<p>It would seem to me that the honors college model of taking more highly selected students and putting them in exclusive classes and exclusive dorms is all the evidence you need to say that there is benefit to going to a selective college and surrounding oneself with true peers. Why would that program even be structured as it is if this offered no intellectual or social advantage? </p>
<p>Michigan may not be unique in its wealth of talent in its honors program but you have to be kidding me if you think that all state flagships have honors programs that rival the USNWR top 20. If nothing else, exposure to kids from nearly every state and many international students enriches a collegiate experience and expands perspectives beyond what you get if the vast majority of your classmates are in-state.</p>
<p>In both cases you’re surrounded by true intellectual peers. It doesn’t mean that you have to be isolated from anyone who doesn’t fit in that category. Having enough of a critical mass is the crucial point. You can do that at Princeton or at Plan II at Texas.</p>
Fun like owning a brand-name purse because that brand name has been dictated, drilled into your head your whole life by adults, parents, media, etc. and reinforced by the people around you. It’s only fun because 1) you’ve been told that this is what you want and 2) other people also want it too. As pizzagirl says, “snazzy peers” can be found in high concentration at any top school, so that argument holds little water. (Perhaps the difference may be that when choosing between Penn and Duke, for example, Penn kids chose Penn mainly because it’s an Ivy- exact case from two friends of mine). </p>
<p>The problem isn’t aiming for top, highly selective schools, it’s aiming for eight schools in particular because of the name of their athletic conference. And in the process, losing sight of what’s ultimately important.</p>
<p>“Ivy schools” could be the wrong focus, graduation rate should be what really matters. In an environment where everyone graduates in 4 years, a student would behave differently than in a place where only 30% do (not 2 real numbers), except for the most motivated students.</p>
<p>annasdad repeatedly disputes this. As evidence he often cites work by Patrick T. Terenzini and Ernest T. Pascarella. One of these days I mean to break down, order How College Affects Students<a href=“%7E$59%20from%20Amazon”>/u</a>, and work my way through it. Meanwhile, one can refer to the following slide deck, which seems to be a summary of their findings straight from the horse’s (Terenzini’s) mouth:
<a href=“http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELIWEB061.pdf[/url]”>http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELIWEB061.pdf</a></p>
<p>For purposes of this discussion, slide #24 appears to summarize one of the key findings:
*Institutional control, size, resources, cost, and selectivity are largely unimportant factors. Effects are more indirect than direct … Internal institutional influences are far more important.<a href=“emphasis%20added”>/i</a></p>
<p>So (in my interpretation), the kinds of factors US News uses to rank colleges do not have a strong direct, measurable effect on the kinds of educational outcomes T&P have tried to measure. As annasdad repeatedly states (my paraphrase), what a student does with the provided opportunities is more important than variations in the opportunities provided. This does not strike me as a controversial or unreasonable claim. I believe it.</p>
<p>However, this is not the same as proving that there is no extra educational benefit from attending certain schools that happen to be highly selective and prestigious (assuming one takes advantage of the available opportunities). On slide #29, Terenzini states that learning and development “entails encounters with challenging ideas and people”. Surely these encounters are not equally available in the typical undergraduate classroom at every college. He also states (on slide #31) that “current conceptions of how students learn are incomplete”. So I think we need to be careful not to make overly strong or broad claims about what their research conclusively proves.</p>
<p>But, if there are direct benefits to encounters with challenging ideas and people, I would assume there tend to be indirect benefits to attending a more selective college (if, that is, one takes advantage of available opportunities.) Whether the Ivies are better or worse than other selective colleges at encouraging those encounters, I’m not sure. If we’re only talking about the classroom environment, my impression is that a few other selective schools do tend to do it more consistently well (with smaller classes, more faculty engagement, less grade inflation, etc.)</p>
<p>Academically speaking, there are plenty of non Ivies where you can get a great education. However, culturally speaking, you will carry the prestige of your Ivy League school with you for the rest of your life. It’s actually pathetic and sad… but true. There is a definite “wow factor” that you will sense when having to inform someone of your Ivy League alma mater. People will perceive you to be intelligent, if not more intelligent than you are. When introduced by a person who knows you’re Ivy, the person will, on more than one occasion say, "I’d like you to meet so and so and by the way he attended … In essence, you will stand out from the rest. This is a consequence of living in a capitalistic, consumer oriented society where brands have status attached. The same reason people line up for the latest Apple product is the same reason there are so many applications to the Ivies. It’s superficial and meaningless in the end, but what isn’t?</p>
<p>I’ve taken many classes at two different Ivy leagues (one for a graduate degree), a well regarded but not top LAC (undergrad degree), and two public regional schools, and honestly I found no difference among quality of the teaching, books, or student discussion.</p>
<p>Greenzen: As far as connections are concerned, a lot of the situations you describe are undoubtedly based on post-bachelors’ experiences–MBA programs, law or med school, or PhD departments. And there’s no question that the Ivies have some of the best of those programs in the country, or the world. In any case, for most of us outside the worlds of finance, politics or academia, “wow” has limited utility. I have worked for a number of very successful businesses and could not tell you where 95% of my coworkers, including the C-suite executives, went to college.</p>
<p>In any case, you have correctly identified the Ivy obsession as a brand/status thing. Back to the original question, the Ivies may be “worth the bother” for those who are so competitive as TEENAGERS that they are willing to do what it takes to get admitted to one of those eight schools. They place a high value on prestige, and in many cases I am guessing they have little interest in finding lesser-known alternatives that would offer the same types of things they say they are important to them. In other words, they may be smart, but they are also highly conformist. And I don’t believe that is necessarily a good thing.</p>
<p>Depends where in the country you are. Could some of you perhaps leave the northeast for a few minutes, please? Do you not get that SMU and UT and Texas A&M are what impresses in Texas, Ole Miss is where the fancy-folk in Mississippi send their kids, and so on and so forth? You people consistently overstate the everyday knowledge that most people have of Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>I was a professional headhunter for many years. I can tell you why the Ivy’s “may” be worth it. One word:</p>
<p>Connections. </p>
<p>That is it. Nothing else. There is no esoteric knowledge at these schools. Hell, some are even opening up their classes online for free. These schools don’t pop out hard-working geniuses. The geniuses come to them. I am not saying it is not worth it. I am not saying it is. Those are the facts. Some companies (investment banks, in particular) only recruit on certain campuses. Research what you want to do, esp. if grad school is in the equation. And choose accordingly. Be wary of student debt, as owing a lot of money will sometimes compel you to go into certain fields or areas. I saw that a lot. Even with MIT grads.</p>
Right. What the Ivies, and a few other schools (like MIT) are the best at is getting the most highly accomplished students available. Harvard is the best of the best at doing this–look at its yield figures. If Harvard takes a kid, even a school like Duke will have to offer a big scholarship to lure him away. And several of the Ivies give such generous financial aid that its hard to lure a kid away even with a scholarship.</p>
<p>This leads, of course, to a chicken-and-egg problem–is this the cause or result of prestige? (I think it’s primarily cause: my exhibit for this is Wash U’s increased prestige.) And as I keep saying, if you place a high value on going to school with highly accomplished peers, you want to go to the schools that are the best at enrolling them.</p>
<p>“PRINCETON, NJ – Harvard is chosen by more Americans than any other school as the best university in the country. Over three-quarters of the American public name a college when they are asked to identify the best university in the United States, but the responses are widely divided between dozens of different schools, with only Harvard getting more than 5% of the total mentions. Perceptions about the top colleges vary significantly by region of the country.”</p>
<p>As you can see, there is no consensus beyond Harvard…absolutely none whatsoever.</p>
<p>
Bingo! If you want to make social connections in the Dallas Fort Worth area, you would be silly to pass up attending SMU for any school besides Harvard. If you want to mingle with the aristocratic elite in Seattle, then the University of Washington is where you should matriculate at, not Brown.</p>
<p>Sally, I am not talking about connections here but pure status projection. Once people find out that you’ve attended one of the Ivies, you are branded. You will be seen and treated differently from that point forward. People will expect you to know things and have answers. It goes with the territory. I personally take no pride in this as I am convinced that my own ascent to the Ivy League was founded on 99.9% luck…make that 100%.</p>
<p>Virtually all universities have departments of English, History, Biology, etc. Chances are, any department or major that sounds a little “esoteric” (Folklore and Mythology at Harvard?) is closely related to other departments/majors that are present most everywhere else.</p>
<p>On the other hand … bleeding edge research is not equally present everywhere. It’s too difficult and too expensive for that to be the case. So the Ivies are likely to have more of it than a random, average institution would. They might not have more of it than every large public flagship does, but with smaller classes and more money, the Ivies may be likelier to expose it to the average undergraduate in an engaging way (through hands-on research, labs, and discussions v. big lectures.) </p>
<p>In reading this, a lot of the discussion reminds me of the conversation/conflict in many high schools regarding “gifted education.” </p>
<p>There are some children who are truly “gifted” and thrive in a complex, fast-paced, intellectually challenging environment, but do not necessarily have to work hard to accomplish their goals. There are others who are “high achievers” who are very bright, but work hard to achieve. Then, there are the rest of us. In high school settings, many parents who do not have exposure to truly gifted children sometimes assume that these kids are driven, high achievers, are consumed with prestige, or have demanding parents. They do not understand how these kids hunger for academically challenging classrooms where their minds can be stimulated. It is not about prestige. It is not elitist. It is not intended to exclude others. It is just what they need.</p>
<p>Yes, there are some prestige-driven, high achievers who seek ivy league schools because of the status or because they see it as a path to a high paying career. But many kids seek out ivy league AND other high level LACs, schools like MIT, U Chicago, etc. because they would feel as lost as they did in high school if they went to a more “average” college. Even kids in “honors college” at flagship universities often feel the same painful sense of being an outsider as they did in high school, and struggle to find classes that meet their needs. </p>
<p>Ivy league schools (and high level LACs) offer a place for truly brilliant kids to be with OTHER brilliant kids in and out of the classroom. They no longer have to hide their intellect, feel ashamed of their nerdiness, and can embrace classroom settings where learning is at a faster pace than in high school. Ivies also offer tremendously generous need-based financial aid, great research opportunities, and access to amazing professors.</p>
<p>If it’s any consolation, the Ivies will soon become museums as the insidious creep of the for profits and the continuing corporatization of our education system takes hold, transforming our universities and colleges into glorified tech schools.</p>
In high school settings, many parents who do not have exposure to truly gifted children sometimes assume that these kids are driven, high achievers, are consumed with prestige, or have demanding parents. They do not understand how these kids hunger for academically challenging classrooms where their minds can be stimulated. It is not about prestige. It is not elitist. It is not intended to exclude others. It is just what they need.</p>