<p>Here’s a summary from their meta-analyses that addresses research-substantiated college student outcomes from across the spectrum of American higher ed:</p>
<p>From “The Impact of College on Students: Myths, Rational Myths, and Some Other Things That May Not Be True,” Ernest T. Pascarella, University of Illinois, Chicago and Patrick T. Terenzini, Pennsylvania State University. NACADA Journal, Volume 15 (2), Fall 1995. pp. 26-33:</p>
<p>"Academia clings to several myths about higher education and its effect on students. This article outlines 10 of these popular myths . . . The authors cite extensive research calling these myths into question and challenge readers to rethink assumptions about higher education.</p>
<p>"Myth #2: College merely socializes adolescents to middle class status. It has little or no unique impact on student development or maturity.</p>
<p>“Since about 1975 there has been a growing concern with estimating the net or unique influence of college on student development and maturity. The results of this research are unequivocal in suggesting that, over the same period of time, college students make greater changes on a broad range of outcomes than similar individuals whose formal education ends with secondary school. These include (a) verbal and quantitative skills, (b) oral and written communication, (c) critical thinking, (d) reflective judgment, (e) intellectual flexibility, (f) principled reasoning in judging moral issues, (g) value placed on aesthetic and intellectual matters, (h) social and political liberalism, (i) acceptance of nontraditional gender roles, (j) intellectual orientation, (k) internal locus of control, and (l) a series of habits that enhance continued learning (e.g., reading, continuing education, and participation in cultural events). The bottom line here is that college may indeed function to socialize adolescents into middle-class status, but the evidence clearly suggests that college does considerably more than allocate status with a bachelor’s degree. It facilitates a broad range of desirable changes that don’t occur to the same extent to similar individuals who don’t attend college.”</p>
<p>This is slightly off topic, but one indication that a less well known college offers good academics is the presence of a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. Phi Beta Kappa does its own analysis as to the quality of a college’s instruction before granting an application for a chapter. </p>
<p>Now a few top schools–notably Bryn Mawr–don’t have chapters. I’m not suggesting that there aren’t other good colleges that don’t have them. But the presence of a Phi Beta Kappa chapter imeans that the college has undergone a fairly vigorous vetting process and, for liberal arts colleges, is a mark that assures a certain level of quality.</p>
<p>I promised to stay out of this debate because I don’t see it going anywhere but your summary of P&T is so misleading that a comment is justified.</p>
<p>Anyone who wants to see what P&T themselves have to say should just look here:</p>
<p>NMD - LOL! I was really stumped at why you would suggest that a copied-and-pasted quote would be misleading. I looked at your link, and found it reasonably consistent with the paragraph that P&T summarized in the quoted paragraph. Then I finally noticed that this is a thread about quality and selectivity, and in context, my post looks like it’s intended to suggest that the student changes cited are related to more selective schools. That’s when I realized that I posted this on the wrong thread! I’d intended to post it on another Parents Forum thread entitled “Why do ppl go to college?,” in response to a proposed list of benefits afforded by exposure to the college experience. Having cited P&T earlier on this thread, I guess I came back here in a senior moment and posted it in the wrong place. :)</p>
<p>So I’ll retract it from this thread, go to the other, and post it where it’s actually pertinent to the discussion. But for the record, the connection between college peer group and goals / aspirations is still valid.</p>
<p>Agree with your peer group conclusion, which is supported by a lot of other social science research in contexts outside higher ed. </p>
<p>Interestingly, peer group issues are also a problem in elite universities. The discussion is way beyond this thread, but one worth considering: among elite universities, many, even most of the admittees are admitted based on, shall we say, broader criteria than academic merit, leadership promise and all the other things adcoms talk about. Consider how fast the numbers for URM, athletes, legacies and other hooked applicants add up.</p>
<p>For a nationwide reference on less selective, but still very good schools, go to <a href=“http://www.collegesof%5B/url%5D”>www.collegesof</a> distinction.com</p>
<p>Not everyone can be above average, as they say. What about a kid who is just average in his or her intelligence? If you gather a group of them together, are they “garbage” – or just average intelligence? Why isn’t it just as valid for a school to have the mission of educating average-intelligence people, as it is for a school to have the mission of educating above-average-intelligence people?</p>
<p>80% of the student body falls in the average domain. 10% are above average (Quality In) and another 10% below average (Garbage In).</p>
<p>For both the above average 10% and below average 10% the effect of colleges are minimal on their life time success/failures. The below average student attending a top school will still be benefited.</p>
<p>But it is the average student belonging to 80% group that get benefited the most from a school. The right environment can do wonder for these average students and wrong environment can break the life.</p>
<p>“Break their life”? Gag. You know, the vast majority of average college-attending people in this country attend a state flagship or state university and do just fine in life. Really. Honest.</p>
<p>How can you stand even walking down the street with all those “average” people with “average” school diplomas?</p>
<p>I find this really offensive and I hope that others do as well. So, let’s say you’ve got a kid who is a nice kid, a hard worker, but maybe he had a little oxygen deprivation at birth. Or he tries really hard, but he’s never going to be anything other than a little slow. That’s “garbage in”? That’s incredibly, incredibly offensive.</p>
<p>Won’t that be true at your hoped for Ivy? Somebody has to be at the bottom of the distribution. I agree with Pizzagirl. Classifying people with below average academic skills as garbage is horribly offensive. :(</p>
<p>“Garbage In” -> “Garbage Out” is phrase used in information technology to indicate that if the incoming data is bad then the output can never be correct.</p>
<p>Please don’t twist words to accomplish any agenda. It has nothing to do with the below average children been tagged as “Garbage”.</p>
<p>Also 80% of the average student will benefit from high education standard, small class size, astounding facilities and others at the small good private than a large public.</p>
<p>What how do you even define “average” college student? Is it the C high school student who scores 500 on the SATS or 20 on the ACTs? I don’t even think you can measure this based on outcomes because future professional success is predicated on personality factors that aren’t even measured within “academic” measures and success cannot be measured simply by salary.</p>
<p>You can define the “average” college student, momofthreeboys, but s/he is not the student that often appears on CC. The average college student is over 21, goes to school part time, has SATs in the 500 range and his grades in high school were less than stellar.</p>
What exactly is a “broken” life? How do we determine that?
It is also a fairly irrelevant phrase in this context because it is considerably more difficult to assign value to students than to possibly inaccurate data.
<p>“You can define the “average” college student, momofthreeboys, but s/he is not the student that often appears on CC. The average college student is over 21, goes to school part time, has SATs in the 500 range and his grades in high school were less than stellar.”</p>
<p>This changes a little when you change “college student” to “4-year degree student.” I don’t see why we should look at a statistic which lumps people getting a degree in culinary arts and people getting a degree in Physics in together.</p>