Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Rapid Acceleration

If you want to stay in academia, I think that is valid advice but what if you want to pursue something else?

I am not saying you aren't a doctor if you attend medical school in Iowa, but what is the likelihood of getting the residency you want? I cannot believe how competitive it is to get a good residency these days.

Or if you want a job in a top law firm or investment bank.

Investment banks tend to like a few schools and yes, the focus is on the MBA but getting into the MBA is competitive too and more kids from top schools tend to get into Harvard and Wharton MBA programs.

But if you want to stay in academia, that is a different story.

Since I went to Wall Street, I am not familiar and will take your experience as knowledge.

Ren

I went to a Seven Sisters college and know a lot of people who went to public and private colleges in the US. I can attest to how things are very different at a private college.

The biggest asset, for me at least, was that private colleges run classes even if only three people sign up. In fact, sometimes this is by design and is called a "seminar class." In contrast, public colleges (especially community colleges) cancel classes with fewer than 20 students as a matter of policy. They also limit enrollment (as do private colleges). Unlike the private colleges, though, State U students sometimes have to wait a year to take a course required for their majors, and many end up spending extra time in college or doing a summer session as a result. Unless things have changed recently, this won't happen at most private colleges (correct me if I'm wrong). Either way, it's nowhere near as common at the private ones.

From the perspective of a learning environment, this sucks.

Alternatively, if you attend a big state university (UMASS, Penn State), you'll have more major options. I took a couple classes at UMASS because they weren't offered at my college. That was nice.

So this is a big advantage at the big universities.

I went to a small, regional public university as an undergrad. I had no trouble getting into tier 1 graduate programs-- even the Ivies.

One of my graduating class went to MIT for grad school, in fact, and I was accepted into several prestigious schools (UVA, U-Rochester, RPI, etc.) We were a graduating class of... um.. five. We were not 'atypical' for that department. So that probably tells you something about the culture.

It was in some ways more like a private school experience-- but without the $$ for modern equipment. On the other hand, the equipment that we did have, I was allowed (encouraged, even) to touch and fiddle with. There were less than twenty people in my Physical Chemistry course, and we did ALL of our own prep work for laboratory exercises (sometimes days' worth). As I only later learned, in the sciences, such students are considered to be VERY valuble as graduate students, because they are so often fearless and already pretty self-sufficient. We're not technician and post-doc dependent people, in other words. we just roll up our sleeves and throw on a lab coat.

My graduate school experiences also suggest that grad students come from all kinds of backgrounds, and that there is no one 'recipe' for success there. Later, as a graduate admissions committee member, it was clear that it would be a lot nicer if there were that kind of recipe through which to filter applications. But there isn't. It's hard to evaluate 'good work ethic' and 'determination' on paper.

Since I've never worked on Wall Street, Wren, I will definitely defer to your assessment of reality there in terms of Harvard and Wharton.

But I have to wonder if "good" is the right term to use in terms of seeking residencies...
after all, if we're talking about people entering CLINICAL practices, rather than academia, then it seems that the best training for being a doctor probably depends a lot on the individual. Placement in residencies is often about fit. Well, and professional interests, which in the case of our hypothetical Iowan med student, might well lead his/her heart right back to Des Moines.

Now, to be fair here, I've not had a lot of first-hand experience with medical residency per se, but I do have a fair amount with veterinary and pharmacy residency, as well as nursing program residency placements.

Yes, it's "competitive" in terms of landing your first choice-- particularly in the market of a very large urban environment where there may be several programs feeing the system, or in a particularly SMALL market with a large program feeding into it... but it's seldom the case that students in the upper 2/3rds of their class get "lousy" placements. Most are less than ideal for personal, rather than 'professional' reasons. Mostly those who are disappointed or upset tend to be so because they wanted to move. Or didn't.

On the other hand, some of the less ideal positions have exposed those candidates to situations that led to a lot of personal and professional growth that the person wouldn't have SOUGHT on their own. (Inner-city hospital pharmacy as opposed to cushy suburban clinic pharmacy, for example, or a small vet clinic externship as opposed to a 24hr, state-of-the-art urban veterinary hospital.)

I do know that a number of those people chose to return to those same "unfavorable" locations as professionals. So while they might have been disappointed in the initial placement, something drew them back. My senior lab partner is a general practitioner with a subspecialty in women's health, on a reservation, and I can tell without a doubt that she considers this a towering success. It's not very prestigious, nor is it glamorous or particularly lucrative-- but I hardly feel that I'm qualified to tell her she's wrong.

I wonder, truly, if NOT getting exactly what we think we want isn't actually better for us in the long run. Philosophical question, I know, but I think that it ties in to the notion of going to an Ivy versus somewhere else.

I believe it will depend a lot on how you define "good" or "top". If you define these as primarily about proximity to Manhattan then I am sure you are right. If you define "good" and "top" the way I do then it is something different. If our hypothetical Iowan's hope is to be enter state politics or become a senior partner at an Iowa firm they will probably get farther from the state flagship than they will with the prestigious East Coast degree.

The one place where students coming out of Ivies and top prestigious schools are going to be at an advantage is if they are aiming for careers in business that are based on connections. That's a pretty narrow slice of people though. If what your kid wants is to be an academic, go to med school or go to law school they can certainly do that coming out of a state university or non top 100 private. I agree with the poster who noted that students who are the "big fish" often are in a great situation at some these schools. They can get lots of faculty attention and access to lab resources far beyond what they might get at a bigger reputation school.

And, again, there is no reason to believe top students from state universities and small less known privates won't be able to get into good graduate programs.

In law, there are places where having a degree from the "right" school makes a big difference. I went to an Ivy undergrad and the UC system for law school, mainly for financial reasons. The vast majority of people in my law school class went to Ivies or Stanford. There were some that did their undergrad in the UC system, one from Notre Dame, and one from Georgetown that I recall. There were some diversity students who went to some lower tier schools.

After law school, I returned to the east coast and worked at large NY and DC law firms. I interviewed a lot of people when I was an associate. I can't remember anyone who I interviewed for an associate position who was not from the top 5 law schools, most went to Harvard. Also, almost all had clerked for federal judges -- another place where pedigree matters. These places were obsessed with where you went to school. The few people who worked there who did not have the right academic pedigree (usually an associate who came with a partner they wanted from another firm) never made it to partner. A lot of them were told up front that they were not on the partner track. One man was a favorite of a large oil company client -- they eventually made him "of counsel" to appease the client. These people were told by the managing partner not to display their diplomas from these "lesser" schools in their office. I worked with many of these people and could not see any difference in the quality of their work. I remember one woman who came with a judge that they hired. She was a phenomenal writer, super smart, efficient and willing to bill 250+ hours per month. I recall a partner making disparaging remarks about where she went to school and how they would never let her be anything more than a contract attorney. She eventually left the firm and, last I heard, is a professional clerk for a federal court judge.

I've been out of the legal profession for over ten years now. I can't imagine that much has changed.

It is much more difficult to get into med/law school coming out of a state university (or a no-name university) than a big name university. Sure, if you have a 2.00 GPA at Harvard or a 4.00 GPA at a state university, that may play into it. But I don't think it's true to just dismiss the power of how much help having a big name university on your resume can provide.
Here in California, I hope my kids don't go to Berkeley. It's been hammered by budget cuts, there are a zillion kids there, the labs/resources just aren't there. A private university, although expensive, maybe a better long-term investment for them.

I agree this can be a real concern especially in some of the more cash strapped states - California is particularly a mess right now. It is far from universal across the country though. School policies vary in how aggressive they are about cutting courses and how hard it is to get requirements. Also, at many state universities gifted students may have the option of admittance into honors programs which often offer the perk of registering first.

[/quote]

Do you have any evidence to prove this? I've never seen any research that supports what you are saying. And, I've see quite a bit of anecdotal evidence of state u or less well know college grads doing very well in admissions.

I have not, either. Regarding law school, a recent NYT article

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/business/law-school-grants.html
Law Students Lose the Grant Game as Schools Win

mentions that law schools offer scholarhips to improve their selectivity, which is based student GPA and LSAT scores. I did not see any adjustment of GPA for prestige of undergraduate college, and given the grade inflation at the Ivies, doing so might be double counting. I think an aspiring lawyer can get into law school from a public university, as long as he/she has good grades and a high LSAT. I'm not a lawyer, so this is conjecture.

I agree with you. Law can be very provincial. If you know where you want to settle, going to the best school in the area/state will probably be sufficient. The challenge is knowing where you are going to end up.