<p>I wasn't trying to prove anything statistically; it's just my opinion that looking at a list like Harvard Law's makes it difficult to argue that the easiest way to get into a top law school is to go to a less selective college and do well. </p>
<p>But there's this other law school called Yale which is harder to get into. To attempt Erica's analysis, you'd have to include Yale Law's numbers too. Some of the colleges on Erica's list which don't do as well as expected don't because the college sends a lot of kids on to Yale Law. Yale is ranked the #1 law school. Harvard is sometimes second and sometimes third; Stanford is always the other law school in the top three. Moreover, LOTS of West Coast kids prefer Stanford to Harvard and so failing to consider it really tilts things in favor of East Coast colleges. (Stanford lists the undergrad institutions represented, but not the # of students from each.) </p>
<p>Moreover, "National" Merit is a misnomer. It's a state contest. The scores to qualify usually vary more than 20 points out of a possible 240 points depending on the state you live in. So, to me personally, using the # of National Merit scholars as the measure of the quality of a particular college isn't fair--you all are free to disagree and I know many will. </p>
<p>I already know--and said in advance--that I'm not going to convince the nay sayers. PSedrish's daughter, who admittedly got a perfect 180 on the LSAT, got into Harvard Law and got a free ride to UMich-AA Law, which is in the 7-14 tier, with a 3.25 from Harvard College, which I suspect put her well down in the bottom half. </p>
<p>And for those of you who never met a female student who wasn't happy at a college where she outshines all the males on campus, well...I suspect you don't know one heck of a lot of females who are the superstars at less selective colleges. If you need a source---last time I saw it in print was in Kaplan/Newsweek annual guide to colleges a few years back. There are statistical studies that show that males at the top of the stack in terms of incoming stats in college get better grades and are happier socially than females at the top of the stack at the same colleges. Females tend to do better in the AGGREGATE when they are a bit further down in the stack. I'm not saying this is true of ALL females in that position, just that males generally enjoy being big fish in little ponds more than females do. Molliebatmit's attitude is more common among females. </p>
<p>Again, none of this decides the question of which school to attend for any particular kid. Among other things, there are females who like being the BWOC and males who don't like being the BMOC. I just am fighting against what I think is a very false assumption that, leaving aside $ issues, if you want to get into a top professional or grad school, the best way to do it is go to a school where your high school stats indicate you will be an academic star.</p>
Slight aside: it's definitely regional, only a certain number are awarded in each state/geographic area. Here in the SF Bay Area in CA, although there were <em>35</em> NMFinalists at my son's school last year (out of a class of 124 (!)), the only 3 who were named NMScholars and awarded NM dollars were the 3 with 1600 SATs (old test). These 3 were not the 3 with highest GPAs nor most challenging academic loads nor most impressive ECs, they just happened to be the 3 with perfect SATs. That was all that seemed to matter. (grumble)</p>
<p>OK sorry for the interruption, it's just sort of a pet peeve... carry on. :)</p>
<p>I disagree with the fundamental premise. It's impossible to know how you'll do at the elite college. My best friend from prep school (higher grades and SATs) didn't do nearly as well at the same college as I did. On paper I looked like a legacy reach - she looked like a shoo-in. I also think grade inflation at the top colleges means (other than some of the tech schools) means that most people look pretty good on graduation. You have to try pretty hard to get Cs.</p>
<p>"I hope the high-end grad schools take this into account during their admissions. I'd be interested in hearing from other poster's experiences on this one."</p>
<p>Back when I was at Harvard the Government department was notable for fighting grade inflation. (In fact it's the exact same professors there who are still complaining.) Anyway back then at least they made a point of letting other colleges or businesses know that their grades were lower than the rest of the university on average.</p>
<p>Oh Lordy!!I think if you told my D she needed to go to a college where she was lower down on the totem pole intellectually than men she would laugh in your face.She always was at the top of the heap and was perfectly comfortable there,and has always had a love interest .And guess what?The boys (now men) arent intimidated by her!!
As far as getting into grad school from a lower tier..maybe grad programs work differently than professional programs that may be more stat driven. In D's case,while her grades were outstanding,and her GRE's were fine (not at the top) it was who she knew and who they introduced her to that counted.Mentors actually took her along to a National Conference and introduced her to the "powers that be".Also,her senior honors thesis topic was guided and geared to appealing to the very heads of admit committees she would be dealing with.Maybe you would get this knowledge and guidance at top college as well but they would be certainly helping more kids along at the same time,so maybe not so special??</p>
I will simply say again "bring on the study". Let's hash it out and see if it viable. I can say that I have studies that prove the opposite and that are better reviewed than your studies. Why not? Nobody's checking sources , right? Well, I'm asking for the sources. That's all. </p>
<p>I'm not trying to get you all riled up , just let us share in your source data. If you don't have it - just say you don't have it. </p>
<p>In my experience and that of cathy mee and others , you're talking about some marshmallow girls that don't resemble our kids at all. [Girls would really subtract from their academic choices for fear of not being an attractive mate? What kind of Phyllis Schafly (She's so irrelevant I can't remember how to spell her name. Is their another 'L"? LOL) trogs are we talking about? Man as master of the house with my D kowtowing? Yeah, right. I doubt any dad on this site would agree with that premise for his D. Let's ask the dads reading this to chime in. How about it dads?]</p>
<p>My daughter does not define herself through any man's eyes and she and her many many high achieving female acquaintances would find your position both incorrect and offensive.</p>
<p>This trying to hide her light under a barrel sounds like the confusing, early adolescent, middle school years where everyone craves acceptance and some girls equate intelligence with social ostracism. Thank god they mostly all outgrow that stage.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>>With a 3.4 GPA from MIT, I was accepted into all of the top PhD programs in biology.<<</p>
<p>And if your GPA was 2.9?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was awhile ago for me ... Cornell undergrad GPA = 2.98 ... accepted to Stanford, Berkley, and Cornell for masters programs immediately after undergrad (GPA was 2.75 or so when applications submitted) ... after 10 years of work accepted to Sloan B-School (MIT) with that same 2.98 GPA. NO WAY in a million years I get into any of those grad schools if I had attended a lower tiered school and had that 2.98 GPA. The grads schools took my undergrad school and it's grading policies into account and gave me a break. Even more importantly, I would have been just as imature and goofed off my first 2 years wherever I went to school ... and that would have eliminated any chance of going to top tier grad schools if I had gone to a lesser undergrad school and received a 3.0 GPA (which is probably the best case scenario given the fun I had my first 2 years of school).</p>
<p>Which to me leads to the punchline ... this totally depends on the kid ... one environment may be much better than the other depending on the child. The discussions in CC seem treat the students as interchangeable drones who will perform similarily in any college environment. Some kids will thrive being the big fish in a small pond while others will languish and regress to the pack. Other kids will thrive on being in the deep end with all the other big fish while others feel pressure from being around strong "competitors". Some kids love being on big campuses and don't need a lot of intereaction with their profs while others love small campuses. To me the trick in all this is helping your child figure out where they will thrive and then they will maximize their potential which will open the most post school opportunities to me ... to me the discussions on the best strategy to follow in a series of life's educational decisions is coming at the whole thing backwards. It's not the strategy that makes the outcome ... the great outcomes are the results of great experiences ... and what makes a great experience is very different for different students.</p>
<p><< Well, I'm asking for the sources. That's all. >></p>
<p>No, that doesn't happen to be "all". Reasonable people do want to check sources - but they don't add snide comments like: "Bring on your study. Where's it from Redbook". </p>
<p>I haven't been a member of this listserve long enough to determine if you are always obnoxious or just on the threads I have read.</p>
<p>But for your information, the studies to which I referred were done by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, National Science Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Many respected researchers are interested in trying to better understand why so many of these bright, well educated women - such as your daughter - with advanced degrees from elite universities do not reach their "potential". Many of these studies indicate the failure is due to the difficulty in combining a professional and personal life - especially if that life includes spouse and children.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Back when I was at Harvard the Government department was notable for fighting grade inflation. (In fact it's the exact same professors there who are still complaining.)
<p>
[quote]
Most people on CC would still choose A. But there are some very good reasons to think about B. For example, my son has had great success with option B: money, attention, the best the school has to offer, and some big successes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Digi's son is getting more than my son is getting although my son is at, arguably, the best school in the country for what he is doing. The trade-off for Digi's son is the lack of critical mass and the location. While my son doesn't get the money, attention, and the brand new equipment, he is surrounded by some of the brightest students in his major in the country. He shares a house with seven or eight kids who are in the same field and they have a student government funded comedy troupe. Plus, and this is very important to me, are the opportunities for internships. This why we're paying the money to send him to this school. This is a profession that thrives on contacts, and my son is making them if he is not necessarily getting as many school-sponsored hands-ons opportunities as Digi's son. </p>
<p>It's an interesting question, and I don't think it is an either or. I 'm very happy with what my son is doing; he's taking advantage of the opportunities offered to him. It costs an arm and a leg, but hey, what's the money for?</p>
Quote:
And, while it may not be politically correct to say so, lots of girls are unhappy socially when there aren't a fair number of guys who can outshine them in class.</p>
<p>tsdad is right: In this profession, being at his son's school can practically guarantee a career in the field (unlike where my son is). However, I think both his son and mine will be successful in this career. Even though my son's at UST rather than EC, he has a drive to succeed which is fierce (and totally natural). That's why he is making the upmost of the opportunities given him and has "risen to the top" so to speak, where he is. He too has surrounded himself with others which seem to me to be the "best of class" into a team of about 7-8 people who complement each other's skills.</p>
<p>Perhaps this will go back to the argument of "success depends on the student rather than the school."</p>
Actually, money WAS an issue and I was sort of glad my son did not continue with the application for EC. If he had been accepted at EC (and there was a fair chance of that), it would have been a hard choice. But he liked the program and facilities at UST so much that he himself decided not to send in that second part of the application.</p>