<p>to OHMomof2,</p>
<p>The single most important thing is name recognition by top employers. Education per se - MOOC are great. All job placements - BS - it is easier to go out and apply for internships directly. </p>
<p>Nice time at college, great kids, name recognition on D. resume - that is what I am looking for.</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>Exactly. We are missing kids who don’t care about “permission and potential liability”. Just come to the lab seminars, find a project you like, get onboard.</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>Sorry, I am as far from humanities as possible. 
STEM forever.</p>
<p>■■■■■, folks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do look at where math and science competition winners go, and if I see that school X gets many such students, it raises my opinion of school X, especially for aspiring scientists and mathematicians, both because
(1) they may know something about the education offered at X and
(2) aspiring scientists should have such contest winners as classmates</p>
<p>
To an Amherst, yes.</p>
<p>Californiaa - of course I’d send my kid to an LAC. My daughter goes to a top 10 LAC. Why wouldn’t I? Her school has plenty of recognition among top tier employers. </p>
<p>And how weird and out of touch with reality you are to think that anything below HYPSM is “second tier.” Whatever credibility you had has just been shot.</p>
<p>Californiaaa, you seem to believe holistic admissions means that universities are selecting only on the basis of leadership and don’t care for other factors. That just isn’t true. It means that leadership, defined broadly is ONE of many qualities they take into consideration. I assure you that HYP are still admitting plenty of geeks. Some of those geeks have awe-inspiring extracurricular achievement, both in their field and out. Some don’t. If they do, their chances of getting in are higher, but there are plenty in both categories. </p>
<p>Frankly, I think some people overestimate how good you have to be to get into an elite school. Yes, elite schools are extremely difficult to get into simply because there are way more qualified students than available spots. That doesn’t mean every unhooked applicant who gets in is a budding rocket scientist, professional-caliber musician, champion debater, likely future president, etc. Most probably do have some leadership role - heck, I don’t consider myself a natural “leader,” but I was co-captain of my Quiz Bowl team and editor in chief of our literary magazine - but not because they are aspiring politicians, but because if you have a passion for something, you are likely going to participate in a relevant EC for four years and probably advance to a leadership role of some kind by senior year. The point is, it isn’t as if the only people who get into these schools are extreme type-A personalities.
I’m not sure why your daughter, lab geek or not (and how, at 14, does she even have enough experience to know?), can’t also establish at least a reasonable record of involvement in activities outside the lab - which could be science-related activities. </p>
<p>I also don’t know where you’re getting your ideas about grad students from. First of all, you don’t have to have gone to HYP to get into an excellent graduate program, so even if AOs are “selecting against” these students as high school students, it doesn’t mean they have denied them the opportunity to pursue their research interests or left them woefully unprepared for grad school. And while there are a lot of foreign-born students in STEM, there are also plenty of American born, and probably plenty more that were rejected despite being reasonably qualified. Take a look at the page for the Harvard biology department or the MIT Physics Grad Council. Even if you assume all of the people with non-English names are not native-born (not a fair assumption), Americans, or at least Anglos, are quite nicely represented.</p>
<p>I’m just not seeing evidence of any sort of crisis here.</p>
<p>The US is not setup like the rest of the world (especially the APAC countries), we don’t have 2 or 3 schools that matter, and the rest are “second tier” or worse…</p>
<p>Everything you ever wanted to know about UC-Berkeley Grad students:</p>
<p>[Berkeley</a> Graduate Profile: A Statistical Snapshot](<a href=“Berkeley Graduate Student Profile - Berkeley Graduate Division”>Berkeley Graduate Student Profile - Berkeley Graduate Division)</p>
<p>Only 25% of Doctorial Students are International.
Only 21% of Masters and Professional Students are International.</p>
<p>A little more than half of the doctoral degree recipients go to work for a college or University. Only 35% of these are tenured tracked (at what could be the best grad school in the country).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like how you ignored the rest of my post. It’s up to the PRIVATE universities to determine their mission. A college can choose to be all male or all female, christian or jewish or Muslim, enact anti-drinking policies etc. etc.</p>
<p>In the United States, for whatever reason, they think that having kids who are good at many subjects and yet also are willing to lead is the preferred combo. Maybe it’s because of the excess competition or whatever. But attending a HYPSM does not ensure success any more than attending a SUNY or similar school ensures failure. Surely, you of all people know that many universities do research and have excellent profs. Cutting edge can be found lots of places.</p>
<p>Public universities like the IITs in India, for example, have to go to a standardized test because of the intent they were set up with, the volume of applicants, and their current status. You will note the admissions process for most public US schools is relatively straightforward as well. </p>
<p>But anyway, you seem like you’re ■■■■■■■■, so there is no point in continuing this discussion. I have to commend you though - you hit all the CC stereotypes really well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless your daughter is going into some line of work that is heavily school-prestige-conscious (e.g. investment banking, management consulting, law (with respect to one’s law school)), the prestige factor may make less of a practical difference than you imagine.</p>
<p>For admission to PhD programs, reputation in major matters, but more in terms of whether the best students are considered PhD material, rather than what the worst students are like (general prestige depends on having better worst students).</p>
<p>
If I were your boss, and heard this, I’d fire you. So you might want to keep that to yourself in the real world.</p>
<p>Besides, some science labs may find athletes useful.</p>
<p>[George</a> A. Brooks | Integrative Biology](<a href=“Faculty | Integrative Biology”>George A. Brooks | Integrative Biology)
[Steven</a> L. Lehman | Integrative Biology](<a href=“Faculty | Integrative Biology”>Steven L. Lehman | Integrative Biology)
[Human</a> Performance Laboratory](<a href=“http://hpl.ucdavis.edu/index.php]Human”>Human Performance Lab | Hawkins Research Group: UC Davis)
<a href=“http://biosci3.ucdavis.edu/FacultyAndResearch/FacultyProfile.aspx?FacultyID=363[/url]”>http://biosci3.ucdavis.edu/FacultyAndResearch/FacultyProfile.aspx?FacultyID=363</a>
<a href=“http://biosci3.ucdavis.edu/FacultyAndResearch/FacultyProfile.aspx?FacultyID=280[/url]”>http://biosci3.ucdavis.edu/FacultyAndResearch/FacultyProfile.aspx?FacultyID=280</a>
<a href=“http://biosci3.ucdavis.edu/FacultyAndResearch/FacultyProfile.aspx?FacultyID=334[/url]”>http://biosci3.ucdavis.edu/FacultyAndResearch/FacultyProfile.aspx?FacultyID=334</a></p>
<p>"If I were your boss, and heard this, I’d fire you. So you might want to keep that to yourself in the real world. "</p>
<p>Luckily, you are not going to be my boss, ever. I doubt that you are working in research in STEM. :)</p>
<p>Can never understand what is in it for trollers. Just enjoy a practical joke I suppose - but Californiaa has it bad…and I agree with Hunt.</p>
<p>My D did an internship summer '12 doing cancer research in a program for rising high school seniors. She worked in a lab at a local university all summer. Then this summer '13 she received a fellowship to work on her new college in a lab for 7 weeks for kids who will enter as freshman this Fall. In both cases the faculty running the labs WANTED and enjoyed having these young people in their labs and went out of their way to be involved with these programs. The university where she will matriculate had 20 labs sponsoring 20 young people to work in the different labs and the school has been doing this for 22 years. This does not sound like professors that don’t care about undergrads now does it. Oh, and my D is also an athlete who will be doing club sports in college. And I should mention that throughout high school D was involved with a couple of the more politically active organizations at her high school. </p>
<p>Maybe the troller should go pick a topic for a new thread that is more realistic…</p>
<p>What strikes me is that the kind of lab that Californiaa is describing is the sort that gives STEM graduate programs a bad name. Grad students are expected to not contribute anything of value, but rather to sit down, shut up, and do what they are told. Because they don’t add anything novel to the work, they don’t have the skills to start up their own research programs, which, even if not necessary for the PhD are necessary for the assistant professor. He (or she) who cannot bring something novel to the table are unlikely to be recognized for contributions to the field, get the grants, publish the papers. The best young faculty members are those who aren’t afraid to take a position. Or at least that’s what I’ve observed over the past decades. And one doesn’t suddenly develop a spine when one is granted one’s PhD.</p>
<p>
On that we can agree. I don’t envy your actual boss, if you have one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pssst … Hunt, I think that was supposed to be an insult. Too bad it’s not! </p>
<p>I never realized til I got on CC how there is a real subset of STEM-oriented people who are highly arrogant and truly honestly believe that what they do is more intellectual, more difficult, more important than what anybody else does and everyone should bow down to them – oh, and no need to exhibit normal social skills, either. Thankfully that doesn’t describe my real world, nor the science, math and engineering majors of my acquaintance, who are generally all nice, normal people who enjoy and value the humanities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This ^ is where the hole in your argument lies! What makes you think the US doesn’t look for the best and the brightest? You are assuming that there is a test that can accurately measure the best and the brightest. You’re a STEM person right? Then you must clearly understand the limitations of standardized tests. Just because “other” countries do it a certain way doesn’t translate to that being the only way or even the best way.</p>
<p>In the US we don’t put all of our values on basic skills. We want students who can think for themselves, have good character and make sound decisions about their life, their work, and their health. We want them to face the ups and downs of life with courage and joy! We want them to be kind and compassionate to others and have a sense of justice and fairness. We want them to be responsible citizens who think about issues rationally… The list goes on and on. How do you measure this?</p>
<p>The SAT and GPA’s alone cannot measure this…does that mean we say it is unimportant? We measure what we can but that cannot give us the whole picture. </p>
<p>Anyway…my kid got into engineering at both UCLA AND Cal… So that argument of your is false. He is also a nationally ranked athlete who happens to be doing STEM research in one of the most highly respected labs in the world. So your athlete argument is sort of messed up as well.</p>
<p>Moreover, fascinatingly enough, it’s US universities these kids want to flock to. I don’t see too many American kids clamoring to go to those places.</p>