Undergrad Prestige Forum

[sharpnsmooth]

Is this all really a numbers game? Is a 4.0 at a B-state school really superior than a 3.0 at Harvard? I ask because I went to a very highly regarded undergrad, and worked pretty hard to get a 3.6, but seem to be below par at all the top 10 schools, although I was considered top 10% at the university itself.

[094320]

..

[vespertiliovir]

for the most part, a 4.0 is a 4.0. sorry

[mallard]

A 3.6 at Harvard might be close to a 3.7 at DirecTTTional State University, but definitely doesn't touch a 4.0.

[Cupidity]

3.5 at a TTT > 3.4 at Harvard

[Quine]

Is this all really a numbers game? Is a 4.0 at a B-state school really superior than a 3.0 at Harvard? I ask because I went to a very highly regarded undergrad, and worked pretty hard to get a 3.6, but seem to be below par at all the top 10 schools, although I was considered top 10% at the university itself.

Really?

Really?

Really.

There are nuances to this discussion, but I'd like to formally discourage anyone else from posting them here, as they have certainly been hashed out in well over 50 other threads. Search before you post.

/endthread

[Cupidity]

The top 10% might actually help you. I remember seeing this one girl on LSN, non URM who was doing better than she should have for her 3.7 GPA...until it listed that she was number 1 of 1200 at her UG.

[Dany]

Is this all really a numbers game? Is a 4.0 at a B-state school really superior than a 3.0 at Harvard? I ask because I went to a very highly regarded undergrad, and worked pretty hard to get a 3.6, but seem to be below par at all the top 10 schools, although I was considered top 10% at the university itself.

Really?

Really?

Really.

There are nuances to this discussion, but I'd like to formally discourage anyone else from posting them here, as they have certainly been hashed out in well over 50 other threads. Search before you post.

/endthread

[sharpnsmooth]

3.5 at a TTT > 3.4 at Harvard

if this is accurate, my kids are definitely going to state school. why spend 200k to put yourself at a disadvantage when we live in a society where a bachelors is good enough to work at home depot, and the name on your higher education degree is what stirs the kettle.

[094320]

..

[mallard]

3.5 at a TTT > 3.4 at Harvard

if this is accurate, my kids are definitely going to state school. why spend 200k to put yourself at a disadvantage when we live in a society where a bachelors is good enough to work at home depot, and the name on your higher education degree is what stirs the kettle.

If your kid wants to go into academia, being able to do research and publish with a big name in the field during undergrad can be an advantage. I'm really jealous of one of my friends at Harvard who is doing his senior thesis with a professor whose research I read a lot in a class I took.

Yeah, this is one of the huge and underestimated benefits of a top undergraduate education.

[sharpnsmooth]

3.5 at a TTT > 3.4 at Harvard

if this is accurate, my kids are definitely going to state school. why spend 200k to put yourself at a disadvantage when we live in a society where a bachelors is good enough to work at home depot, and the name on your higher education degree is what stirs the kettle.

If your kid wants to go into academia, being able to do research and publish with a big name in the field during undergrad can be an advantage. I'm really jealous of one of my friends at Harvard who is doing his senior thesis with a professor whose research I read a lot in a class I took.

Yeah, this is one of the huge and underestimated benefits of a top undergraduate education.

clearly, a benefit and amazing experience, no question.

but what about the middle class whom spends their lifetime saving up that 200k for their child's future... is this experience truly worth it?

it seems to me that prestigious undergrads, due to the economic crisis where a bachelors has little value, are going to increasingly become something solely for the rich white man.

[mallard]

it seems to me that prestigious undergrads, due to the economic crisis where a bachelors has little value, are going to increasingly become something solely for the rich white man.

Why white and why man? Also, why rich? Why would a middle-class family save money when top undergrads have better financial aid than lower-ranked schools?

[Quine]

it seems to me that prestigious undergrads, due to the economic crisis where a bachelors has little value, are going to increasingly become something solely for the rich white man.

Why white and why man? Also, why rich? Why would a middle-class family save money when top undergrads have better financial aid than lower-ranked schools?

Because he's a pretentious jackass playing a populist.

[sharpnsmooth]

it seems to me that prestigious undergrads, due to the economic crisis where a bachelors has little value, are going to increasingly become something solely for the rich white man.

Why white and why man? Also, why rich? Why would a middle-class family save money when top undergrads have better financial aid than lower-ranked schools?

white because there's still a vast socioeconomic gap between the races... man simply being an expression.

they have better financial aid, but state colleges are 10k a year.

it would just seem smarter to save that $ for that second degree... especially being that once we establish it's necessary for some semblance of a certainty at a career, and that the higher GPA is always viewed as superior -- why blow all the money to put your child at a disadvantage with the competition when you don't have the means to provide both a.) the experience and b.) the future promise.

i think most american parents, or at least hope most american parents are intelligent enough to realize that b.) is worth significantly more than a.)

[upwardtrend]

Undergrad institution is a minor factor, giving slight preference because adcoms know the top 10 or 15 schools are significantly harder than average state schools. Also, those who attend an elite UG will be better prepared for law school and typically have higher LSAT scores, which matters A LOT more than GPA in most circumstances. I feel the OPs pain though- I was the valedictorian of my HS class, went to a T10 undergrad, and worked fairly hard to get a 3.4x. I have friends that were not hard workers, not really all that smart, and went to lower ranked state schools and are able to pull off 3.7x, etc. The trade off is that they havent received nearly as rigorous an education and, in my opinion, havent received nearly the college experience that I have -- if they were to take the LSAT im sure it wouldnt be competitive. Also, strictly speaking UG the OCI at my institution trump most all state schools and the ECs i've been able to take advantage of would probably have been fewer and more difficult to get involved in at other places. Regardless, these 4 years have been the best of my life. I know I'm biased but I think if you have the chance to go to an elite UG then you should go for it.

[mallard]

You didn't really respond to the financial aid point; my guess is you don't really understand how much financial aid is available to needy students at top undergrads. The inclusion of race and gender were pure rhetoric, but that's fine. Anyway, you haven't really spoken to any of the non-economic reasons to attend a top undergrad, nor to the more or less exclusive availability of certain positions right out of college (top consulting, ibanking, etc.) at top schools, nor to the much greater strength of top schools at placing students in top graduate schools, professional schools, scholarships, fellowships, etc. It's not a huge deal. I didn't attend a top undergrad myself. But there's much more to the world than law school admissions.

[Quine]

state colleges are 10k a year.

it would just seem smarter to save that $ for that second degree...

I took out the rest because it was by-and-large nonsensical.


Who are you trying to convince here? As far as I can tell, you started this thread because you blew money on a degree that's not panning out the way you expected when a 10K state school was on the table. Myself, and I'm sure many of the top law school applicants who went to state schools, thought about that before making short-sighted decisions.

[upwardtrend]

I disagree with quine- the experience at a top UG is unrivaled AND in many cases superior to a basic state level education. There are more important things to consider when choosing a college than money. Elite undergrads have better job placement directly from UG, more chances for ECs, superior student peers and professors, etc. The experience received at an UG as well as their traditional placement in top graduate schools is unrivaled.

[sharpnsmooth]

You didn't really respond to the financial aid point; my guess is you don't really understand how much financial aid is available to needy students at top undergrads. The inclusion of race and gender were pure rhetoric, but that's fine. Anyway, you haven't really spoken to any of the non-economic reasons to attend a top undergrad, nor to the more or less exclusive availability of certain positions right out of college (top consulting, ibanking, etc.) at top schools, nor to the much greater strength of top schools at placing students in top graduate schools, professional schools, scholarships, fellowships, etc. It's not a huge deal. I didn't attend a top undergrad myself. But there's much more to the world than law school admissions.

1.) jobs: if you're a BA such positions are not widely available.

2.) aid: yes, there is financial aid, but this doesn't come close to covering the difference between a 50k and 10k tuition. through placing in the top 10% i boosted my scholarship from 1k to 20k over 3 yrs, but it was still a 300% cost. my situation is not rare.

3.) higher ed: that strength seems to be highly limited due to the GPA measures. i also disagree about it better preparing you for the LSAT. is there a correlation between superior undergrads and superior LSAT scores? Definitely. Does this mean that it's the hard work in undergrad that causes it through building that tough work ethic? maybe, but isn't it far more likely both the great undergrad and great LSAT are both caused by a third factor... being intelligent. who has the highest LSAT scores on average by a fairly wide margin? math majors. is it cause they work so much harder? no. they're just smart (no, i wasn't a math major.)

[Quine]

Undergrad institution is a minor factor, giving slight preference because adcoms know the top 10 or 15 schools are significantly harder than average state schools. Also, those who attend an elite UG will be better prepared for law school and typically have higher LSAT scores, which matters A LOT more than GPA in most circumstances. I feel the OPs pain though- I was the valedictorian of my HS class, went to a T10 undergrad, and worked fairly hard to get a 3.4x. I have friends that were not hard workers, not really all that smart, and went to lower ranked state schools and are able to pull off 3.7x, etc. The trade off is that they havent received nearly as rigorous an education and, in my opinion, havent received nearly the college experience that I have -- if they were to take the LSAT im sure it wouldnt be competitive. Also, strictly speaking UG the OCI at my institution trump most all state schools and the ECs i've been able to take advantage of would probably have been fewer and more difficult to get involved in at other places. Regardless, these 4 years have been the best of my life. I know I'm biased but I think if you have the chance to go to an elite UG then you should go for it.

Yes, you are.

I'm also biased. I went to a state school and have many friends at top-5 undergrad programs (Harvard, Caltech) and their workload, and its difficulty, is quite similar. We can go back and forth like this, but at the end of the day, neither of us has any idea what went on at the other's school, and we should both probably stfu.

[Quine]

I disagree with quine- the experience at a top UG is unrivaled AND in many cases superior to a basic state level education. There are more important things to consider when choosing a college than money. Elite undergrads have better job placement directly from UG, more chances for ECs, superior student peers and professors, etc. The experience received at an UG as well as their traditional placement in top graduate schools is unrivaled.

Did you go back after attaining that top-10 degree and try out a state school for comparison?

You have no idea, and you're the reason half of this board gets pissy every time someone bitches about their top UG GPA not having more weight than a state school.

[mallard]

You didn't really respond to the financial aid point; my guess is you don't really understand how much financial aid is available to needy students at top undergrads. The inclusion of race and gender were pure rhetoric, but that's fine. Anyway, you haven't really spoken to any of the non-economic reasons to attend a top undergrad, nor to the more or less exclusive availability of certain positions right out of college (top consulting, ibanking, etc.) at top schools, nor to the much greater strength of top schools at placing students in top graduate schools, professional schools, scholarships, fellowships, etc. It's not a huge deal. I didn't attend a top undergrad myself. But there's much more to the world than law school admissions.

1.) jobs: if you're a BA such positions are not widely available.

2.) aid: yes, there is financial aid, but this doesn't come close to covering the difference between a 50k and 10k tuition. through placing in the top 10% i boosted my scholarship from 1k to 20k over 3 yrs, but it was still a 300% cost. my situation is not rare.

3.) higher ed: that strength seems to be highly limited due to the GPA measures. i also disagree about it better preparing you for the LSAT. is there a correlation between superior undergrads and superior LSAT scores? Definitely. Does this mean that it's the hard work in undergrad that causes it through building that tough work ethic? maybe, but isn't it far more likely both the great undergrad and great LSAT are both caused by a third factor... being intelligent. who has the highest LSAT scores on average by a fairly wide margin? math majors. is it cause they work so much harder? no. they're just smart (no, i wasn't a math major.)

1) If you do well at a top undergrad in a good economy, they will be fairly widely available.
2) I got more aid than you from a much worse (hence smaller endowment, hence stingier) school.
3) You're wrong about math majors. Also, I never made the claim about the LSAT. The strength is not particularly limited, despite the GPA measures.

[sharpnsmooth]

I disagree with quine- the experience at a top UG is unrivaled AND in many cases superior to a basic state level education. There are more important things to consider when choosing a college than money. Elite undergrads have better job placement directly from UG, more chances for ECs, superior student peers and professors, etc. The experience received at an UG as well as their traditional placement in top graduate schools is unrivaled.

job placement seems to only be a relevant issue when there are jobs. i have my own business now, and thank god, normally make over a 1000 a week. nothing from my college experience helped me build that. i have a fancy degree, awards from graduation, a lot of knowledge and debt... im all for the pursuit of knowledge but if i didn't have inherent skills to provide society... i would have been homeless with my fancy education.

[sharpnsmooth]

You didn't really respond to the financial aid point; my guess is you don't really understand how much financial aid is available to needy students at top undergrads. The inclusion of race and gender were pure rhetoric, but that's fine. Anyway, you haven't really spoken to any of the non-economic reasons to attend a top undergrad, nor to the more or less exclusive availability of certain positions right out of college (top consulting, ibanking, etc.) at top schools, nor to the much greater strength of top schools at placing students in top graduate schools, professional schools, scholarships, fellowships, etc. It's not a huge deal. I didn't attend a top undergrad myself. But there's much more to the world than law school admissions.

1.) jobs: if you're a BA such positions are not widely available.

2.) aid: yes, there is financial aid, but this doesn't come close to covering the difference between a 50k and 10k tuition. through placing in the top 10% i boosted my scholarship from 1k to 20k over 3 yrs, but it was still a 300% cost. my situation is not rare.

3.) higher ed: that strength seems to be highly limited due to the GPA measures. i also disagree about it better preparing you for the LSAT. is there a correlation between superior undergrads and superior LSAT scores? Definitely. Does this mean that it's the hard work in undergrad that causes it through building that tough work ethic? maybe, but isn't it far more likely both the great undergrad and great LSAT are both caused by a third factor... being intelligent. who has the highest LSAT scores on average by a fairly wide margin? math majors. is it cause they work so much harder? no. they're just smart (no, i wasn't a math major.)

1) If you do well at a top undergrad in a good economy, they will be fairly widely available. But it isn't a good economy.
2) I got more aid than you from a much worse (hence smaller endowment, hence stingier) school. Are you likely to be representative of the general population?
3) You're wrong about math majors. Also, I never made the claim about the LSAT. The strength is not particularly limited, despite the GPA measures. Can you name some?