At what point does undergrad reputation hurt you?

[abababba]

My apologies to my classmates I forgot, include MIT and Northwestern in my post above, this obviously doesn't change anything.

I think Harvard students have a significant advantage in applying to Harvard Econ, probably 6 of the people in my class are Harvard undergrads, one or two others had some other Harvard experience. I believe this is justified, I don't believe the committee is stupid and the process has very little randomness. I heard that around 10 Harvard undergrads go to grad econ each year so this is a high percentage sticking around.

If someone has already been through the Harvard undergrad ciriculum and possibly even taken the first year graduate sequence, there is a lot less uncertainty about their future performance. There will almost never be an underqualified Harvard graduate econ applicant, they have already been through one gauntlet.

[Golden Rule]

Just for a slightly different point of view, here's the undergrads of some American students in the incoming MIT class: Swarthmore (2), Middlebury, Cornell, BYU, Yale, UVA, Mills College, Indiana, Wisconsin

So a little more diversity in rankings than the Harvard list. Now three of the above are NSF winners, and MIT is known to take them, so that's a lot of it. Harvard is definitely known to take more of its own (while other schools tend to encourage the opposite), and that's also part of it. That Harvard takes more of its own doesn't really contradict anything a lot of us are saying. As you say, Harvard typically has the best information about its own, and so feels justified in taking them.

Anyway, the overall message I'm trying to get across, in case it's lost, is that if you're not at say Harvard for undergrad, there are plenty of things you can do to help yourself get into the program of your choice. You can win the NSF fellowship. You can get RA jobs at Feds or higher-ranked schools and get good LORs. You can distinguish yourself within your school and get an LOR that says they're the best student they've ever had. One thing that definitely won't help is feeling bitter about the advantages that Harvard undergrads might have.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by Golden Rule

Well you have to make a decision, and the decision is ultimately not random. Again, in IO terms, we're talking about horizontal and vertical differentiation. There is some universal agreement in applicant quality (vertical), and then some disagreement (horizontal). For instance, some schools might put more weight on GRE scores and grades than others.

I guess what I'm saying is that there may be situations in which the adcom acts more randomly. For example, if you have 5 spots left and 10 students are about similar, I think that sometimes they just sort of pick 5. I can't imagine they will sit there and spend a huge amount of time evaluating the differences between these last 10 applicants given that there profiles are "equal" (by equal, I guess I mean that the adcom is indifferent between the profiles or that the adcom thinks that they all have an equal shot at succeeding in the program). Especially considering that the adcoms only have certain information, and are constrained by the amount of time/effort they put in to trying to determine the differences amoung applicants.

I also believe this happens in job interviews. Sometimes you have 2 job applicants which appear equal from the interviewers perspective, and I think that maybe it's a 50 - 50 shot on who gets hired. In other words, if this interviewer had to pick an applicant 1000 times, they'd both be offered the job 500 times as the interviewer is essentially making the decision as if he/she was flipping a fair coin.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you that this is the case. I'm simply pointing out that that it's possible, and that in my opinion this actually does happen in admissions (as well as job offers).

[GymShorts]

It wouldn't surprise me if sometime in history adcoms had to decide between two similar people and they literally flipped a coin. In fact, I would be more surprised if it never happened at least once.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by GymShorts

It wouldn't surprise me if sometime in history adcoms had to decide between two similar people and they literally flipped a coin. In fact, I would be more surprised if it never happened at least once.

LOL!

I think so too. But mainly just because they're economists and think it'd be fitting. Likewise, I'm sure this has happened in the Physics, Math, and Stat admissions process.

[pookie bear]

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.

[jeeves0923]

Originally Posted by pookie bear

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.

I don't think this is discrimination. I think this is because a 4.0 at a top school is not equal to a 4.0 from a directional state school in general. Even some non-top schools have notoriously hard grading (Some have said JHU and William and Mary are rough) faculty, and adcoms are well aware of most of these situations. If they are not, it is the responsibility of you(and your writers) to communicate the rigor of your program through LORs and SOP, and any other signal that you can give.

[pookie bear]

This discussion has gotten a bit off track. Yes, they do grade you down. I do think that is justified. I was merely wondering if there was a correlation between undergraduate prestiges and admits to top programs that was more than superficial. It does appear that there is, but not necessarily because of the brand name.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by pookie bear

Lastly, I think that there is still a certain amount of discrimination by undergraduate brand name.

There definitely could be discrimination when it comes to undergrad brand name. However, I'd also like to offer another explanation.

Lets say that person A went to a top ivy school, and lets say that person B went to a directional state school. Let's say that the adcom has given them an equal likelihood of succeeding in their program. However, lets also say that the adcoms are less certain about what they're getting with person B, given their undergrad. In other words, the expected value of success of the 2 applicants is equal, but the variance is different. If adcoms are risk averse (which seems plausible) they'll likely take the "surer thing." By the way, I do imagine that variance is probably inversely related to undergrad reputation when it comes to succeeding in a Econ PhD program (but maybe that's just my opinion).

[Golden Rule]

Originally Posted by pookie bear

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.

Ok, so this is where I don't think we're quite on the same page. I don't recall these cases. But you could be right.