RE: Is Ivy League Course work more Difficult than State Schools and other schools?

luv2run wrote:

Find Malcolm Gladwell's talk about going to Ivy schools or others of their ilk. While I do not agree with everything he says, he makes some very good points. A key one is some people will leave an Ivy League school feeling dumb which is not good.

I have to admit, I was one of those people. As an engineering student, I graduated in 2006 feeling that while I knew a bit of theory of the general "engineering" concept (thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, aquatic chemistry, atmospheric chemistry to name a few), I had no idea of how it could be used in the practical real world. Most of the other engineering students who graduated with me continued on into research and development, but I did not want to do that kind of work. At the time, the undergrad engineering degree was focused around everyone taking general engineering courses (which I called "engineering core curriculum") and then taking a few electives to determine my engineering specialty. So in the end, what differentiated a mechanical engineer from a electrical, biomedicial, or environmental engineer was four courses. And yes, those were the only engineering options at the time at this school. I studied and worked my butt off to make sure that I graduated with a B average.

Fortunately, I went to a different place for graduate school for a masters in my chosen engineering specialty (environmental engineering) and FINALLY learned a) what an engineer can do in modern-day society and b) how to do it. I passed the professional licensing exam a few years ago and I honestly feel that what I learned in graduate school was what helped me pass the exam. I currently work in a consulting firm, cleaning up or treating chemical spills and helping out during big-scale environmental disasters.

Was my undergraduate degree/experience helpful in any way? I feel that I did receive a more "well-rounded" education due to the requirements of history, literature, moral reasoning, language, and international studies in addition to my engineering classes. I ran on their track team all four years so that was a fun and rewarding experience as well. But the best thing about it was the social aspect, as I found people who were like me who liked me (which was hard for me to find back in my hometown and high school).

College studies are hard. In an Ivy League setting, it can be both hard AND competitive (particularly if you are on a pre-med track as I witnessed with some of my roommates). I had classes with people who found the course work easy and only took the class for "easy credit". I hated those people as I would be working for multiple nights in a row until midnight to try and get the problem sets complete. But you would have those kind of people in any undergraduate setting.

luv2run wrote:

rojo wrote:

I've heard of ridiculous engineering exams at Cornell where like 35% is an A (but there are still geniuses who get like 95%).

It sort of scares me that an engineer who is building lord knows what only gets 35% on a test in an engineering or physics class.

Educate yourself on that subject before you speak. I'd rather my professors gave me hard testing instead of easy testing. Easy engineering tests will give you a false sense of security that you know what you are doing. Hard engineering tests will force you to think critically and analyze the task with full understanding of the theory.

Ho Hum wrote:

Most schools let in just about anyone, which FSU does not - look up their admission stats if you don't believe me. The 2nd-tier state schools make FSU look like Harvard.

But Jameis Winston's interview made those 2nd-teir state schools look like Harvard as compared to FSU:

Enjoy the championship noles fans, your degree just lost value.

The difference in difficulty is most pronounced in humanities and social sciences. In math and hard sciences, by contrast, there's only so much watering down you can do and still be legitimately teaching the subject. I had a little experience working in human resources one summer, and I learned that when resumes for job applications are sorted, the hard science majors from state schools go into the same pile as people with Ivy League degrees.

As for the grade inflation question, one thing that's often ignored is the fact that the quality of students at top schools is so much higher than it was decades ago. It was once far less common for top students, particularly students from outside the east coast and from public schools, to apply to elite private universities. It's one thing to give good grades for mediocre work, but it's another to recognize a fairly high level of work across the board. This is basically the approach at Harvard Business School, for example, where the only grades are 1, 2, and 3, with the median 80% getting a 2.

Ghjrt wrote:

Wall Street really loves the Ivies, but that's one profession out of many.

It does, but still fires 2/3rds of them after 2-3 years.

There is a lot of mythology around Ivies and other "elite" institutions/careers like Wall Street, Consulting etc. The truth is that it is safe to hire a Harvard grad, even if he is a moron. He will get canned, but, "...he went to Harvard". There are plenty of firms on Wall Street, in consulting etc that will give a well spoken/written State school grad a break. You might have to be a bit more persistent and earnest, but not going to an Ivy is not banishment from this part of the working world.

Ivy grads essentially have, "Not an complete idiot" stamped on their forheads, which was put there by the university admissions boards when they were 17. The majority of people understand the deterministic and subjective nature of this process, and so tend to be sceptical of the true value vs State school grads.

I learned this by interviewing a lot of people from all sorts of schools. Sharp motivated people are everywhere, and work is about being conscientious and diligent, not being the smartest guys in the room.

I went to a reputable state school for undergrad and an Ivy for grad school. I have one child that went to an Ivy and 2 that went to very competitive Ivy-like schools and I have several friends and relatives who went to Ivy League schools. My thoughts:

First, not all Ivies or programs are the same. UofP Wharton is very quantitatively oriented, you need the math skills of an engineer and the ability to handle a large work load and turn around project work quickly. Everyone in the Wharton School is a serious student and works hard. I have heard from other Ivy grads that their grad school experience was easier than undergrad and was not nearly as challenging as they expected. I would bet that UofP Nuclear Engineering course work does not compare the NCState for example. George Washington and American University probably has more difficult course work than most of the Ivies if you are a Journalism major.

As someone else stated, the hardest part is getting in, even as an athlete and excellent student, I was turned down by 2 Ivies coming out of H.S. The Ivies have a higher graduation rate and a higher percentage of kids graduating with honors than state schools, which again indicates that the hardest part is getting in. Among the people I know who are Ivy undergraduates, I don't recall anyone saying it was as difficult as they expected it to be. For a lot of Ivy classes, the books and exams are the same as another school; however the professors tend cover all of the material and nothing is watered down. Keep in mind that you are among a higher caliber of students, who tend to go to class, study and are good test takers, which is how they got in in the first place.

I guess the answer to your question is yes, Ivy League Course work is more Difficult than State Schools and other schools, but on average, not by as much as most people would expect. Westpoint, Berkeley, UNC and Penn State for example are excellent state/public schools...there is an even bigger disparity between the course work at the different state/public schools. I find that there is less of a difference in the work world between an Ivy graduate and a state/public school graduate. The preparation for getting into an Ivy League school has to start around age 15 and because of someone's background and a number of factors a kid can't control will make it unlikely they will get accepted to an Ivy League school. Some Ivy League graduates are burnt out in their early 20s and some people are just starting to hit their stride at that point.

rojo wrote:

But their stories remind me of a story i heard in colllege. A buddy of my brothers at Yale was on the track/football teams. He was viewed as your partier ivy league jock with like a C average. He went to visit his buddy at a florida school and took a large econ exam for his buddy. Don't ask me how. All I remember is he said the exam was so easy he started missing questions on purpose so people wouldn't become suspicious.

So what you're saying is that there is no Honor Code at Yale? A clear violation of academic conduct and ethics by an Ivy-leaguer, which was confessed to another Ivy-Leaguer, and no one reported it or even distanced themselves from the cheater? Wejo must have spent many sleepless nights wrestling over the moral dilemma to report his friend for cheating or simply look away?

In math, the coursework is much harder. Your typical math major at Harvard and Princeton will have taken classes that a state school math major would have no chance in hell of passing. It would be like a 2:20 marathoner working out with someone who runs 3:00. The 3-flat runner might be able to keep up for one interval or a few minutes, but after that it is going to get very ugly.

There is even a fairly large gap between the Harvard and Princeton students coursework and what the other ivy students study. Of course there are some incredibly smart people who come from all types of colleges, however on average there is no comparison in what it takes to get a math degree from say Harvard than your typical state school.

Wow, you must have been really, really stupid at Princeton considering that you have had an extra 18 years to learn your native language. Emulating George W is no way to go through life, son.

Not all the Ivy League schools are the same. Brown has a reputation for being very laid back. You can even take classes pass/fail there.

Dixie cup wrote:Wow, you must have been really, really stupid at Princeton considering that you have had an extra 18 years to learn your native language. Emulating George W is no way to go through life, son.

You flagged nothing but typos and informal language, neither of which reflect a lack of English mastery.

800 dude wrote:

You flagged nothing but typos and informal language, neither of which reflect a lack of English mastery.

?????

Of course they do. On which planet do you live?

Physics major at cornell, ran (slowly, but improved) for rojo, finished near the top of my class (more A+s than A-s in physics). Yes, our physics classes were all curved. A certain percent a/b/c, and only failing marks if you were way outside the distribution (didn't do any work). Profs would generally aim for a 60/100 average to get a nice distribution. Hardest test had a 4.5/20 average, but he was pissed and made us take it home and finish it the next week (I got 20/20 for the takehome part so it was doable).

But that's not really the main issue here. The main point is that there is a huge qualitative difference between highschool and college at the ivies, whereas the difference is smaller at many other schools. In general, at top colleges the lectures introduce a subject and serve as a guide, illustrating techniques and other important aspects, but you have to do a lot of self learning. Even ifyou go to lecture you probably won't be able to do the homework without studying the textbook or reviewing your notes. The pace is quick and you arent always shown how to do things. In addition, the problems are rarely simple computations -- often youd sit down and look at them and think, "what the hell?" For example, we had a class where on the test day the professor brought in a rope, dangled it above the ground, showed us how the bottom would tend to flap about more than the top, and then asked us to calculate the behavior of a dangling rope. I think we would typically get five or so problems, and they'd usually have multiple parts. In general, I would expect to spend 15-20 hrs/wk on my toughest classes.

Excuse typos, was done on my phone.

Hope this helps

I know this is a hot-button topic because you have a few different types of people here:

1. Those who went to Ivies and want to tell everyone how hard they are

2. Those who went to Ivies but want to be cool and tell everyone how Ivies are the exact same as state schools

3. Those who went to state schools who want to insist that their school is as hard as an Ivy

But nobody here is quite right. As usual, the correct answer is a moderate balance. Yep, of course they're harder on average. It would be ridiculous to deny this. But there are excellent students at state schools who could have gone to Ivies, and some students who somehow slid into Ivies and shouldn't be there. Difficulty is a spectrum and you'll find more Ivies at one end of the spectrum, that's all. So we should all get along and sing kumbaya and not judge books by their covers. I'm not sure why this has to be hashed out; I'm pretty sure this is going to turn into a competition between the three groups I outlined above.[/quote]

Your expansive mind is clearly the product of an extensive education

800 dude wrote:

Dixie cup wrote:Wow, you must have been really, really stupid at Princeton considering that you have had an extra 18 years to learn your native language. Emulating George W is no way to go through life, son.

You flagged nothing but typos and informal language, neither of which reflect a lack of English mastery.

Actually, there were over 20 typos, spelling errors and grammar mistakes in three short paragraphs. This indicates that rojo is both lazy and has a very low level of English mastery. His short post had more mistakes than the total of mistakes for all other posters in this thread.

Lucas Stadium wrote:

800 dude wrote:

You flagged nothing but typos and informal language, neither of which reflect a lack of English mastery.

Actually, there were over 20 typos, spelling errors and grammar mistakes in three short paragraphs. This indicates that rojo is both lazy and has a very low level of English mastery. His short post had more mistakes than the total of mistakes for all other posters in this thread.

Rojo learned early that when your daddy rides the government gravy train for decades, you don't need no stinkin' grammar.