<p>I hate to get back to this thing about “fit” again…D1 was accepted to a small LAC with a lot of personal attention from professors and administrators. At the accepted student event, the President said students had lunch/dinner with professors regularly, and if a student should miss a class a few times they would be called and even visited by the professor. Looking around the room, many parents and students had a smile on their face. D1 said to me, “That is just creepy.” She wanted to be at place where she would be treated as an adult. She felt she could seek help if she wanted it. Many people refer to Cornell as a big red machine, there is no coddling of students, one must be aggressive to seek help and be noticed. With that being said, D1 never had a problem in getting into any classes. It may not work well for some students, but it worked well for D1. She had no problem in “working the system.” After four years there, she still wasn’t bored with people and there were many more courses she wished she had time for.</p>
<p>Thats his point, redpoint, that the smaller schools ( LACs and those that do not have graduate programs or are big research institutions) typically offer more personal attention to undergrads. Again, that is stating the obvious.</p>
<p>Not every kid will want/need more attention. More attention isn’t necessarily good. either. Some kids are self-sufficient and supervison however well intended could get in the way.</p>
<p>I went to a small LAC, and there are many parents here with kids at LACs. In my opinion, a small LAC can always offer better personal attention than a large U, which is good for transition from high school to college. But after 2 years, if a LAC doesn’t offer more options (like good study abroad program, off campus research opportunity, or take courses at nearby colleges), students could easily outgrow a cocoon like LAC.</p>
<p>Andrew Roberts FIRST “Tip” in his book of 75 “tips” is
“Tip 1
You Can Get an Equivalent Classroom Education at All Reasonably Selective Colleges and Universities”. </p>
<p>Unfortunately he doesn’t define “reasonably selective colleges and universities”. Does that mean schools with an 85% acceptance rate isnt “Reasonably selective”? It shouldn’t, as there are some good schools with high acceptance rates.
He speaks to the "shy or introverted student, saying
Again. This seems pretty obvious. But he also acknowledges that the “degree of academic challenge” can differ from top schools and , again his term, podunk schools. Doesnt mean you can’t learn. Just means the quality of the education may differ.</p>
<p>True, but that also provides motivation to finish up with school and get on with the next stage of life.</p>
<p>Not sure what your post is in response to, redpoint. But Andrew Roberts doesnt address the role of schools in helping with job placement (if grad/professional school isnt the next stage of life for a student) and this is a very important variable that is not within the scope of the purpose of his book. He talks of “preparing for citizenship” but not “how to get a job”.</p>
<p>To oldfort: “students could easily outgrow a cocoon like LAC.”</p>
<p>There are many states without a strong flagship (my homestate being one- NY), so that isn’t always the “sensible” option. Students could also go to a good safety and get a great merit package. </p>
<p>I think there is something to be said for the prestige and environment at elite schools. Sure, at flagships there are many top students, but they aren’t so much the majority. At the top 20 schools, intellectual stimulation is practically everywhere, as the majority of students are brilliant and intellectually interested. Sometimes, it’s more about what happens outside of the classroom.</p>
<p>For what a college costs nowadays, I would prefer if we kids could savor every moment.</p>
<p>But, keabie, the question is, is the difference worth $200,000? (we have been thru this before)</p>
<p>And yes, here we go round and round again. For those for whom $200K is a drop in the bucket, then it does not matter. That said, if, after spending say $80K in tuition and the student ends up back in their parents basement, hard to say if that money was well spent. Unfortunately, in this terrible economy, many students with great degrees from great schools cannot find employment. So there will be some that argue the extra money was well spent on the “name” school, to increase job prospects, and others who will argue exactly the opposite.</p>
<p>It all depends honestly. For certain career fields, it could be worth $200,000, especially if the parents can afford it. For others, going to a flagship would be fine. For students with ambitious career dreams, I’d say it would definitely be worth it.</p>
<p>Our state is sort of interesting. Many students are quite taken with the state flagship, but it isn’t one of the stronger ones. A lot of students wind up at other state flagships in the area, frequently with good merit money ('Bama, Mississippi, Georgia) and really are excited and proud of their choices (as they should be). Indiana and Western Kentucky are popular choices, too, but Indiana tends to be expensive. If a student is REALLY smart, they go to Vanderbilt (this is the perception). Not a whole lot of reason to go to the northeast, although a handful of kids, especially from the top prep schools, do so. Penn is popular.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not necessarily true. The Berkeley forum does not really have complaints about not getting courses needed to graduate (though getting popular out of major breadth or free electives can be a different story, since students majoring in the subject get first priority for the courses).</p>
<p>Public universities do have the phenomenon that many students voluntarily take low course loads because the financial pressure to graduate on time is lower – though increases in in-state tuition have increased the financial pressure to graduate on time (Berkeley’s four year graduation rate has increased from the ~45% range to 70% over the years as in-state tuition has increased).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t get me started. The majority of people are not brilliant and intellectually interested anywhere. And have you done the research on this, at more than one top 20 school?</p>
<p>^ what makes you say that, absweetmarie? That wasn’t my experience or my s’s experience (with respect to intellectual curiousity/stimulation. I couldn’t really say who is “brilliant”).</p>
<p>I have to agree with sweetmarie, the terms brilliant and intellectual are used a bit to frequently to describe people that are just smart and hard working. I can count 1 person from my years at NU that I would call intellectual. The rest, just hard working, smart friends who were driven to get good grades. That’s it.</p>
<p>What I’m saying (reflecting now on how my own comment was a bit hasty) is that going out on a limb and asserting that the majority of people at all top 20 schools are intellectually engaged (forget about brilliant) presupposes that you have experience at all top 20 schools. Listen, I’m not saying there aren’t advantages to an expensive education (I didn’t get one but I’d be willing to pay for one). I just think making blanket statements about the quality of people’s intellect at any school (expensive or less so) is reductive.</p>
<p>DD went to a masters university with about 4000 undergrads. She had significant independence there and it was a great place for her.</p>
<p>We, and she, we’re happy for this until she had a significant medical issue her senior year. She missed three weeks of classes, of a ten week quarter. With the help of her advisor and the dean of students, and her professors, she was able to complete the term and graduate on time. </p>
<p>We were happy for this “school involvement” when she needed it.</p>
<p>I’m not sure she would have been able to complete her term at all if she had been at a very large university.</p>