<p>I have no admiration for elite and selective high schools that are not also demanding. I don’t happen to know of any, but the n of elite and selective high schools that I know anything appreciable about =1; and the one I know is extremely demanding. I also have no problem with elite and selective colleges that are demanding. But when you have a college that is elite and selective but not demanding, then I wonder why anyone would pay (often insane amounts of) money to send their kid there. Oh wait - I do know the answer: P-R-E-S-T-I-G-E.</p>
<p>I also know that it is possible to get a good education at the Yales of the world. In his article, Deresiewicz says that there are serious students at Yale, and I have no doubt that these kids can get a world-class education. </p>
<p>But if I were a student looking for a soft ride and a prestigious degree, I’d be interested in Yale, especially if mommy and daddy (and/or the taxpayers and/or Yale) were footing the bill. But if I were a mommy and daddy looking at spending a quarter of a million dollars to send my kid to college (and I decidedly am not) I think I would want to know my kid was going to be stretched and challenged. And because every kid who gets into Yale works hard to get there, I’m not confident that the mommies and daddies of the world can predict whether their kids will be in the minority who take full advantage of the opportunity.</p>
<p>(Incidentally, I’m using Yale not to dump on that school specifically, but because it’s the school that Deresiewicz describes, and where he taught for two decades.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am confident that a student who attended the school my D attends “is better positioned to take advantage of finding a good education in college that students who attended more mainstream programs,” and I suspect that is generalizable to many other highly selective high school programs as well. I have that confidence because I have spoken to many alumni and parents of alumni who have told me they were much better prepared than their peers from traditional AP-based high schools. There are three reasons for that, they tell me: (1) They know how to assess information and think through unique problems better than their peers do; (2) They know how to manage their time better than their peers do; (3) They have spent three years in a residential setting and have little or no problem adapting to college dorm life.</p>
<p>That said, I am certain that some of the graduates from my daughter’s school get to college, find that it is easier than high school, and slack off. But I am equally certain that many do not: many of the top students go well beyond the minimum requirements for graduation, and not mainly to look good for colleges - but because they are genuinely interested in the material and want to study it. And that doesn’t apply only to the top students: my D, who has struggled to succeed, will graduate with more than the minimum requirements in math, science, foreign languages, and fine arts.</p>
<p>When a student who comes from a challenging magnet or private school program says that college is “easier,” he’s not necessarily saying that it is less intellectually challenging or engaging. He may just be talking about the workload (and especially, his ability to handle the workload compared to other students with different high school experiences).</p>
<p>Youve said it really well!</p>
<p>BTW, I attended one of those elite high schools. And, now I am attending the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>I think that a typical student who manages to graduate from Cleveland State has been more stretched and more challenged, within the limits of his or her preparation and natural ability, than a typical student who graduates from Yale - with the full acknowledgement that I’m sure there are exceptions at both ends.</p>
<p>But the choice is not really between Yale and Cleveland State - I would imagine their cross-application rate approaches zero. But if I had a choice between sending my kid to Yale or, say, Penn State or Michigan or UIUC or Bucknell or Oberlin or Rochester or CMU, etc., at any of which there are educational opportunities available that at least approach those at Yale, and where there are real requirements that must be fulfilled, I’d choose one from the latter list in a heartbeat.</p>
My disagreement with this is that I think the students who don’t take advantage of the opportunities at Yale are the minority, not the majority–really, a small minority. And I think this is more the case now than ever before, because most of the kids accepted by Yale and other top schools are not just smart, but are also superachievers with high energy levels. This idea that Yale is full of students who are cruising along is a myth, in my experience.</p>
<p>You’re really not disagreeing with me, but rather with Deresiewicz, whose credentials are that he taught there for 20 years, until fairly recently.</p>
<p>PaperChaserPop, post #277, I agree with you about the Core at Caltech. Back in post #158, I noted that the really tough courses are required at Caltech, whereas they are available options elsewhere. There is no easy route through Caltech. At some other “top” universities, there are routes that are less demanding than others.</p>
<p>Re: post #284 and earlier posts, with regard to the study that “showed” that courses in certain areas are not required at Yale (since annasdad is using Yale as an example): The arguments made in this study are rather convoluted, in the attempt to convert actual requirements at the Ivies into supposed non-requirements. (I think the authors of the study have fallen off the Cliff of Sophistry.) Take a look at all the footnotes in the Yale section, for example–and probably the sections on the other Ivies as well–and compare the authors’ statements about the Ivies’ requirements with the universities’ web sites themselves.</p>
<p>Are we reading the same thread? Neither in post 284 or anywhere else in this thread have I made reference to any studies or to whether certain courses are or are not required.</p>
<p>Deresiewicz is the guy who couldn’t figure out how to talk to his plumber, right? I think he’s full of it, honestly. And he only taught at Yale for 10 years, not 20.</p>
<h1>284 was a follow-up to #278. Perhaps Deresiewicz is not connected with the spurious study that I had in mind, after all–that was a cross-comparison of requirements at various universities, is available on the web, and has been cited on CC. Will see if I can locate it when I have more time.</h1>
<p>Honestly, it’s not all the students’ fault. There is a lot of pressure to resist stretch yourself academically. For instance, a TJ grad cruising academically at Yale might feel pressure to do more volunteering or take on a varsity sport to get into med school, but not to really fully engage in classes or take classes known to be hard. Even the school itself sometimes sends an anti-intellectual message. MIT, for instance, has a meme going around that the students should not be studying so much because they’re already smart enough and if they don’t socialize they won’t be good in business or as doctors. I heard this from administrators there as well as from the older guys in my residence.</p>
<h2>I posted on this topic in the College Search & Selection forum, referencing the THE main website which has good critiques of the methodology in its forum. In summary, THE does not measure undergraduate at all, and really does not measure teaching quality in a meaningful way. Interestingly, the THE editor accepted these criticisms. Please read the below excerpt from the THE website which I have provided some figure updates and highlights to:</h2>
<p>62.5% of the methodology’s overall score comes from the combination of citations, research quality and industry income from research, none of which directly or significantly indirectly relate to undergraduate quality where teaching quality is the key function.</p>
<h2>Even when THE measures “teaching”, its methodology again is mostly about research rather than actual teaching: 15% of the overall score (50% of the teaching score!) is from a reputational survey where academics are more likely to gauge research output (which they will be familiar with) rather than teaching quality (which they will not); other measures above 2% of overall score (combining to 4.5% of overall and 15% of teaching score) include PhD/bachelor ratio (hardly a proxy for undergrad experience) and income per academic (again, this favours researchers over teachers). In short, none of these measures indicate at all if the academics can actually decently teach their students – they may be smart and earn research monies for their universities, but can they share their knowledge with and inspire students? THE’s teaching metrics do not address this at all.</h2>
<p>In total, this means that 82% of the overall score is about research with no indication of undergrad experience. The THE editor even states “fair point” effectively agreeing that the rankings are flawed!</p>
<p>The international measure, which other readers have criticized, adds another 7.5% to the overall score. There is no THE editor reply to this point yet.</p>
<p>In summary, the THE ranking is for universities not undergraduate colleges. Plus, it is focused almost solely on research. This is why LACs and, notably, the two undergrad-focused Ivy League schools (Brown and Dartmouth) are ranked where they are… or not ranked at all. THE is qualitative and biased towards large primarily research universities. This may make it ok at best when assessing PhD level but rather useless for undergraduate program assessments.</p>
<p>Looking for clarification on what you mean by “real requirements that must be fulfilled.” Is this a question of distribution requirements, of rigor, or just of Deresiewicz’s complaint about deadlines that must be met? Rochester is open curriculum, within limits, and certainly any school on the list you’ve given has the option of providing a soft path or accomodating deadlines for a student who wants one, assuming the student picks an appropriate major. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The condescending reference to “mommies and daddies” is a little over the top, but it’s a valid concern not just for Yale et al but for any full pay family: is paying this amount of money for my child to attend School X throwing money away? Or is my child aware of what is on offer at this school, and wants to squeeze out as much opportunity as possible? High school work ethic definitely counts in my book, as does my sense of what my kid is like. As parents and financial sponsors, that’s our right and our responsibility. I’m not inclined to toss out an entire athletic conference just on the say-so of one professor.</p>
I and numerous others refuted his views on several previous threads. I admit that I used the term “nonsense” in one of the threads and “poppycock” in the other. I went to Yale, and this wasn’t true when I was there, and my son goes there now, and it isn’t true now. Most of the students are driven, hard-working people (especially in their major subjects). </p>
<p>What’s more, this is also true at Brown, where there are hardly any requirements.</p>
<p>I went and looked at the article again. It’s mind-boggling how much nonsense it contains, in virtually every paragraph. For example, he says that athletes and legacies aren’t “up to standard” and so need lots of academic help. No evidence of course–because it isn’t true. The athletes, legacies, and URMs Yale takes would all be at the very tippy top of the entering class at Cleveland State. Athletes are pretty busy though, so maybe some of them do take some gut classes. They aren’t majoring in communications, though, and they pretty much all graduate. Many of them go on to pretty good law schools and med schools.</p>
<p>I suspect this is a guy who didn’t get tenure, and so the elite colleges are all a big sham…he just didn’t realize it for ten years. Right.</p>
<p>Why would they not be credible sources? While you might think the accounts might be overly positive or slightly biased, I am not sure why anyone should doubt the accounts of a parent describing his or his progeny’s experience. </p>
<p>After all, don’t you expect us to find your accounts about that super-duper high school … credible? Fwiw, I see no reason to doubt that students at Yale do work very hard. I forgot the details but a few years ago, a parent described an incredibly taxing program in Classics. If I remember correctly, the program was beating his high-achieving to a pulp. I do not see why a parent would lie about such experience.</p>
<p>There’s just no reason to attack Yale. It’s a good school, with lots of resources, fine professors, great history, and smart, competitive students. For reasons I suggested, in terms of actual educational quality experienced by the majority of students, I doubt it is in the top 20 (and maybe lower), but frankly, when one gets to this level of quality - very HIGH quality - does it really make any difference?</p>
<p>The “value-added” question (which is where the hypothetical comparison with Cleveland State come in) is an interesting one, perhaps, but since no Yalie likely had Cleveland State as her safety school and no Cleveland Stater had Yale as her reach, what’s the point?</p>