<p>i don't think i'm understanding the whole reference to junior statesmen? someone care to explain his point?</p>
<p>I loved the article. I wish I would have read it a few years ago! I think every high school student should read this.</p>
<p>This is not really about education.</p>
<p>Many of the most successful people in this capitalist country are not only very smart, but also aggressive, ambitious, and competitive. They want to be, and be recognized as, the best in whatever they do. The fact that in many endeavors the definition of "best" may be arbitrary does not matter. All that matters is that most people could agree on who won the contest. They want to win. Change the rules in golf, or bridge, or college admissions, and they will change the way they play the game.</p>
<p>Given the huge rewards to such behavior by talented people (as the article cites CEO of investment bank, famous lawyer or surgeon) is it surprising that many ambitious competitive high school students are fighting over the limited slots in the most prestigious colleges? The limited number of slots is exactly what makes them worth fighting over.</p>
<p>Sorry for throwing this cold water on the Univ of Chicago. In a TV special on the Cost of College on Fox News last September, Professor Vedder of Ohio State said, ""We've been ripping off parents for the past 42 years." Immediately after that soundbite, a Nobel Laureate at the Univ of Chicago had this to say to parents: "Parents aren't paying enough." The moral sinkhole that colleges and universities operate from is astounding to say the very least.</p>
<p>Not meaning to throw cold water on Ohio State, but isn't it logically possible for both statements to be true as to the different institutions? [Insert smiley here to indicate wry riposte, not serious proposition.]</p>
<p>Well, for Vedder that might be true ! (insider Economics/political joke)</p>
<p>As to the post about 1800 SAT kids doing better than 1700 kids, I doubt there's a correlation at that close a level.</p>
<p>I agree with Loren Pope that any kid with a 450 SAT in English can succeed at any college.</p>
<p>There are kids with serously lopsided skill sets that will do great in their chosen field if they can just get through the required classes in high school or college. I'm talking about a person who would get a 780 in CR and a 300 in Math on the SAT.</p>
<p>My sister is one of them. If you had a conversation with her, you would think she was one of the smartest people you've ever met. But she has close to ZERO math intelligence. She failed algebra in high school. She took algebra 3 times in college and failed it twice. The third time was the last time her college would allow it and the only thing delaying her degree. She was in a class that was full of "last timers." The teacher had them play a certain video game for a few weeks, then showed them how algebra was just like the game. They all passed the class. </p>
<p>If my sister had had to pass 4 years of math and 4 years of science - specifially including Algebra, Geometry, Biology, Chemistry and Physics like Texas high school students do now - she would be a high school drop out instead of a community college composition teacher.</p>
<p>Great post, missypie. I am strongly against efforts to make a math teacher out of my literary-minded child.</p>
<p>When every math major has to learn the difference between "its" and "it's," I'll make her take Calc...</p>
<p>Ha ha, good one MSU Dad. Or the difference between their and there. these mistakes drive me nuts.</p>
<p>Personally, I think you need both. The mark of a truly educated individual upon which liberal arts schools were founded, was to be well rounded.</p>
<p>Math people should know the difference between its and it's, there and their. They need writing skills in order to apply for grants, do presentations, etc. And by the same token, literary people need to be logical in order to write coherently and to grade papers and report cards correctly. Neither need to be experts in the others field since people will gravitate and specialize in where their particular strengths lie.</p>
<p>As for the sister who had such a marked difference in scores (780CR, 350M)... Nowadays, that would be a red flag for an undiagnosed learning disability in math. Her suffering could have been avoided had she received appropriate attention as a youngster. There are many kids with high IQ's who have LD's.</p>
<p>My friends' daughter was diagnosed with a reading LD in 3rd grade. She now attends the engineering school at U of Michigan, Ann Arbor. In the final analysis, her overall SAT scores in CR and Math surpassed her sister, the HS valedictorian and journalism major at Northwestern. The early help changed her life.</p>
<p>Certainly, this is all a matter of degree. </p>
<p>I also think there are two different standards being discussed here. One is, as OM puts it, the "truly educated individual". The other is a "successful" individual.</p>
<p>While both of these labels are so broad as to prohibit any rational and coherent discussion, I'll take a small stab.</p>
<p>A liberal arts education is a program of study designed to foster capacities of analysis, critical reflection, problem solving, communication, computation and synthesis of knowledge from different disciplines. A student who cannot demonstrate an adequate mastery of some basic mathematical principles would not, by this definition, be seen as a "truly educated individual".</p>
<p>However, I am sure that we all know people who profess to have no mathematical prowess whatsoever that we would consider very successful and highly intellectual. My own beloved spouse, for instance, is one of the brightest and most successful people I have ever met. She has been successful at each new endeavor she has tried – retail department store buyer, managing editor of a regional magazine and cut flower grower. All of these endeavors required both right and left-brain competencies, from a person that barely got through high school algebra and college intro statistics. I certainly consider her highly successful and, by my definition, truly educated.</p>
<p>Though there are truly smart students at probably all colleges in the US, I think there is something very cool about attending a college where almost everyone is very driven and smart. While Colgate, Wisconsin-Madison, Michigan, Occidental, and Grinnell offer worthy academics, when I visited (Grinnell at least; the others based on my friends' experiences) I wasn't terribly impressed with the students I met. I don't disagree with the article's contention, but I think that it requires an outstanding student to take advantage of the not-so-competitive colleges/universities, whereas the elite colleges challenge almost all students, making it easy for anyone to benefit. Sure, these are pretty big generalizations, but based on my experiences, it's all too easy to sit back in what seems to be outstanding in one environment, when it's really only mediocre. This is where the elite colleges and universities fly past the others: the outstanding student bodies.</p>
<p>I loved the article--thanks for finding it. I have often wondered if the reason we parents are all chasing selective schools is referred to in passing in the article and not really explored. Baby Boomers are the first generation for which college education was a given for the middle class and above, and the first to find that not having a degree locked one out of many opportunities. Baby Boomers also worked and suffered through the waves of corporate layoffs in the '80s and automation/offshoring in the '90s and '00s. Our collective experience is that even a college degree may not be enough. We are also, as all parents everywhere, prone to want better for our kids than we had. If you went to UCLA, Berkeley or UW or UI or UT in the '70's what is better? Only MIT, Stanford, the Ivies, etc. </p>
<p>I don't see anything mysterious in the selective college frenzy--pair the American Dream ideal of your kids will have something better than you had with economic insecurity and it makes perfect sense.</p>
<p>Michigan, "not so competitive", wow. My son is at Michigan and from what he has experienced that could not be farther from the truth. The stats of the students in LSA Honors are higher than Ivy admits. At the end of his sophomore year in his current Math track, he will be eligible to take graduate level math classes. I'm sure you can find a relatively easy way out at UM, but what kid with high stats who is thinking Ivy would be looking for the easy way out? Really beg to differ here.</p>
<p>"A subcategory of this genre of books is composed of in-depth narrative accounts of the experiences of individual students applying to Ivy League colleges, their every emotional nuance dwelled on in luxuriant detail. It's a kind of admissions porn, which, like all pornography produced for a niche market, can seem simultaneously comical and befuddling to those outside the niche."</p>
<p>This is genius.</p>
<p>fhimas88888888 - Please don't take offense to this. However, I must ask. </p>
<p>Who are your friends? Do they actually go to Michigan (or any of the other schools you listed as "not so competitive")? And if they do, who are their friends? Honestly, I think you're making assumptions that are unfounded.</p>
<p>Very interesting article. I get the impression form the writer that he thinks all kids applying to Ivy Leagues just want to go there for the name. That may be why some apply, but I'd say many more apply for various other reasons, myself included.</p>
<p>She's indeed a very compelling writer.
Here's more essays from her Caitlin</a> Flanagan Index
There's one titled The Age of Innocence: "When girls leave home for college, it affects them far more deeply than it does boys—and there’s no way parents can protect them once they go."</p>
<p>I found her article very funny, entertaining and true. I must read more from her.</p>
<p>1Sokkermom, to answer your question, I don't think Caitlin Flanagan, the author, disliked her time at UVA. I searched her info in the alumni directory. She got her undergraduate degree in the mid-80's and returned to get her Masters in '91. She wouldn't go back if she disliked UVA. I think she probably wanted to remain objective in her critiques of colleges and college admissions, and she couldn't be objective if she also discussed her alma mater. </p>
<p>Re. Duke and UNC, I'm sure she was surprised that so many kids overwhelmingly preferred Duke over UNC since we consider both them of more or less equal coming from the ACC world. At times I find the collegiate hierarchy to be baffling as well.</p>
<p>Ms. Flanigan mentioned an important measure being National Academies member numbers. Her alma mater UVA only has 4 NAS members. It has 12 NAE members. So it's basically third-tier in science and second-tier in engineering. </p>
<p>Anyway, parents shouldn't stress out on college admissions. We did homeschooling because there were no schools where we lived that understood rigorous college prep. </p>
<p>We took a lesson from my wife's cousin who homeschooled his kids. The elder son went to Sonoma State, with dad co-attending to provide an anchor for the first year, then set him off on his own. The son aced it, getting the most possible out of this experience. Then he went to the University of Washington for a Ph.D. in computer science, which he loved, and is now an Assistant Professor in CS at Penn. A daughter went to Berkeley, and got into Boalt Hall, one of the nation's best law schools. But she was happy in her job, and decided to stick with it.</p>
<p>My kids were happy and productive in a protective, individually-tailored-academics environment. </p>
<p>The elder is enjoying Columbia. </p>
<p>My kids were ineligible for their parents' alma mater Berkeley due to non-residency. I advised the younger to go to the University of Washington, because it's one of the best universities in the country, but he thought it was too big, so he chose a small rural college, Dartmouth. He's a happy camper there. </p>
<p>It's really important for kids to enjoy what they're doing, in challenging and productive pursuits.</p>