Of course, but in order for her to be allowed to take above-grade level classes in her areas of strength, our school insisted she be de-classified (long story, not right, but that was their philosophy). Therefore, she is not and will not be eligible for special services, hence my need to know about rigor and workload at area schools…which takes us back to a more on-topic subject of how much rigor varies school to school.
When this subject is discussed, which is every few weeks on CC, people seem to feel there is less variation in engineering and hard science programs. What about the liberal arts, though?
Even if she was “declassified”, if she was Dx with Aspergers, that does not go away, as you know. She was “declassified” for school purposes, but she may still need and benefiit from non academic support. She may not need the IEP/504 documentation per se for that. if she is still seeing a MH professional, and surely as well you have a boatload of records to support her documented disability, the treating physician/psychologist can help with the necessary documentation. She will need a current evaluation, if she hasn’t had one in the past few years (some schools say 3, others say 5, but most will require adult versions of tests).
Not sure what you are asking re: variation in the liberal arts schools, but there is certainly variation in how reading/writing intense some schools are, and what social support services they offer.
Sorry if I misunderstood your D’s condition, GFG. I was under the impression that she was special ed, in the sense of not being able to function at / near grade level, and so the choices of Bryn Mawr, Brown, Haverford, etc. looked odd in that context.
Well, I guess I’m just trying to suggest that “rigor” might be about more than the curriculum and the composition of the exam. It could also have to do with what actually goes on in the classroom–for example, is the professor answering questions needed to reinforce the basic understanding of the material, or to supplement it?
Aaah, Classics. I love a good Classics fight. Res Ipsa Loquitur and don’t let the neighbors here distract you.
GFG, you are on the right track in trying to find a college which will offer your D’s desired major; have students who are serious about their studies but not going to create an academic environment which will “feel” too competitive or nasty to your D, AND which will position her well for whatever she decides she wants to do.
It is a shame that in the wave of PC which began in the 1960’s and is still washing over (some) colleges, the Classics and other “older” humanities subjects were hung out to dry as being the province of Dead White Men.
If this were my kid, I’d be looking seriously at the Catholic colleges (and we are not Catholic) to find one which has a robust Latin program and which has a campus culture which your D would enjoy and which has stats which suggest she’d be in good academic company all around. Some of the “lower ranked” (not being pejorative, just trying to use short hand) are big time party schools which might not be what your D is looking for, but some of them have a good intellectual climate and a lot of fantastic faculty, both Catholic and other. I would also check out the Canadian U’s.
One last thing - sorry. The student I am working with that has no academic accommodations, hasn’t had any for several years, and will likely not be requesting any at college. He will, however, be needing non-academic support, and with the diagnosed disability (Aspergers) he WILL qualify for these services. There are other medical and MH diagnoses that qualify for accommodations of all sorts, academic and non-academic. The school must follow ADA and provide equal access to resources at the school.
And as I have said many times before, whether that’s better or worse (or matters) depends on the kid. There are many different types of kids, many types of education, many types of environments, many paths to the same goal (and different goals as well), and many different family circumstances.
When considering colleges, you have to consider what type of education and environment makes sense given the kid and the family.
Some kids actually do better when they are top dog. To someone like that, having classmates who are going above and beyond the material may be a worse learning environment.
I agree with this, and I think sometimes kids like this have bad results at highly competitive schools–they may get discouraged if they are no longer at the top, and (for example) might drop out of the premed track they had been planning to pursue. This is part of fit.
Many people suggest the allegedly nurturing LAC’s for kids with disabilities. My concern about some of them is the extent to which the small class size and emphasis on vibrant discussion would be too pressure-filled for a kid with some expressive language issues and slower processing. Anyway, this thread is not supposed to be about my D, but thanks to all for the suggestions. I definitely have Catholic schools on the radar. Thanks, Blossom.
But tying that topic back to the thread, I wonder if for certain normal kids the private (or private elite) LAC’s would be more academically rigorous due to their small class size. We often focus on the extra attention and accountability of that as being an educational help, which it sure can be. But it can work both ways. Maybe one reason behind what I am sensing about the rigor of the big state university classes is not because of the actual difficulty of the material being taught, but rather because of the teaching style and logistics. Larger classes usually have fewer exams, fewer papers due, and far less need to be “on” for each class. My S attended a top small elite, and seemed to have more collected assignments than my D who attended an elite university.
A small school may be a more difficult place for an academic outlier (on either the high or low end), since there may be too few (in absolute numbers) academic outliers for the school to offer the range of courses and majors (rigor-wise) to accommodate varying levels of academic ability and motivation.
LACs sometimes are characterized as schools where you go if you need “more hand-holding”. In fact, the often-favored Socratic method (which is more practicable at smaller schools) can be a little scary, depending on how it’s applied. Imagine you are 19 years old, it’s 8:30 AM, and suddenly before your coffee has even kicked in a 60 year old bearded man in a bow tie is in your face asking you, Ms. Jones or Mr. Brown, to explain what some philosopher means by “justice” … or to step up to the board to walk the class of 15-20 students through a proof.
So as TheGFG suggests, the difference may have less to do with the difficulty of the material being taught than with the teaching style and logistics. If the admission process is working well, students won’t be admitted who cannot cope with the challenges common at a particular school. If you’ve visited and sat in on classes, and otherwise done your due diligence, ideally you won’t choose a college that is more or less “laid back” than what you want. Some students may learn better in big lectures taught by subject-matter experts, complemented by discussions with grad students closer to their own age.
That’s one ting that can be scary, tk. Another is that to get the support, you often have to be the sort of kid willing to pursue those profs. Some can, some can’t. But GFG is considering the right sorts of questions for her girl.
I do agree with jym that it can be enlightening to learn how different schools handle support. At some, whether large or small, they stay more on top of kids than at others. At some, they leave it more to the kids to come ask. Whether or not she needs that, it’s good to know what the back-up is. At some point when the schools are narrowed, a new thread might pull up some experiences from other posters.
@purpletitan “The rigor at a number of schools with widely different student bodies (at least in STEM departments) are often times roughly the same.”
I believe that within a limited range. If you are comparing a top ten school with say, Cal Berkeley, then I think they would be comparable in many classes. However, if you are comparing it to Michigan State then I am confident that on average, it just can’t be the case. I picked MSU because I am a big fan and attended there. I am not knocking the school, it does a great job. However, the typical student at MSU is just not prepared to compete with the average student at a top ten school. On average, those students know a lot more, and they are capable of handling a larger and more challenging homework load. The average MSU student has about a 25 ACT score which is a long way from the to ten SAT average of 2200 or so. The average MSU student also has much lower grades in a less rigorous course load.
Purple Titan, it seems to me that you are correct that a top school may not be right for every student, and that Hunt is right in his point that the top school would be a better choice for most students who have the opportunity to attend them. I do not really see a conflict there.
@Much2learn, at a school like MSU, it would depend a lot on the department & faculty culture. Departments could do different things:
Track by differing amounts of rigor (many large econ departments do that).
Teach and grade the same way they do at an elite. However, curve the grades so that they don’t flunk out 80% of a class. (Yet the brightest kids would still learn what they need in order to excel at the next level).
Honors (MSU has a lot and all sorts; probably because they feel like they need a way to attract and develop their high-potential students).
Research, TA’ing, and other stuff for high-achievers outside of class.
I’m almost certain that a school like MSU does all of them. @romanigypsyeyes probably has more insight on how MSU develops PhD candidates while having a student body that mostly isn’t the highest potential.
It’s definitely a different learning environment from a super-selective elite. Everyone has to figure out what works for them.
I disagree that msu doesn’t have the “highest potential” students for starters.
They didn’t do anything special. I would’ve succeeded wherever I went so I went to the place that was most comfortable. I developed close relationships with profs who wrote great letters of rec and I can count the number of classes I took that were curved on one hand. I didn’t do research until grad school and I didn’t TA. Not did any of my friends who also went onto PhD programs.
Fwiw, I am firmly of the belief that it is the student and not the university. I believe students who would be successful at Harvard would be do just as well at msu. My opinion is not popular.
Actually, I think your opinion is pretty popular on CC. But unfortunately, there is a difference between MSU and Harvard. Again, someone who is very interested and talented at math (I’m only using math as an example because that’s what I’m most familiar with) could go to Harvard and take Math 55, or Math 25, while it doesn’t seem as if there is a proof-based math class intended for freshman at MSU. Putnam results recently came out, and while Harvard had 32 students score in the top 500, Michigan State had at most 1. That being said, I think Michigan State is a very good school and at the very least, it has a graduate program in mathematics, so someone who goes to Michigan State and wants to take advanced classes freshman year or do well on the Putnam is not doomed. But they will likely be one of few students doing so.
Self-selection bias. It is likely those 32 students were groomed to go to top whatevers for quite a while before college so the top college seemed like a natural progression.
Do you think if they had gone to MSU they would not have done well? Personally, I think they would’ve done just as well.
After all, there’s no way us people without 2200+ SATs could comprehend it. (What does OS stand for anyway?)