<p>I'd be interested in peoples' opinions on this. At one engineering school info session, they said words to this effect: </p>
<p>"There is no difference in the physics or chemistry taught here and that taught at other schools. Same textbooks, same basic instruction. The difference is in our smaller class size, extra attention, and who you will be associating with for 4 years."</p>
<p>And this was a rigorous, top-notch school. </p>
<p>I wonder if this is really true. Because of the curve, might it not be said that an A at one school would only be a B at a tougher school? Or at some schools they have to make the tests easier or no one would pass? And the really difficult problems never come up?</p>
<p>Or is "good enough" good enough to get a job in engineering--you know your stuff but no one's going to ask you to do rocket science and anyway it isn't your field? </p>
<p>With a rising senior (and last child) looking for a school that is a good "fit," I am thinking about this and wondered if anyone has any insight.</p>
<p>I think that among schools at one particular level, that’s true. I feel there’s not a huge difference in the difficulty of similar classes at rigorous, top-notch schools (i.e., Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc.). Although an A in one of these classes might be a B in another, what is more important than how you did on an absolute scale is how you did on a relative scale (an A is more impressive compared to a B average than an A average). No matter what the average is, though, I think there are always ways for top students to distinguish themselves.</p>
<p>Obviously, I think that these schools are much more rigorous than schools less-known for their rigor.</p>
<p>Worry more about fit and less about rigor. What you want is for your son to perform his best–although a big brand name might help a little bit, an impressive record is much more important (at least in engineering/math/science; name can be much more important in more connections-based fields).</p>
<p>“I feel there’s not a huge difference in the difficulty of similar classes at rigorous, top-notch schools (i.e., Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc.).”</p>
<p>Oh, I agree.</p>
<p>But what about compared to say, a good state Uni where many of the students coming in as freshmen only made 3s & 4s on their math/science APs and either didn’t get credit, barely got credit, or are even taking the courses for the first time?</p>
<p>Are really bright students getting shortchanged because the courses are (perhaps) watered down? And how would they know this?</p>
<p>If you made a 5 on the Calc AP and most of your freshman classmates are just now taking Calc, is it like elementary school where you feel like a misfit because you’re smarter than everyone else? </p>
<p>Edit: (Not necessarily smarter, just more advanced–possibly your classmates didn’t have Calc AP in their high schools.)</p>
<p>I guess that’s what Honors Colleges or Honors sections are for. “Gifted & Talented.”</p>
<p>well I can give you my personal experience. My twin sons are now going into their junior year and both are computer engineers. One is at a selective top 25 University (large private) and the other is at a State U, that is a third tier university, with an engineering department that is in the top 70 or so on US news. (for what that is worth)</p>
<p>They compared notes on their physics classes and there wasn’t any significant differences in what they studied and how much material they covered. Son physics class at the state U was not a Honors class. More students seemed to drop the class at the State U but son said a few washed out at the Private as well.</p>
<p>That is just my experience but at least for these two schools there was little difference in material or class difficulty. That has also been true for their freshman engineering classes as well. Private U did seem to be much more demanding on the english elective though.</p>
Many state universities are very strong in engineering and the large size of these schools takes care of the problem you are describing. There are usually many different sections and levels of difficulty in the freshman classes that incoming students can choose from. So unlike a smaller school like Caltech, where most freshmen are taking the same first-year requirements, all of which are taught at a very high level, at a state school there are numerous sections and ranges of difficulty for the student to choose from according to his/her own abilities.</p>
<p>For example, the scores on the AP test may determine which math courses can be skipped, there are proficiency tests for those students who feel they already know the material and there are often honors classes for high scorers who prefer a more rigorous level (I am not talking about a campus-wide honors program; rather there are often honors versions or sections of many math and physics classes – students rely on advice from advisors in addition to qualifying test scores in order to decide where they belong.)</p>
<p>As you get to higher level classes, you will find a range of students enrolled from all years, and while the brightest students may get there earlier, the material will be new for everyone and is not watered down at all.</p>
<p>
This is not an issue because the students who made a 5 on Calc AP would not be in the same Calc class with those just taking Calc for the first time. Most engineering schools break Calc into 3 semester-long classes, so a student taking Calc for the first time would be in Calc 1, while a student with a five on Calc AP would probably be granted credit for Calc 1 & 2 and then be enrolled in Calc 3, or Honors Calc 3, or may choose to test out of Calc 3 altogether.</p>
<p>Don’t worry about advanced students being short changed at a highly ranked engineering department within a state school – these kids regularly receive fully-funded grad school offers from schools like MIT, Berkeley, etc. Furthermore, even bright advanced students are often surprised at the level of difficulty they encounter in engineering at a state school.</p>
<p>D. took standardized test at the end of Gen Chem. Test was very tough. That is the only way I know how to compare schools - by comparing standardized test scores from different schools, since this test is the same in whole country.</p>
<p>I think that what the OP was told is probably correct as far as Intro level classes are concerned. Intro Economics is probably pretty much the same at a top 20 LAC as it is at a flagship state U. Same with basic calculus, or chemistry. They all have to cover the same material. I think the differences would come in:</p>
<p>a) class size, although even some LACs have large lecture classes for some intro courses, and who is teaching it (full professor or TA, although most large lecture intro classes are taught by full professors even at large state schools, with TAs to help in smaller discussion groups or labs)
b) the caliber of students you are studying with, discussing the material with, and if the professor is grading on a curve, the level of achievement required to get an A.<br>
c) the real difference to me would come in the upper level classes. Thats where class size, interactions with professors, variety of courses offered, etc would really make a difference.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd College said in an admissions session that they did not consider APs to be a substitute for their intro courses, which they said where much more in-depth than AP curricula, whereas most state schools do. Their curriculum, even in intro classes, is much more rigorous than the state U’s, according their students who compared their work with high school friends at state U programs. The exams there are very tough and kids complain about grade deflation.</p>
<p>I went to a very small private college and then had to take an undergrad econ class again when I was trying to get into a graduate program at a large state U. Biggest difference was that at the large state U I had mulitple choice exams and few essays, if any. At the smaller school, there were no word banks or multiple choice. It was very much essay driven in a “tell me what you know” kind of way. It could have been the same material but when it came to assuring I knew what I was learning, only the smaller school held me accountable to not getting a “hint” for every question, which is what multiple choice is, whether it’s tricky or not.</p>
This is true – intro classes at Harvey Mudd will likely be much more rigorous than the <em>average</em> intro classes at a state U (though not necessarily much different than the honors sections of these classes at state schools.) Harvey Mudd probably doesn’t offer the range of intro class levels that big state U’s do, but they don’t need to since their students are more uniformly high ability. The flip side of this is that once you get to upper level classes, undergrads at state U’s have access to grad classes, so there will always be challenging classes available, no matter how advanced a student is.</p>
<p>Btw, even though AP classes can substitute for some intro engineering requirements, that doesn’t always mean that the same material is covered – some students end up wishing they had taken the university class, even though there would have been some repetition involved. My husband always complains that he can tell which kids used AP credit to test out of physics – he finds that they end up lacking some of the essentials compared with the kids who took the college class.</p>
<p>I think you can really only look at this on a case by case basis.</p>
<p>You can’t make a statement like “the highest ranked schools are always more rigorous than state schools”. At some top-level private universities, the curve is actually milder than those at some state unis. Just as there are some top schools known for tough curves, there are state schools known for tough curves (+no bs policy; no latework under any circumstance, barring your OWN death, etc. Said a little tongue and cheek, but yeah, inflexible/flexible must be considered as well). And similarly there are those known for easy curves/grade inflation.</p>
<p>Also, looking at the students at my school (in engineering specifically, since that is what was mentioned) who have MADE it to upper level classes, well, they are the same students that got accepted to MIT, Harvard, etc. The thing about state unis is that they attract a wide range of students, many, many of whom were accepted to top level schools/can perform the work at top level schools. Competitive, rigorous tracts, such as engineering, tend to not only self-select but also weed out. So those CalTech kids will be “stealing” the A’s from you even at the state school…darn it!! Also, I think it’s worthwhile to note that I was accepted to many “top level” schools and am now attending my state uni…I do not think I have ONCE gotten the highest grade in a class, often being bested by someone who did not get into any top level colleges. </p>
<p>I don’t think the rep from the college who gave that info would lie. Why would they? They have no incentive to do so.</p>
<p>I would say maybe you could make a statement like, generally, CalTech is gonna be more difficult than some third tier private or whatever, but especially comparing flagship state Us to private it is difficult to really say.</p>
<p>My 16 year old just took a class at a local college and she was amazed that not only were the exams multiple choice and fill in the blank, but the teacher went over what was on the exam the class before the test. My oldest (who had taken a few summer classes there) joked, I bet the exam was the “same” as the prep questions. My youngest laughed and said, “how did you know?” All 3 classes were just intro classes but they seemed to be very easy, with lots of “help” in preparing for exams. Both girls agreed the college classes were easier than their HS Honors/AP classes. My two in college said the college classes at their home colleges go into much more depth and require more reading, analysis and writing, even in the intro classes. My oldest found one of her classes at RIT to be particularly demanding when grading essay exams and papers. She later found out he was visiting from Harvard (so his expectations were a bit higher). So, in our experience (3 kids and my husband and I both attended a couple colleges), there is a big difference in what is taught and how one is tested.</p>
<p>I know my son’s school offers Calculus IV because he has signed up for the class. It is not required, even for math majors, and students who have taken it claim it is extremely difficult. The course description is as follows: “The course develops the central results of Calculus 3 in much greater depth. The course begins with a review of Stokes’ Theorem in Euclidean 3-space. We develop the linear algebra required to define the notion of a “differential form” and formulate the analog of Stokes’ theorem for higher dimensional Euclidean space. We develop the notion of a manifold, the associated geometric objects and the fundamental results of the associated Calculus. The course serves as an introduction to modern geometry and differential topology. Necessary prerequisites for the course are Calculus 3, Linear Algebra, and the permission of the instructor.”</p>
<p>mommusic, I can speak from dated first hand experience here. I attended Ohio State and had two friend at Cornell, all of us in engineering. We used the same texts in Physics(H&R) and Calc(F&Z). In fact my lecturer was Prof Fisher. In Chem they used S&P while we used Mahon a much better and rigorous text which I know because we were assigned S&P as a supplemental text. The material covered was the same as were the pace of the work</p>
<p>I attended grad school at Cornell and found that I was a well or better prepared than my fellow grad students.</p>
<p>This is anecdotal, and in the Humanities, but my course at community college is more rigorous than DD’s friends’s at Brown. He majored in that, and I am seriously unimpressed with their offerings.</p>