I know there are some “famous” universities, like the Ivy Leagues and a few other ones. What is it about them that makes them better than others? Is it only their legacy and fame, or do they have measurably better pedagogy, professors, curricula, research opportunities, etc.?
How much of their advantage is due to the actual quality of the education provide, vs network effects and good old boy connections?
I went to a nondescript state university, and from an ROI perspective my degree is unlikely to ever pay itself back. Presumably that wouldn’t be the case for a more in-demand major from an elite university. But solely in terms of the education one receives, would it also be tremendously better at the better schools?
One important thing to note is the vast distinction between graduate and undergraduate programs. Famous big-name universities are often known for the quality of their research programs, which makes them great for graduate studies, particularly PhD programs, but they might be a poor choice for undergraduates if undergraduate programs are neglected or underfunded at the expense of research and graduate studies. A school with outstanding professors doing world-class research is of no benefit to undergrads if these professors have little to no involvement in the undergraduate program, which is often the case.
Also, undergraduate programs might be great or not-so-great depending on whether you’re in the regular or the honours stream. Conversely, a school with a great undergraduate program might offer poor research opportunities for post-graduates.
So my perspective on what makes a good university good is “it depends”.
This is the only “right” answer, I think. Factors include: undergraduate/graduate, field of study, career interests, academic capability of the student, among other things.
If there is any true “value add” to a simple undergraduate degree from an Ivy League school it’s likely traceable either to the school’s reputation helping land a better graduate position or entry-level job or the networking options opening up opportunities that wouldn’t have existed at a state school.
ETA: I guess I would say a good university is one that can meet the needs of the student while maximizing their changes of achieving their personal academic and/or professional goals. If you want to be on the Supreme Court, you better do whatever you can to get into a top-5 law school. If you want a good engineering job, just about any state school can likely meet your needs for an undergraduate degree.
Along with the big Grad vs Undergrad distinction, the degree program matters as well. But honestly, few people really care where you received your undergrad degree, unless it’s from a school that is well known to have an exceptional program for that degree. Otherwise a Mech Engineering degree from X State University is just as good as one from Stanford. And you’ll have a difficult time realizing a good ROI on a degree in English studies no matter where you got it.
I know this will not be a popular opinion but I think most of it is getting into the club.
Successful Harvard people try to promote other Harvard people. It raises the value of the degree and prestige for everyone.
Graduate from Southern Illinois University and chances are no one is giving you a job because they also went there.
So much of business is not what you know but who you know and the Ivy League (and a few others) have monetized that big time because it benefits all of them.
That is not to say the education you get there is bad. It is very good. But I doubt anyone can say that their grads are that much better than anyone else.
Yes and no. If one is seeking to network and build a career on a national or international stage, then, yes, having a degree from an elite university – and access to that school’s alumni network – are going to be useful.
But, if you are living in SIU’s area, and planning to work in SIU’s area, then the fact that you went to SIU may still be of some utility. You can network (more locally) with other SIU alums, and a degree from SIU is still going to probably be more impressive (for certain definitions of “impressive”) than from an even-smaller community college.
Yes, often the big name professors who are well regarded in their fields don’t even teach any undergraduate classes whatsoever. They do research and write papers to enhance their own reputations and the reputation of their universities.
Back in the 80’s the university I went to had a lot of elite professors like that. The university was waffling…it wasn’t failing but wasn’t doing well.
A new president was hired and his first change was to make all of those elite professors teach at least one 101 course. There were other changes, of course, and the elite professors complained loudly but the new president stayed the course and it worked. The university definitely improved (even while I was there it was apparent).
I dunno if all professors need to teach a 101 but if at a university they should teach (IMHO).
As someone that does live in SIUs area, I can confirm this. There are plenty of SIU-E and SIU-C alums in all sorts of business around here (St Louis Area). As someone who went to college at a “better” school much further away, it’s actually probably more helpful to have a degree from SIU for networking purposes.
Of course in the St Louis Area for some reason what High School you went to seems to be even more important…
Agree 100%. My son went to our local State U, and managed to get an internship at a major tech company. After he graduated, they hired him, and at his orientation with a bunch of other recent grads, they went around the room and had everyone tell where they went to school and major. He felt a little shy about announcing his particulars as many of the others went to MIT, Stanford, CalTech and other prestigious schools. He related this to one of his colleagues and they said to him “well, you’re all at the same point now.” And I told him no-one will care about where you went to school after the first year on the job anyway.
Maybe it matters more in other situations but ISTM as long as you get a degree in your chosen field, employers won’t care much beyond that.
For certain definitions of “improved”. The undergrad course may have improved, but what about the effect of the professor having less time for research and less time to mentor graduate students?
ISTM that a professor who is doing distinguished research being forced to teach a 101-level course is a terrible waste of resources. If such a prof was involved in undergraduate teaching at all, they should at least be assigned to a senior-year course. I’ve heard the arguments that a senior professor may be able to field thoughtful questions from first-year undergrads better than a lesser teacher, but when resources are limited, the university has an obligation to deploy them effectively.
It doesn’t mean treating undergrads as worthless for anything except headcount revenue, which one often sees at “elite” research-focused universities, but there’s a happy middle ground that doesn’t squander precious resources.
I had a world-class Poli-Sci professor because of this. Was his research in some obscure nook of political history more important than teaching new students? The guy had a wealth of knowledge to impart and dozens, hundreds of people benefited from it.
I think it was time well spent.
ETA: He was also a complete asshole but still learned from him.
This is a significant part of it - for at least some fields of study. I had a good friend who was at the top of his class at Illinois State, and when he went to Northwestern Law, a professor mocked folks who had studied at state schools. But while I knew him, one of his classmates was nominated for some pretty high governmental position, and called my buddy up to ask if he wanted to be appointed under him. So there is some degree of “who you know.”
In a different area, my kid went to University of Illinois and studied engineering. A very rigorous program ranked highly. When he was hired, he said the difference was striking between what he had learned vs his co-workers from “lesser” schools. He later obtained a work-paid master’s at a moderate school, and said it wasn’t until his 2d year that he encountered ANYTHING that he hadn’t learned in undergrad.
I attended Illinois for both undergrad and law school. I used to mock smaller liberal arts schools, feeling they just lacked the resources and opportunities of a big school. I revelled in my anonymity and was quite the fuck up. At this point, I wonder if I wouldn’t have benefitted from a little less anonymity and a tad more accountability. Sorry if that is off topic.
Except my old company would not even interview you with a degree from X State University, but might actively recruit you with a degree from Stanford. And not just undergrad. I tried to get a PhD student of a friend of mine who taught in a southern state university, well known, in for an interview, and failed. You could not bring someone in from a university not on the approved list without clearance from the top HR exec in this Fortune 50 company. I did hack this once, by having the student add something we really wanted to his resume as an interest, but you couldn’t do it all the time.
Depends on the culture of the university. My bio 101 class at MIT, for non-majors I think, was taught by a Nobel Laureate. My daughter, at another good school, got to work for a future Nobel Laureate, who was already famous at the time. I’ve certainly heard professors talk about how if they get this grant they can get excused from teaching undergrad classes, but I’ve also seen big name professors talk to undergrads who have the guts to email them.
I’m not sure it is most of it, but it definitely is a factor. There is a halo effect from having gone to a top school. I’ve experienced it several times - it means you don’t have to prove yourself.
There is another factor not mentioned yet. There is a difference in average student quality. I learned this from teaching at a highly ranked state school and a not so good state school. You still get great students at the not so great school and clunkers at the great school, but you can aim your lessons at a different point.
I would say that’s an exception to the rule (at least in my field, engineering), and would have been a red flag for me as far as that company being considered a good place to work.
I’m not claiming it was a good place to work. They bought my company, I never interviewed them. But there are limited recruiting resources even in better companies, and they don’t stretch to going to what they consider lower rated colleges. That doesn’t mean someone from a lower ranked college can’t get a job, but it is less likely.
I have a BS and MS from UIUC but spent a semester at the University of Illinois - Chicago. The difference in professor quality was basically negligible, but the difference in quality of students was massive. Coursework at UIUC was much more foundational as well with UIC being more applied.
I have no doubt you could graduate from UIC with an engineering degree and have a good career. However, if I was in charge of hiring, the heuristic of hiring from “good” schools would save a massive amount of time. Civil engineering doesn’t lend itself to having a portfolio of projects like a computer science job would expect either.
In law, it is not at all unusual for firms to limit the schools from whom they will accept applications/interview.
Then there is a group of firms where the power partners went to “lesser” schools - such as, in Chicago, DePaul, Loyola, or Kent, and they figure, “If it was good enough for me…”
A school with outstanding professors doing world-class research might be of no benefit to undergrads even if these professors are involved in the undergraduate program. Not every world-class researcher is a good teacher.