<p>Sokkermom, more information = better choice, but I doubt if anyone is comfortable allowing another to choose for them and I don't believe that is what is being presented as a posit in this thread. If it is, I'm with you. I understand the thread to attempt to identify (and name) a "feel" that is distinguishable from another "feel" so that one might find names of other schools that MAY match a student's feeling about a school they are already intimate with (at least familiar with) and that is all I see it being about.</p>
<p>Not sexist, or anti-intellectual, or anti-jock, or pro this or that. Just a modality we can use in our search for schools our kids may like. Heaven knows , mine is not going to verbalize why she likes A school over B school, at least not to my satisfaction. Why do you like A? "I just do." Why? "The kids look better." Better? "Yeah,better." Prettier ? "No,dad-better ." Better in what way? "dad ,they just are.You wouldn't get it." Well D , not with that data stream I won't . LOL. Hey, most of us are lucky to get a couple of Ebert and Roeper"s after driving a thousand miles looking at schools. D's shortest critique, and it has happened twice , was "Dad, just keep driving." Why? "Trust me, dad. It's a waste of time."</p>
<p>I believe the term used on another thread was a student body with "a higher degree of intellectual curiosity". (or something like that)</p>
<p>There were some broadbrush statements made on that thread that the students that were attracted to many small LAC's (that do not have sports programs and a strong greek presence) were somehow more intellectually curious than those students that were not attracted to such schools. I totally disagree with such broadbrush assumptions, no matter what the school.</p>
<p>sokkermom-
Could you clarify please?? I was using the "unintellectual" word from your post. Is the "higher degree of intellectual curiosity" what you are referring to when you say unintellectual? Is that what you are referencing? Help, please.</p>
<p>"Unintellectual" was probably a bad choice of words. (Not even sure if it is a word. LOL) I should have used the term lower degree of "intellectual curiosity".</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How about Venus and Mars....<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Oh, please no. They use those terms to death over on the Jeopardy boards (to describe masculine or feminine types of knowledge, categories, or clues). And I'm sick of them. Makes me sometimes wish John Gray had never learned how to read and write.</p>
<p>Here's another thought- expanding on Carolyns idea-- since we seem to be talking about traits, rather than having just 2 categories, maybe we an have a checklist of 7 or 8 traits- for example, check all those that apply:
[ ] Intellectual atmosphere, encourages exploration and expression of individual ideas
[ ] Competetive/career-oriented
[ ] Nurturing/ warm-and-fuzzy
[ ] Active sports teams/clubs
[ ] Active theater, arts and discussion groups
[ ] active greek life
[ ] Active party scene
[ ] preppy "feel"
[ ] individuality/freedom of expression "feel"
Maybe this can help categorize schools without the struggle to "label" them. What traits should be added or deleted??</p>
<p>The only problem I see is that D wants a school that is career oriented but not competitive (more team or cooperative), nurturing but not enforced fuzziness, with sports teams and school spirit but limited greeks and party scene (but a dating scene),with a heavy value on discussion and freedom of thought but not activist type political. I'll just give up now.</p>
<p>I prefer Carolyn's two label idea, its simple for this senior brain, but yet complex.</p>
<p>Cur: </p>
<p>The shortest critique I had with S was after driving and flying for hours: "it's nice".<br>
Me: Would you care to elaborate?<br>
S: "No, I said it's nice."<br>
Me thinking to myself: Yeah, right, I'll readily mortgage the house for "its nice....."</p>
<p>Or, like you D...after I parked at a beautiful campus LAC... S: "let's not get out of the car....."</p>
<p>The moral of this story, at least for my family, is that Carolyn's points are spot-on, regardless of the labels. </p>
<p>Carolyn: can cc members obtain autographed copies of the "College Guide by Carolyn"?</p>
<p>O.K-- strike two...
One last thought-- how about those that are more career/profession oriented vs those that are more academically oriented ( sort of like pre- job vs. pre-grad school)- Well... nah...maybe not.. it is making me think about the story of the 3 little pigs.. those into work vs play; here-and-now vs future preparedness....</p>
<p>Cur - I'm tempted to give up for exactly the same reason - you could be describing what my daughter is seeking!</p>
<p>I absolutely agree about being able to divide schools by "feel", regardless of the labels. Every school I have researched for D fell into the place I would have classified it, even those in the "middle". This thread is interesting!</p>
<p>Cur and USmom-
Isn't adolescence/young adulthood a bear?? I loved your post, cur!! Why don't you print up a t-shirt for your daughter with "Nirvana college- school of Undecided", give her a map and a dart, and tell her to call home when she finds work. :)</p>
<p>How about "tangible" fit and "intangible" fit? I think everyone agrees that fit is the key. Maybe fit can be broken up into two components.</p>
<p>Tangible Fit: Courses / Degrees Offered, average class size, student body population, student population diversity, campus location, availability of activities of interest (sports, theater, music, etc).
Tangible fit can be done through research. The student can set these parameters based on personal preference.</p>
<p>Intangible Fit: This can take in to account the "feel" of the campus. This should be done by the student through campus visits, discussions with current students, etc.</p>
<p>When my son was evaluating choices, he focused on the tangible fit requirements first. After he narrowed his choices down, he then considered the intangible fit. This worked for him.</p>
<p>Wow. Quite a lot has been said about this topic since I started shoveling ALL OF THIS SNOW! Sometimes the value of labels is not so much the label affixed, but the process one goes through to affix the label. It's that process -- and the resultant set of characteristics that going through the process produces -- which has the most value to me. I don't believe that there is a student on this Earth who will go to a school, and once there, will EVER use this characterization. But, when distinguishing between subtly different schools -- or even completely different schools -- it really is a useful exercise.</p>
<p>As I've thought about it, the Yin/Yang delineation really works for me. Sure, there are Yin (feminine) characteristics and Yang (masculine) characteristics. Sometime boldly; sometimes subtly; and always softly blending and yielding into something more complex and holistic.</p>
<p>Finally, I haven't visited many of the schools that I'll ultimately be "labeling," so I've really learned that it's a tad premature for me to be presumptuous enough to even try to conclude "X" or "Y." But that's not to say that I won't be trying to reach these conclusions (for whatever value they do have) after I make these visits.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, we had only one of those "Can we get back in the car?" moments and that was at Mount Holyoke. At least D is used to being interrogated and came up with a useful response in light of previously stated preferences: South Hadley (where MHC is located) was just too much of the boonies for her.</p>
<p>However, I find Carolyn's typography useful, because I think it was a lot of these "soft" cultural factors--which I think are very real--that tipped D for Smith over Wellesley.</p>
<p>Note to whoever said it: Smith does have tea time.</p>
<p>I think that there are definitely "middle" schools that can't be neatly categorized as one or the other. Sac's examples of Stanford and Columbia come to mind. For kids who are little of both, middle schools would be a good choice. I keep thinking of CyclingDad's daughter's experience at Dickinson. At one point he told me that she was much more of an "Oberlin" type (and indeed had applied and been accepted to Oberlin but turned Oberlin down for the large scholarship at Dickinson) and so even though Dickinson was a great school academically, it wasn't a "fit" for her.</p>
<p>Sokkermom, I think you've hit on something - some kids really are focused on the tangibles, others on the intangibles. My daughter is of the later persuasion - she really doesn't even look at course offerings, just goes is fixated on the intangibles. She's definitely an "Oberlin" type too - which is why I've been schools like Earlham, Beloit, Goucher. My son may be more middle of the road - a football player who likes discussing quantum physics and loves being around his "artsy" sister.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, we had 2 of those moments - one at Williams, and one at Haverford. I understand the reasons why she felt the way she did, I just couldn't reconcile those feelings with leaving 3 other schools (Swarthmore, Davidson and Dartmouth) all excited about attending - excuse me for having a senior moment, but they really seem very similar, and what about Williams stellar science program, and the 6 months at Mystic???? And I thought you didn't want to get within 600 miles of a fraternity???</p>
<p>After the fact, I realize a kid can't apply to every single school that is a reasonable fit as a match or reach, there is no reason to do that - they've got to make distinctions somehow, so why should the distinctions have a logical basis?!</p>
<p>But when you are sitting in that admissions office parking lot, having driven 1000 miles to get there with a whiny 12 year old in the back seat, you begin to wonder how much time will they give you for a crime of passion.</p>
<p>The sad thing is that there are rookie parents out there lurking as I was last year, chortling, thinking these guys are being so funny - uh, we're not kidding, it will happen to you too.</p>