TestMagic

pookie bear · 07-08-2008, 10:17 PM

I've read through the forums and there seems to be a lot of anecdotal/hearsay evidence that claims your undergrads reputation is very important. Anyways, I thought I would start a discussion on the matter.

I've heard of a few schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT) that have very few admits from lower ranked undergrad institutions. My question to you guys is, in your opinion, ceterus paribus, at what point does your undergraduate institution become a hinderance?

Also, at what point does it not really matter? Are you really seen any different if you go to UC-davis instead of Virginia Tech?

Do the top 5 start discounting you if you come from 25+ school? Is it only after your school is out of the top 50 that they start to grade you down? top 100? What is the marginal benefit to going to a 20-30 school vs. going to just a top 100 school?

Do the "2nd tier" programs (UCLA, Columbia, Michigan, Minnesota, Maryland...) have similar practices?

Discuss...

sonicskat · 07-08-2008, 11:01 PM

I'm not so sure about this reputation stuff. I went to a conference a couple years ago. Met a guy that was going on the job market from MIT. He went to Harvard as an undergrad, and he had to beg and beg MIT to let him in. They eventually let him in with no funding...but they initially rejected him.

A very bright student here at UVA got into 9 out of the 10 schools he applied for, including MIT Stanford and other. The only one he got rejected by was Harvard.

jeeves0923 · 07-08-2008, 11:08 PM

It definitely makes a difference in so far as it is an information deficiency. For example, I went to Virginia Tech for undergrad. Very few VT undergrads go to grad school in economics, so it is difficult for, say, MIT to judge what "top in class at VT" really means. On the other hand, we have sent a few students to PhD program at Duke in the last several years, so they know what to expect from a Virginia Tech student.

So I'd say more of it is an information issue than a signaling issue. I got into Harvard undergrad, but couldn't fork over the $$. A really good LOR ought to be able to make up for any such information deficiencies.

Of course, all is speculative, as I got rejected by MIT, Harvard and Princeton last year.

pookie bear · 07-08-2008, 11:34 PM

Certainly reputation isn't everything. We have seen cases on here of very well qualified applicants from top schools getting shunned from the top programs. On the other hand, we have seen a few people with average (by TM standards) profiles but coming from top institutions get into some top programs.

Do you think that these variances are all explained by their LOR's?

jeeves0923 · 07-08-2008, 11:38 PM

Maybe not all but I'd venture to guess a very positive and significant relationship. A letter writer can talk about the lack of grade inflation or something like that. Can also most directly assess research potential. If that prof has advised many very successful grad students... it means something.

YoungEconomist · 07-09-2008, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pookie bear

Do you think that these variances are all explained by their LOR's?

LORs and other things definitely play a role. However, I also believe the process is very random which explains a lot of variation as well.

Golden Rule · 07-09-2008, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pookie bear

Do you think that these variances are all explained by their LOR's?

Yes, a significant chunk of it. A lot of the "randomness" in the process is based on who knows who, and it seems random because we typically don't observe it.

abababba · 07-09-2008, 02:05 AM

I'm at Harvard. My class has people from the following schools (the domestic students):

Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, UCLA, Williams, Dartmouth, Columbia

So reputation matters, but there are a few schools in there with great undergrad reputations but without graduate Economics.

TruDog · 07-09-2008, 02:42 AM

At quite a few top-30 schools, reputation matters a lot. If you're from a small LAC or a directional state school without a PhD program, this can really hurt your chances.

Wisconsin, however, seems to be an exception to the general trend. We've got domestic students from Berkeley, Chicago, Swarthmore...and Western Washington, Truman State, and Quinnipiac. Those of us from the lesser-known schools who ended up TAing during the first year had never seen a TA before coming to Wisconsin. I'd say that was an advantage in our education, but I guess some respectfully disagree.

jeeves0923 · 07-09-2008, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruDog

At quite a few top-30 schools, reputation matters a lot. If you're from a small LAC or a directional state school without a PhD program, this can really hurt your chances.

Directional state school... I love that term... it reminds me of when ESPN had "Directional Michigan" listed as the number 1 worst football spectacle in the country...

Other than that time, I think i have only heard such universities as "regional state uni."

Either way, though, I think there is definitely a selection issue at work here. More people from Ivy league schools have an academic bent, so proportionately, they are very highly represented in the applicant pool. I'm probably one of only 3 people from my undergrad to apply to Harvard Econ in the last 50 years. I'd say if we had 35 of our top students in the pool every year, we'd get one in from time to time...

07-08-2008, 10:17 PM	#1 (permalink)
pookie bear Eager! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 36	At what point does undergrad reputation hurt you? I've read through the forums and there seems to be a lot of anecdotal/hearsay evidence that claims your undergrads reputation is very important. Anyways, I thought I would start a discussion on the matter. I've heard of a few schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT) that have very few admits from lower ranked undergrad institutions. My question to you guys is, in your opinion, ceterus paribus, at what point does your undergraduate institution become a hinderance? Also, at what point does it not really matter? Are you really seen any different if you go to UC-davis instead of Virginia Tech? Do the top 5 start discounting you if you come from 25+ school? Is it only after your school is out of the top 50 that they start to grade you down? top 100? What is the marginal benefit to going to a 20-30 school vs. going to just a top 100 school? Do the "2nd tier" programs (UCLA, Columbia, Michigan, Minnesota, Maryland...) have similar practices? Discuss...

07-08-2008, 11:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
sonicskat Within my grasp! Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 250	I'm not so sure about this reputation stuff. I went to a conference a couple years ago. Met a guy that was going on the job market from MIT. He went to Harvard as an undergrad, and he had to beg and beg MIT to let him in. They eventually let him in with no funding...but they initially rejected him. A very bright student here at UVA got into 9 out of the 10 schools he applied for, including MIT Stanford and other. The only one he got rejected by was Harvard. _ _ _ _ SIG _ _ _ _ UVA-- A first year, no longer

07-09-2008, 02:42 AM	#9 (permalink)
TruDog TestMagic Guru-in-Training Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Midwest US Posts: 539	At quite a few top-30 schools, reputation matters a lot. If you're from a small LAC or a directional state school without a PhD program, this can really hurt your chances. Wisconsin, however, seems to be an exception to the general trend. We've got domestic students from Berkeley, Chicago, Swarthmore...and Western Washington, Truman State, and Quinnipiac. Those of us from the lesser-known schools who ended up TAing during the first year had never seen a TA before coming to Wisconsin. I'd say that was an advantage in our education, but I guess some respectfully disagree. _ _ _ _ SIG _ _ _ _ University of Wisconsin-Madison--2nd Year

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-08-2008, 11:08 PM	#3 (permalink)
jeeves0923 Within my grasp! Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 334	It definitely makes a difference in so far as it is an information deficiency. For example, I went to Virginia Tech for undergrad. Very few VT undergrads go to grad school in economics, so it is difficult for, say, MIT to judge what "top in class at VT" really means. On the other hand, we have sent a few students to PhD program at Duke in the last several years, so they know what to expect from a Virginia Tech student. So I'd say more of it is an information issue than a signaling issue. I got into Harvard undergrad, but couldn't fork over the $$. A really good LOR ought to be able to make up for any such information deficiencies. Of course, all is speculative, as I got rejected by MIT, Harvard and Princeton last year.

07-08-2008, 11:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
pookie bear Eager! Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 36	Certainly reputation isn't everything. We have seen cases on here of very well qualified applicants from top schools getting shunned from the top programs. On the other hand, we have seen a few people with average (by TM standards) profiles but coming from top institutions get into some top programs. Do you think that these variances are all explained by their LOR's?

07-08-2008, 11:38 PM	#5 (permalink)
jeeves0923 Within my grasp! Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 334	Maybe not all but I'd venture to guess a very positive and significant relationship. A letter writer can talk about the lack of grade inflation or something like that. Can also most directly assess research potential. If that prof has advised many very successful grad students... it means something.

07-09-2008, 02:05 AM	#8 (permalink)
abababba Within my grasp! Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 204	I'm at Harvard. My class has people from the following schools (the domestic students): Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, UCLA, Williams, Dartmouth, Columbia So reputation matters, but there are a few schools in there with great undergrad reputations but without graduate Economics.

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests