<p>11 % of Hofstra’s student body is a number bigger than zero.</p>
<p>All I’m saying…</p>
<p>I read blossom’s earlier post to indicate that the top kids at the ‘second tier’ schools in STEM programs are very similar to the kids at the top schools, due I suppose to various combinations of reasons: increase in the number of kids going to college, tuition at no-merit-aid-for-anyone top schools being out of reach (especially for those of us with more than 1 kid) full scholarship offers from second tier schools too sweet to pass up. </p>
<p>I think this is a very interesting point. I think, in fact, it is exactly that caliber of student which is helping to raise the quality of education at the honors colleges at these larger tier 2 universities. </p>
<p>I also agree that so much more determines success than A’s at any school. Like grit. Great book on that by Paul Tough. In fact, another good read by Gladwell talks about the role of athletics and EC’s in US college admissions (<a href=“Getting In | The New Yorker”>Getting In | The New Yorker; ) with conclusions that would not surprise any of the athletes among us. That perseverance matters a whole lot, and sports teach that over and over again. And bringing it back around to the ‘bottom’ of the Harvard class that Gladwell talks about in the Google video-clearly those 14% hanging in there in the ‘bottom’ have grit. But his talk is concerned with the 86% that may not, so Harvard indeed might not be the best place for that type of kid. </p>
<p>I’m one of the few parents of a Caltech alum. I posted years ago about all the advantages my son found at this small U. I have written about the House system, and how it helped him connect. I’ve written about how he could advance in leadership roles with ECs that he could never have accomplished at a larger school. I’ve written how he needed a medical leave in junior year, and how the Dean was on the phone with me and his profs and everything worked out satisfactorily, within a day. I’ve written about gaining research jobs every summer, on campus and at college fairs. I also wrote about upper class tuition scholarships. Most impressively, how he got interviews at McKinsey, Bains, B.C., G.S., etc., but how he hated the position. He spoke to a prof at Caltech, and they “found” a research position for him. When he applied for grad school, he had no rejections. Granted, this was many years ago, when Caltech was #1 for value. Had he chosen SCS at Carnegie Mellon, tuition each year was $10,000 more. MIT was also a lot more. </p>
<p>I like reading Gladwell, but my son was no super star. He just learned and was treated well at his college. From what I’ve heard, he is no different from his peers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one is saying it doesn’t matter where you go. Nor is anyone saying Hofstra is equal to Stanford. But a kid who has to choose Hofstra over Stanford, for whatever reason, clearly has the intellectual abilities to succeed in a lot of environments. If her motivation comes from within and she can seek out challenging courses and connect with professors who encourage her, she should be able to do quite well at a Hofstra-caliber school. </p>
<p>A lot of this for me goes back to the hothouse flower theory. I for one think my kids have the internal drive and intelligence, along with external-facing strengths like emotional intelligence and good people skills, to succeed wherever they go. Even if they had to start out at community college, I’d be confident that they would ultimately reach their goals and become successful adults with rich, fulfilling lives. I’d feel sorry for them (and angry with myself) if they had grown up to believe they could only succeed in the most narrow range of conditions, with no adaptability to changing circumstances.</p>
<p>@sally305 I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. </p>
<p>@bookworm I am glad that your child received first rate attention at CalTech, but those types are stories are not limited to CalTech, other institutions including those that are not “elites” are also capable of going the extra mile to properly serve a student. Personal attention to a student’s needs does not require the status as an “elite”, what it requires are staff and faculty at a university that genuinely cares about its students and backs that up with action.</p>
<p>@LBowie If you went to Boston University in the 80’s then we might have been there the same time. I too received a full tuition scholarship there. Without the scholarship, I would not have been able to go. Back then, BU was not considered anywhere near as “prestigious” as it is now. Pres. Silber was truly a one armed bandit in shaping the school from a lower tier school to almost an elite school at least per USNWR rankings.</p>
<p>@blossom Although I agree with your statement that the quality of a school doesn’t go up just because it throws merit money at you, it doesn’t change the fact there are many good school who are not labelled an “elite” out there that give great merit awards that encourage top students to come and see a school to fall in love with it. These students can and do get a great education at an affordable price and many go on to do great things.</p>
<p>@kmywest I believe you have received excellent feedback as to your choices. I hope the best for you where you decide to go. I think I have stated all that I can to help you with your decision making process.</p>
<p>The fact is no matter where they attend, the education that they get there is much more related to their personal effort than the palce. Some Grad. Schools undertand that perfectly and place much more importance on the college GPAs, standardized test scpores and various ECs connected to their future. Also, the personal growth (again up to a student to seek opportunities for that) become of much greater importance after UG since working in teams is the most common way of conducting any business, but become even much more important in setting with extreme time and resources constraints such as medicine. Personal responsibility and absolutely nothing else will define a future. Nobody in a world will convince me otherwise, I base this conclusion on decades of personal experience. However, any family is free to form their own opinion and behave accordingly. So, what is the meanning of this thread if everybody out there is so different? Just use own judgement and experience, there are huge number of variables to consider in each case. Nobody in a world knows complete set of these variables in each family case.</p>
<p>bookworm - It sounds like you found a great fit for your son at CalTech! </p>
<p>I’m glad you mentioned the good experience about House system because that had been one of my concerns at our campus tour (afraid too limiting). Ironically DS ended up at Olin, where you could probably consider the entire teeny 350 student campus one “House”. And he has been happy as a clam there. </p>
<p>Caltech is not a good fit for anyone. I used to work at JPL next to Caltech and I didn’t let my kid apply there. It depends on the kids. </p>
<p>@kmywest, I approach it much like planting a crop in a field. If you know exactly what you want at the end of the 4 years, you can do the research and figure out the proper field (fertilizer, exposure, etc.). In this case, that would correspond with such factors as class size, details of honors programs, specific professors, policies on teaching by professors vs. TA’s, etc. Otherwise, you can look for the best overall fertilized field. An undergraduate experience is a meeting ground for people. The difference between ‘brands’, or schools, as was stated earlier in this thread, is really the students that are attracted to work together. Two other variables are the energy and competence of the teachers (whether grad student TAs or Profs.) and the available resources (specialized connections, capital equipment, and funding and infrastructure for a student to try his/her own project). Judge how much each of these impacts your progress, and ultimately how much further along your journey you will be with each school. You can take an imagined starting salary and attach a value to that differential experience. For example, if the resources of school ‘A’ gets you 1 year ahead in your progress, and you value your starting salary at $50,000, then a price differential of about $12-$13k per year in family contribution would be acceptable. First, decide on a gut-level what seems to be the best choice. If it is too close too call and you need a tie-breaker, use that acceleration factor to make your selection. Chances are, at the moment you invoke the tie-breaker, you will know which way you really want to go!</p>
<p>I think there are many factors to consider. How the tuition will affect your family. What your child’s major is and what their career prospects are after graduation. I had one in med school and one at a prestigious university. My third son is majoring in music and musical theatre and I felt the better gift I could give him was a great school where he will graduate without debt. He is working very hard and loving his choice. I think we made the right choice for our family and for our son. I did not have to mortgage my house or take on big loans and I am thrilled with our decision. When he graduates he can focus on looking for work and not focus on paying back loans. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, care must be taken to distinguishing from the school’s overall prestige and the strength of individual departments. For example, Emory and Tulane have more overall prestige than San Jose State, but their CS departments are small and limited in comparison than that of San Jose State. Math is another subject where some high prestige schools have small and limited departments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There can also be local or regional (convenience) bias, and size bias. The size bias can favor larger schools (or departments when specific majors are being recruited); a recruiter may feel that visits to schools in the Los Angeles area are better used on UCLA and USC instead of Caltech and Harvey Mudd, because there are so few students at the latter, and a high percentage of those go on to PhD study, leaving few to recruit for industry jobs (in competition with the school-prestige-focused finance and consulting companies that have lots of money to throw around).</p>
<p>“It depends on the kids.” - Yep. That’s what makes the college research so tricky. Lots of variables by school. By kids (who sometimes are not big on talking through the factors). By finances. </p>
<p>Our college visits were important not only for seeing the schools, but in retrospect also for giving us the opportunity to be away and ponder things together. There was a lot of “evolution” for DS during his senior year. </p>
<p>Your son is graduating this May, sounds exciting.</p>
<p>CS has absolutely NOTHING to do with science. I have no idea why it is called science. The same goes for Software Engineering, which is by no means any kind of engineering at all. So, talking about STEM in connection with CS is irrelevant altogether. One does not need to be good at math, physics, chem. These are required for engineering, no CS. And saying that IT / MIS is NOT a CS, means that person actually has no idea who is hired for positions in IT departments and what is the job. No matter how you call and what label you attach to a degree, if you will be any kind of Software Developer, you will be a Computer Programmer and there is no other way around it. You will be designing the systems and you will be coding pieces of software within this system, little modules, longer programs, various languages, jobs, scripts, FTPs, I can continue throwing in vearious terminology that will be understoof by very few. It is not the point. The point is that some out there somehow separate things that are not separable. Yes, each job is totally different from another and yes, as a new employee one will have to learn anew at each job, somewhat relying on previous experiences. The classes at any place, CC or MIT can give only certain base and I am not sure which ones prepare the best. I started at CC, got the job and then got my BS on emloyer’s dime. Classes at CC prepared me for my job, they were harder, it was too many of us, the goal was to derail about 70% and it was accomplished after first semester. The assignments at 4 years college were much easier (or maybe it felt that way, since I was already working full time while going to school). My MBA has abolutely nothing to do with my job, zero. However, having MBA made my resume more impressive, or so I was told. MBA is very easy, not a big deal to obtain it while working full time. I know several people who got it from one of the top business schools in the country while working full time and driving to school whole hour away. One reason, and the only one - employers are paying.</p>
<p>CS actually involves a pretty decent level of math.</p>
<p>UCB, I agree with your point. If I had to compare the Mechanical Engineering department at Missouri to that of MUCH more “famous” schools, I’d encourage my kid to check out Rolla in a heartbeat. But that’s not saying that it doesn’t matter where you go-- it essentially confirms that where you go DOES matter. Just that your average Joe may not have a clue.</p>
<p>Miami- I don’t think a person can make it into a rigorous CS program without strong math skills, let alone get out of one with a degree. The point is not the terminology- the issue is the conceptual underpinnings.</p>
<p>It is impressive that you have had a lengthy career as a computer scientist without being strong in math. I don’t think your experience would apply to a kid looking to get into the field today. A quick look at the syllabus comparing the program at Bunker State Community College to the CS program at MIT will demonstrate the difference in math readiness required.</p>
<p>It depends on the student, and the universities being considered. I would tend to favor full ride, but no universal answers to that question.</p>
<p>“1)How have parents/students made the choice between a full ride at a good university vs. attending a more selective college?”</p>
<p>With difficulty. My older son vacillated between the extremely generous offer from our state flagship and a still-generous, but nowhere-near-free offer from Harvard. In the end, a quick visit to Harvard’s campus made him realize that Cambridge was the place for him. Ensuing circumstances have proven his decision correct.</p>
<p>Someone posed the question of whether it is better to spend $260,000 on a Harvard, etc. degree than to go cheaper and get it somewhere else. Well, if your family has to PAY $260,000 to attend Harvard, then trust me, you can afford it. The IVY League schools are annually among the top when it comes to financial aid. You won’t pay anywhere NEAR that unless you are very wealthy. Again, on average the Ivy Leagues will have you pay ~10% of their published costs if your family makes ~$120,000 a year. Regions of the country aren’t even taken into account. While $120,000 a year might not be a ton in San Francisco, in Louisville, KY it sure is. MOST households make a lot less than that anyway. The trick is getting into an Ivy League school. Once that happens, you are most assuredly going to be able to afford to go there – either because your family has the funds, or you get excellent financial aid. You COULD be in a situation where you are weighing having to pay $12,000 a year vs. a full ride offer at another school, but then that’s a discussion between $48,000 for 4 years of school vs. nothing and not $260,000 vs. nothing or very little. Elite college graduates, especially on the East Coast have a reputation for giving opportunities to other graduates from their school. Michigan State and Oklahoma State and several other non-elite colleges don’t have that reputation. Gotta weigh everything.</p>