Is there a school you WOULDN'T want your kid to go to?

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@annasdad

But when a science major says her science courses were easier than what she took in high school,

</p>

<p>Substitute “super-elite STEM-focused high school” here if you want to be accurate.</p>

<p>Most students come from high schools that are not teaching at science and math at honors college level. A typical high school teaches typical high school level science and math, and may include AP level courses. Nearly all colleges will be designing their freshman level science and math courses for students from a typical high school, not a super-elite STEM-focused high school.</p>

<p>You can hate on Northwestern University all you want, but it is not like you will find many (or any) other schools whose freshman level science and math courses will be that much more rigorous. Of course, a student who took the college freshman or higher level courses at a super-elite STEM-oriented high school should be skipping the freshman level courses in college, unless the college is a super-elite STEM-oriented college (referring to just two small colleges here).</p>

[thumper1]

<p>I’ve come to the conclusion (sample of one…me) that some folks just need to be critical of things that they don’t plan to do, don’t want to do, can’t afford, can’t attain, or would not allow THEIR kids to do.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>heres a link re: math skills at an “Ivy Plus” school.

Many college freshmen can’t do basic math, and some instructors are dumbing down their classes to accommodate them, a group of University of Washington math, science and engineering professors warned in an open letter released Thursday.

</p>

<p>Read more: [Freshmen’s</a> weak math skills worry UW faculty - seattlepi.com](<a href=“http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Freshmen-s-weak-math-skills-worry-UW-faculty-1265873.php#ixzz1l54WZcH9]Freshmen’s”>http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Freshmen-s-weak-math-skills-worry-UW-faculty-1265873.php#ixzz1l54WZcH9)</p>

[barrons]

<p>4 year old story from a defunct newspaper. I hear UW is much tougher to get into now. It was hardly Ivy Plus back then.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>

Or maybe it says that we as Illinois taxpayers are overfunding IMSA and they can step it down a notch and not push teenagers so much to race through the sciences as though they’re going out of style. Just sayin’.

</p>

<p>How about defunding Northwestern. They are pushing 18 and 19 year old kids to learn a whole organic chemistry book in one year. That’s impossible. How are they doing that? Oh, I forgot. That’s reasonable at that age. At 16 and 17, at that age it’s impossible to learn it at that pace. </p>

<p>Honestly, that post is uncalled for. </p>

<p>FYI, I spent a lot of time studying at my magnet school. There were cases (like the calculus class I talked about) that it was super hard and I HAD to study really hard. In other cases, I did the homework, learned a lot, and it was not that taxing or even time-consuming. Most of my time and energy was spent writing, either for humanities classes or lab write-ups, or studying for academic ECs (though I did have non-academic ECs too.) It depends on the person. I came in with good habits of mind and was more well-prepared than some people. The kids who came from the inner city or from a rural area had a harder time, especially in the first year. But in their case, the time and difficulty was more about developing the proper habits of mind as well as understanding the fundamentals deeply rather than racing to advanced material. The first year is not even AP-level in terms of the coverage; it is slower but you actually are forced to discover the principles in lab and perhaps grapple with it at a deeper level. How much time you NEED to spend, and how much time people do spend, depends on the person? There was one kid in that multivariable calculus class who aced all the tests but got an A- because he didn’t do any of the homework; the rest of us struggled to do the homework in groups, and only the best people, after succeeding, could do well on the tests. But this guy just needed to show up to class–he later was one of the top people in the Putnam contest. In group theory, a class considered to be the hardest class, a guy who later was good enough to be on a math-heavy specialty engineering faculty at MIT barely passed, and he was trying. Another guy made a deal with the prof that if he never missed a point in the class, he wouldn’t have to show up to class. (It was a first period class.) The second guy ended up at the Advanced Institute of Study, where Einstein used to work. He was also involved in sports but spent a lot of his spare time studying stuff not in the class. My point is giving these examples is to demonstrate that how “tough” it is depends on the person. Whatever level you came in, there was an opportunity for growth. But I wouldn’t describe these places as pressure cookers.</p>

[jym626]

<p>

4 year old story from a defunct newspaper.

That citation is comparatively young compared to the 7 yr old one annasdad is referencing.</p>

[jym626]

<p>barrons:
More from that pdf:

. For example, the influx of well-prepared females, who were discouraged in the past from attending college, especially selective colleges, is a counterbalance to the increase in less-prepared students, who tend to be males. In addition, the wide differential in admission rates, persistence, and graduation rates among equally qualified students suggests that there is more than preparation at work in explaining low graduation rates. Hence, graduation rates are tied to spending per student as well as institutional selectivity.
On balance, the evidence suggests that student quality matters, but low and declining student graduation rates also are caused by the increasing stratification in spending per student. Graduation rates are increasing at selective private four-year colleges and the public flagships, where resources and advantaged students are increasingly concentrated, and declining in non-selective four-year and two-year colleges, where the bulk of postsecondary students, especially less-advantaged students, are concentrated.
112 Rewarding Strivers
On the whole, the ratio of per-student funding between public and private colleges declined from 70 percent in the mid-1970s to 58 percent in the mid-1990s.71 The Delta Project finds an inverse relationship between spending per student, selectivity, and the numbers of students served.72 One study reveals that resources per student at the selective colleges have increased to four times the resources at the non-selective public four-year colleges,73 and a subsequent study by the same authors shows differences in student/faculty ratios of 19-to-1 in elite private colleges, 29-to-1 in public flagship colleges, and 56-to-1 in two-year public colleges.74 One study finds a ratio of 8-to-1 in the difference in student subsidies provided by selective relative to non-selective colleges.75
Several studies by Stanford economist Caroline M. Hoxby show even greater disparities between the most selective and the less selective colleges.76 Hoxby attributes these differences to the industrial organization of higher education. She shows the gradual integration of the higher education selection process through the adoption of a national testing regime based on the ACT and SAT. Hoxby argues that the polarization in resources is a natural outcome in a more integrated national system of testing and college attendance. She argues that the rising returns to college in general—and to selectivity in particular—combine with the growth in a national admissions testing regime, the nationwide reach of communications and information technologies, and lower transportation costs to create an integrated national market in higher education selectivity, with growing global reach.
Hoxby’s observations are well-supported by data that show declining differences in admissions scores within colleges by selectivity, and increasing stratification among colleges by test scores. The result is a postsecondary system with increasing vertical stratification. According to Hoxby’s data, in 1967 the least-selective colleges spent in (2007 dollars) about $3,900 per student and the most selective schools spent about $17,400, with other colleges fanning out in between—a difference of $13,500. By 2006, the low-selectivity colleges had resources of about $12,000 per student and the most selective colleges had about $92,000 per student—a difference of $80,000.

</p>

<p>Its a 137 pg chapter entitled: How Increasing College Access
Is Increasing Inequality,
and What to Do about It
Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl
I am having trouble linking the pdf. guess its not an option on cc.</p>

[jym626]

<p>By the way- there is a section in the article called “prestige pays off”. It is a good read.</p>

[absweetmarie]

<p>

@eastcoascrazy

Any college where my child might have to room with the child of any CC member whose comments make my head feel like it might explode.

</p>

<p>God, do I wish I had come up with that one.</p>

<p>Also: Is anyone else frightened at the thought of all these super-intelligent high-school kids who have exhausted the academic possibilities at even the most elite institutions of higher education before their 18th birthdays? Seriously, I am freaking out.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Moreover, in the wealthiest 10 percent of institutions, students pay just 20 cents for every dollar spent on them

You know, why don’t we just write a check for a few of those 80 cents and call it good. Or maybe get rid of the 20 cent contribution…</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>From Seattle magazine Aprill 2011 re UW</p>

<p>

Ok, I got it out. My feeling (one shared by many UW faculty that I have talked to) is that the UW student body can be divided into roughly three parts:</p>

<p>The Golden Quarter: About 1/4 of our students are simply stellar–bright, motivated, prepared…as good as you get in ANY school. They do well in college and generally go on to highly successful careers. They take advantage of the huge opportunities of the UW (e.g,. participation in research). Just a pleasure to teach and interact with.</p>

<p>The Middle 50%: These are students with the ability to do well, but their motivation and interest varies. They are happy with B grades and even the occasional C. Some of these students can really be turned around, while others are happy to float through.</p>

<p>The Bottom 25%: These students basically aren’t interested in learning. For them, the idea is simply to pass with minimal grades. The UW is high-school continued and they are here because they didn’t know what else to do or were pressured by family and friends. Most of the them came to the UW with very weak backgrounds (far weaker than any serious freshman should have). For example, many of these folks are not comfortable with basic high school math–like fractions and solving simple algebraic equations. They shouldn’t be wasting the classroom space.

</p>

<p>Sounds like the concerns of a few years ago are still valid. It isn’t like the state has improved math curriculum.</p>

<p>Not only in Seattle from UW-Madison
Report on Remedial Education in the UW System: Demographics, Remedial Completion, Retention, and Graduation September 2009
The percentage of new freshmen requiring Math remediation has risen from 17.0 percent to 21.3 percent over the most recent three-year time period spanning fall 2005 to fall 2007. The percentage of new freshmen requiring English remediation decreased slightly from 7.8 percent in fall 2005, to 6.7 percent in fall 2007.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Also: Is anyone else frightened at the thought of all these super-intelligent high-school kids who have exhausted the academic possibilities at even the most elite institutions of higher education before their 18th birthdays?

</p>

<p>Frightened isn’t the right word, but I’m not particularly desirous of it. Often such super-duper intelligence is accompanied by lack of social skills. And again, life’s not a race. There are no real-world brownie points if you learn orgo in college versus in high school.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>^Have you even taken orgo? How would you know if there is value to taking it early? There are many obvious reasons why such a thing would be valuable. Let me give you one. The year-long orgo class at MIT has about twice as much material as the one at my magnet high school (though the high school version had the same content at another top 10 university.) The magnet school version allowed me to learn the material at a slower pace and get a feel for the concepts and fundamentals, making it easier to learn everything in the MIT version.</p>

[absweetmarie]

<p>pizzagirl,</p>

<p>I agree with you about the super-duper intelligent not ALWAYS being the most fun … As to being scared, I was being a bit facetious. I would be freaked out if I didn’t think that the people who fall in this category are in fact a rather small fraction of the college-going population. I won’t hazard a guess as to how small, because I really AM afraid that someone will produce data to prove me wrong.</p>

[alh]

<p>

There are 3,000 choices with opportunities for a motivated student, like my D, to obtain a high-quality education. Many of them have much broader science offerings than her HS, and if she chooses to pursue a science major, she will have the opportunity to take full advantage of them - whether or not they’re as rigorous and taught in the same way as she is used to.</p>

<p>If there was a college where there was substantially higher rigor, and it was a place she could get into, and if was a place that I could afford to send her, I would recommend it to her, with no reservations (and she would very likely jump at the chance). Know of any such place?

</p>

<p>I don’t know of such a place. But this is how I would approach it if this were my child. The goal would be to keep open as many options as possible for as long as possible. Assuming she may want to pursue a science major and an eventual MD/PhD, since that is the degree you have mentioned one of the graduates from her HS went on to after attending Northwestern, are there 3,000 colleges that send students on to MD/PhD programs? I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t even know how many MD/PhD programs exist in this country and how many applicants they take. Does someone else have this information at their fingertips? </p>

<p>But I guess I would try to send her someplace that had a record of getting students into MD/PhD programs. I do know, as with almost everything, some of these programs are more competitive than others. Does that matter when you pick the college whether their students go on to the most competitive MD/PhD programs? Does she want to keep open that option in case it impacts opportunities available after the MD/PhD degree? If so, the undergraduate school will probably be important, though not in a USNWR sort of way. I am guessing though, there is considerable overlap between schools that send students on to the most competitive MD/PhD programs and schools at the top of the USNWR list. But I bet parents on this board may have different experiences. </p>

<p>Students I know who went on to MD/PhD programs sometimes were Goldwater and Marshall Scholarship winners. I guess you could use these scholarships as a mark of the rigor of the college/department from which the awardees are selected. (though I wouldn’t) Do 3,000 colleges have students who are awarded these scholarships?</p>

<p>Some students begin work in labs early in their undergraduate careers and have already met with potential mentors before making a final decision on which college to attend. If your daughter wants to keep the option open to go on to a MD/PhD degree, she probably needs the opportunity to do research and to get her name on a publication coming out of her lab. Is this possible at 3,000 schools? I don’t know for sure, but have the sense if you want a MD/PhD degree to be an option - probably there aren’t 3,000 schools to choose from. But I really know nothing about this and am happy to be corrected. </p>

<p>What I wouldn’t be concerned with is grade inflation. If you have a child who seems to have a reasonable chance at an MD/PhD program, you are probably a parent whose kid always, or usually, gets As. So grades really aren’t an issue for your child. If your daughter is at a school where most students get As this will not have anything to do with the education she receives - imho. Ditto if many students just slide by with a minimum effort. What is important is that she has access to appropriate level course work, even if it has to be upper level or graduate level courses. And that she has access to labs. And professors who want to help her realize her potential. </p>

<p>I never even considered this idea of rigor till you brought it up over and over on this board. What I always cared about was opportunities available for the individual student. And I don’t think how a class is graded has anything at all to do with quality of information presented or quality of teaching. I am taking the time to write this on the off chance that you really are serious with the above question. I can’t tell if you really believe what you are posting on this board or just enjoy being provocative. If you do believe everything you post, you are really not approaching college selection in a very sensible manner - IMHO.</p>

<p>The money issue is something I can’t address. I don’t know what you can afford. But MD/PhD programs, in my limited experience, offer free tuition. Some parents might think it made sense to pay more for an undergraduate degree if it offered a better likelihood of getting accepted into a tuition free graduate program. Again, imho, the point is to keep open as many options as possible, within whatever budget with which you have to work.</p>

[mncollegemom]

<p>We had a uber bright, perfect SAT/ACT, scored 5’s on 27 AP exams type kid graduate from our high school a couple years ago. He was taking specially designed math programs designed by math professors at MIT starting freshman year in high school because he was “that” good in math. Problem was, he applied to schools that required interviews for acceptance and didn’t get into many of them because you can’t hold a normal conversation with this kid. Not what I would want for my child.</p>

[alh]

<p>absweetmarie, pizzagirl, and now mncollegemom:</p>

<p>Shame on you all for the scary bright/no social skills stereotyping!</p>

[mncollegemom]

<p>

absweetmarie, pizzagirl, and now mncollegemom:</p>

<p>Shame on you all for the scary bright/no social skills stereotyping!

</p>

<p>It isn’t stereotyping if it is TRUE. Please feel free to meet with this boy and try to talk to him. I have, you haven’t. Also, stereotyping is generalizing a GROUP of people, I was talking about ONE SPECIFIC person.</p>

[alh]

<p>You know for a fact he was denied admission because of his interviews?</p>

<p>This is kind of a hot button issue that you and absweetmarie may not be aware of on this board. Every year very high stat students post who are rather inexplicably denied admittance at their top choice schools. Then there is a tendency for other posters to immediately speculate and suggest character flaws: robotic, abusive of puppies, no outside life, no social skills as the reason for the denial. </p>

<p>QuantMech, if reading today, may want to elaborate.</p>

<p>I believe QuantMech is trying to start a group to support such students rather than tear them down.</p>

[absweetmarie]

<p>Well, shoot, alh; I didn’t mean to stereotype. Sorry if I came across as hating on the super-smart. There are people who lack social skills up and down the spectrum. My point, which I admit I could have made better, is that people who like to talk about their SAT scores (and their classmates’ SAT scores and the SAT scores of people at lesser schools) and to talk all the livelong day about how they couldn’t find suitably challenging courses in college, etc., are dull. I like brilliant people. Love them, actually. I think they make the world go 'round, for real. But the really smart ones who have something to contribute are not digging up wikipedia articles or whatever about who’s smarter where. Their parents might be.</p>

<p>The world offers plenty of opportunities, anywhere you want to look, for smart people to be engaged and challenged inside the classroom and out. I wouldn’t want to send my kid to a school where that wasn’t the case. Lucky for me, there are libraries, coffee shops and bars everywhere!</p>