Full-ride possibility [Baylor]

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Phear,
I truly have no idea what you’re talking about when you speak of mediocrity and God’s will in ‘response’ to what I was saying. Here’s what I hear your assumptions are (other than some meandering stuff):<br>

  1. People are successful insofar as they make a lot of money and/or have a lot of power. Ergo: Money/power is directly proportional to success.<br>
  2. Anyone who doesn’t make a lot of money and/or have a lot of power obviously wants to, but can’t.<br>
  3. Since Ivy league schools increase your chances of landing a megamoney job immediately post graduation (not sure if this is proven, but let’s say it is), and since success is proportional to megamoney, then ipso facto, Ivy League school pedagrees are directly proportional to success.</p>

<p>Here are the fallacies:

  1. You choose to define success purely in the way that you yourself perceive success. To you, there is no other success except a ton of money and big toys and a big stick. Since you define success only by your yardstick, you are at a loss as to how to measure other forms of success, and simply deny they are there, or conflate them with ‘mediocrity.’ Artists, priests, dancers, carpenters–according to you, these people are all failures or mediocre, since they don’t make a lot of money and don’t have a lot of ‘power’ in its crude, ‘big stick’ sense.
  2. Since you have blinders around all other forms of success you simply cannot see others’ happiness and success in an array of different careers and life choices. You deny they are there.
  3. Statistically, there is not strong, unchallenged proof that an undergrad Ivy education translates into higher long term salaries on average. I’ve seen stats making the cases of both sides. If there is a correlation, it’s debatable if the Ivy League college itself is responsible, since many students enter the schools already with intelligence, high skills, and major connections: Dad is a Congressman, Mom works on Wall Street. It’s true that Ivies give you a leg up on connections in some jobs. It’s the Club aspect, though. And you’ve got to make use of it. Merely going there means nothing. At all.</p>

<p>In addition:

  1. Most jobs depend on your grad school, not your undergrad. I’ve known many, many people (not a handful) who have gotten into prestigious grad schools from mediocre undergrad (me included). It really depends on how you do in your undergrad. Many grad schools search for a diverse student body–they really, really don’t want an entire med school made up of Yale and Harvard undergrads.<br>
    It’s a big world out there and there are plenty of extremely bright, ambitious young people who
    a) couldn’t afford an Ivy
    b) weren’t positioned in high school to get into one (didn’t have the support system to help them)
    c) matured in college and proved their worth there.<br>
    d) were simply vastly more impressive than their mediocre Ivy counterparts.</p>

<p>Trust me, grad schools absolutely are NOT impressed by Ivies, just for the sake of ‘Ivies.’ They are far more impressed by research, recommendations, work done, etc. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>College is a life transforming event. IT’s very very important to find a place that will raise you up and in which you can raise others. Going to an Ivy just because you want to make a ton of money on Wall street so that you can buy a big house and thump your chest is one route, I suppose. If that’s your cup of tea, you’ll find many people just like you who define themselves purely by externals. Some will wake up one day and wonder why they’ve been doing what they’ve been doing. But other people define themselves by internals–how much they give joy, how much they contribute to society or themselves, how much they achieve excellence and surround themselves with excellence, in art, in helping others, in surrounding themselves with a loving family or community, etc. And for those whose goal it is to earn money, many don’t need an Ivy to make it happen. </p></li>
<li><p>Literally, the ONLY people I’ve EVER known who have swooned over Ivies are people who have gone to Ivies themselves (undergrad). Ever wonder how the Ivies make so much money? Could it be by honing in on a gullible, insecure customer base such as yourself, who honestly believe their propaganda? People who WANT to go to an IVy because it’s for them–because of the community of learning, the students, the profs, etc.–these people will get so much more out of an Ivy than those who go to one because they want to enter the gilt doors of Wall Street. And if you want to make some dough, there are MANY MANY paths open to you other than an Ivy. I know many restaurant and small business owners who went to state colleges (or no college) and are earning a half million.</p></li>
</ol>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>This has been my experience as well - for the undergraduate level. For graduate school, one wants the best in their future area of expertise. It may be an Ivy, it may not. It depends on who’s teaching/researching and where. Then too, not everyone needs graduate school. Many people do just fine without it. It all depends on their selected field of choice.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, I think you’re beating a dead horse trying to convince Phear of this fact. He’s fully convinced his life is ruined because he didn’t select an Ivy for undergrad. Everyone needs a scapegoat for the blame I suppose.</p>

43

<p>Creekland,</p>

<p>When did this become about ME personally and not about the argument at hand? Why, with a degree from MIT and a lucrative career doing exactly what I want to do in my chosen field, would you imagine that I need to compensate for anything? I expect something better than this trite ad hominem. Not only is such an approach utterly devoid of academic rigor, but it’s disgraceful to those who hold the beliefs we all claim to cherish. </p>

<p>hoveringmom,</p>

<p>Your entire conception of my argument, and thus your list of fallacies, is mistaken. You continue to do “the Christian thing” and make arguments against why power/money are not to be strived for and continue to ignore the fact that I have continued (to no avail) to try and help you understand that in my argument I used those things are proxies for success in an effort to use an objective argument. I will try to explain it to you again:</p>

<p>Let us imagine that one has no ambition to make any more money then they need to simply sustain themselves meagerly. Let us also imagine that this person wishes to become a software engineer and write code that will help hospitals more effectively share information in ways not yet imagined and millions of lives will be saved as a result. And, let us also imagine that, alas, this person succeeds! Then what happens? Their genius is recognized and they become a highly influential person in their field (power) and their software is purchased for large sums of money. Ah Ha!, you say. What if our protagonist gives the software away for free? Well, then firms bid out for this persons consulting and to have them sit on the board (money) to ensure the proper dissemination of their software. Now, maybe they give all of this money away … but it is still their money to give away never-the-less. Thus, their success, causally, generates power and money. It’s the natural result of excellence in a capitalistic society. </p>

<p>You continue to conflate the proxy of excellence I generated with a desire for or intention to achieve the causal results if you want to, but until you accept that the argument that I am making and not the one that is easy for you to argue against (straw man fallacy) there’s nothing more to be said. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it for you, but you seem insistent on fighting that very weak straw man. </p>

<p>To your points regarding graduate school, less than 10% of Americans hold a graduate/professional degree. That number drops dramatically if you count graduate degrees from top schools. Simply saying, “I’ll go to a podunk university and then Harvard graduate school afterward” doesn’t make much sense to me. Graduate programs at top universities are exponentially more competitive than their respective undergraduate programs. It sure seems like a big gamble to me. </p>

<p>Finally, you simply declare and presume that the sole measure of myself is external and I have no internal measures. Pardon me for being so blunt, but you don’t have a damn clue about my motivations or desires and couldn’t be more wrong. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, I am simply trying to make people aware of the choice they are making in choosing a Christian university. Many top firms across industries (Google, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, NASA, etc.) will only recruit at top 10, or in some cases top 3, firms. Certainly experience is what matters in terms of job progression, but the thing that people with “lower” aims in life fail to understand is that many upper echelon jobs REQUIRE EXPERIENCE THAT CAN ONLY BE GAINED BY THOSE WHO ATTEND SCHOOLS WHERE THAT EXPERIENCE CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH ON CAMPUS RECRUITING. It’s like saying, “It doesn’t matter what school you went to, but we look for people who have previous experience at the top 3 engineering firms” and then finding out that the top through engineering firms only hire from their pool of summer associates, which is only recruited from Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Cal Tech, Harvey Mudd, and MIT. Can you just go anywhere and then hope to get into a top graduate program? Absolutely. And that can work - heck - it worked for me. But the odds of that happening are very low - I can’t count the number of 4.5 GPA’s in highschool that turned into 3.2 GPA’s in college and the MCAT, LSAT, GMAT etc. are much harder, proportionally, than the SAT. </p>

<p>Of course college is about the experience and of course that should be weighed in to the decision. I’m not denying that (and have stated as much already, you’re clearly not carefully reading my posts or else you simply don’t care to directly address my argument). I am simply postulating that (and forget the money, since you’re so hung up on that one component of my argument) that the CHOICES and OPPORTUNITIES within a chosen career can become very limited once one intentionally closes those doors. There are a lot of people who hate the idea of being limited in their future endeavors and so rail against the idea that the Ivy League is overrated and doesn’t matter etc. etc. Meanwhile, take a look at wall st, the supreme court, and all of the PhD’s at top universities and look at where they went to school. </p>

<p>Sure, many entrepreneurs don’t have top college degrees, and if someone is intent on becoming an entrepreneur then the Ivy league becomes much less advantageous (although the connections to VC and consulting firms would be huge). But forget about the money, the on campus recruiting and resume value add open doors that remain locked for students from other universities. Everyone on this forum can stand up and shake their fist at me all day, but you can no more change the truth of that reality that can a lunatic put out the sun by scribbling “darkness” on his cell wall.</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>One need only read your posts to determine the answer to the first question. As for the second, beats me, but seems obvious - again - from your writings.</p>

<p>Then our question. Why do you continue to insist that anyone with ‘ability’ must enter the rat race in some way or form in order to be successful? It may be one path - one you prefer. It may just as well NOT be a path for many others. My oldest will likely be quite successful doing micro-enterprise in some third world country. My middle son will likely be quite successful in medical research. My youngest - at this point - would probably make a top notch national park ranger or biological researcher. Considering he’s in 8th grade, we have some time finding his niche.</p>

<p>None need an Ivy league (or similar) education for undergrad to success with their preferences. They will all go to a school that is very good for their major - not podunk u. I will do careful research to find options for them to consider and we will visit those that make our cut to then find the best fit.</p>

<p>Then too - have you looked at Biola’s stats since you continue to say they are top of the top in Christian education?</p>

<p>SAT Critical Reading: 500 - 620<br>
SAT Math: 490 - 620<br>
SAT Writing: 500 - 610<br>
ACT Composite: 21 - 26 </p>

<p>By MY standards they are incredibly low - esp considering 25% of the students fall below their low scores.</p>

<p>In contrast, Covenant - where my oldest is likely to go since it appears to be superb IN his major has these:</p>

<p>SAT Critical Reading: 520 - 650<br>
SAT Math: 510 - 620<br>
SAT Writing: 510 - 640<br>
ACT Composite: 22 - 28</p>

<p>It’s not a huge difference, but nonetheless, better.</p>

<p>And a truly top Christian school (overall) like GCC has these:</p>

<p>SAT Critical Reading: 570 - 700<br>
SAT Math: 580 - 690<br>
SAT Writing: - -
ACT Composite: 26 - 30 </p>

<p>Biola may indeed be a good Christian school and perfect for its students. However, it doesn’t match your suggestion of always going with the top of the top. Even their ‘honors’ program that you mentioned - with an 1800 minimum requirement to get in - doesn’t match that of other schools. It’s just an average of 600 on each of the three segments.</p>

<p>So, if you consider Biola one of the best, you might want to open your eyes to realize there are other ‘bests’ out there that fit other students’ needs - and all likely have the capability to produce successful adults - maybe not by your definition (though I bet they could), but most of us have a wider definition of success.</p>

<p>My suggestion - to all - again - is to find a really good school within one’s desired major and with stats that match the student’s ability. Checking with multiple people already working in the field of choice is a great way to find these schools, but forums and searches can also provide some names to check out. Then visit the school, google the school, talk with anyone related to the school. Look for good and bad and consider the source for each. In many cases an expensive school is NOT a necessity nor the best option. For some it might be. At that point, it’s ‘to each their own.’</p>

45

<p>Since this post was about Baylor… I should have added their stats to the comparison. Here they are:</p>

<p>SAT Critical Reading: 540 - 650<br>
SAT Math: 560 - 660<br>
SAT Writing: 530 - 630<br>
ACT Composite: 23 - 28 </p>

<p>Beats Biola - and is definitely still on our radar for my middle son - though he would be in their top 25% of students. Considering he wants medical research, I suspect many of his peers (were he to go there) would also be in the top 25%.</p>

46

<ol>
<li><p>You quoted the Torrey MINIMUM application requirements. Their averages are much, much higher. </p></li>
<li><p>Biola is tops because it is a national university with the closest thing to a national reputation one can find at a Christian college. Wheaton is tops for obvious reasons. </p></li>
<li><p>Baylor is NOT a Christian school. If your research hasn’t revealed that much, I’d kindly suggest you take a harder look at the student body and policies of the university. A school like Pepperdine is much closer to being truly protestant that Baylor.</p></li>
</ol>