<p>Missypie--</p>
<p>Two books you and your son should check out:
Amazon.com:</a> Cool Colleges: For the Hyper-Intelligent, Self-Directed, Late Blooming, and Just Plain Different: Books: Donald Asher
Amazon.com:</a> Colleges That Change Lives: 40 Schools That Will Change the Way You Think About Colleges: Books: Loren Pope</p>
<p>
[quote]
The perception of what constitutes an "elite" school often has little to do with academic excellence. After all, one important measure of a university's quality is how many of its faculty members belong to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The ultra-selective Brown counts among its faculty sixteen who are members. Duke, the object of many a prep school student's swoon, has thirty-five. But the University of Washington has seventy-one, Wisconsin sixty-four, Michigan fifty-eight, Texas fifty-four, and Illinois fifty-three.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The writer politely forgot to mention that Washington, Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas, and Illinois are much larger schools than Duke and Brown.</p>
<p>Considering my screen name, I for one related to the article. However, the writer seemed most confused by the entire frenzy. The truth of the matter is that college attendance was once the priviledge of either the very bright, academically inclined or those of a privileged class. Nowadays, almost every high school student is expected to attend. A bachelor's degree has become the equivalent of what was once a high school degree. Hence, the only way to distinguish oneself from the masses is to obtain a name brand degree that reaks of selectivity.</p>
<p>I recently met with a young woman who was clinically depressed because she was forced to leave her private college after the first semester due to finances. It was the only school to where she was admitted and had been denied admission to 5 of her more affordable state schools. With a 1700 combined SAT and low grades, one has to ask if the system is doing her justice by expecting a college degree from such an individual. Some colleges will admit anyone and take their money in order to continue to exist. Wouldn't she have been better served at a technical program, career training, secretarial, culinary or beauty school? Don't get me wrong...I believe education is a gift but there must be a reason for why college has so often been referred to as higher education!</p>
<p>"With a 1700 combined SAT and low grades, one has to ask if the system is doing her justice by expecting a college degree from such an individual." </p>
<p>Obsessed Mom, are you really saying that a combined SAT of 1700 is so low that a person with such score isn't college material at all???!!! That's an average of 566 on each part. I just looked up some US Government statistics (from 2006) and the average CR score was 503 and the average math score was 518. I'm hoping I misunderstood your comment, because it sounds as if you are saying that the thousands of students taking the SAT who are around the average score shouldn't be expected to earn a colllege degree.</p>
<p>I, too, agree that college isn't for everyone (although a 1700 SAT is certainly acceptable) and there IS tremendous pressure to go to college. My gifted hairstylist friend in Dallas makes more money than I could ever imagine and bagged college as soon as he discovered his true passion and gift. Others make extremely solid livings and have job security in the trades. A friend's son had been pushed kicking and screaming through several prep schools (it took several to get him through) and was very intelligent but somewhat lacking in discipline and motivation. He wound up getting kicked out of a top 20 liberal arts college due to poor grades and alcohol violations and is now thriving in fire academy.</p>
<p>To play devil's advocate: 2006 Census figures showed that, for all 26-year-olds, only just over 25% (1.1 million out of 4.2 million) had completed a bachelor's degree or higher degree. A little more than half of that particular age cohort (2.3 million) had at least attended some college (or higher educational achievement). So -- roughly 7-8 years after normal high school graduation -- about half the kids had tried college, and about half of those had gotten a bachelor's degree.</p>
<p>So why is it out of bounds to question whether a kid who is BOTH close to average on the SAT I among college-bound kids in her cohort, AND is someone with a history of low grades, i.e., not oriented towards classroom achievement, should assume that a four-year bachelor's degree program straight out of high school is right for her?</p>
<p>I have no idea what the real statistics are, but I'll bet on a GPA/SAT function she is, at the very least, at high risk for not completing her degree in six years or less. So why not explore other options now? (Which, of course, would not preclude a bachelor's degree program somewhere down the road.)</p>
<p>My real point was that "people are racing to get into namebrand institutions in order to distinguish themselves." Clearly, universities set their own standards for admission especially on the SAT. No namebrand school is going to accept someone with a 1700, not even for athletes for whom the standard gets lowered. People know this and as a result, will strive for the name.</p>
<p>
[quote]
About half of Americans from low-income backgrounds go on to attend college, compared to about two-thirds of middle income Americans and 80 percent of those with large incomes. Barely two in five black and Hispanic freshmen earn a bachelor’s degree within six years of entering college, compared to about 60 percent of white freshmen and 64 percent of Asian Americans. And white Americans are twice as likely as black Americans and three times as likely as Hispanic Americans to have earned a bachelor’s degree by the age of 29.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The reality of who actually gets the benefit of a college education is tied to many factors other than SAT profiles. College isn't for everyone, including many VERY, VERY able people. And, they are not all named Gates or Dell.</p>
<p>I have been tracking the average wages paid to skilled workers in the construction industry since Oklahoma (and maybe Texas next) has adopted legislation to begin to fine employers of illegal immigrants. There are many trades that pay a living wage and, unless there is a true depression, the average wages are going to go up as the supply of workers plummet.</p>
<p>When I was doing summer jobs in HS and during college in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I worked construction with people who had quality lives, just at an economic level below that of some college "professionals."</p>
<p>I don't think it is easy to generalize any particular SAT composite score as "the point" at which a college education rather than other type training is more appropriate. But, there are lots of people who would benefit from better non-college training programs being available.</p>
<p>My real point was that "people are racing to get into namebrand institutions in order to distinguish themselves." Clearly, universities set their own standards for admission especially on the SAT. No namebrand school is going to accept someone with a 1700, not even for athletes for whom the standard gets lowered. People know this and as a result, will strive for the name.</p>
<p>As for my example....You are correct in that the girl had average scores. She also had extraordinarily poor grades and had struggled through all of high school. Her courseload was "light" and she barely eaked her way through. Remember, no state school accepted her and there are many in NJ. This just proves why people give so much weight to the institution one graduates from.</p>
<p>I know for a fact that Ivy League schools do accept students with 1700s. And other selective colleges do as well. Personally, I would consider any flagship state university a "namebrand" and tons of kids with 1700s can get into most flagships. Of course, gpa and other qualities need to be extraordinary to offset the scores at selective schools, but I am concerned that frantic applicants read "No namebrand school is going to accept someone with a 1700" and have a meltdown...</p>
<p>1700 is only "low" on CC.</p>
<p>As a statistical matter, it is not low, unless "low" is ahead of 60+% of college-bound seniors.</p>
<p>Hahahahahahaha thank you kindly MSUDad. </p>
<p>Obsessed mom, though I understand the point of view of the student ("Shucks, if I don't get into a name brand school, I won't have a reason to be happy about myself!") but I think it's up to us who know a little bit better to try to right that wrong. First, we know that MOST job fields-- even high-paying ones-- don't care about where you got your degree, but rather that you have one and are an able, experienced, enthusiastic worker. Secondly, there's no telling that your co-workers will be elite college grads, or even know that you went to one once you as an elite college grad enter the system. </p>
<p>I'm forever plagued on the second account, as I go to a "University of ____" school that has no good football team to speak of, and my older brother, an elite college grad himself who is on an elite, high-paying career trajectory, started out working alongside grads from local colleges.</p>
<p>First off, Muffy, I find it hard to believe you know of kids with 1700's getting into Ivy Leagues because I know of kids with 2250 with legacy or perfect SAT's who are having trouble getting accepted.</p>
<p>As for whether the school itself makes a difference, it depends....I think a kid applying to law school from Dartmouth with a 3.2 GPA and very good LSAT's will be looked upon more favorably than the kid from State with similar credentials. The State kid better have a 3.8 - 4.0 to be competitive with that kid.</p>
<p>I think it also depends upon the field. A social work degree from Columbia University won't get you anywhere better than a sw degree from University of Maryland. There is so little money in the not- for- profit field, turnover is so great, that they can't afford to be choosy.</p>
<p>And finally, experience will always count for something.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I too, know, and have met, both a nonathlete kid with 1700 SATs who was admitted recently to an Ivy and a kid with 2340 SATs and legacy status who was not admitted to the same Ivy. The world holds both. That's what makes Ivy admissions so fun.</p></li>
<li><p>1700 SATs are about the median for my kids' high school, which is a large public academic magnet where at least 80% of the kids go directly to bachelor's degree programs from high school. I've never seen statistics, but I'm certain that most of them graduate in 4-6 years. So I would never argue that 1700, or lower, SATs makes a four-year college inappropriate for a student. On the other hand, if a student has a history of lack of academic success, in high school AND in college, 1700 SATs could contribute to a conclusion that it is risky for the student to continue to spend money on that type of college program -- he or she isn't ready for it. It's really up to the student to decide, but he or she should be aware that four-year college isn't the only path to a good life.</p></li>
<li><p>MSUDad: It's fine to be "ahead" of 60% of college-bound seniors, but not if 50% of college bound seniors aren't going to graduate from the type of program to which you are applying. Of course, I'm sure there isn't 100% correlation between SAT scores and likelihood of starting and finishing a bachelor's degree within 8 years. But I'm equally sure that, all other things being equal, a kid with 1700 SATs is less likely to finish a bachelor's degree than one with 1800 SATs.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Brown</a> Admission: Facts & Figures</p>
<p>Kid I specifically know got into Brown last year as a legacy athlete with low to mid 500s on each section. These are Brown figures; they don't prove 1700 per se but show Brown did accept a bunch of kids below 500 on each section so if we assume some of those overlap...A lot of Ivys do turn away kids with very high SATs if the kids don't have any other evidence of potential. Bowdoin and Mount Holyoke are very competitive colleges that don't require SATs. Of course SATs count, but the Ivy League and top LACs are extremely interested in accomplishments and if those are high enough, they can outweigh a disappointing SAT. </p>
<p>As for competitive law school admissions, I don't think you can generalize that a 3.2 from Dartmouth will always trump a 3.8 from State, it depends on which state university, the programs the applicants graduated from, job/volunteer experience, essay kid wrote on why they want to go to law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it also depends upon the field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely!</p>
<p>I already mentioned D1 was thrilled to get into Illinois (UIUC), a flagship state U that many would shun as beneath them. But what I didn't say was that she was admitted to UIUC's College of Engineering, which is ranked 5th behind only MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech.</p>
<p>People don't usually think of Illinois when you hear those other four very familiar names.</p>
<p>"..I think a kid applying to law school from Dartmouth with a 3.2 GPA and very good LSAT's will be looked upon more favorably than the kid from State with similar credentials. The State kid better have a 3.8 - 4.0 to be competitive with that kid."</p>
<p>Law school admissions is all about GPA and LSAT scores, just as med school admissions is all about GPA and MCAT scores. The undergraduate school attended is not much of a factor in most cases.</p>
<p>I'm a bit miffed that the author spoke rather negatively about Duke (my first choice, for hundreds of reasons).</p>
<p>I concur with dntw8up. It has been demonstrated time and again that the GPA spread between top ranked schools and third tier schools for law and medical school admission is about .2, not .6 to .8 as OM is indicating. And when it comes to the GPA spreads between top state schools (Michigan, California, Virginia) and the Ivies, the spread is negligible (can you say grade inflation?).</p>
<p>No ties to Duke here, but I agree with Johnson181--
You take a college-bound student from any type of high school-- public or private, and chances are pretty good they're going to have a favorite. I'd bet most of these kids even have pretty good reasons behind these first choices-- even if they happen to be 'dreaded' Ivy league or top tier schools. I think the neurotic parent/child aspect is played up because it sells.</p>
<p>And -- whether there be pushy parents or not, the GC can do a LOT to set the tone for a less stressful college search experience. Our school is fortunate enough to have such a person. He does his best to be an advocate for the students, and help them make smart and sensible choices. The kids love him, and the parents know just how lucky we've been to have him at our HS (unfortunately he retires next year :().</p>