<p>I’d like to touch on this phenomenon known as “college selectivity”</p>
<p>With the invention of the “Common App?” All we’ve assumed about this, can be thrown out the window until we reach some leveling of the uptake.</p>
<p>UMich is a CLASSIC example. While always a highly regarded public, its “selectivity” only recently plunged after joining the common app web application, which is specifically tied to its tremendous increase in applications, and subsequent decrease in acceptance rates. Is UMich doing anything different? No, but their perception has changed dramatically. Coincidentally, their yield hasn’t changed much at all.</p>
<p>I agree with mythmom that it is not just the outcome that you may be paying for at any given college, but the experiences gained by spending 4 years at a particular institution. That is not a quantitative factor.</p>
<p>But where a student spends their college years, who they are taught by, who they befriend and form a network of peers with is an important factor to consider. Will a school challenge a student in a positive way? Will the college allow for growth as a person? Will a student be happy? These are all factors that are hard to measure or even predict. And I am not saying that they are based on a college’s ranking.</p>
<p>To a certain extent, considering these factors is a luxury. If you can only afford colleges X and Y, it is not productive to consider how happy a student would be at college Z. Some parents sacrifice everything to afford college x and y…others could afford college z, but won’t consider it and don’t want to even consider these other factors. </p>
<p>I think you need to decide what you can afford. I don’t know what colleges were being compared in Annadad’s survey. The “lesser” university still has to offer sufficiently advanced courses and choices to given the student the possibility of having an equal experience. Personally I think there is a lot to be learned from - exploring a new part of the country, going to school with more diverse students especially from outside your state, being in classes where everyone is as bright as you are, going to a school where there is a lot of recruiting and networking going on on campus. You might find all that at a “lesser” school if you are the type of out-going driven student who goes after these experiences. </p>
<p>BTW, some regional universities are quite good, especially in one field or another and they may make sense academically, not just from a monetary point of view.</p>
<p>The affordability factor in this case has, to a certain degree, already been made. We accepted tier 1 school without the award letter, but while waiting for the award letter, I am taking another look at the second school. I think, and this is just from me researching, etc., we may be able to save more with the second school, however, I really would not know for sure without the award letter.</p>
<p>As stated, I really had no one to toss my ideas around to who would understand what giving up a tier 1 school could/would mean, and so I came here. </p>
<p>*I would prefer not to disclose the schools on this forum, but I would do so in a PM most especially if you provide me with more insight in response.</p>
<p>Annasdad: without reading the actual paper, I can not comment on whether the results they looked at matter.</p>
<p>As for using tests like the GRE and the LSAT, most kids in tiptop colleges are at the top of curve on the SATs. If you are in the 98th percentile or higher, one or two little errors can make a difference. Also, most generalized tests are not going to measure the depth and breadth of learning that might differentiate a top tier school from a lesser one. It is similar to the national testing in elementary school. If students in a district regularly score in the 90th percentile and higher, there is really no way to discriminate among the top students. </p>
<p>Nobody is saying that going to a lower tier school equals no chance for learning or life-long success. It also depends on the level of difference. A top 20 may not be that different from a state school ranked in the 60s. But there is a difference in experience and outcome.</p>
<p>jym: not true in many states. Look at the UCs, much more difficult now than in the past. Our east coast flagship U is much more difficult to get into. A truly average (C+) student would not be admitted.</p>
<p>annasdad is constantly harping on the idea that it doesn’t make any difference where a kid goes to school, yet he chose to send HIS kid to a magnet science and math school some distance away–a boarding school, I believe?–NOT the local public high school. Oh. Right.</p>
<p>giterdone, it is NOT a matter of grade inflation. It is a matter of the quality of classroom discussion and the level to which course content is pitched. I will give you an example. When my S was in HS he “shadowed” a philosophy professor at a local university that is indeed listed as a “regional university” by USN&WR. S was interested in the subject, and had taken several philosophy classes at CTY. A job shadow was required at our HS. When I asked him how it went in the classes he observed, he said that it was clear that beyond a certain point the students could not follow the professor. (The professor had a PhD from Cambridge, BTW.) S could follow him at the age of 15/6. That class of 20+ yr olds could not. There is NO WAY that S would enjoy going to that college and taking philosophy classes with those students, much less get as much out of it as he would at a school where the student body was a better match. Now clearly, there is a matter of degree of mismatch, and it will also depend on the subject. Clearly, at state flagships there ARE going to be peers for anyone, and in the advanced classes they will tend to congregate. All the usual caveats. Yadda, yadda, yadda. But to deny that there is a difference is simply foolish. </p>
<p>Regarding selectivity, it has always been obvious that the simple percentage of students accepted does not give a clear picture at schools where a high degree of self selection is in play (U of C, women’s colleges, etc.). Those schools have always had a student body with much higher stats than the comparative percent accepted would indicate.</p>
<p>How much of a price difference has to make it worth considering the change of mind to attend the state school vs the private, op? Are the schools comparable in terms of size, availability of faculty, classes in your child’s major, etc?</p>
<p>Am referencing the research from the Stanford economics research. Suspect that on an individual basis its harder to get into the well respected state flagships with high selectivity, in contrast to some of the less selective state schools, and am surmising that she is talking about overall group differences. Of course poor Calif-- thats another story entirely :(</p>
<p>My children all attended OOS public colleges. Two were in honors programs and the third in a school where no honors program was needed. In terms of class discussion and having quality interactions between students and professors, it was there but some chose not to embrace that. For class discussions, those students who couldn’t follow usually didn’t bother to come to class.</p>
<p>It’s not one paper; it’s a summary of multiple studies, conducted over a 30-year period.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The studies cited by Pascarella and Terenzini controlled for that, comparing students with similar entering SAT scores at various institutions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Several studies have reported on comparisons using the CLA, which is the current gold standard for measuring critical thinking. The result: no significant difference between students at institutions of widely different rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Experience, maybe yes, maybe no; but more difference in experience than between similarly ranked schools of very different cultures?</p>
<p>Outcome, the data do not support your assertion.</p>
<p>jym626, good questions, thanks for the thoughts. </p>
<p>My kid wants neuroscience. One school has it the other does not which is why I am talking to him about double majoring. Size is not too off from one another, both small in comparison to what a midsize university would be. Both market available faculty, but without attending how would one really know? I am trying, at this point, to keep in mind travel costs, which for tier 1 would be an estimate at best, (distance, weather conditions, etc.). </p>
<p>I cannot afford paying full tuition, and until I get the award letter, full tuition in my mind is what it is, but historically, tier 1 offers very good packages, and so…I wait…</p>
<p>If the second choice school does not offer the major your ds wants, I would probably eliminate it, especially if he wants to go to grad school in the field. Without the major, he’ll have to hodge-podge together classes that will give him the background he needs to be a competitive candidate for grad school. He could probably do research with a professor if someone is doing some in the neurosciences field, or even a related field in psychology or biology, but if I were you I’d have your son look CAREFULLY at the classes that are offered and see if there is enough to whet his whistle. And FYI, I happen to work in that general field, so I do have some experience behind my opinion.</p>
<p>Also, isn’t it a bit late for the funding info to be coming in? You can ask for a reconsideration from the Tier 1 if it isnt enough, but if the other school isnt really considered a peer school, tjhey may not be willing to match what you have from your local school.</p>
<p>Yes. And some people, confronted with data about the effect of colleges gathered from numerous research studies reported in respected juried publications over 30 yeard - data that they are apparently unable to refute - harp instead on where one parent chose to send his daughter to high school.</p>