<p>Check out Elon University. They are leaders in engaged learning. Also, Emory students are challenged without being overly stressed.</p>
<p>Thanks for resurrecting my post, everyone, with some more great thoughts! We have pretty much fallen back on the ‘just ask’ philosophy. I think she’s gotten a pretty good sense of what she’s looking for during our college visits, but of course, you don’t know what you don’t know! I have to agree that some of the more prolific student review sites have also been very helpful, if you read between the lines a bit.</p>
<p>Mamaduck - my son almost ended up at RIT four years ago, but ultimately decided on Rose-Hulman. A family friend graduated from there a few years ago, got a great job right out of school, and really enjoyed her experience. My daughter is more of a field science girl, tho, so it’s probably not right for her. </p>
<p>One of the challenges has been to tease out which programs are really focused more on pre-med type biology programs vs. those with more of an ecology/systems approach, as I know she won’t want to get caught up in that competitive med school race. The list is gradually narrowing, with more safeties and matches staying on it than reaches, but I will say that she loves every school on it.</p>
<p>Thanks all! Good luck with the search…</p>
<p>Going back to OP’s question about possibly struggling at at a reach school, i thought this recent Malcolm Gladwell discussion was somewhat on point. I’m not sure that I totally agree with Gladwell on this, but I thought his take on not necessarily going to the top school you can get into was provocative and interesting. I believe this idea is from his new book. You can find his discussion here. [Malcolm</a> Gladwell on EICD | Blog | Braingainmag](<a href=“Malcolm Gladwell on EICD - Blog | Study Abroad | Higher Education Magazine | Summer Program”>Malcolm Gladwell on EICD - Blog | Study Abroad | Higher Education Magazine | Summer Program)</p>
<p>From my own personal experience, I would argue that academic rigor is impossible to assess from the outside without attending and/or scrutinizing syllibi and exams/assignments. </p>
<p>I’ve been enrolled in half a dozen colleges ranging from ‘selective’ to ‘highly selective’. One college that has a reputation for its academic rigor (Bryn Mawr) turned out to have a few departments that intentionally watered down their curriculum to attract as many majors as possible. Of course, you wouldn’t find that fact advertised on the college website, nor would most current students volunteer that information. (In one department, there was a lot of peer pressure not to critizise the curriculum in public in order to protect the value of our degree. In another department, there was peer pressure not to critize the curriculum in order to protect the feelings of the lower-achieving students in the department.)</p>
<p>On the other hand, many students who hadn’t taken classes at other colleges were unaware of the rigor (or lack thereof) of their own coursework. How would you judge how “rigorous” your math classes are if you don’t know how math is taught elsewhere?</p>
<p>That’s why I wouldn’t trust the opinions of current students, nor would I rely on college-wide surveys (since standards can and do vary widely between departments).</p>
<p>In the case of sciences, one can perhaps get lucky as they cruise around on college websites and stumble upon a course website with exams, a syllabus, and problem sets, etc. This is how I found out how certain courses and depts. within my alma mater compared to several “peer institutions”. I found that biological and physical sciences at Emory were generally much easier on the whole compared to many/most of the other top 20/25 schools, barring a couple of courses/professors and that departments like chemistry and psychology (this one is actually quite difficult for what is considered a soft science/social science at most schools, including elites) were comparable in rigor to many of the other institutions and that particular courses such as organic chemistry were actually much harder than most institutions in the top 25-30 Research-1 institutions; this latter pattern was observed even if you compared what were considered to be the most rigorous professors of the subject at each school. I think I realized that Emory (minus chemistry) takes the opposite approach to handling the large pre-health crowd. Instead of many biological/physical science courses being more intense or competitive like elsewhere, they are actually watered down to accommodate such students and help their GPA’s hold up. It definitely doesn’t work in terms of getting the pre-healths into med. school, but it makes the environment less intense (less competition) and of medium academic rigor compared to other selective institutions (probably still more challenging than most of the less renowned state flagships. But many of the more renowned ones are probably the same or a bit tough. Places like Berkeley, Chapel Hill, Michigan, and Virginia for example, I imagine are harder. Surprisingly, most of the courses I found at UCLA were easier than counterparts here, so I excluded it).</p>
<p>Wouldn’t looking at the 25%-75% SAT range give you an idea as well? It would show you what your fellow students are capable of.</p>
<p>We went to a NJ college fair and my daughter mentioned that Rider looked interesting.
[SAT</a> Scores for New Jersey Colleges - Compare SAT Scores for Four-Year New Jersey Colleges and Universities](<a href=“http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/a/top-new-jersey-sat-scores.htm]SAT”>New Jersey Colleges SAT Score Comparison for Admission)
I looked at the above table and saw that Rider had the lowest range of scores so I told her that was not the school for her. She too would want to be amongst her intellectual peers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Some schools, especially smaller, more specialized schools have less control over who they admit (due to supply and demand), yet still want to maintain a quality curriculum. </p>
<p>Purdue is a classic example. Embry-Riddle is another good example… very specialized school, therefore, not a lot of demand, yet the curriculum offered is top notch, and it is quite rigorous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, not all schools, or departments within a school, will teach to the level of rigor that the students are capable of handling. See b@r!um’s post #24 above about Bryn Mawr.</p>
<p>Going the other way, some not very selective schools offer ABET accredited engineering majors. The minimum level of rigor in such engineering majors is such that many students at the less selective schools cannot handle them and switch to other majors (while complaining about the “weeding out” that occurs in lower division math and physics courses).</p>
<p>For a liberal arts college that is academically rigorous but with a collaborative, rather than competitive atmosphere, check out Whitman College in Washington. Read reviews on all the student review sites, look at how the college describes itself, look at admission criteria, Whitman is the definition of rigorous, yet collaborative. I had trouble believing it all, but my D is a freshman and it is living up to its billing so far. She works very hard (always has), but she and her friends often study together and help each other and root for each other to succeed.</p>
<p>Ask if the school grades on the bell curve - if yes RUN in the other direction! Schools that come to mind that are very competitive - wake forest, Davidson, Cornell, u penn, Furman, Wellesley .
Nice places, healthy environment with smart kids elon, villanova, Richmond , Colgate, bucknell, BC, Lafayette , Union college, Dickinson , …</p>
<p>Define “bell-curve” (you’re talking about where the exams are usually made very difficult so as to yield a low average that is then normalized to a fixed letter grade mean, right? So at selective schools that grade harsher than say, HYS, it’s the C+/B- normalization I guess. Usually a 2.5-2.9 average). I feel like all the “elites” do something like that in the introductory courses. I don’t think that encourages unhealthy competition in all cases and at all schools. The reason this is the case is because it’s not a “true” bell curve. Normally, even at the schools you mention as competitive, they guarantee certain cut-offs a certain grade. So if an 83 is usually a B, you are guaranteed at least a B with that grade. In a difficult course where the grades are recentered (take organic chemistry w/high quality instructors at Emory. Usually averages will be between 55-75. This course average will be recentered to the B- area and it could go very close to 3.0 if more people than normal actually make the raw cut-offs for an A), this person will likely make an A/A- (the exception is BBA programs at elite schools which have grade distributions that don’t take into account traditional cut-offs. Given this, grades are often curved down vs. traditional cut-offs in easier courses). Ultimately, there is really nothing to lose by helping peers at schools. </p>
<p>However, I will concede that when exams of a high quality instructor at a very selective school yield 55-75, that such exams are extremely difficult and are not made to be “fair” in the traditional sense of directly testing content taught in class. Instead, the exams test your understanding of what is sometimes simple content in very complex situations. It can be frustrating if you are a more average student that may work harder than normal because it is often found that outcomes on these sort of exams usually have little to do with preparation time as opposed to raw intelligence/ test-taking ability. I think studies have been done suggesting that the curves and exam styles of some at selective institutions may be somewhat unfair/unreasonable. In many cases, the grading practices soften in many of the more advanced courses (and exams tend to be “fairer”). This makes going to a “challenging” institution a decision to ponder if you are pre-professional for example as pre-professionals can’t really risk being challenged at a level that causes them to score below B+ too many times. Given this, they just go to the elite schools and try to find the easy instructors (if available, many elites only have 1-2 sections of intro. courses so their isn’t the option to avoid a tough instructor) and courses even if they are of very low quality. Who blames them? The primary goal is to look good on paper.</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<p>My daughter is a good student, takes mostly AP courses, excels at interactive discussion and writing, struggles with M/C tests, and her teachers generally love her for her interest and engagement. Her grades are pretty good but she works VERY hard for them. I really would like to see her in an environment where she is surrounded by people who love science and enjoy learning and where she can be successful, enjoy her college years, and be competitive for grad school (or employment) when she gets out. Pretty much what most parents want, I guess!</p>
<p>End quote</p>
<p>I think you are on the right track here identifying your daughter’s strengths. Science isn’t just a numbers game, and people with passion and perseverance can do well. In graduate school (and afterwards), you are judged on the research you do, not on your capacity to succeed on Multiple Choice Tests.</p>
<p>The OP’s daughter actually sounds like me. It’s actually possible that if you send her to a top or rigorous school without a heavy pre-health emphasis (where classes have lots of multiple choice test) in the curriculum or pedagogy, she could do very well. I did better when I started taking science courses that most (especially pre-healths) would define as difficult due to the nature of the exams (usually problem solving/essay) and the increased workload. I also did well in graduate level courses. Basically, I did well in courses that were more based upon independence and inquiry as opposed to courses that were mostly based on a spoonfed (via powerpoint slides and endless studyguides with terms and narrow, close-ended questions) intake and regurgitation of content (thus leaving no room for me to explore and question some concepts and instead forcing me to just fall in line and obey or accept the lecturer’s viewpoint). It’s possible she could do well at some of the moderately (if not highly) selective LACs. Their science curriculum is usually run, in large part, in such ways and stresses the things I like. Even if she went to a pre-med heavy school, you can eventually find ways to essentially leave that crowd behind and take more interesting courses. Many of the undergrad courses I mention were very similar to smaller and medium sized courses I took in humanities and social, but of course just had scientific rigor (and also a more enthusiastic peergroup. These courses weren’t viewed as a grind so much as a challenge with interesting material). And of course, the graduate level courses were basically seminar style. </p>
<p>Yeah, I’m not a huge fan of rote memorization of details. I like to understand details within a larger context or system and be able to question the role of various aspects of the system in novel situations. I’ve had to retrain myself to be successful on MC exams (for GRE prep and all), so am not horrible anymore (conveniently much of the subject tests in either biology or biochemistry kind of allow me to reason my way to the answer quickly without necessarily being completely familiar with the topic, so the courses I took payed off in terms of teaching me how to think) at them. I just don’t enjoy or prefer MC like many of my pre-health friends did. The idea of eliciting their own ideas on a somewhat open-ended prompt in science seems to daunt many of them (I honestly consider it fun or an opportunity for partial credit lol). I think it’s a weird aversion, but I guess high school perpetuates it. Seems thinking and creativity were optional in most cases.</p>
<p>Bernie12 - you’ve got it exactly right! That’s her…</p>
<p>My intuition is that the “Colleges That Change Lives” (other than Reed) are more appropriate choices for your daughter than most of the T30 (or so) LACs. Unfortunately, there is no algorithm or couple of metrics to generate a perfect set of “Goldilocks” choices (not too easy … not too hard … but just right). Admissions selectivity, graduation rates, and academic outcomes (med & law school admissions, PhD completions) may give you some insights or even help you rule out some schools. However, once you isolate a set of candidates, there is no good substitute for making observations and asking lots of questions.</p>
<p>A few colleges have unusual school-wide grading policies and practices (example: <a href=“http://www.reed.edu/registrar/form_downloads/grades.pdf[/url]”>http://www.reed.edu/registrar/form_downloads/grades.pdf</a>). However, professors generally have the academic freedom to set their own grading standards. So I think it is unlikely that a college will have a school-wide policy for grading on a “curve” (or not).</p>
<p>Usually there isn’t a school wide policy, but there are generally unspoken rules and practices for certain departments. For example, it appears the chemistry department awards grades in a fashion so that the average grade given from the department (in total, counting all classes) never hits 3.0 (usually it’s like a 2.8-2.9). So the major core courses: biochemistry, organic, gen. chem, inorganic, and analytical, (you know the larger ones that are requirements for most) are usually curved smack-dab between B- and B. Our chemistry department clearly concocts plans to keep its grades at certain levels by controlling who teaches what and when (especially in multi-section courses like organic and general chemistry. They may have a combo. of 2 medium grading sections, like 2.7-2.9, 2 easy 3.0-3.3, and 2 difficult, 2.5-2.7. It’s a recurring pattern). Some other depts. (such as econ. and the business school) have actually adopted recommended grade distributions for core courses. Biology and neuroscience appear to like the “B”. </p>
<p>Point is, while professors do indeed have the academic freedom to set their own grading standards, departmental decisions can lead to certain norms. Departmental committees (especially those with enough experience to be familiar enough with individual grading practices of professors) can easily manipulate who is and is not teaching a certain course each semester with grades in mind if they want to. I imagine school-wide norms can evolve if the administration puts pressure on each department to either relax or increase standards (at Emory, for example, biology has been relaxed a lot). The depts can then find anyway to achieve the goal in any fashion they want, and rotating teachers seems like an optimal way to do this (as usually grading practices reflect the ideology of the faculty members moreso than the fear they have of students being able to handle rigor. I know some teachers that truly believe that a favor is being done when they water their course and grading down a lot, even science faculty. You’re not going to convince these professors to make more rigorous exams that allow for more stringent grading)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even more so when differences between departments and majors are considered. What may be a “gut” major at one college may be a highly rigorous major at another college, even though the two colleges may have overall similar reputations.</p>
<p>I just wonder what exactly we should consider rigorous though. For example, some schools have departments with harsh grading practices, yet if you compare the actual coursework and exams with an institution with softer grading practices, you find that the “softer” institution actually has much more rigor than the other. For example, much of Harvard science courses are VERY rigorous. I’ve looked at some of the course websites for many science courses, mainly introductory, and even at the most “rigorous” institutions (yes, I am even talking about places like Michigan, Georgia Tech, Virginia, and Berkeley which have higher standards than many “top” privates; especially when you look and physical and computational sciences. I’ve looked at course materials at these places too. I was actually surprised to find that the gatekeeper biology and chemistry courses were actually seemingly less intense than ours. Advanced courses were a whole “nother” story. Intermediate/Advanced means exactly that at such schools. It’s clear that they are training students for careers in science and not something else…) in terms of grading and reputation, these courses would often be considered advanced courses, but yet places like Harvard get riffed on because of the grade inflation. </p>
<p>If most elite schools pulled some of the stuff Harvard pulls on its say, pre-meds (for whom those “integrated” intro. science courses seem to be designed for. Let’s not bother talking about their entry level courses for majors or those “strongly interested” in the field), in the sciences, you’ll blow many/most of the analogous students away (it appears Harvard takes such courses and throws so much money and resources behind it so that students can be relatively successful. I wouldn’t dare try courses at such levels without that sort of support) even if it’s at an institution w/high entering talent levels. At Emory, we have some surprisingly difficult professors and courses (Gen. chem is tougher than normal and there are two organic chemistry professors that could take most elite public and private students for nice little ride. There are also a couple of biology and physics professors. However, this is not normal), but overall, I’m willing to concede that the overall experience is nowhere near the level of expectations that Harvard has for freshmen and sophomores in the sciences. It’s very intense…I would expect similar things from Princeton (“unfortunate” for fellow Princetonians, there is now less grade inflation. You can’t as easily use your non-sciences to boost the GPA anymore so the Princeton environment is even rougher). I consider such places to have true rigor that goes beyond grading practices (kind of like intellectual rigor).</p>
<p>This has already been stated, but I’d just like to reemphasize- take the opportunity to sit in on a class at the college. If they offer overnights, and you are seriously considering the college, I would look into it. Can really give you a feel for the campus. </p>
<p>Some schools are very high quality and very competitive, to the point where students won’t share notes with each other for fear of helping the “competition”. Likewise, there are many prestigious schools that aren’t quite at this “dog-eat-dog” level, where people are willing to collaborate and help each other out.</p>
<p>Has someone already suggested going to the library (perhaps at evening/night"ish") or serious study-oriented areas (we for example have a computing center that lots of people study in throughout the day, whereas the library will begin to fill in the evening)?</p>