<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know how adults in this country who don’t know this manage to function. Seriously. Since when is not getting into Harvard and slumming it at Johns Hopkins some kind of tragedy? On what planet?</p>
<p>
They can function just fine in the lab.</p>
<p>^ good. </p>
<p>If you have modest ECs and don’t get into Harvard, you won’t be so all-fired hot for Brown or Hopkins; so maybe it’s Duke or the flagship.</p>
<p>Well, then it’s a good thing these research labs exist so that they have a place to congregate with like-minded people and not engage with the rest of the university or understand that a university’s needs aren’t just “what suits me in the lab.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most of the ‘geeks’ I’m friends with (kids who’ve been in the lab for many years) are also interested in leadership. They do debate, speech, model UN, discuss politics frequently etc. Some advocate for educational and SJ causes, give talks, write things etc. </p>
<p>I think there’s nothing wrong with wanting devoted grad students and I’m sure most students are devoted to their work. But there are probably many reasons why students don’t go into academia. </p>
<p>I have friends who have done incredible stuff at very young ages and they don’t want to go, because who wants to live a life of writing grants and pushing out papers with a low chance of even getting tenure? It’s really hard to get a job in academia. In some fields, you get access to experimental apparatus only a few times a year. Plus, there’s rather low pay (40-60k) unless you get tenure. The public also does not typically value research either, unless it’s some pseudo-apocalyptic news story. Why not skip grad school and try for a start up or some better option?</p>
<p>I think the dichotomy you’re drawing here does not make sense. I believe that investment in basic science research is critical, because many things depend on it. But I certainly wouldn’t blame the US university system for keeping people away. The school system has done a pretty good job at wrecking enthusiasm for learning, as have other factors.</p>
<p>Anyway, the fact is, we need leaders who are scientifically literate and willing to advocate for research funding. We need people to push for changes in public policy. Furthermore, leading a lab, many would say, requires leadership. You have to be ready to take risks and determine goals and so forth. Or even in the general industry - some journals are starting to publish negative results studies which is obviously beneficial. Having better scientist- leaders might make the lives of scientists better. And if you’re so inclined, it might improve the world too. </p>
<p>I used to get really hung up about what university I’d go to, but then I realized that the university you go to can help you, but it’s ultimately what you make of it. I know a person that went to a SUNY with a full ride and got admitted early to an MD program. I know a guy who went to HYPSM and failed his first year. (He was a ‘geek’ BTW). Not that these experiences are representative, but I think that if students can tolerate a boring HS and make it work, you can do the same with a Uni, which presumably has greater freedom and opportunities. Undergrad is just part of your progression to a greater goal.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’m pretty sure there are schools who actively look for just geeks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you serious? A smart kid - as defined by high scores and grades - will have a ton of undergrad options, at large universities and LACs and tons of the 800+ selective undergrad institutions in this country, plus the ones that aren’t selective. A handful of colleges have the luxury of rejecting SOME kids like that in favor of other types of students because they have 10-20 kids competing for every available space. That in NO WAY means “smart geeks” can’t get fabulous undergrad educations and pursue advanced degrees if they choose. many of them do it at Harvard, Stanford and Yale.</p>
<p>If that lab geek has won USAMO, Intel or similar science or math competitions, that student is quite likely to go to whatever college s/he wants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they are old and have traditionally been places where the children of wealth and power go. It really doesn’t have anything to do with math or science, IMO. People consider the colleges of CEOs and major politicians and leaders of industry as well as noted authors, social scientists, hard scientists, etc. I am not sure, no offense to math, that many people consider any school because so-and-so mathematician went…though they might want to go there if that mathematician TEACHES there.</p>
<p>I am not sure how you know that your D is smarter than you or a lab geek since, as I understand it, she is not even in high school yet?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Give it up, OHMomof2. You’re talking to one of those people who believe the world revolves around HYP, HPS, HYPSM or some other minor subset of colleges in this country. It’s a crisis if a smart kid doesn’t get in to one of these places and has to settle for learning among the poor schlebs at a school ranked below #20. You know that. It’s a crime against humanity. The poor dears will be living and learning among fellow classmates who can barely add 2+2. And we know this to be true, since that’s what they believe overseas. Get with the program.</p>
<p>to OHMomof2 </p>
<p>“why Stanford-Harvard-Yale became desired universities? Because they are old and have traditionally been places where the children of wealth and power go. It really doesn’t have anything to do with math or science, IMO.”</p>
<p>Nice conversation. Good to know. Do you really think that a good university is a place where the children of wealth and power go, that has anything to do with math or science???!!</p>
<p>OK, I got the point. Could you tell me, please, what are you looking for in a university for your kids? Prestige? Connections?</p>
<p>Please, don’t tell me that you are looking for an education in math or science.</p>
<p>to Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>Ok, I got your point as well. So you think that a smart kid should go to a second tier university (no big deal) and save a top place for a true leader - future politician?</p>
<p>“Most of the ‘geeks’ I’m friends with (kids who’ve been in the lab for many years) are also interested in leadership.” </p>
<p>Most of the geeks that I know (including Profs) are NOT interested in politics. So what? </p>
<p>Why, every other university, in every other country in the world is looking for the BEST and BRIGHTEST, but US is fixed on “leadership”? If all are leaders … who is gonna work ?</p>
<p>"In the US, the great universities get that way because of accomplishment in many fields – politics, history, the arts, literature, etc. – not just because of science. " - yes, and they are called Liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>Just wonder, would you send your kid to a LAC? Even with a 100% fellowship?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say that makes it good, I said that’s the reason they became “desired”, or at least much of the reason. A better math-science school might be CalTech or MIT, and while it’s very hard to get into either one, they aren’t “Harvard-Stanford-Yale” as you put it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of things - lots of small classes, individual attention from professors and advisers, a decent club sports program, good access to labs as an undergrad, a very high retention and graduation rate, strong career/internship counseling, possibly a co-op program, a diverse student body, good support for getting into grad/professional school, and yes - prestige and connections.</p>
<p>She is very unlikely to apply to HYPS though she is only a rising junior so is a good year away from a final list.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do know that math and science are taught at LACs, right? And that universities offer languages and sociology and English and creative writing and all that?</p>
<p>The main difference between a university and a LAC is the presence of graduate students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The kids that don’t get into HPYS?</p>
<p>Sorry, couldn’t help it :D</p>
<p>*So you think that a smart kid should go to a second tier university (no big deal) and save a top place for a true leader - future politician? *</p>
<p>Go for it, PG.</p>
<p>Yes, I know that a smart kid can get into a top college through Olympiads, scientific publications, etc. I don’t worry about my D. that much, to be honest. Thanks god, MIT and Caltech are very reasonable and well respected. BTW, Oxford-Cambridge are 1) cheaper than Stanford-Harvard + 2) merit admission, only. </p>
<p>I feel bad for Harvard and Stanford. Honestly. They don’t have enough talent to fill Ph.D. programs; they have to import smart students from abroad. </p>
<p>I feel bad for US geeks, because they are not as welcome, as they should be. All jobs that foreign-born scientists are getting in top tier universities could have been American (if AO would admit more science-oriented kids, instead of athletes and aspiring politicians). Do we have a shortage of aspiring politicians, anyway?</p>
<p>to OHMomof2,</p>
<p>How different are we!</p>
<ol>
<li>“lots of small classes, individual attention from professors and advisers, a decent club sports program, a very high retention and graduation rate, strong career/internship counseling, possibly a co-op program, a diverse student body, good support for getting into grad/professional school”.</li>
</ol>
<p>You can’t imagine how irrelevant it is for me! Like … who cares?! It’s a college, not a HS. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>“good access to labs as an undergrad”
First of all, a university should have good labs. Not every place has them. 
If they do have good labs, student don’t need to ask for an access … just go there and volunteer. Volunteers are always welcome.</p></li>
<li><p>“prestige and connections” - not sure. I want my D. to hang up with good kids. She can have plenty of diversity at home, for free. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Probably, the only think that I care about, is the name recognition by top employers.</p>
<p>to OHMomof2,</p>
<p>“You do know that math and science are taught at LACs, right? And that universities offer languages and sociology and English and creative writing and all that?”</p>
<p>MOOC offers it as well. Really good lectures, actually. For free. What is the reason of going to LAC? It is cheaper and much easier to get BS online, for example.</p>
<p>I suppose I think quality of learning is affected by individual attention from professors. I would like my D to learn from PhDs - not from grad student TAs. I would like for her to be able to speak to them or get emails answered, I would like them to know her and perhaps mentor her. I guess that’s sort of high schoolish, I suppose, but it’s what I think she will respond to academically.</p>
<p>As for co-ops…I really like the idea of working in whatever field she winds up choosing, for pay, alternating with studies. I am not sure it will be right for her necessarily but it’s definitely something to consider. I would like a strong program for placing students in internships and jobs after college(or grad school if she chooses), at least. </p>
<p>And one college she is considering offers a 5 year masters program with the 5th year free. I like that idea too.</p>
<p>Have you thought about any of these things for your D or are you pretty set on her going to the most prestigious schools only?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know, why doesn’t your D get a math or science BS online instead of applying to college?</p>
<p>PG: I have been thinking ■■■■■ for awhile now, even from first thread, but enjoy the convo so…</p>
<p>What university do you work at where an undergrad can just stroll into a lab ask to volunteer and immediately get accepted? At many schools, first years are seen as a potential liability. </p>
<p>If you honestly believe MOOCs offer the same depth or rigor in the humanities as a top LAC, all I will say is that you’re wrong.</p>
<p>"Why would you think science is more important (for the university)? (scratching head) "</p>
<p>What are the major functions of a university? Research+teaching. Most jobs at a university fit into this job description (put aside medical schools). Most metrics are around research and teaching. Profs are hired to make research. They are evaluated by their research papers. </p>
<p>HS is also engaged in teaching, BTW. Science - is the only thing that differentiates college from a HS.</p>