Please, please stop saying "You can always go to [X] for grad school"

Parents Forum
421

<p>Let’s remember that college kids are also going to be on sports teams, and all kinds of other campus organizations unrelated to a major or honors grouping. That can certainly make a difference. In high school, my D was the only one on her varsity teams who was taking rigorous classes, so it was disappointing to have to opt out of a lot of social events because she always had homework and they didn’t–even in the summer. Now she is on a team full of equally driven students and they all have lots of work always, so there’s more of an easy-going “we’ll get together when midterms are done and we both have time,” kind of thing, versus “everyone is going out for dinner Tuesday,” but it’s a school night and you have 2 AP tests the next day and they don’t, so you miss out… </p>

<p>Furthermore, many campus organizations are mini-businesses just like in the real world-- eg. the college newspaper, the eating club, etc. D is a leader of a campus organization that manages a large budget and is in charge of some significant events. It’s been great for her to work with motivated and smart people who want to do things right. Also, at her elite private school, you generally need to submit a resume and interview to even join these organizations. If you don’t perform, you’re fired. Literally. So it’s a meritocracy, unlike in high school the when student govt. president got elected because he’s popular and gave out free donuts, but is dumb-as-a-stump and lazy to boot. (Our entire group of high school class officers never ended up planning a single reunion, which was one of their primary responsibilities. The really smart girl who wasn’t cute enough to be elected is the one who does it now.) At the local flagship, the organizations are not run like this, and some of the same incompetent people are in charge there too because the same social groups just carry over to the flagship. </p>

<p>Of course, this is not a blanket generalization. YMMV</p>

422

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree with this. But in my opinion, intellectually curious people are everywhere, regardless of what academic institution they attend. Not everyone who is intellectually curious just happens to find him- or herself at age 18 in the position to self-segregate into a group of similar people at an elite university or honors program. Nor can a lot of them even imagine how nice that might be. They are just living their lives and exploring their intellectual interests on their own.</p>

423

<p>

This assumes engineers socialize with engineers and business types socialize with business types. What I liked about college, was socializing with students in other fields that weren’t mine. I remember hearing about the first computer mouse from a friend who worked at Bell Labs one summer, I played on the Arpanet with my applied math friends, I got dragged to Chinese Art exhibits by my boyfriend majoring in East Asian Languages and Literature, I hung out at the French table with my Comp. Lit and French history major classmates. I put together a literary magazine with people who have gone on to be pretty well known in their fields. Actually I had relatively few friends in my major.</p>

424

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s hard to compare stats since Wharton doesn’t release their students’ academic profiles and Ross’ incoming students are already sophomores.</p>

<p>I also found this article that suggests in certain grad programs, the name of your undergrad school matters.
[Wharton</a> admissions: As elitist as you’d expect? - Fortune Management](<a href=“http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/08/wharton-admissions-as-elitist-as-youd-expect/]Wharton”>http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/08/wharton-admissions-as-elitist-as-youd-expect/)</p>

<p>In addition, for the majority of students, the college degree is their terminal degree and grad school is not an option.</p>

425

<p>

</p>

<p>The National Merit award is the only award where the finalist and winner often end up being called the same thing–that is, “National Merit Scholar.” It is a source of a lot of confusion.</p>

<p>The selection process from National Merit Semifinalist to Finalist pretty much cuts out only people with lousy grades from what I hear. ECs are certainly not considered. To get from National Merit <em>Finalist</em> to win the scholarship by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation, you have to write an essay, get a recommendation, and they consider your grades and ECs heavily. 2,500 of these are given a year.</p>

<p>Also, if your family works for one of the select companies, then you may get selected for the scholarship. I am not sure how exclusive these are once you have qualified for the cut-off. Also, I’ve been told they are taken out of the contest for the Corporation award.</p>

<p>Finally, if your school gives money to National Merit Finalists, then you will almost probably get some kind of scholarship. Generally, these are nonselective once you attain National Merit Finalist status, although schools with limited funds may select the best NMFs to give money to. These are called National Merit Scholars as well. </p>

<p>If you are going to compare schools by the number of National Merit “Scholars”, then you cannot use the expanded definition that includes people who were National Merit Finalists who got money from their school. The reason is simply because most top 15 schools do not give any money to National Merit Finalists. So, for instance, Harvard has a ton of National Merit Finalists who would have been technically National Merit Scholars if they had gone to USC. </p>

<p>I think the National Merit Scholarship Corporation likes the expanded definition because it can say that a larger number of people got scholarships. However, I think it does itself a disservice to call the National Merit Finalist who gets money virtually automatically from their college the same thing as the winner very exclusive National Merit Scholarship awarded by the Corporation to only 2,500. At the very least, it would save a lot of confusion.</p>

426

<p>

</p>

<p>Right. We get it. But their density is going to be different in different places, which is the whole point. We’re talking about preponderance on a continuum, not on-off. </p>

<p>The extent to which someone personally values that density is individual. I value(d) it highly and sought out elite schools where it was a reasonable possibility that there was a thick density. Bclintonk valued it, but it was satisfied by being in a subgroup of a larger whole. (His daughters, otoh, chose small LAC’s with plenty of density.)
Neither of us are wrong or right. It’s just personal preference. But I think it’s an important preference to have - as blossom said, we look for fit in a lot of different ways on these boards (Greek, not Greek, liberal, conservative, small town, big city, blah blah blah) and I don’t see why this isn’t an important element of fit.</p>

<p>And of course, yes, sometimes it’s unavoidable - the bright kid has no choice but State Directional U because them’s the breaks financially.</p>

427

<p>"I don’t think this would happen today, but in the 1970s the SEC was definitely willing to pursue insider trading charges against the (relatively, at least before their trades) poor. "</p>

<p>got any data?</p>

<p>'The vast majority of SEC insider trading investigations are settled with disgorgement and a fine."</p>

<p>That’s a commentary in and of itself. ;)</p>

<p>The density of honest people most definitely counts.</p>

428

<p>Mini,
You don’t have to have any money at all, in order to violate laws against insider trading. You can simply pass along information to someone else who uses it for financial gain.</p>

429

<p>^I agree, mini.</p>

<p>PG, I guess I see a difference between “intellectual” and “smart.” I did not have an extensive tribe of intellectually curious peers at our shared alma mater. My classmates were smart, to be sure, but they were also generally arrogant, competitive and not especially thoughtful or interested in exploring arcane topics (and believe me, I took every class I could that would encourage that). I knew a lot of jerks, and I found the strong culture of materialism off-putting as well. (Of course, it was the 80s–the “greed decade.”:)) My closest friends were and are wonderful people–but they too were book-smart and not especially intellectual. The most interesting conversations I had were with my college boyfriend (a comparative religions major) and a few of his friends and professors in his program. I know you and your husband had a much different (better) experience than I did but this is where I am coming from.</p>

<p>In my life since college, I have definitely found my “tribe,” but they come from all kinds of backgrounds. Some “only” have art, design or photography degrees, and often from the kinds of schools that are never mentioned on CC. Some went to random colleges for one thing, but switched gears and are now successful doing something completely different. There are many people in my community I have little in common with (so there is not perhaps the “density” that appeals to some people) but on the whole it works for me.</p>

<p>I have one kid who is very cerebral and one who is not. The one who is is at a small “second-tier” LAC. He has definitely found his tribe and is very happy. The one who isn’t will likely attend a large school (public or private) with strong pre-professional programs–she’s not interested in “learning for the sake of learning.” Ironically, she probably would have gotten along with a lot of the people I didn’t care for in college.</p>

430

<p>

</p>

<p>“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” — Anatole France</p>

431

<p>

</p>

<p>Sally, there are U of C people and Northwestern people. I think you are a U of C person. :)</p>

432

<p>hey guys, just cruising by, saw this because someone mentioned my old U.</p>

<p>The “social exclusion theory” regarding students at the various colleges of my alma mater is not correct. Housing in the dorms there is not segregated by college. When I attended. believe me, the mostly-male engineers did NOT want to primarily interact with other engineers. They were more than enthusiastic about socializing with students at the other colleges. I know guy engineers who married students in the College of Human Ecology, Hotel administration, etc.(As well as Arts & sciences, and Engineering, for that matter). More recently, my own D who studied in Arts & Sciences dated a guy who was in the Ag school.</p>

<p>In my experience, successful social interaction is not driven solely by identical SAT scores. Moreover, those individuals did not have to “dumb down”. One thing you learn there is, there are a lot of people in the various other colleges who are pretty darned smart. There is plenty of overlap in academic capabilities among the colleges. To the extent that this even affects social interaction.</p>

<p>Another thing, regarding National Merit scholars, the cutoff scores required to make semi-finalist are set for each state separately , so the the top 1-3./4% or so (I forget) of scorers in a given state make the semi-finalist cut for that state. The state cutoffs vary annually, but the pattern of which state cutoffs are higher or lower was pretty constant when I was looking at this. </p>

<p>We moved from a midwestern state to New York when two of my kids were still in middle or high school, respectively. Both of these kids missed the New York NMS cutoff by a single point. They both would have made it to semi-finalist if we hadn’t moved, because the cutoffs in our prior state were a lot lower.</p>

<p>My older kid made semi-finalist, and finalist, but she was not one of the few to receive a straight NMS scholarship. However she was offered a free ride to our local state U, which was one of those that offered a college-sponsiored NMS scholarship. Per post #425 above. So if she went there, she would have “counted”, by some measures, as having an NMS scholarship.</p>

<p>I believe the vast majority of reported NMS scholars at schools that offer college-sponsored NMS scholarships are in the same situation my daughter was in. Most of them did NOT receive straight NMS scholarships from NMS. Rather, they received college-sponsored scholarships that “converted” their semi-finalist scores (for which again, the cutoffs vary by state) to NMS designation. Other semi-finalists who attend colleges that do not sponsor these scholarships therefore do not have NMS scholarships. But that’s not because their scores or credientials were adjudged any worse by anybody.
It’s just because of the participation election of those colleges.</p>

<p>Many of the most selective colleges in the country do not offer college-sponsored National Merit scholarships. They do however have many students matriculate who were NMS semi-finalists, or would have made semi-finalist in a different state. And hence would been deemed an NMS scholarship recipient, if they’d attended a university that sponsored those scholarships instead of the one they chose.</p>

433

<p>Consolation - As Sheldon Cooper would say - bazinga! :-)</p>

434

<p>"If you are going to compare schools by the number of National Merit “Scholars”, then you cannot use the expanded definition that includes people who were National Merit Finalists who got money from their school. The reason is simply because most top 15 schools do not give any money to National Merit Finalists. " </p>

<p>This is as false premise since you dont know how many of the top 15 NM scholarship winners received corporate NM scholarships instead and how many received the one time NM scholarship, since they are not broken out in the final report. </p>

<p>Read the following quote from the 2012 report:</p>

<p>“The 244 corporate organizations that sponsored awards
in the 2012 competition represent the broad spectrum
of U.S. business, including many Fortune 500
companies. They share the belief that supporting the
educational development of intellectually talented
youth is a wise investment in the future, and they value
the relationships that develop with their award recipients.
Commonly regarded as the highest honor a U.S.
high school student can earn, the Merit Scholar® title is
a distinction with which corporate sponsors are proud
to be associated.”</p>

<p>According to the NMF annual report, corporate sponsored winners are considered National Merit Scholars, just as are the NM scholars attending colleges that sponsor them.
From the same page of the 2012 annual report:</p>

<p>“College and university sponsorship”
“The 193 higher education institutions that provided
Merit Scholarship awards in 2012 range from small
private colleges to flagship state universities, and they
all share the ability to attract National Merit Program
Finalists to their campuses. nmsc provides college
sponsors with lists of Finalists who have selected their
institutions as first choice; college officials then choose
the winners of their institutions’ awards. nmsc sends
scholarship offers to winners, issues press releases,
provides certificates for presentation to Scholars, and
administers the awards during the recipients’ undergraduate
years, all without charge”.</p>

<p>As you can see- all NM Scholarship winners are considered Scholars by the NMSC. </p>

<p>Unless you choose to believe that NONE of the thousands of corporate sponsored awards [ which are not broken out in the annual report] were awarded to ANY NMF’s attending the top 15 colleges, which is highly implausible, and/ or Corporate sponsored scholarships [ awarded to children of corporations employees] are indicative of the superiority of those students to college sponsored Scholars, then you need to accept that a National Merit Scholar is a National Merit Scholar, regardless of where they choose to attend college.</p>

435

<p>1) IRC he says that when he believes he has made a joke, or has spoofed someone.
I. for one, did neither. Not intentionally, at least. (crossposted with #433)</p>

<p>2) a National merit scholar may (or may not) be a National Merit Scholar, but my point is, its use to indicate anything in particular is polluted by the differing practices of the various colleges, (and corporations too), in making somebody into a “National Merit scholar”. And the differing state-specific cutoffs.</p>

436

<p>Consolation, you could not be more right. I almost cried when I toured U of C with my son…I would have been much happier there. On the other hand, if I hasn’t attended NU I wouldn’t have my two wonderful children, since my college boyfriend ended up being their dad. :)</p>

437

<p>so to beat a dead horse, NMS “Scholars” at Oklahoma may well, on the whole, have lower scores than NMS scorers attending Cornell.</p>

<p>First of all, the NMS semi-finalist score cutoff in Oklahoma is probably lower than in New York and the other Northeastern states that Cornell draws proportionally many more students from. My guess is many of the NMS semi-finalists in Oklahoma wouldn’t have made the cutoffs if they lived in New York, Maryland, etc.</p>

<p>Secondly, my guess is pretty much all of those Oklahoma “NMS Scholars”, save maybe a handful, were merely semi-finalists, who Oklahoma turned into NMS scholarship recipients itself by virtue of their college-sponsored NMS scholarship. Cornell does not sponsor NMS scholarships for semi-finalists,so any NMS scholar attending there is a “real” one, who received one of the rare actual scholarships awarded directly by NMS. For which the standards are very high.</p>

438

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not sure exactly what you mean. The awards that I said were the most exclusive were the ones handed out by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation (2500 per year). This is distinct from the “corporate” scholarships (e.g., the ones you get if you’re parent works for CocaCola) and also different from the college-sponsored scholarships. I don’t know much about the corporate (business-sponsored) NM scholarships or their process of selecting NMFs; they may or may not be more discriminating than the college-sponsored scholarships. I don’t know.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I know this.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree. And I think this sentence illustrates just how confusing the National Merit designations are.</p>

439

<p>monydad, this is what you have wrong:
“Cornell does not sponsor NMS scholarships for semi-finalists,so any NMS scholar attending there is a “real” one, who received one of the rare actual scholarships awarded directly by NMS.”</p>

<p>The number of corporate sponsored national merit scholarships are NOT listed separately from the $2500 awards at those colleges that do not sponsor NMS , like Cornell. They are combined into one number. Hence, there is no way to know how many of the NMS at Cornell are “real” $2500 winners or how many are NMSF’s whose parents work for a sponsoring corporation.</p>

440

<p>

</p>

<p>See? LOL. </p>

<p>If it’s valid to consider the different feel between NU and U of C types of schools in determining fit (pre-professional rah-rah versus intellectual ivory tower), it seems to me it’s just as valid to consider the “density desires” we’ve all been talking about in determining fit. </p>

<p>monydad- sorry, the bazinga was meant for Consolation, not you.</p>