<p>Something in another thread prompts me to ask, what colleges self-select? The notion of kids finding themselves with like-minded or at least simpatico peers doesn't seem as if it would be applicable to say, large state schools. </p>
<p>Off the top of my head, the womens colleges, U/Chicago, Reed, Harvey Mudd, MIT, CalTech, and the service academies all are candidates for a self-selection factor. Any others?</p>
<p>Principia College - for Christian Scientists, Berklee College of Music</p>
<p>Interesting.... how does the self-selection idea fit with the notion that colleges want to assemble "diverse" classes? I'm not disagreeing, and not meaning diverse wrt simply race/ethnicity; but different talents, perspectives.... If they are "self-selecters," is this along just one or two dimensions, or is everyone really "like-minded?"</p>
<p>I would add schools with strong religious ties (from Notre Dame to Bob Jones), tech schools (Worcester Polytechnic Institute), Conservatories (Julliard), art schools (Art Institute of Chicago), design schools (Parsons, Rhode Island School of Design), great book programs (St. John's, Columbia to an extent), etc. </p>
<p>I think many many schools self-select to an extent because every student is looking for a school that fits his or her personality and goals. For example, many students who are politically active end up at active schools, such as NYU or Georgetown.</p>
<p>Evergreen in WA (even though it's state)</p>
<p>Colleges have certain cultures. Kids are attracted to one culture over another. Isn't that part of the deal? When my son decided on his LAC, his admission's officer sent me an email. I can't remember what it said except I had written that he chose the place over other very good offers and she wrote, "we knew he was a perfect Laurentian." And I thought, "Well what does that mean?" Over time I see it as a statement that he thought it was the best place for him and they thought he was a fit for their school and that he would be happy and thrive there. I guess they do it enough that they know. Because they were right.</p>
<p>One can argue that even Harvard, by aligning itself with the core of the competitive American values, self selects. But that's a fairly philosophical approach...</p>
<p>I'd say UC Santa Cruz might be self-selecting.</p>
<p>I think self selecting means that there is a very strong thread of SOMETHING that all students at those particular colleges share. At a religious school it's the same religon, a music conservatory it's music, etc.. I think also that anyone that doesn't share that strong feeling is going to feel out of place very quickly. It might also be the only school of it's kind in the country.</p>
<p>Washington and Lee...have to be OK with frat life</p>
<p>"Evergreen in WA (even though it's state)"</p>
<p>I'm curious about this school. What do you feel is the self-select factor about it Dr.Drew?</p>
<p>how does the self-selection idea fit with the notion that colleges want to assemble "diverse" classes? I'm not disagreeing, and not meaning diverse wrt simply race/ethnicity; but different talents, perspectives.... If they are "self-selecters," is this along just one or two dimensions, or is everyone really "like-minded?"</p>
<p>I would agree that the schools mentioned above are self selecting
These schools get considerablely fewer applications than academically comparable or even inferior schools because of perceived or real lack of "prestige" because they are very small and have limited alumni groups. ( as compared to larger schools)- lack of knowledge about programs- because they are limited to "women" or "Hippies" or "geeks".
( I put quotes- because I am not really putting students into those boxes- but some students would not apply to the above schools because of that perception)- also the "geekier" schools like MIT- I would wager even though I am not going to look it up- get as many applications at least than the Ivy schools)</p>
<p>Still for example Reed is very small- smaller than D2s high school, which isn't really that large- but- while they have a higher acceptance rate than say "Swarthmore" they can still hold places in the freshman class for a diverse group. Students are not cookie cutters of themselves by any means.
Yes most of them have had a excellent academic background- but you could say that about most of the top schools.
Yes most of them either are willing to take out loans- their parents are willing to take out loans or they don't * need * to take out loans- but again- you could say that about many of the students at other top schools.</p>
<p>Because they are self selecting- the school has ( or at least my impression from my daughters freshman class) more freedom to choose students based on - not just their grades and test scores- but interviews and who they are inside. I have the impression- that not only were they impressed by students who - like my daughter chose Reed head and shoulders above any other school- but by the things that made her stand out among the BWRKs. She was admitted- even though if you just looked at her numbers- you wouldn't expect it-they still have a lot of students who are very bright and capable- but quirky and "love Reed" makes points too</p>
<p>I can't say I have visited most of the other self selecting schools- but they seem to be schools you do have to visit- their sense isn't easily communicated through glossy photos- but they are very different from any other school- if you really like Reed- you may also like Oberlin and UChicago but maybe not- hard to find another school that you get so excited about-</p>
<p>Macalester.</p>
<p>well one point "against " Evergreen is that they don't give grades- so right off they are odd. They also don't have regular classes- they have "concentrations" of coordinated study type classes that may be for one, two or three quarters.
Linda Barry and Matt Groening attended so you know they are really"out there" :)
It was the first place Nirvana played...
Rachel Corrie was a student as was Michael Richards ( Cosmo Kramer- Seinfeld) they both were probably pretty typical.
really all kinds of arcane data about Evergreen-</p>
<p>other parts of the country I would say it has a better repuation- but in Washington- it is still "that hippie school" among those who want to forget they were ever hippies</p>
<p>kyedor, sent you a PM :)</p>
<p>Oberlin and Wesleyan. Great schools but mostly attract liberal students. There is a "hippie" stereotype, even if it's not totally true. I tried to get my daughter to look at them but she would not.</p>
<p>I think perhaps rather than self selecting- there are large groups of students ( or their parents)who dont want-
a school on the west coast- unless it is Stanford
who want a school who has strong athletics- and that only means football/basketball
who don't want " a womens school', a "religious" school ( whatever the actual involvement) a school that is less than 3,000.
they want a school where they can get an engineering/education/computer/business type degree in undergrad- as opposed to waiting to specialize in grad school.</p>
<p>On the one hand- my daughter was probably accepted into one of these self-selecting schools because the admittance rate was higher than if the same academics were combined with a Big 10 football team- but I also think that many students- who could probably really get a lot out of one of these smaller schools- would never even think to apply.</p>
<p>Its like you either are applying to one of the top schools- Ivies /Amherst/Caltech et al, or you are applying to a big state school- lots of kids don't even look at Earlham- Warren Wilson or even Whitman.</p>
<p>Even with my own D2- who wants to attend a university in Hawaii- if she doesn't get into Stanford- when I suggest that she look at a smaller more supportive school- she snaps that " I didn't want her to go to her high school either"- she thinks that if she can do OK at a high school of 1600- she can do OK at a university of 30,000.
( I miss those few short weeks when she was 6 & 1/2 and I knew everything)</p>
<p>"I would agree that the schools mentioned above are self selecting
These schools get considerablely fewer applications than academically comparable or even inferior schools because of perceived or real lack of "prestige" because they are very small and have limited alumni groups. ( as compared to larger schools)- lack of knowledge about programs- because they are limited to "women" or "Hippies" or "geeks"."--EmeraldKity</p>
<p>I respectfully disagree that this is the case with the service academies. They are prestigious and have many applications. For the class of 2009 USNA had 11,259 applications for 1220 billets. The numbers are similar for the other 4 service academies. </p>
<p>I do believe that the academies are self-selecting in that not everyone is cut out for or willing to serve in the military. They also have environments which can be very rigid, and, of course, they are drug free (at least insofar as they are subject to dismissal if they fail a drug test).</p>
<p>still though the military academies even with the number of applications ( which may be higher because of free tuition/books/room/board)- are self selecting because it is a "military academy".
To have a successful application- you need to be pretty focused on your goal- not all 18 year olds are so committed</p>
<p>Ah, you touched a nerve. Not free. Not free at all. I didn't say they weren't self-selecting, just did not agree with your assessment of the reason for that. I do agree with your last sentence. They are pretty focused and committed young men and women. Fall more into the category of "speciality school" than "geek" school, wouldn't you say?</p>
<p>Anyway, I hope everyone watches the Army/Navy game! Go Navy, Beat Army! ;)</p>