I must say, my friend Lydie has brought up a point which I have been considering for some time now. Ever since I was applying to undergraduate programs, the question as to how much of a school’s name you should pay for was on my mind. In one of her recent posts, “To Ivy or not : on name (brand) schools,” she references a recent Time.com article “Who Needs Harvard?” which discusses the value of searching out smaller alternatives to the “big names” which may better match the personality, goals, and talent of a young student.
Most of the comments on her blog seem to agree with Lydie that a “brand name” school is absolutely necessary. I, however, beg to differ somewhat on that point. While it is clear that attending a big name school such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and so on will provide its benefits, in today’s changing workplace this benefit is difficult to quantify. Furthermore, the dynamic, incredibly talented, and dramatically larger student pool applying to these schools (relative to, let’s say, the 1960’s or 70’s) makes not only these big name schools highly competitive, but also schools traditionally referred to as “second-tier” or “safeties.” In short, as long as you are a solid student, applying to a reasonably selective college or university, you can rest assured you will not lose much in the quality or prestige of your education, provided you do your research.
Now, let me make it clear that I do not completely disagree with my friends on the issue. Certainly, it is unwise to attend a school that can neither provide an intelectually or culturally challenging environment, nor gurantee a selective admissions process. In a book I am currently reading, this point is made abundantly clear. William Bowen and Derek Bok’s The Shape of The River, demonstrates that school selectivity positively influences both a student’s academic undergraduate performance, chances of applying to and gaining admission to graduate and professional school, and increased earning power.
Given this point, I freqently can be overheard saying that once a threshold of academic selectivity has been surmounted, the most important thing about the undergraduate experience is the quality of life for the student. In the mentioned story, Time magazine seems to agree: [I have added the emphasis.]
College students this spring watched the flameout of Kaavya Viswanathan, the prepackaged Harvard prodigy who published a best seller at 19 and had been exposed as a plagiarist by 20. That’s not the way things are supposed to unfold. College is supposed to be about the Best Four Years of Your Life, “the love of learning, the sequestered nooks, and all the sweet serenity of books,” not to mention pizza and football and long, caffeinated nights of debate and confusion and discovery. All that families have to do to succeed, say veterans of the admissions wars, is let go of some old assumptions and allow themselves to be pleasantly surprised by how much has changed on campuses across the country in the past generation. That ability in the end may be the admissions test that matters most.
Unquestionably, graduate and professional school is a somewhat different story. Certainly, to agree with Lydie, it is an acute socioeconomic issue. The privileges and networks associated with world-class professional education are priceless. Thus, at the graduate level, it is more important to attend a name school (in my opinion). This is because graduate school is about more decisive preparation to become colleagues in a profession, not necessarily about procuring a solid academic base in a subject.
It is precisely this notion which demonstrates how invaluable the undergraduate experience is. Because there is no other academic period of your life where you will be allowed personal and scholastic freedom with only modest penalties for making mistakes, a high premium should be placed on ensuring that one will enjoy their undergraduate years to the utmost.