<p>I do agree that there are students who want the best education at every college. And there are slackers at every college. However, my guess is that the ratio of slacker to motivated is very different at less selective versus more selective schools. Just look at graduation rates - 97%+ at prestigious colleges and sub 70% at less selective schools. What does that tell you about the student body? One of the most compelling reasons my kids had for applying to selective schools was the quality of the student body.</p>
<p>Yes, alh, I repeated myself. You asked the same question you asked before, I gave you the same answer. I have no better answer to offer than that one, based on 30 years of scholarly research - which, in spite of your tu quoque attempts to shift the argument, you still haven’t addressed or refuted.</p>
<p>Anyone else having flashbacks to the Saturday Night Live Roman Barfatorium skit with… was it Burt Reynolds? Or Will Ferrell?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although I agree with your primary premise, this by itself doesn’t really prove anything about the student body. THere can be many reasons for this - for example, at less selective schools you may find a larger number of non-traditional students who are unable to complete school for financial reasons (older, supporting a family,etc.). THe more prestigious schools may have a stronger support system for helping students through graduation. </p>
<p>And although I don’t believe it is true,without any other data one could draw the conclusion it was simply easier to graduate from the school with the higher graduation rate.</p>
<p>IMO, HS grades, EC accomplishments, test scores, these are better indicators that eilte school students are (as a whole - with some exceptions) more academically apt.</p>
<p>Not saying this is not a good metric to consider if you are a parent deciding on a school. Along with average time to graduation. I just don’t think it is the most accurate indicator of the scholastic ability of the students.</p>
<p>Annasdad, EVERY college deals with issues of ethics and cheating both with students and faculty…even the school your daughter attends. The only reason this made the news is because of the school name. </p>
<p>I’m sorry…but the Ivies are not diploma mills.</p>
<p>Bovertine, there are studies of the studies and AD is taking these quotes out of their respective contexts. Even P&T note the grad rates are higher based on selectivity- but, among various professionals, including them, it’s in a broader discussion of engagement, which includes peer interaction, ECs, faculty interaction, classroom vitality, first-gen, prep for college and more. That’s the origination of the comment about varations within schools, versus among them.</p>
<p>
I didn’t think I was making any comment on AD’s premise or his studies. At least I didn’t intend to. I haven’t, and have no desire or intention to read his studies, and certainly not any studies of those studies. I was making a comment on one metric and what it indicates in and of itself, with no other data or controls. </p>
<p>Frankly, I think that it is possible to jump the shark in either direction on this issue.</p>
<p>
What the heck are you talking about? What is a P&T? Is this some sort of new deity? I made absolutely no comment about the quote you mention.</p>
<p>I stated my opinion. It’s based on non-juried research by one individual - me. I’m sorry if there’s some obligation to form my opinions to the pronouncements of P&T, whatever that is. Whatever this research is, apparently it isn’t all that crystal clear. THat’s why I’m not a big fan of broad conclusions drawn by authors of social science research studies. After looking at study design and data I often find these studies are very poorly controlled, at least IMO. Again, a jury of one, but that’s the jury I personally pay most attention to.</p>
<p>My D was in the top 5% of her HS class at a large HS- so top 50. Her friends that were also in the top 50 students attended a range of schools from Harvard, UPenn, UNC-CH (out of state) to the various State colleges in NJ. To be honest I do not see any difference in the experience and academic growth. The kids that attended the state schools who were so inclined had similar results as far as I could tell from my interaction with them. My main exposure is discussing current events and literature so exposure to discussing science or math just are not in your normal day to day discussions.</p>
<p>The Ivy’s are not diploma mills. Two of my children graduated from Ivy League schools and found every class challenging.</p>
<p>The “easier” classes at the rigorous schools may very well be harder/more challenging than the harder/hardest classes at the lower tier schools. Maybe, maybe not. But it would not be surprising.</p>
<p>Gormetmom - I just wanted to respond to your post #51. There is no need to be concerned about the Gen Ed requirements at Harvard and satisfying your son’s intellectual curiosity. My daughter is now a senior physics concentrator who has already satisfied the Gen Eds and was always able to find multiple courses that would interest her. That is the primary reason that she did not apply to schools like MIT and Caltech. And FWIW, none of the Gen Eds that she took had hundreds of students. I am confident that if your son can find the same at Harvard.</p>
<p>Annasdad, you looked for places that your daughter could get into and that you could afford. And then you made yourself feel better about the whole thing with the sour-grapes well-the-elite-colleges-are-for-slacker-snobs-anyway. If you have some proof that Truman State’s science department is equal to or superior to that of a more notable, name-brand school, offer it up. Otherwise - it’s sour grapes, and nothing more.</p>
<p>BTW, do you really want to “go there” in terms of the rigor of some of the courses taught there? I don’t think you do.</p>
<p>I’d wager that if AD’s d had been admitted to Case or Rochester and could have afforded it that she might well be attending a school that at the very least offers her intended major.</p>
<p>I just posted a response to a question on another thread about rigor and whether a higher-ranked LAC would be more rigorous than a lower-ranked one. There is no ranking system I know of that attempts to quantify “rigor,” so I suggested that the OP look at student outcomes, specifically admission into med/law school or PhD programs. Maybe that could be done in this discussion as well.</p>
<p>Bovertine, P&T is Pascarella and Terenzini, a study AD quoted and some other posters commented about it. And, I was leap frogging your post about how grad rates can be affected by various things. Sorry.
…</p>
<p>I can share the big fat link to the .gov study of the studies as a pm- I don’t think anyone wants to read it and it’s roughly 2006. Lots of factors contribute to persistence, intellectual growth, and limited measures of future success. Quality of teachers gets plenty of mention and quality of peers, too. Not worth reading- most of us here already “get it.”</p>
<p>I have no argument with what P and T feel make a good school: Student involvement, frequent contact with peers and faculty, integrated core curricula, and environment that supports personal and intellectual exploration and the chance to encounter different people and ideas. </p>
<p>Just want to point out that those are all things that Harvard has in spades. </p>
<p>Also, it seems to me “gut” courses-the rocks for jocks and physics for poets type foster exactly these goals–intellectual exploration outside your comfort zone, and the chance to encounter different ideas and people. Cheating is obviously a problem. But an easy A? Not in my book. I’m with Lookingforward. </p>
<p>My H teaches an intro course for non-majors. Yes, it’s a soft-ball course, but you’d be amazed at the number of kids who take it, get excited about the discipline and continue on to more rigorous courses.</p>
<p>
More likely EVERYONE here already “gets” it, and is tired of hearing it repeated ad nauseum.</p>
<p>
Not in my experience. I have had several professors tell me point-blank that if I wanted more challenging courses than the ones I was taking in my first year, I’d have to take them at a different college. And they highly recommended doing so.</p>
<p>My experience was diiferent. I attended a run of the mill State college down the road from Princeton. There were several professors that taught at both schools. I was told the course material was exactly the same.</p>