<p>Congratulations, ad, on a superb choice for your D and on having located the one, true Study. Live and let live, no?</p>
<p>It’s not enough to say - your kid is happy at Truman State and other kids are happy at (fill in the blank). Nope, it’s really, really important to try to prove that those other kids are really just a) entitled snobs, b) slackers, or c) intellectually barren.</p>
<p>Let it go. The majority of kids in college anywhere are hard-working kids. Whether that’s the kid at Cleveland State who works 2 jobs to get by or the kid who runs every extracurricular and then some at Harvard. It’s all good. It’s not necessary to tear down others’ accomplishments to make you feel better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is saying that a kid at Truman State has the same educational experience as someone at Harvard has. I am saying that a really motivated high achieving type student can thrive and be a success anywhere. The experience might be different, but that type of student can succeed wherever planted. I feel the same about high school. I venture to say that the rural public high school that my children attended would not be up to snuff for a lot of CC parents. No, the experience at my kids’ high school is not comparable to Exeter. But a good education can be had, with accommodations and a student can excel and go onto top colleges (my kids and some others have done so, even if not the norm at our HS) and excel in their chosen fields. </p>
<p>My kids did not have a choice of high school, but did fine and they happen to be very motivated achiever types who crave challenge and created their own challenges in that setting. They did have a choice of college and grad schools and went to highly selective schools and programs. The student bodies were very different than they found at their high school. Likewise, the student body at Harvard is not similar to that at Truman State, even though there is SOME overlap, just like our high school is nothing like Exeter, but there are a few students at our high school who could get into Exeter.</p>
<p>Yet again, Pizzagirl, another straw man. Don’t you ever give up? Or can you really not think logically enough to keep a discussion on point? (And if the latter, how the Hades did you ever make it through Northwestern?) </p>
<p>For the record, I haven’t said, nor do I believe, that kids at a selective school are entitled snobs.</p>
<p>I’m not the one who uses an anecdote about one introductory class at Harvard to conclude that all elite schools are diploma mills. </p>
<p>I have nothing to apologize for. I’m happy with my NU education (both u-grad and grad) and it enabled me to be able to offer more choices to my children than simply scour-for-the-most-money.</p>
<p>Except that it’s an anecdote that aligns perfectly with the position of a former Ivy professor expressed in small essay and with the absence of any evidence that Ivy educations are anything special, in spite of 30 years of research studies looking for exactly that kind of evidence. </p>
<p>And, frankly, any school that tolerates a professor who tells students that they can earn an A without attending classes qualifies as a diploma mill in my book. Why on earth would anyone who cares about the quality of education go to - or send their kid to - such a place? OTOH, if all you care about is the degree - education optional - then I guess it’s an ideal place to spend four pleasant years.</p>
<p>Heck, my college professors didn’t care if you attended class. Simply because they figured you were an adult and it was your responsibility to learn the material whether you attended or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How on Hades did you ever make it through Roosevelt University with that logic?</p>
<p>Soovievt, I’m sorry about not being clear in my post. I haven’t figured out how to quote posts yet. My post was in response to several of Annasdad’s posts.</p>
<p>I agree that students can create their own challenges, but some high schools offer very little for advanced students. Likewise, some colleges don’t offer the level of courses an advanced student may need. Some may be able to meet the student’s needs through independent study, but a university which has many such students will likely have more to offer. I am not comparing Harvard and Truman State, I’m addressing the comments that were made in posts 41, 59 and 81. I think those are the numbers anyway. Sorry for the confusion.</p>
<p>What, pray tell, is wrong with that logic, PG? You can disagree with the conclusion, but unless you can point to a specific logical fallacy - as I have on your posts, many times - you have no basis for criticizing the logic.</p>
<p>Annasdad, do you truly believe that a rigorous and fine education cannot be had at a highly selective college such as an Ivy? Really? I would not say that even about YOUR kid’s school, which is Truman State, yes? </p>
<p>I’m not saying the Ivies are the “best” or most “special” of all. But truly they do provide strong academics, as do many other schools. And their student bodies are made up of a high concentration of high achieving students. </p>
<p>How do you conclude that a school is a “diploma mill” (and in fact, you lumped all Ivies into this group based on what ONE professor said in ONE course at ONE college) because the teacher doesn’t count attendance as part of the grade or doesn’t check on attendance? As I wrote previously, I have taught at five colleges that are far less selective than Harvard and attendance was part of grading and a grade could go down due to a certain number of absences. At a school like Harvard, most students are motivated to attend class and so do not need “outside motivation” tied to their grade in order to attend. But without attendance, they likely will not fare so well. The kind of student who attends Harvard tends to be motivated and achieving and would be apt to go to class without having a teacher take attendance. This one issue is not an indicator of the strength or rigor of the academics at this college, let alone the entire Ivy League. </p>
<p>At Brown, where a student can elect to take a course pass/fail, they do not slack off, but are motivated by learning itself, and not the grades. The students who attend want to learn and are motivated to do so and don’t need some outside consequence to get them to class and to do the work. Further, such students tend to crave challenge and that is why they chose to attend, as they are not satisfied with academics that are too easy. I know that was the case for my own daughter.</p>
<p>annasdad, you never did respond to my post (95) asking you what your motivation is to knock down colleges that others (or their children) attend (schools that typically enjoy positive reputations) when nobody is knocking the school your child attends which is likely a very good education as well? Isn’t it about the right fit for each student? My kids loved their selective schools as they fit them well and if that is what your child found, isn’t it ALL good?</p>
<p>Also, if highly selective colleges do not offer “anything special” or do not offer “rigorous academics,” why would so many bright students wish to attend them? Many high achieving students are not happy with academics that are too easy (my own kids HATE that) and would not want to attend a college where that was the case. They crave to be challenged. If schools like the Ivy League did not challenge them, then why do they even apply? Believe me, in my kid’s case, the name of the school was NOT the draw. My kid was offered a free ride at our state’s flagship, a very nice school, but the school did not fit her in many ways…not rigorous enough, the student body, didn’t have her intended major, could not do her favored EC there, was too close to home, and so on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Gladly! Could you point me to some data? References to individual papers would be much more convenient than references to the Pascarella and Terenzini book because I don’t have access to the book itself.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Annasdad- aren’t you the guy in the media biz?
Why assume one former Yale prof knows the absolute truth and only he, except also you? The P&T study appears to be fascinating, but so be it. It’s considered a tool for student development professionals- you can take from it that various factors affect chances for student success at any college- but not that there’s something inherently wrong with the Ivies or lesser about them. That’s not logical. It is not the conclusion of P&T and P himself is quoted as calling it, in effect, a start, a snapshot of a fast evolving scene, and that the results are not replicable and that any replications within the study were few and not the norm. He suggests new methodologies will be needed to overcome this issue.</p>
<p>You can say, for my kid, this school does the trick. That does not equate to a truth about other schools not being legitimately challenging.</p>
<p>You can express an opinion about class attendance- an unsubstantiated pronouncement that “any school that tolerates…is a diploma mill” is your opinion. I appears to be summary judgment. You are outside the field, you have not indicated personal experience as an Ivy or NU student and your own experience as a college parent is limited. </p>
<p>To me, this whole argument is suspect. No, someone will point out that’s what all of us have been saying. I tell my kids to watch out for, “I think it, so it must be true.” And it’s sister, “I read it somewhere, so it IS true.”<br>
Good grief.</p>
<p>A couple of pages back there was a question about the criteria used to select a school. Here are are mine
- Small class size-- having watched UGs at a large state school take an Intro to Psychology program with 900 of their closest friends and UGs at a small LAC take it with 25, I’m convinced that the students at the LAC got a better experience.
- Teaching classes is done by professors–not TAs or teaching fellows. This is true for even the Gen Ed classes.
- Teaching is given a higher priority than research for professors
- Students have the ability to have regular, high quality interaction with professors.</p>
<p>On the class attendance issue-- the amount of learning that happens in classes small enough to have discussions would appear to high, but in order for that to work students have to show up. If I were teaching I wouldn’t make attendance mandatory but I would include participation as part of the grade.</p>
<p>I have friends that went to Ivies. I wouldn’t trade my experience at a small LAC with any of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have two kids, one went to an LAC and one went to an Ivy, and neither would trade experiences with the other. As trite as it sounds, it really is all about fit.</p>
<p>What’s up with all the dissing of large lectures on this thread? Some of my most fascinating classes have been lectures. On the topic of research vs teaching professors: I’ve personally had better luck with research faculty at prestigious universities than teaching faculty at small selective LACs. The leading researchers in a field seem to have a completely different understanding of their subject than an instructor who’s teaching a course out of a textbook. It shows in their teaching.</p>
<p>^ Some people automatically think that large classes = no learning because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to learn with that many people :rolleyes: </p>
<p>I agree though, many of my most interesting classes have been lectures. I’ve also had great small classes at my large, public U. The majority of my classes have been small, discussion-based classes even with 40k+ students. For me, it was the absolute best fit and I even turned down a much higher-ranked school to go to my school. </p>
<p>As many have said, it’s all about fit. I think it’s ridiculous to put down students or over-romanticize them just because of their school selection.</p>