<p>"My son told me his educational goal in college is to learn how to write, think and speak. That's it. He also has a particular extra-curricular goal but that is another matter."</p>
<p>Have him check out Deep Springs College, which would teach him exactly what he wants to learn. It's a highly select two-year college that also is free. I know a young man who went there and then went to Swarthmore.</p>
<p>"ourses at Deep Springs are intensive and interactive seminars. The average class size is eight, so every member must come prepared to contribute to the discussion. As a result, students devote a great deal of time and energy to their assignments, and discussions often achieve a depth uncommon at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>Deep Springs employs three long-term professors: one in the humanities, one in the social sciences, and one in the natural sciences and mathematics. These faculty members stay at Deep Springs for as little as two or as many as six years. During this time they come to know the culture and to take part in the operations of the college. Three visiting scholars or artists also teach each semester, bringing a new range of ideas and course offerings to the college. The only required courses are Composition and Public Speaking; all other classes are chosen by students based on their interests. The curriculum includes both introductory courses and specialized courses seldom offered at the freshman and sophomore level at other institutions...." Deep</a> Springs College</p>
<p>Developmental admits frequently, not always, provide the academic "floor" at elite schools. A rich kid working only hard enough to make, and happy to take, his/her "gentleman's B (or C)" allows the instructor to give the kid who is going to have to work for a living the higher grade they need to compete for graduate or professional school without excessive grade inflation. Of course there are a lot of "rich kids" who are extremely competitive and want to excell to maintain and extend the family fortune or simply because they want to improve themselves personally.</p>
<p>The athlete who is admitted for his/her sport can have a modest academic career at HPYS and then make a good living coaching the sport they love. No secondary school is going to balk at a 2.5 from an elite school if the prospective employee has decent personal qualities and can coach.</p>
<p>Just some thoughts. I await the firestorm of disagreement that scours the mind clean of error.</p>
<p>"he athlete who is admitted for his/her sport can have a modest academic career at HPYS and then make a good living coaching the sport they love. No secondary school is going to balk at a 2.5 from an elite school if the prospective employee has decent personal qualities and can coach."</p>
<p>When it comes to places like HPYS, the athletes graduate and tehn go on to places like flagship and other top law schools, becoming a U.S. senator (Bill Bradley, Princeton grad), or getting major corporate jobs or even becoming network sports commentators (James Brown, a Harvard grad). I suppose that some may become coaches, but I don't personally know who did.</p>
<p>Now that S#2 is a junior at a top school and S#1 is at HYP, I have noticed that companies
handle recruiting differently at HYP. They go to the school, recruit with programs and then
interview. Not saying that they don't do that at some other schools...seems very top tier schools get preferential treatment..you still need the GPA, etc.</p>
<p>I guess what bothers me is that people love to assume athletes are working with less of a brain than anyone else. What I love about the sport of lacrosse is when they tell you what the kids future plans are and their GPA. Last year a kid missed a play off game because he was interviewing to be a rhodes scholar.</p>
<p>There are kids that will do the absolute best they can no matter where they go. Those are, I think, the minority. Most are not self motivated enough to constantly search for additional challenges and opportunities.</p>
<p>There are kids who have the drive to rise to the top, or at least rise to the challenge. The higher the top, the higher they'll rise. These are the studets who benefit from the top schools most.</p>
<p>There also are kids who will fall apart as soon as they discover that they can't always be #1 at everything (an example to this could be the kid who started the thread about having a meltdown because he is afraid that he might not get accepted at Harvard, even though he is already "in" at Stanford, because it will mean that some of his classmates who will get in are "superior students"). These are the kids who should be careful choosing any "top" schools...</p>
<p>Vast majority of students admitted to very top schools are highly accomplished HS students. Nevertheless, 50% of them will end up at the bottom half of the class.</p>
<p>I believe that major is very important factor. For pre-meds, the most important is GPA and MCAT score, UG school is secondary consideration for Med. school admission. In addition, it is just not wise to spend tons of $$ in UG before Med. School, unless you have unlimited resources. Again, Engineering companies hire primarily locally (regionally). These are couple examples of majors that will steer some people to state school.</p>
<p>I went to University of Rochester, then transferred to Brown after my freshman year. I did just as well at Brown as I did at Rochester and believe that the other students I knew at Rochester would have done the same at Brown. There is surely a very big difference in how difficult it is to get into the very elite schools (I would never have gotten into Brown from high school), but there is not that big a difference in how well a student will do among a large range of competitve schools.</p>
<p>Here are my observations after putting one kid through a top university and having another in 3rd year at an Ivy, plus what I see with friends and relatives. You can claw your way into a top school and then not cut it. I've seen this happen with kids from large, suburban public high schools who know how to get the GPA they need through summer classes, course selection and simply grinding away. In a number of cases these kids were actually very poor writers (the high school teachers either didn't care of the kid worked around it) and didn't have to do a whole lot of homework. In one case, the kid is/was a great kid and a community service dream (national level service work to promote awareness of a disability that he has) and was sought after by some good schools (not the ones we tend to discuss here). He's getting Cs at the school without his parents to help him with papers and ride herd on him.
I think you can do well on the SAT and still have poor writing skills- especially since even if you bomb the writing portion, a lot of schools don't care or even look at that score. Once you get to college you are in trouble because of all the papers you have to write and the competition for the grades. BOTH of my kids said they were shocked at the number of their classmates who couldn't write well and who procrastinated with assignments and almost flunked out of the schools. These are unhooked kids I'm talking about.
If your kid isn't really good at writing (unless a math/science whiz), be careful of shooting too high. These are the kids who transfer or drop out of the top schools. Also dropping out are the kids who had an easy time in high school without having to do much work.
My Ivy kid was an athletic recruit with mid-range (solid) stats. He is doing spectacularly, and I attribute that to his incredible writing ability and the challenging schools he attended. Really, same with my daughter who was mid to high mid-range for Rice but was a performance major. She was at the top of all her academic classes at Rice and never missed a beat due to the study habits she had formed and her great writing (and reading) ability.</p>
<p>Relative has two sons. Older one went to top Ivy, younger one went to below 100 tier private. After graduation, older son spent two weeks with younger at his school. Older son's assessment, he saw no difference in the courses, even textbooks were the same. Some of the courses seemed to require more work than what was required of him and the grading was tougher. Another friend who has Ds go to a top Ivy and a 30 -50 school said it looks as though the 30-50 school is by far more rigorous and demanding; that is, more work and more thorough work is required for similar courses. Unless one knows for sure that the work is really less, basing a decision on school name is not a good a idea. The more prestigious may in fact be the easiest in which to succeed.</p>
<p>S's courses at his LAC, which is a tier 2, are as hard as or harder than were my courses at Harvard. He's a social science major as was I.</p>
<p>Courses I've taken for fun at my local public tier 2 were much, much easier than was Harvard as were courses at the private tier 2 where I was a teaching assistant. Older S's courses at his tier 2 public were easier than my ones were at Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
D has chosen to go to state school and has been treated there as a star. Opportunities for various experiences and Merit scholarships just pile up...She commented that she has learned so much in her very challenging Honors classes and outside of academics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This has been my neices experience with her state school honors college. Not only is her tuition/room/board covered, she has had four years of book stipends and the like. Her professors have a real investment in her, including doing things like getting in her touch with professors at other schools whose work she has admired. Now, as a junior, she has professors at a few grad schools trying to sell her on their school. It's pretty cool. </p>
<p>We just assumed she's go for a name brand for grad school but again she is looking at less prestigious schools that can cover her expenses and are small enough to allow her to get to know her professors. She's just had such a good experience with not having to worry about money and remaining debt free plus the personal interactions. And, believe me, the work is very challenging. </p>
<p>Luckily for us, her experiences have made a big impression on our kid! </p>
<p>As for the OPs question, I will join in the chorus of "it depends on the kid." My kid leans far more toward cooperative than competitive. So we keep that in mind when looking at colleges.</p>
<p>My D is currently "rising to the occasion", at least in terms of effort, in a math class that seems to be designed for kids who score below the schools 50th percentile on math Sat I (680). She is a second semester freshman, and struggled a bit first semester as well, but seems to be staying in the game in part due to her writing skills in the top 25th percentile. I'm holding my breath, and she seems happier this semester then last, but I DO wonder if it was the right choice.</p>
<p>Hi to all my old screen friends--haven't posted for four years, so nice to see many of you still here.</p>
<p>My kid was one who always wanted to play in the highest league he could scrape in to; we, his mom and I, knew he was talented, but this is such a tough, competitive, and unfathomable challenge. The concerns expressed in this thread take me back; I remember discussing this with him.</p>
<p>After a typically wild ride, with many ups and downs, he ended up at Stanford, just barely, off the waiting list. Four years later, he won their top academic award, given to only 5-10 in the college per year, and is now in grad school at MIT.</p>
<p>So, for what it's worth: don't confuse this crazy admissions process with what your child can really do.</p>
<p>"There will always be someone at the bottom of the class but it's often due to factors other than capability (not studying, skipping classes, not focused, etc.)."</p>
<p>By definition, 50% of the class at ANY school will be in the bottom half of the class. Even if every student works extremely hard, never skips class, and is focused. It can be very hard for students accustomed to being in the top tier since kindergarten, but it's a fact of life, no matter whether you're talking about the local community college or Harvard Law School. That doesn't mean that the students in the bottom half of the class don't belong there.</p>
<p>^^ It also doesn't mean they won't be successful. Many of the people in the bottom half of the class will end up to be very successful in their career.</p>
<p>When I stated the 'bottom of the class' due to 'factors other than capability' - I was referring to the very bottom of the class - the bottom 5-10%.</p>
<p>^^^ I agree. As I said elsewhere on a thread, my son's high school teaches a class called "The History of Ideas." Their reading list contains a ton of books I only pretended to read in college and got by. :-) I stopped being able to help my kids in Math sometime during Algebra II. My son's AP Bio class concerns itself with things that science only guessed existed in my college level bio classes.</p>
<p>It's all a function of personality. Neither of my kids applied to colleges that could be considered super reaches for them because neither wanted to. Both ended up at colleges that I consider matches for them (in that their credentials were in the top quarter to top half of those admitted). When my son applied to graduate schools, he did apply to reaches, but only one of those admitted him and he chose a different graduate school instead (for a variety of reasons, but the extreme academic pressure he would have faced at the reach school was one of them). </p>
<p>Some people are simply most comfortable being in the top half of any group. Both of my kids are among them. I see no reason to fight this. It's a personality thing.</p>
<p>Another point: It's not the content of the courses that varies so much between one tier and another, it's the grading -- especially when courses are graded on a curve. Harvard and Podunk may use the same textbook, but in courses that are curved, a test score or a paper that would get a kid an A at Podunk might get only a C at Harvard.</p>