<p>No, Pascarella and Terenzini is not “a study.” It’s a 600-page summary of 30 years worth of research, looking at over 5,000 scholarly studies that assessed various aspects of the effects that colleges have on students. They found NO evidence that for a given student, going to a more selective college results in a better educational outcome.</p>
<p>Right on cue, Pizzagirl. You can’t refute the data, so you fall back on ad hominem arguments - and raise a straw man, demanding that I defend an argument I have not made. Is that the way they teach logic at Northwestern?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since individual experiences differ, may I suggest looking at the data?</p>
<p>FWIW…D attends a state school, albeit a very competitive one. Two separate profs…one in Finance who had previously taught at Ivy level schools and a language prof who had previously taught at Oxford stated a similar observation…the Freshman year at D’s school is hands down the most difficult one a student will encounter…and yes that includes the ‘elite’ schools. The reason…students start on day one with core classes in their majors. Freshman are assigned their first quarter courses. There is no padding the first year with fluff. The school is also know for having successfully resisted grade inflation. Most likely Harvard can get away with what ever it wants because of a huge endowment, huge applications and a common belief that ‘they can do no wrong’</p>
<p>The distinct FLAW in that study was that they were unable to compare how students did at TWO different kinds of schools. Each student only attended ONE type of college. How would the researchers even KNOW if these students would have done better (or worse) if they had attended ALL FOUR YEARS of undergrad in a different place? </p>
<p>That same study has been posted over and over and over by the same poster in response to many different threads. At this point it has to be VERY old data.</p>
<p>NO one here believes “Harvard can do no wrong.”</p>
<p>annasdad, </p>
<p>Yes, a motivated student can get a fine education and succeed at ANY college. I do believe that. </p>
<p>I don’t comprehend how you draw a conclusion that all Ivy league schools are diploma mills based on an article about ONE course at ONE college. For one thing, at any college, some courses are more challenging than others. Some courses are intro courses for those who do not intend to major in the field. At Harvard, it would not shock me if half the class received As. That doesn’t mean (to me) that the course is not challenging. The students are motivated achievers at that college and it is understandable to me that half the class is able to achieve an A even if the course is rigorous. </p>
<p>My kid attended an Ivy League college and one of the attractions to it is that she craves challenge and most of the courses were indeed rigorous. It was no skate through the park academically. Further, another attribute of going to a very selective college is the rest of the student body being made up of very motivated achieving types of students for the most part and that itself adds rigor to a course, just in the discussions alone and the atmosphere of the learning environment. Of course, such students attend less selective schools as well, but there is not such a high concentration of such types in less selective colleges. </p>
<p>While I believe a student can become very well educated at a less selective college, I don’t believe the overall learning environment will be as rigorous as at a more selective college, and the overall student body will differ, even though they will overlap. </p>
<p>Calling elite colleges diploma mills flies in the face of the facts. The Ivies are not necessarily “better” but they are surely very different than a school such as Truman State (does your kid go there? not sure, but others are mentioning that school). A brilliant student could attend Truman State, become well educated, and succeed in a career. Take notice that many who attend elite colleges graduate in four years and tend to succeed at grad school admissions and in careers. They did not have an easy time to get to those achievements. Grad schools and employers know that such students are high achievers (to be admitted) and faced rigor in their college studies. If you don’t think that, you are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn’t make it so.</p>
<p>Your “bias against Ivy League schools” is off putting. Even though my kid attended one, she would never put down a school like Truman State, nor would I.</p>
<p>I’m thinking that annasdad is yanking our collective legs/chains just to stir the pot. I wish he’d use a different spoon, once in awhile. </p>
<p>Anyway, I’ve been reading “The Passage to Power”, the fourth volume in Robert Caro’s masterful biography of LBJ. This volume deals with Johnson’s years as vice president under Kennedy, and the first few months of Johnson’s presidency after the assassination. Johnson was pretty much treated like a joke by the Kennedys, and was snickeringly referred to as “Rufus Cornpone”. As VP, he wasn’t part of the glittering intellectual crowd that surrounded the President or that gathered at Bobby Kennedy’s home in Virginia. Caro writes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which shows the point that talent and hard work will out–graduates from San Marcos ended up in the Oval Office and academia. Even so, it’s a heartbreaking passage.</p>
<p>By the way, I have taught at five colleges, all far less rigorous than Harvard. The requirements were less rigorous and the performance of the students overall, much less capable than what I saw at my own elite college education and that of my kids. However, there are some students at less selective and less rigorous colleges who are high achievers, and every bit as capable as a student at Harvard. But in my experience as a faculty member, these were few and far between. Also attendance was part of the grade given that the overall motivation of the student body was not like it is at an Ivy where attendance may be left up to the student but the student achieves and is more SELF motivated to attend classes.</p>
<p>omg. Terenzini got an MAT at Harvard, in English and Education. Undergrad from Dartmouth. So much for his education. Pascarella’s undergrad degree is from Princeton, MS Penn. Alas.</p>
<p>ps. OP is only jut starting the “kid in college” experience, so this is all armchair stuff.</p>
<p>^^Oh, the irony! :D</p>
<p>(I make no apologies either for having an Ed.M. from Harvard…and no, it was not easy there)</p>
<p>Dd graduated summa cum laude from an ivy (not H) and was asked by a parent if her college was “hard.” She responded that getting good grades was not hard, but the work was very challenging, almost unlimited in it’s challenge, actually, which meant that she worked very hard. Not to get the grades, but because there was so much to learn, and so much to be involved with outside of classes, as well.
I think she is typical of the kind of student who attends these schools. She didn’t get there by slacking off, and it would almost be against her nature to do so.</p>
<p>annasdad wrote:
</p>
<p>soozievt wrote:
</p>
<p>Soozievt:
Truman State is compared to Yale in the Deresciewicz article annasdad constantly references. I agree with your post.</p>
<p>Ad’s daughter goes to Truman State. She is a freshman, and she would probably be horrified if she knew her dad kept doing this song and dance.</p>
<p>To be fair, I’ve met my fair share of idiots from Harvard, and Truman State is a true hidden gem of a school. Both of these are true.</p>
<p>However, this in no way means that Harvard is a diploma mill. What I do thnk the cheating scandal brings up is the same thing which has been revealed in many instances over the past few years: there is so much pressure to succeed that kids are doing increasingly dishonest things to get by. We see it in the wealthy areas with the standardized tests and we are seeing it show up in many universities.</p>
<p>However, and this is important, too, is there more cheating now? Or are more people just getting caught? </p>
<p>As for the study Anna’s dad references. I’m sure it is one way to assess the situation, though we all know, and have known since Focault, that the results of a study mostly reveal the answers to certain questions, and the questions themselves tend to tell us much more about the asker than they do about whatever is being investigated. You just tend to get answers to the questions you asked. Ask different questions? Get a different set of results. </p>
<p>Still, I have met a few complete idiots from Harvard to go along with a few really great critical thinkers, as well. It really just depends on the student.</p>
<p>annasdad, why do you care about the perceived or factual rigor or not of the Ivies? Isn’t choosing a college about the right fit for one’s selection criteria? I think so. Can’t a fine education be had at any school? I think so. Is it harder to get admitted to some schools than other schools? I know so. As long as your kid is happy with her choice of Truman State, why do you have a need to put down other schools? My kids loved their colleges, which happened to be quite selective ones. They were good fits. Truman State was not a good fit for what they were seeking but it may have been for your kid. I have no desire to put down your kid’s college and am sure it is a fine place, and so why do you have a strong desire to knock the Ivies or highly selective colleges or even make such broad generalizations about them (in this case based on one course at ONE college!)? I’m happy with the education my kids received at their respective colleges (and now grad school) and I hope the same for your kids.</p>
<p>sincere apologies - please substitute Cleveland State
I absolutely didn’t know she attended that school.
I am so sorry.</p>
<p>While the idea that extremely competitive HS stats/standardized scores always == highly challenging academics isn’t always as high as many Ivy students/alums, their parents, or some Profs make it out to be…that doesn’t mean that there are little/no differences either. </p>
<p>IME, this certainly isn’t indicated by the Intro to Congress course. From examining the syllabus…the reading load alone is on the extremely light side for Harvard…or any school with its academic profile or ones 1 or 1.5 tiers down. </p>
<p>In short, this course is an aberration, not an indication/indictment of the rigor or the lack thereof of Harvard’s academics as a whole.</p>
<p>I really do feel bad for ad’s kid(s). So much negativity and bitterness about something he claims to care nothing about. Hm…</p>
<p>Would be interesting if the same “results” could be applied to high schools. I would doubt that anyone would be willing to defend the assertion that top students would have an equal educational experience no matter which high school they attended. It’s simply not true.
However, a highly motivated top student can certainly make the most of the educational opportunities available at whichever college or university they attend. It’s also true that some colleges which can’t offer what a top student truly needs will recommend that the student look elsewhere. Not only do they want to see that student succeed, they don’t want to lower their retention rate. There are some great schools which are not ivies or top tier, but these schools do not take anything away from the educational experience afforded at the ivies and top tiers, and neither should we.</p>
<p>Ah yes, the level of vitriol rises. True to form, when there is no answer to a data-based argument that calls a myth into question, those devoted to the myth fall back on ad hominems, straw men, and other fallacious diversions.</p>