

[TruDog]

Sadly, going to a so-called 'prestigious' undergraduate school is more important than actually doing well in college. If you go to a smaller state school, you essentially have to be perfect to get any top-10 admits even if you have much better credentials than a Harvard grad.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by TruDog

Sadly, going to a so-called 'prestigious' undergraduate school is more important than actually doing well in college. If you go to a smaller state school, you essentially have to be perfect to get any top-10 admits even if you have much better credentials than a Harvard grad.

This sounds true to me as well, and it really suprises me. The reason is that doing well in HS (which is what gets one into Harvard) seems like a weak signal. A lot of highschools are super easy and a lot of students don't really apply themselves. I personally didn't even care about school much during HS. I rarely did homework and rarely studied for tests. I think I graduated with like a 3.5, but they give those out so easily (at least at most public highschools). It wasn't until I got into college that I actually applied myself. In college the material is so much more interesting and teachers don't just "give out" good grades (instead you have to earn it). It just seems like I know so many people who didn't take school very seriously until college.

[Golden Rule]

In terms of graduate school admissions, the No. 1 advantage for undergrads who went to top research universities is that they have the opportunity to RA or do a senior thesis with top professors in the field. The opportunity to take grad courses and tutorials/seminars (small classes with profs) is another advantage (I don't think there's as huge a difference in the quality of teaching for any lecture-style undergrad courses.) Consequently, I don't think a student from a top research school who did not take advantage of the opportunities I just described would have much advantage over anyone who did not go to such a school -- at least in terms of top 20 admissions.

[GymShorts]

Going to Chicago looks better than than No-Name University, all else equal. However, all else is rarely equal. For example, a 4.0 from some small state school probably looks better than a 2.8 from Chicago. Then the question becomes where do the two profiles become equal?

Also, if students go out of their way, they might be able to get similar research opportunities, especially if they are willing to travel during summer break.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by GymShorts

Going to Chicago looks better than than No-Name University, all else equal. However, all else is rarely equal. For example, a 4.0 from some small state school probably looks better than a 2.8 from Chicago. Then the question becomes where do the two profiles become equal?

Also, if students go out of their way, they might be able to get similar research opportunities, especially if they are willing to travel during summer break.

I heard that there is not much grade inflation at Chicago, but there is a ton at Harvard. I read an article that claimed that something like 90% of Harvard graduate have an A average. Then again maybe the kids at Harvard are so smart that most of them would get A averages at my large state school.

[Antichron]

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

I heard that there is not much grade inflation at Chicago, but there is a ton at Harvard. I read an article that claimed that something like 90% of Harvard graduate have an A average. Then again maybe the kids at Harvard are so smart that most of them would get A averages at my large state school.

I suspect graduate schools admissions committees perform some sort of bias correction, if this is indeed true. (I have heard similar things about there being little grade inflation at UChicago.) The problem comes when one goes to a university that is not well known and also does not have any grade inflation, I suppose, as anyone looking at such a transcript would not know how to evaluate the grades. This is (at least one place) where strong letters of recommendation come into play.

As for having to go to a top research university to be an RA for a professor at a top research university, I don't believe this statement is true. At least at MIT, I have seen several undergraduates who do/did not go to MIT RA for our professors. Some take a one year position for a professor right after receiving his/her BA. It could potentially be very worthwhile to take some initiative to look around and find such a position. (There may be summer positions available as well - one of my classmates RA'd for a Princeton professor while she was an undergraduate.)

[Golden Rule]

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

I heard that there is not much grade inflation at Chicago, but there is a ton at Harvard. I read an article that claimed that something like 90% of Harvard graduate have an A average. Then again maybe the kids at Harvard are so smart that most of them would get A averages at my large state school.

That's not true. The statistic you're remembering is that in early part of this decade, 90% of Harvard students graduated with honors -- and that only required something like a B average. They've since changed their system of granting honors. As for the grades themselves, there were a fair number of smaller courses that gave out a lot of A's and A-'s and they were the primary sources of "inflation." Most larger courses were curved around B+ and B's. I think I quoted an article supporting this previously on the forum.

Originally Posted by Antichron

As for having to go to a top research university to be an RA for a professor at a top research university, I don't believe this statement is true. At least at MIT, I have seen several undergraduates who do/did not go to MIT RA for our professors. Some take a one year position for a professor right after receiving his/her BA.

Thanks for making that point clear, I also had that in mind. I think my post still holds in that undergrads at these schools have easier access and are more likely to work for these professors, but certainly a top student at a lower-ranked research school or LAC could get a summer or post-BA job with a prof at a highly-ranked research instiution -- I know people who have done this as well. The overall point is that undergrads at lesser-known institutions should strongly consider such opportunities, and not simply claim that they're facing an insurmountable bias.

[Zoethor2]

I, for one, went to No-Name university, a school with a reputation for partying, if it has a reputation for anything. I pushed myself, and sought out a lot of personal connections with professors, which resulted in three papers presented at regional economics conferences. I didn't get any top 10 admits, but I did get some top 20 admits, and I felt like I had good choices to make at the end of the application process. Yes, I'm sure that the name of my school hindered me to some degree, but as stated above, it's not insurmountable. It is certainly possible to seek out other opportunities to signal an adcom about your abilities if you are willing to try.