Academic fit vs. other factors

Parents Forum
121

<p>Sorry, POIH. You lose on this one. Your comment was insulting, unsupported, and unsupportable.</p>

<p>The difference between large state flagships and Ivy-type colleges is not that the former have easy, dumbed-down classes and the latter don’t. It’s that the former try to educate a broad range of students, offering a variety of academic experiences, and basically leaving it up to the students to decide how much to challenge themselves, and the latter educate a much smaller number of students with a much narrower range of abilities, so the intellectual climate is much more uniform. There are benefits and countervailing costs of both systems.</p>

122

<p>I like how JHS put it - it’s a wider range vs a narrower range thing. Hypothetically, a large State U can find enough students that are equal to or better than an entire class at a small Ivy. Apparently, POIH misused the word “any”.</p>

123

<p>I also like JHS’s summary–balanced and accurate.</p>

124

<p>

</p>

<p>The same can be said at the high school level – compared to an elite prep school with N students, a large high school’s top N students may be equal or better in academic performance than the elite prep school.</p>

125

<p>First of all this is not a debate so there is no question of winning or losing the argument.
Second I don’t think the word ‘any’ was misused. I only reacted to calmom post.
What I said

stand for itself because if state university coaches are not helping athletes decide what classes to take then they are confident that the athletes can take any class barring they are eligible and will pass the class. </p>

<p>The correct explanation for this is “The athletes at state universities are not out of the norm students with respect to the average students at that university. So the level of the athletes and the level of the courses taught complement each other.”</p>

<p>In other words assuming the courses are tailered to an average student an average athlete at state university have the same chances of passing any course.</p>

<p>Stanford coaches on the other hand don’t have that confidence because they know that on an average the athletes at Stanford are below in academics with respect to the average non-athletes student and so they will need a list of classes specially created for them.</p>

<p>In other words assuming the courses are tailered to an average student an average athlete at Stanford will have tough time passing any course.</p>

<p>Now I don’t have the habit of talking rubbish against people who don’t comprehend logic because I know not all can do. Instead I used “In other words…” to explain to those who can’t get past my lack of knowledge of english language and their lack of processing any logic.</p>

<p>Still to keep the record straight “English is certainly not my first language and I don’t claim it as such either”.</p>

126

<p>I don’t want this to turn into a sob story, but I’m currently at my safety school in the honors program and I hate it. I only went here because I didn’t get into my top choices and the other schools I got into didn’t give me any fin aid. I value different things than the students here…they like to party and surf in a relaxed college environment, and I like more structure and rigor. Everyone learns differently I guess! I’m applying to a few schools this year as a transfer.</p>

127

<p>

How do you know that a given state university does not keep similar lists, or at least similar word-of-mouth advising? I, for one, find it very hard to believe that Stanford is unique in this respect.</p>

128

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, it may surprise most people here, but athletes in general are similar in academic performance to other students at their respective universities. However, the exceptions are mainly in the highest profile sports like football and basketball, and that applies to big state universities as well as elite private universities. Even if nothing as notorious as a written “list of easy courses for athletes” exists, almost any school has “easy” courses that are well known to students (athletes or otherwise).</p>

<p>Most football and basketball players will not have a career in the NFL or NBA, so it is unwise of them to bet their entire university career on that, although a lot do so and fail to make the most of the academic opportunities that they have. This does have a parallel with many pre-med and pre-law students, who sometimes choose “easy” courses to protect their GPAs, but leave themselves few options and a somewhat “empty” education if they do not get into medical or law school.</p>

<p>There are (unfortunately far too few) football and basketball players who take rigorous academic programs at their universities, turning an athletic scholarship into an opportunity to learn, with the realization that most will not go into the NFL or NBA. </p>

<p>[Spot</a> the unusual student in this civil engineering class](<a href=“http://coe.berkeley.edu/static/innovations-slideshow/athletes/images/4fisher.jpg]Spot”>http://coe.berkeley.edu/static/innovations-slideshow/athletes/images/4fisher.jpg)</p>

<p>[Article</a> about the unusual student and others](<a href=“http://innovations.coe.berkeley.edu/vol4-issue10-dec10/athletes]Article”>http://innovations.coe.berkeley.edu/vol4-issue10-dec10/athletes)</p>

129

<p>^I’ve always assumed that every university (except some of the tech schools) have their versions of “Rocks for Jocks” and “Physics for Poets” - certainly not unique to elite universities.</p>

130

<p>Re post #116 – there may be a tradeoff, but it is a LOT lower down the rankings ladder than people on this thread make it out to be. You seem to have a very smug picture in your mind about the academic environment at your elite LAC, which you compare in a condescending way to students at public U’s, which you pretty much lump under one umbrella – and obviously you are basing it on second hand reports from other students, since you yourself have never attended a public u.</p>

<p>Well, guess what? I did attend a public U – my son attended both an elite private LAC and a lower tier state U, my daughter had a combination of elite LAC & Ivy, in terms of the classes she actually attended. </p>

<p>There is a tradeoff, but it not is so simple as “academics”. As I pointed out above, the elite students lose something along with the loss of diversity. There is a significant narrowing of the range of experience and ideas being brought to the table in both in-class and out-of-class discussions. Yes it is a narrowing to the students who might theoretically be labeled “best and brightest” – but high school GPA and SAT scores have a way of weeding out a lot of very intelligent non-conformists, as well as people with narrowly focused talents (such as those who are strong in arts but weaker in academics).</p>

<p>Most of the CC parents who are looking at this choice are not weighing Harvard vs. the local community college. It’s probably more like the choices my daughter had – Chicago or Barnard on one end, UCSC and UCSB on the other end, and the allure of NYU somewhere in the middle. If it had come down solely to finances, then the UC’s were clearly the most affordable. My d. had a good academic experience at Barnard and she’s glad that she went there. But the first small seminar class she had – the freshman writing seminar – was taught by a prof who was a UCSC graduate. She has high school friends who chose the UC’s and are now doing quite well. As my kids were growing up, it had never even occured to me that they would want to attend any college other than a UC – as a UC grad I know that the university offered me pretty much anything I wanted, including whatever degree of challenge I was up for. Truthfully, I changed majors because my initial choice was too challenging. And I didn’t notice any lack of intellect among any of my classmates. I know that statistically there were a lot of students who came in and had to take what in my eyes were remedial-level classes (the “Subject A” requirement, a non-credit basic English course to teach them how to write)… but I wasn’t in those classes. I had AP credits in English and went straight into upper division courses, which were taught by full profs with high expectations of their students. In my dorm there were students with a range of interests and I assume differing levels of abilities. </p>

<p>My d. happened to do very well at an elite college, and I think that has paid off for her. She’s got a job that I don’t think she would have gotten without very top grades from college. The “elite college” part isn’t so important – other young people have been hired for the same position coming out of CUNY - but everyone there has top grades & honors. </p>

<p>If she had opted for the elite education but struggled, or gone in with a more cavalier attitude and earned Bs & Cs – I’m not at all sure that it would be worth it. She did not find her peer environment to be a particular asset – she, like me, saw that aspect of college as being too constrained, by economic status and range of interest. She wanted to move off campus after her first year, to live with a couple of friends who attended other, less prestigious colleges (like CUNY) – but the financial aid system at her school wouldn’t subsidize off-campus housing, so I had to veto that idea. </p>

<p>Also, both my kids complained of having classmates at the elite schools who were vapid or lacked intellectual curiosity. I don’t mean that most of the students fit that category-- but my point is that they did NOT find themselves steeped in brilliance. They had good profs and bad ones; classes they thought were amazing, and classes they thought were a waste of time; they met brilliant, highly motivated students and also students who left them shaking their heads wondering how the kids had ever managed to get admitted. </p>

<p>It’s not a simple either/or thing. I do feel that my son’s LAC ultimately was too constraining simply because it was too small – there wasn’t enough there to support a broading and shifting of interests. From what I’ve seen, if I had it to do all over again, I’d leave the very small LAC’s - the ones with 1500 students or less - off the college list. They offer a boutique style education, often very strong in selected areas … but I think that it was nice for me and my daughter to be at places where we knew that we could opt to study just about anything we could imagine.</p>

131

<p>Why in the world do you think that state university coaches don’t help athletes decide what courses take? Actually, it probably isn’t the coaches themselves, it is the entire tutoring/advising staff dedicated to athletes that would do this.</p>

<p>[this is a response to post 125]</p>

132

<p>POIH, what could possibly make you think that “state university coaches are not helping athletes decide what classes to take”? Or that at a state university “courses are tailored to an average student”? Or, for that matter, that athletes at state universities are average students?</p>

<p>On the contrary, there are reams of scandalous stories of state university coaches “helping” (in the sense of “ordering”) athletes to take particular courses or majors. Some of which have been designed specifically for athletes, and may not be open to (or at least publicized to) other students. </p>

<p>Remember, too, that while varsity athletes constitute 10-20% of the student body at most Ivies, and 50% or more of the student body at elite LACs, at large state flagships they are a negligible percentage of the student population. They may or may not be in the range of other students in terms of their academic skills – as with the elite privates, some surely are, and others surely aren’t quite, even though the non-athlete range at the state universities is broader. At the Ivies, however, the athletes help define “normal”, because they are so ubiquitous. At State Us, they are a rounding error.</p>

<p>Finally, I think there is a lot of variation in courses, at both Ivies and State Us. Different courses are pitched at different levels, and serve different markets, so to speak. State Us use a lot of “weed-out” courses in some majors, which can be much more difficult and stressful than the equivalent courses at colleges for the privileged, which don’t have any interest in weeding anybody out. Upper-level courses in academic majors are probably pretty equivalent at both types of institutions. (My sister-in-law is a well-regarded linguistics professor who teaches at a large public, and has been a visiting professor at Swarthmore. She says the main difference between students at her home institution and those at Swarthmore is that the students at Swarthmore have less drama in their lives and spend a lot less time figuring out how they are going to pay for next semester, and therefore have more time to work on their papers. She doesn’t think they are smarter or more skilled at all compared to her upper-level students at the public.)</p>

<p>And can anyone forget the “Basketball Theory” course taught by a coaching assistant at, I believe, Georgia Tech, with its multiple choice exam asking, for example, how many points one gets for making a three-point basket? That got the criticism it deserved, and I don’t think it would have happened at Stanford, but it wouldn’t have happened anywhere if it had been easy for basketball players to find courses they could pass without a lot of effort.</p>

133

<p>I have several very intelligent friends who applied to “easy,” big state schools, mainly as safeties, and are going to have to go to those schools in the fall because of a lack of financial aid. Compared to my friends, my mom makes a lot less than their parents, so I know that I will be getting quite a bit of financial aid and am therefore able to apply at a school because I like it’s academics, setting, etc., without too much thought or worry about price. However, these kids are going to have to go to a school where they are smarter than a lot of the student population. I guess, though, that it all depends on the person and how they treat the situation. Plus, the Honors program at a lot of schools probably make it a better experience. But I do think that it is unfortunate for them.</p>

134

<p>

All that “drama” happens to also contribute to emotional and intellectual growth – students who are juggling work responsibilities with school also are developing problem-solving abilities and a broader perspective.</p>

135

<p>POIH, you’re wrong in any language. I’d like to see the statistics that show that Stanford athletes, as a group, are different in terms of academic ability than Stanford non-athletes. A much larger difference between athletes and non-athletes at any Pac 10 school, whether public or private, is that the athletes work out 25 hours a week and travel on the weekends (and that travel generally takes them out of school on Friday). Add in another 5-7 hours spent with the trainers dealing with recurring injuries (or just plain soreness) and you’ve got a student who is in effect holding down a full-time job while trying to carry a full load. That’s why the need for easy classes.</p>

136

<p>When I attended UGA in the early 1980s, it was a HUGE deal for my friends to see Herschel Walker (Heisman-winning runningback) in their classes. We generally did not see football players in regular courses. UGA was well-known at the time for having tutors, special classes, separate dorm and chow hall for its elite athletes. When a tenured professor called the administration out on special academic coddling those athletes received, she was fired.</p>

<p>I can say that the football coaches S2 talked to considered his stats extremely good and felt he would be admitted without needing a coach’s tip. He was told at one Ivy that they liked to see 1200-1400 CR/M scores and a few APs. When the coach heard S2’s stats, he was suddenly VERY interested. (And no, S did not apply.)</p>

<p>Our friends at the flagship did not have trouble finding intellectual peers. At our flagship, they all move off-campus junior year and move into group houses together. The number of awards, top grad school offers, published articles, GRE scores and GPAs in one house I’m familiar with is staggering. These kids may be at the top of the heap, but they are definitely not alone.</p>

<p>POIH, can’t you be happy that you got a good return on your investment in your D and stop trying to justify your choices by playing the elitism card? Seems like you always come back to the same POV. We’re paying for the big name school with the top-five department and while S1 has had a terrific experience, there are times I think he would have done better for himself at the flagship.</p>

137

<p>Couple of things: Posters need to disassociates my personal decision about schooling wrt DD from the comments on this thread. Let’s discuss in the context of the thread. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m seldom wrong in any language because I think before I say anything. Here is the link </p>

<p>[Stanford</a> vs. Duke basketball: The difference in admissions standards | College Hotline](<a href=“http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/11/05/stanford-vs-duke-basketball-the-difference-in-admissions-standards/]Stanford”>Stanford vs. Duke basketball: The difference in admissions standards - College Hotline)</p>

<p>Stanford Basketball team average </p>

<p>Stanford Basketball team average GPA: 3.46</p>

<p>Stanford Basketball team average SAT: 1123</p>

<p>Stanford Football team Average SAT: 1108 </p>

<p>Here is the average Stanford accepted students profile:
Percent who had GPA of 3.75 and higher: 91.13</p>

<p>SAT score for the 25th percentile 75th percentile
SAT Critical Reading 670 760
SAT Math 690 790 </p>

<p>1360 - 1550 </p>

<p>This is for whole student body. If you take out the lower stats athletes out of it, you will find that this will be even higher.</p>

138

<p>If you consider admission as a threshold which a sum of variables must surpass, then people who “just” get in because of athletic ability will not need as high test scores/GPA. No one’s trying to say that athletes are inherently less intelligent, just that, statistically, demographics that can get in because of non-academic factors will have lower average scores/GPAs.</p>

<p>I don’t see how you could dispute this, even if POIH did not provide evidence.</p>

139

<p>

What, exactly, is the difference between a firsthand report and an elicited secondhand report from a close friend? I live within 30 minutes of my state’s public flagship university, and half of my (small, public) high school class attends there. Admittedly it’s not as “good” a school as the UCs, except in certain fields (I can elaborate on exactly which fields, but I doubt anyone in this thread would care).</p>

<p>Another apparently useless secondhand report: one of my good friends at Swarthmore, who transferred after a year at UCSC. He managed to get into the 600-person Intro Linguistics course–which isn’t easily skipped, since there’s no AP Linguistics–sat in the front row, and engaged in intellectual debate during class with the excellent professor. But he was still miserable for lack of intellectual peers–he is possibly THE most outgoing person I know, so shyness wasn’t the problem–and given his prior experience with course registration, he didn’t have much hope for getting into intermediate-level ling courses. He is a Linguistics major now at Swarthmore, as I plan to be–but my first taste of real linguistics was an upper-level seminar on conlangs, overenrolled by LAC standards to 21 students.</p>

<p>

That’s certainly their perogative. Would it kill you to accept that I have a different, equally valid opinion? I’ve only taken 8 classes thus far, of course, and shopped a ninth–Intro Psych, a large lecture class which I dropped because for me it was the quintessential waste of time. I freely admit that I was biased towards the stereotypical LAC style of teaching and learning from the start, and I’ve found that it works very well for me. For another student, my school might be too small, or too depressing (cf. misery poker), or too full of academic hacks, who knows. They are fully entitled to their opinions, which are true for them.</p>

<p>And again, I take pains to clarify that the anecdotes I share are NOT representative of any particular school. But I would characterize the “CC parents” comparison as more like UChicago or Barnard vs. a full ride at UAlabama, or my own state flagship UDel, or any number of mid-tier state flagship publics. </p>

<p>I’ve tried my best not to be condescending about State U (just as you substitute the UCs, I mentally substitute UDel) because some of my best friends go there and receive an excellent education, including one who was admitted to Swarthmore. But I also try to say what I gather as truth, which is that the humanities and social sciences on the whole (including Honors, which is quite well-populated by former HS classmates, as I noticed when visiting the Honors freshman dorm) are noticeably less rigorous than the sciences. By and large, my HS friends have found their intellectual niche; but that Honors dorm is definitely overrepresented in science and engineering majors.</p>

<p>

I agree entirely. But there are lots of ways to grow emotionally and intellectually; different styles of education privilege certain types of growth over others. My LAC, for instance, is biased toward theory over practice (evident in both professor attitude and limited credit for internships). So, in personal preference, am I–hence the idea of “fit.” I didn’t grow up with middle-class coddling, though neither did I suffer tremendously, and I value the rare, idealistic environment that I’ll be in for four years. Doesn’t mean that everyone would thrive in that particular environment; nor does it mean that I will automatically have a narrower perspective on the world than if I’d gone to my state flagship. I feel very privileged to have earned enough outside scholarships to have the option to work term-time and summers (I do)–and in the meantime, I can enjoy the academic environment of students who have the smiliar privilege of devoting their full attention to academics. (Btw, I also know an upperclassman friend who is working 25 hours a week and taking an academic overload with 3 upper-level philosophy courses this semester. She is a saint.)</p>

140

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh my. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with you is usually wrong, in whatever language, and it is because the wrong-headed individual just didn’t think.</p>