<p>Hm. Which is the science and which is the mythology? I’m pretty sure studies can be commissioned and statistics manipulated. In fact, that is the first thing we explore in one course I regularly teach.</p>
<p>The example of Quinnipiac is a good one. My nephew attended with a Skidmore acceptance in hand to take advantage of merit money and because he felt comfortable there. Quinnipiac is very good for future health care professionals, but he wanted to study English. The results haven’t been pretty.</p>
<p>That’s not the case w/Dickinson et alwhich are fine institutions, but of they are only preferred because deposit check has been sent in, time to think again.</p>
<p>Well said Blossom. It also has to be said that critical thinking is both undervalued in our society and in short supply. There is probably a connection there.</p>
<p>Well, since I have access to professors from neither college, I really can’t do that little experiment. But I do have access to a published report to someone who taught for a number of years at Yale, and at Columbia before that:</p>
<p>It seems to me that an absence of critical thinking is exhibited by those who continue to maintain a position in the absence of evidence supporting that position - and in the existence of copious evidence showing the opposite.</p>
<p>Hunt, well articulated. I share the same value. I can be indifferent towards a lot of schools in the same general band (personal preference and fit) but step down a band and I think it’s a trade off. And I find it ludicrous that people are asserting these colleges are in the same band as top 10 LACs. They don’t need to be, to be perfectly fine places, but why not put yourself among smarter peers if you have the chance?</p>
<p>The science is the theory that has been tested developed from hypotheses that have been logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.</p>
<p>The mythology is the theory that doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny yet is defended vigorously by those who fervently believe it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They certainly can. That is why it is important to rely on studies that have been published in peer-reviewed publications and subjected to critical review. Can you perhaps point to some that support your position?</p>
<p>I figured Deresiewicz would make another appearance here, despite the pretty thorough drubbing he’s been given each time. I particularly like this:
So go to Quinnipiac if you want to be an intellectual. Riiiight.</p>
<p>Maybe Deresiewicz’s course was a gut taken by people who needed an easy A? I can’t think of any other reason a professor at Yale could possibly have such a wrongheaded evaluation of Yale students.</p>
<p>Fascinating how elite colleges are overrated but elite high schools aren’t. Asserting no difference, broadly speaking, between the “better” colleges and ones that are lower on the food chain would be like asserting there is no difference between an elite magnet Hs with lots of offerings and an average or below public school. </p>
<p>Was there not benefit to your D in being around more accomplished peers than she would have otherwise had if she’d stayed at home? What’s the difference?</p>
<p>Your posts are exquisite, well articulated, clearly thought through and well reasoned. But it won’t be heard by those who doggedly clutch to one or 2 publications from quite some time ago. Its pretty evident who can, and who cannot, think outside the box.</p>
<p>Annasdad has mentioned elsewhere on cc that unfortunately his DD did not get accepted to either of her reaches (Case or Rochester) or to any of her matches. Have to wonder, if she had, and if they had been affordable, would she have chosen one of those schools over the one she plans to attend? If so, why? If, as he seems to believe, there is no difference in what a student can get out of any given school, why even bother to apply to “reaches” and “matches”?</p>
<p>In defense of annasdad, or perhaps his DD, I think she thought a lot about fit. Knowing her school list a bit from other threads, it was a thoughtful list with schools that had features that appealed to her, probably just like the list most of us make. The terms reach and match schools don’t necessarily mean they are the most desirable school to every student. Plenty of our kids on CC aren’t looking for prestige, but for a home and many kids of the class of 2012 chose less prestigious schools for reasons other than finances. </p>
<p>After all, isn’t that the advice that many have imparted to OP, to ask her kid what makes each school feel special? To ignore prestige for fit?</p>
<p>I think it’s a perfectly valid question to want to know if it’s “worth it” to attend a more prestigious college, especially if it costs more. Annasdad is pointing out that it may not be worth it in terms of guaranteeing a higher income in your future life. That’s a valid concern. But it’s not the only concern, which is what some of the rest of us are trying to point out. Is it “worth it” to buy a BMW as opposed to a Toyota? That question has a lot of potential different answers, depending on what you value in a car. A college education is no different, except that you can often get a really huge discount on the luxury choice.</p>
<p>Can’t comment about classes in other schools but I have attended classes at Grinnell as a parent. Wow! Great profs who really know how to include everyone in the room in the discussion. Including the random parents. And the students don’t seem to be there to get a good grade on the test.</p>
<p>I hope anna thought about fit as one criteria, because IMO, thats more important than “cheapest” if a school is affordable to a student/family. Totally understand if a person has to stay within a budget, but given that, I repeat my question, if they had all been affordable and anna had gotten into Case or Rochester or one of her match schools, would she have made a different choice? If so, why? Is it just about “fit”, and if so, what does “fit” include? Caliber of the students, the faculty, the resources, the research opportunities with med schools across the street, etc? If we avoid that toxic word “prestige”, what are the factors that go into this decision? What are the aspects of these schools that add value to a student’s education?</p>
<p>Absolutely. And to some extent, that’s what I use things like USNWR for - not because it’s important to “have prestige” (I couldn’t care less what the neighbors think - they all think the world revolves around the U of Illinois in any case and couldn’t possibly see why I’d send my daughter all the way to Boston) … But because some (not all) of the ingredients that make up USNWR do give insight as to the strength of the student body, the size of the classes, and other considerations that ARE meaningful, at least in my mind (since I’m staunchly with Hunt in terms of the “surround yourself with the smarter peer group,” all else being equal). </p>
<p>It so happens that sometimes that’s correlated with broad awareness / prestige (Harvard, Yale, etc.) and sometimes it’s not (Grinnell, Carleton, Haverford, for that matter most LAC’s). But annasdad is assuming we’re going for the top of the list for the prestige, when we’re going to the top of the list because we believe the student body and opportunities are, generally speaking, better there.</p>
<p>Annasdad- there is no question that there are multiple forms of intelligence. But I wonder why you are bothering to send your D to college at all since you are so dismissive of intellectualism in general, and college pedagogy in particular.</p>
<p>It is my opinion that if you believe that literature, math, history and economics are taught the same way and at the same level of analytical engagement at Quinnipiac and at Yale, you should arrange to audit a class or two some day. No knock on Quinnipiac- I know kids there, and I think the school does a solid job of delivering what it promises. (Nobody has called it the U Chicago of CT, a hidden gem of intellectual curiosity, etc.)</p>
<p>But I’m curious why bother having your D attend college given how virulently you seem to think the entire undertaking is a giant scam.</p>
<p>Let’s imagine that your ambition is to become a professor of Classics at a university. It seems to me that you should go to the school with the most “prestigious” classics department you can find, because you are going to want to go to grad school, and it’s going to matter a lot. You aren’t going to make a lot of money even if you succeed. If your ambition is to go to law school, it won’t matter as much where you go–get good grades and get a good score on the LSAT, and you’re good to go. So even if you are focussing on employment outcomes, it really matters what kind of employment you’re talking about. By the way, Quinnipiac doesn’t have a Classics major.</p>
<p>It might not matter for law school, but it might matter in the hiring practices of a white shoe law firm.</p>
<p>Annasdad: I think you are being overly naive. So much published material is later discredited. The most prominent book on my dad’s bookshelves was HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS.</p>
<p>I knew you answer when I asked that question. It was rhetorical.</p>
<p>However, I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that every Tolstoy class at Grinnell would be superior to every Tolstoy class at Dickinson. That’s overstating the case by a lot. There are just too many variables to consider.</p>