<p>@OC2SEC, It’s “almost always” futile but not “always.” For us, it didn’t feel right to send D to a school that didn’t have an adequate program in the area she’s spent the last 9 years seriously pursuing. She may change her major. She may change her concentration. I’d actually be happy if she did but we’ve been around her long enough to know sending her to a school that doesn’t offer her quality in her area of interest would just be a mistake.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lots of students do not change their intended majors, or do not change to greatly different majors. If a student expresses a strong interest in particular majors, it makes no sense to send the student to a school where the majors do not exist or are very limited, essentially forcing him/her to change major to something that s/he has not otherwise expressed interest in.</p>
<p>Indeed, if a student is somewhat or very undecided, one of the criteria for selecting a school would be that it has reasonable options in the several majors that s/he may choose to do.</p>
<p>I think there’s a lot less to choose from as far as “intellectually thick” (where on earth did that expression come from?) versus “thin” among the range of schools your kid is likely to be looking at. My D1 visited a school (small, private LAC) that should probably be considered a safety for her since her SAT is within the top 25% for the school, and her GPA is 0.3 above the median. She and I both sat in on a class and found it interesting and challenging, with the students seeming to be engaged in the discussion and the professor enjoying the back-and-forth. I feel confident that if she ends up at that school she will find plenty of intellectual peers. A hundred points on an SAT composite score, or a few tenths of a percentage point on a GPA, doesn’t necessarily make the difference between intellectually engaged and intellectually uncurious. </p>
<p>^So very true. I also think the use of the word “thick” to describe intelligence is funny. And of course “dense” is no better. 
I do know what people mean when they say it, though.</p>
<p>My son is at a school like the one you describe, where he was near the top of the applicant pool stats-wise. He is finding the classes challenging, the professors demanding, and he is working for his grades in a way he didn’t have to in high school. His dad and I both feel the environment is more intellectual than our alma mater–very few preprofessional students, a strong emphasis on exploration–and that he is getting a classic liberal arts education that will serve him well. Of course, we have the same worries everyone does about job prospects after graduation, but we think he will be as competitive as anyone for the things he wants to do.</p>
<p>For 3togo and others the main argument for attending an elite school is the density of highly motivated students is much greater than public high schools. At many state flagships schools a high density of top students also occurs. For example given UT Austin admission policy one would expect a student body that is far different from an average Texas public high school. The same thing can be said for UNC, Virginia, UC Berkley, and others. For some the saving for an elite college is a worthy goal however for others this is simply not possible. For families with limited financial resources these schools can give their children an equal opportunity for success without having to incur long term debt. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) We considered DD’s goals - all of them, and ranked them.</p>
<p>2) DH and I came up with an amount we were willing to cover as well as whether or not we would allow her to take on loans (and how much that would be). As long as the dream school did not exceed that amount, she was free to choose. Otherwise, she would have gone to “State U”.</p>
<p>She did get into one reach/match school, which remained in the running until the end, which was the most costly. Had she chosen that one, we would have been ok as, from personal experience, we do not believe “all schools are created equal”, and there are simply greater opportunities at that college than at “State U”.</p>
<p>However, she did get into her uber reach, and after attending Admitted Student Days, will attend there. The FA blew us away, and is going to actually cost a tad less than the well-respected, brand-name state flagship. We are so thrilled and happy for her. She has found “her place”. I agree with much of what PizzaGirl and a few others have said re: high school and fitting in/social life. Sometimes you want to be surrounded by more than a few people who don’t see “nerd” as a four-letter word. 
</p>
<p>As the originator of the concept of a campus “thick” with smart kids, it’s also about socialization, not just classroom experience. It was a world of difference to come from hs in which there wasn’t a high concentration of smart / serious students – where smart kids were marginalized, nerds, not popular – to a world in which most everyone around you was smart and serious, and it wasn’t uncool or nerdy to be jazzed about your studies. </p>
<p>I agree completely w 3togo above that it makes all the difference in the world to be accepted socially and that’s a heck of a lot easier to do on the “thick” campuses than on campuses where it’s still about partying and maybe attending a class every now and then and you have to search for your tribe. And obviously state universities recognize this - that’s why they have created these honors colleges with special dorms, etc. </p>
<p>I could have found that “thickness” at a lot of places, not just where I went, but in the mid 80’s I could not have found it at my state’s undistinguished flagship, where the dorm was full of exactly the same un-academically inclined kids who didn’t want to have a thing to do w me in hs. </p>
<p>Things like “fit” and “comfort level” are important to D in her college search. But, honestly, she has not felt marginalized or excluded in her large suburban high school. She’s not what you’d call “popular”, but she has a group of friends who are much like her and she’s happy with that. </p>
<p>But she is looking for someplace that will provide greater opportunity for intellectual exploration. And that is something that seems to be missing both in her current high school and in many of the colleges that the recent graduates from her school end up choosing.</p>
<p>As I read this back and thought about it in the context of another thread here, I realized that what she clearly doesn’t want is a place where the top students are studying 24/7 or where competition for top grades trumps everything else. She’s looking for a vibrant intellectual community inside and outside of the classroom. For us, that’s something worth the extra money. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl Bingo! This is precisely why honors colleges are being created and it is working. I also believe there is a movement where being nerdy is cool. Kids at my daughters school seem to be more accepting of kids that are different including ones sexual orientation. This may be a by product of the anti bullying
programs so prevalent in many of the high schools these days. </p>
<p>Like Pizzagirl, I went to a high school where intelligence and intellectual curiosity were not valued (although mine was very small–not the typical large public where people complain about such things). I was a complete nerd and of course not “popular,” although I had a small group of nice friends. It was refreshing to go to a college where I didn’t feel like I was the only “smart” kid. Yes, there was partying, but most of the students were able to pull themselves together the next morning to make it to class and hit the books.</p>
<p>I do agree with @rubrownmom that times may be changing. Today’s kids appreciate the nerds like Mark Zuckerberg whose contributions to society have a direct impact on them. They also see how much harder it is to be successful than it was for their parents’ generation.</p>
<p>LOL! They appreciate the nerds who dropped out of school and became billionaires.</p>
<p>I was also kind of nerdy/intellectual and something of a misfit in my public high school — but I found my public university to be full of smart kids – many of them studying engineering or pre-med or other other concentrations with high expectations. That was back in the day when the cost of attending college was a pittance compared to what it is now – but a large proportion of the students I encountered were also paying their own way though college, and so they weren’t there to play around.</p>
<p>Yes there was a lot of partying as well – and I participated in my share of it. One advantage of college was that it gave me room to grow out of my nerdy shell, in an environment that did not consist of the sort of cliques that exist in high school. But the bottom line is that college is not high school --and that goes for public colleges as well as private. Unlike high school, no one is required to attend college – so even at a low end public university, the total goof offs and slackers from high school have already been weeded out simply because they didn’t bother to apply. At many public high schools, including my own, the majority of graduating seniors simply do not go on to college— and if they did, it was often to vocationally-oriented programs at the community college. </p>
<p>But I still keep up with a group of students who were my close friends in my freshman dorm. Every single one of them took college seriously, and most went on to earn advanced or professional level degrees-- though now all of my college buddies are in their 60’s and many have retired. </p>
<p>Also, some of the kids who were the wildest partiers were also the smartest ones – they were the ones who had time to party while the rest had to work a lot harder to keep up in class. So again, I see this whole notion of a public university being high school redux as being mostly an attempt to rationalize an expensive decision by creating a false mental representation of the worst-case-scenario view of the alternative. </p>
<p>Trying to shut down alternative opinions isn’t something you generally see from someone who is secure in their own. </p>
<p>dm, I can honestly tell you that I’m glad my arts, drama, creative writing daughter is going to a flagship. SHe had a few choices that I could afford and I’m glad she picked a school that offers Div 1 football, large dorms full of kids who are studying just about everything, nerdy engineers that she would have no contact with at a small LAC. She may not go to a football game, but they have them if she wants (and it’s likely she’ll go because she is rather social). She would have fit in perfectly at many of the small LACs were were looking at, and she would have been in drama and taken a bunch of Eng Lit classes and enjoyed discussions with a bunch of other slightly nerdy kids just like her, but I think she’ll get more out of such a class by hearing the views of others who might think Shakespeare is stupid, who might like sci fi more than Dickens, who might give Twain a try because of something my daughter found in it.</p>
<p>So no, money isn’t the only concern and the only reason we picked her school. She would have done great at a small LAC, but I think she’ll do even better at a state flagship and have more opportunities. She’ll have to make those opportunities, she’ll have to figure out how to pay for them, but that will be part of the lesson.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some very selective schools have a reputation of being very party oriented (e.g. Dartmouth, Bucknell). Indeed, the college characteristics that are associated with heavier alcohol use and binge drinking appear to be more likely to be found at prestigious and highly selective colleges. So if one wants to avoid an party/alcohol-dominated social scene, it is not sufficient to seek a highly selective college.</p>
<p>Yes, we know; you bring that up every single time. And no one is talking about avoiding partying altogether. Just partying with a smarter crowd. </p>
<p>I was not prepared for the severe deja vu this thread gave me. </p>
<p>“Just partying with a smarter crowd.” Talk about a lack of diversity. How boring.</p>
<p>I’m lost, when one parties with a smarter crowd do they study the galaxy while playing beer pong?</p>
<p>I think one reason this kind of thread becomes exasperating is that so many statements are interpreted as if they are coming from somebody with the most extreme possible views on this topic. Thus, we have to respond with “nobody is saying that…” I actually see a pretty large overlap in what most people are saying, to wit:
- It’s not prudent (or necessary) to go into crushing debt or to make unreasonable financial sacrifices to send a kid to a highly selective school vs. a more moderately priced school.
- If it can be achieved without undue sacrifice, many kids will benefit from choosing colleges based on fit, as opposed to cost, and in some cases this will result in choosing an expensive, highly selective college.</p>
<p>Now, some people have made statements that imply they may not agree with one of the above statements, but does anybody really disagree with them?</p>