Key to admissions: “What does this college need that I can offer?”

Parent Cafe
41

<p>
[quote]
There might be an actual, valid reason why people with your interests are drawn towards the other place, and that reason might be pertinent to you as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Monydad, you expressed quite clearly what I was trying to say in post No. 12 and didn't quite convey.</p>

<p>To switch gears a bit: I heard somewhere that Johns Hopkins was trying to attract more liberal arts/humanities students to beef up its reputation in those areas. I bet Hopkins would provide a great education in the humanities, and a potential English major might provide diversity of a sort. Does anyone know if this is true about Hopkins' intentions? I guess I could also poke around its website.</p>

42

<p>I've heard the same about Johns Hopkins, which is one of the reasons I've suggested my daughter look into it (it meets some of her other parameters, too). For the same reason, she's looking at Case Western. I'll repeat macnyc's question, I guess.</p>

43

<p>Absolutely true about Hopkins. But the door seems to be closing quickly. Maybe it is location or reputation, but Hopkins has attracted a relatively small number of undergrad applicants and for the past several years acceptance rates have been good: about 30%. Hopkins is and has made a major commitment to improving undergrad education. In addition, Hopkins is known for sciences and medicine. Few realize that Hopkins has very strong humanities programs. The history program is especially strong. There is also an advantage to being female since they have had a relatively low number of female applicants. As I also said the door seems to be closing. The number of applicants has increased rapidly for all programs. Selectivity is getting tighter and yield is increasing.</p>

44

<p>For the reasons stated so well by calmom and MrsP, my S just chose an LAC for his science/pre-med education. He will be attending on a full tuition academic scholarship, plus has the opportunity to play a sport he loves (or to quit it if that is what he wants). This school is not as well known for its science majors as for others such as journalism, political science, and business. We are certain that factored into his scholarship. </p>

<p>What factored greatly into his decision is the individualized education this top LAC (like many others) is famous for delivering. The administration and faculty already know him, having made time to meet him when he visited campus and attended classes. The professors he met during the scholarship competition were familiar with every paragraph of every essay he wrote, and engaged him on such a personal level that he hated the interview to end. He did not experience the same connection when he later went to a prestigious scholarship competition at the well known state university rival, where he felt mostly like an honored but "grilled" set of credentials. </p>

<p>With this level of investment in him, my son's LAC is already a lifelong partner in his success, both during his undergrad days and beyond. That is worth so much. For example, we have no doubt that, if he had chosen one of the bigger (public and private) national universities with well known science departments that accepted him, he would not have had the thrill and encouragement he experienced last week, when he opened a handwritten note from the university's president -- congratulating him on winning a national "outside" scholarship, telling him that he had already made his future university proud, and inviting him to stop into his office when he arrives in September. That note was more exciting to him that winning the scholarship. </p>

<p>Perhaps these are the intangible reasons that students from top LACs enjoy disproportionate success in grad school admissions. If the admit rate to first and second choice med schools for all pre-med students (not just the ones selected by the big univ) is above 90% and the school's raison d'etre is to educate its undergrads, as it is at my son's LAC, then where's the disadvantage? </p>

<p>As for information gathering, once my son narrowed down his choices, we either subscribed or accessed via website any and all school publications. Many allow you to be an online subscriber. Reading the "daily headlines," campus newspaper(s), student journals, athletic updates, and alumni magazines, etc over a period of time gave us a relaxed but invaluable insight into campus culture, activities, issues, agendas, and personalties.</p>

45

<p>The top UCs known for science (Cal, UCLA, Davis, San Diego, possibly Santa Barbara and Irvine) are all overcrowded. Students should know that when they apply. If they go into the situation knowing what to expect, they should have no complaints. There are less competitive UCs one can attend. The Cal States also offer excellent educations in the sciences and are much less expensive. I don't have the exact figures but in-state tuition at a Cal State runs about $7-8,000 less per year than a UC.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
I don't have the exact figures but in-state tuition at a Cal State runs about $7-8,000 less per year than a UC.

[/quote]
Not quite. A CSU is around $3000 a year; UC tuition & fees run about $7500. So the cost differential is more like $4000-$5000/year, depending on campus.</p>

47

<p>edad's premise is just plain wrong. If anything, LAC grads are over-represented at the top levels of science.</p>

<p>This is an area where per capita PhD production rates are very telling, since top level science research careers so frequently include a doctoral degree. The following are the top 50 per capita PhD producers in science, math, and engineering over the most recent 10 year period. The LACs make a strong showing, especially if you factor out the tech schools:</p>

<p>PhDs per graduate </p>

<p>Academic field: All Engineering, Hard Science, and Math </p>

<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database<br>
Number of Undergraduates: ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database<br>
Formula: Total PhDs divided by Total Grads </p>

<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period. </p>

<p>1 California Institute of Technology 34%
2 Harvey Mudd College 24%
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 16%
4 Reed College 10%
5 Rice University 9%
6 Swarthmore College 8%
7 Princeton University 8%
8 Carleton College 7%
9 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 7%
10 University of Chicago 7%
11 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 7%
12 Case Western Reserve University 7%
13 Harvard University 6%
14 Carnegie Mellon University 6%
15 Johns Hopkins University 6%
16 Haverford College 6%
17 Grinnell College 6%
18 Cornell University, All Campuses 6%
19 Kalamazoo College 5%
20 Stanford University 5%
21 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 5%
22 Yale University 5%
23 Cooper Union 5%
24 Oberlin College 5%
25 Lawrence University 5%
26 Bryn Mawr College 5%
27 Williams College 5%
28 Pomona College 5%
29 Colorado School of Mines 4%
30 Bowdoin College 4%
31 Earlham College 4%
32 Brown University 4%
33 University of Rochester 4%
34 University of California-Berkeley 4%
35 Wabash College 4%
36 Duke University 4%
37 Worcester Polytechnic Institute 4%
38 Amherst College 4%
39 Stevens Institute of Technology 4%
40 St Olaf College 4%
41 Hendrix College 4%
42 Beloit College 4%
43 University of Missouri, Rolla 4%
44 University of California-San Francisco 4%
45 Occidental College 4%
46 Alfred University, Main Campus 4%
47 Allegheny College 4%
48 Whitman College 4%
49 College of Wooster 4%
50 SUNY College of Environmental Sci & Forestry 4%</p>

48

<p>As for researching colleges, try to find the school's "Institutional Research" department or "factbook". This will often provide links to historic data such as number of majors in each department.</p>

<p>For example, this page on the Swarthmore website provides links to data tables that tell you just about everything you could ever want to know:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/factbook2.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/factbook2.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

49

<p>I think you do not understand my "premise." Maybe I just was not clear. The discussion was about an increased chance of acceptance into a school which is trying to build a weak program. My premise was: "The problem is that if the science program and facilities are weak that choice is not attractive. The student may be better off at a much lower ranked school with a good science program and a large number of students in the sciences." I am aware that top LAC's produce proportionally high numbers of students who go on to advanced degrees, including doctorates in the sciences. I would be real careful about embarking on a science major at an LAC with a weak program that is trying to attract science students. The best example I can give is Bard College. They have the interest and future plans, but right now they just do not have the facilities which are appropriate. I doubt that an interest in sciences would improve chances of admission at any of the top LAC's on the NSF listing you provided. </p>

<p>As part of this discussion I have also heard that UCLA and some of the other UC's appear to be poor choices. We know this is also true of many other large U's with high rankings and strong reputations.</p>

<p>So what is my "premise?" Be careful about applying to a school with a weak program. I would also add be careful about the USNWR rankings and reputations that may have been built on graduate school education. You will be better off with a school with lower ranking but a better undergrad science program. As part of that decision making process I would pay attention to the facilities and faculty. If the facilities and faculty are not accessible to the undergrads, then there may be little advantage.</p>

<p>If you want to play the organ, you probably want to go to a school with an organ. If the school with the organ won't let you play, you will be much better off at a school where there are lots of Steinways and great teachers. Don't go to a school with a dusty, out of tune Baldwin just because they want you.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
My premise was: "The problem is that if the science program and facilities are weak that choice is not attractive. The student may be better off at a much lower ranked school with a good science program and a large number of students in the sciences."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ahh...I did misunderstand! My apologies.</p>

<p>I whole-heartedly agree with your premise above.</p>

<p>I would add to the idea by saying that "per student endowment" is particularly important when looking at sciences. Good science departments are expensive, probably the most expensive departments at a traditional full-service college or university.</p>

51

<p>I agree. I believe that is why some of the well off LAC's offer good programs. They have the money to provide good facilities and a strong faculty. The other choices tend to be the research U's where the facilities often develop from research grants. As pointed out, that is of limited value if the research U is not commited to undergrad education.</p>

52

<p>edad, how to you evaluate a weak vs a strong science program? You can't always tell from the websites. Some of the LACs have only 2-4 professors in each scientific discipline.</p>

53

<p>One way is by looking at the research $ that comes in to the school.</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
The other choices tend to be the research U's where the facilities often develop from research grants. As pointed out, that is of limited value if the research U is not commited to undergrad education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's the rub. As universities have become commercial enterprises, "research grants" are increasingly just revenue streams as for any other business. A perfect example is Larry Summers' biotech initiative at Harvard. This proposal actually had little support among the science faculty, because it was seen as being a commercial enterprise providing R&D for hire to the health care industry and potentially distracting focus away from teaching science. As universities become more and more "corporate", the researchers become more and more involved in spin-off corporatation.</p>

<p>Consumers should be wary of schools that tout their huge science research funding. I like to use Emory as an example, although they are certainly not alone. If you look at their financial statements, their drug patent and health care revenues dwarf the revenues of their education subsidiaries. This situation legitimately begs the question: is this an educational institution that does research on the side? Or an R&D company that has small subsidiaries teaching a few students on the side? Should these "companies" get tax-free non-profit status?</p>

55

<p>And don't forget about the U's who operate medical centers and hospitals. The cashflow for these enterprises can dwarf that of the undergrad program. </p>

<p>Good question, MrsP. Actually I have been able to gain a lot of information from the internet. Often you can have some difficulty finding the links on the main webpage, but some surfing will turn often turn up very useful information such as strategic plans and education assessments. The best information usually comes from campus visits. We tried to pre-arrange for faculty and departmental visits. If you have difficulty making these arrangements, it is time to be concerned. We often found that academic deans, department chairs and senior faculty members were very assessible and willing to spend time with a prospective student and family. Ask about research opportunities for undergrads and if possible poke around long enough to meet some of those undergrads and learn first hand about their opportunities and frustrations.</p>

56

<p>edad, those are excellent suggestions.</p>

57

<p>MrsP,
I think it's very important to start by understanding exactly what constitutes a "good" undergraduate science education, both overall and in a particular science. That gives you a framework of understanding to help you compare and evaluate individual programs. </p>

<p>Professional organizations are one good place to find details about education standards, and many have journals or sub-groups focusing specifically on education in the field. </p>

<p>For example, if you're interested in Chemistry, you should familiarize yourself with the standards set for undergraduate college chemistry programs by The American Chemical Association's Committee on Professional Training, which accredits chemistry programs. While not every program will be accredited (always a plus if it is), if you know what the standards for a quality program are - what types of courses should be taught, what type of facilities should be on hand, even what type of library resources should be available - you can use that as a yardstick for looking at all programs, and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. You can find out about ACA standards and ACA accredited schools at: <a href="http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/acsdisplay.html?DOC=education%5Ccpt%5Cprograms.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/acsdisplay.html?DOC=education\cpt\programs.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>There are similar professional organizations for EVERY conceivable field of science - I've collected hundreds and often share them on my blog - and you can learn quite a bit by perusing their websites. I would also recommend googling the terms "undergraduate chemistry education" and "undergraduate science standards" "undergraduate science education" and "undergraduate science research" to familiarize yourself with just what constitutes a "good" program before you start digging into college websites.</p>

<p>Every college will say they have a "good" program, but what you need to know is what exactly "good" means in the broader context so you can make informed decisions and not just buy that "we have a good science program" at face value. It's not enough to just ask "faculty" for their opinions - you have to know which questions matter, and be able to put the answers in context. The same goes for "undergraduate research" - every school and every faculty member will say they have opportunities for "undergraduate research" but what you want to know is what type of undergraduate research really matters and counts most?</p>

<p>Find out what questions to ask, and what mattters most first. Then start asking questions.</p>

58

<p>I think that you all are looking at this in the wrong way: (not that I'm an expert, but)
I think it should look like this:
1. figure out what you want
2. find the places that have this
3. discover what these schools NEED
4. emphasize anything that fills this need on your application</p>

<p>e.g. --> 1. I want to study CS, 2. CMU has the best CS program in the US, 3. CMU has almost NO girls studying CS, 4. I will write an essay based on the fact that I'm the only girl in my CS class ...</p>

59

<p>If this helps anyone, I will give my opinions on the matter:</p>

<p>to the extent that I can glean, schools want to make themselves look good. They will accept students who make them look good. They can do this in the following ways:</p>

<ol>
<li>be prestegious: accept students with top scores. Accept students who are acceptional in their given field. (This is really a given)</li>
<li>be exciting: accept students who are fantastic in sports. This is something people get excited about (and give money, leading to...)</li>
<li>be rich: accept and produce students who they will beleive will be both successful and contribute to their alma mater (can anyone say legacy?)</li>
<li>be diverse: numerous studies (and common sense) show that schools which emulate a microcosm of the US receive more applications (and are therefore more competative). Think about it: the infamous "ratio" of tech schools, the increasing difficulty of admissions for girls at LACs, and URMs feeling slighted at white-washed schools...</li>
</ol>

60

<p>Binx touched on this in an earlier post, but I just wanted to expand. One of the methods to find out if the school your considering has a need (for a talent/interest your student has) is to communicate with them. We found that talking with department heads, professors, and coaches revealed their needs. Some were impacted, others competitive, while others neutral. </p>

<p>Our son went from not being remembered by the band professor at one school, to being actively recruited. He spent this past year at community college and during that time, the jazz band lost their talented drummer to illness. Fortunately, my son had continued e-mail communications and occasionally travelled to the campus for a performance to stay in touch. He received his acceptance letter in April along with a generous music scholarship, though he will not be a music major.</p>

<p>Sometimes it's just a matter of timing, but active interest and communication with people at the school outside of the admissions office can be productive.</p>