<p>I agree except I would also consider carefully what has happened since 2008 when many programs began cutting fully funded PhD slots, while at the same time there seem to have been increases in applications to PhD programs in some fields because of lack of jobs available to new graduates. There have also been hiring freezes on faculty. In my opinion circumstances are sort of unprecedented. You can ask the undergraduate departments under consideration where they send their graduates to PhD programs. You can ask the PhD programs (when it’s time) if their graduates get hired and into what sort of position.</p>
<p>Looking at where middle aged and older faculty got their PhDs seems rather meaningless to me. The whole model has shifted and changed.</p>
<p>I’d never heard of Cumberlands before this thread, so I googled around a bit. Most useful was looking at the alumni notes in the university’s alumni magazine, especially looking at grads from the last 10-20 years. There are some K-12 teachers, and maybe a handful of alums teaching at college level (chemistry at U Alaska, history at a religious college). </p>
<p>Of course a motivated student can excel anywhere, but OP, if your son would truly like to consider college-level teaching as a career, Cumberlands does seem a tad limiting. I’d suggest digging to see if other low-cost options exist within your son’s criteria. If not, he really should think carefully if he’s willing to forego future opportunities in order to stay local/have a team to root for/etc.</p>
<p>Annasdad: First of all, to clarify, I don’t consider a flagship state school significantly below anyone’s academic profile, since those schools will invariably have a wide range of students, and it won’t be hard to find the serious academic classes.</p>
<p>Of course a student can be ambitious and make opportunities for himself wherever he is. In fact, by that logic there’s no reason to go to college at all, as there are any number of examples of succesful self-taught people. But except for rare cases, it is pretty hard to be entirely and adequately self-motivated in an undemanding environment, especially since, as I said in my initial post, it isn’t purely a matter of whether or not you’ll work harder than you have to, but of actual, real differences in course offerings, type of readings, and quality of faculty. </p>
<p>And no, it isn’t hard to grasp the concept that, because a lot of top students would have succeeded regardless of where they went to school, the high acceptance rates of students from elite schools can be misleading. There are, however, a number of practical advantages a student from a very good school has in grad school admissions. Having letters of recommendation from professors that the admissions committee members may well know and respect certainly helps, as does the fact that “one of the best of my career” means a lot more coming from a school that attracts better students. A lot of top schools require or at least strongly encourage students to do some sort of culminating thesis or project, which gives these students a ready made, already edited and evaluated writing sample. The professors at a school where many people apply to grad school will be more likely to be savvy about PhD admission - which has changed a lot in even the last ten years - than someone where people only apply once in a blue moon.</p>
<p>These factors don’t apply if the OP’s son becomes a high school teacher. The question then is whether college is a trade school or an intellectual and social experience. There are a lot of places where you can get a great education, but when the disparity between the two schools is that great, I think there is a qualitative difference in what kind of four years the students will have.</p>
<p>Indeed, for schools which are not all that selective (or prestigious, since prestige tends to follow selectivity), the wider range of student abilities, motivations, and goals found at huge state universities may make them better fits for students who are significantly above average ability and motivation than smaller schools where the range is narrower – the smaller narrow-range schools may not offer the most challenging courses or majors because there is not enough student interest in them.</p>
<p>Now, it’s possible that the smartest students who gravitate to much less selective colleges do so largely for financial reasons; such students might be more inclined to choose careers in medicine than in academia. It also is conceivable that many young tenure-track faculty with degrees from highly selective UG schools could have stretched themselves even at obscure, low-cost schools with big classes, poorly paid professors, run-down facilities, and limited course offerings. Maybe it is more likely that they would have done so at moderately-priced state universities with pretty good teachers and numerous course offerings. </p>
<p>I’m sure it’s not impossible to “stretch” into an academic career (<a href=“http://www.summerchinaprogram.org/uploadfile/en/upfilepdf/20121029010935.pdf[/url]”>http://www.summerchinaprogram.org/uploadfile/en/upfilepdf/20121029010935.pdf</a>). However, if it is the case that many young professors chose highly selective colleges largely for prestige (not for truly superior academics), isn’t it likely that many college hiring (or graduate admission) committees also are impressed by the same college names? These are the same kinds of people who submit the annual “peer assessments” to US News. Why would they be immune to the biases that allegedly influence corporate law or Wall Street?</p>
<p>Hello, if OP means original poster, then that’s me. This is some good stuff that I have really enjoyed reading. My son is intent on running on a college team and I support that. I also think he would do better academically and socially in a smaller school so the big, public, flagship university is not an option.</p>
<p>My take seems to be that is if he wants to be a high school teacher the college choice is not going to make a significant difference on his future employability, earnings etc. However, if he wants to enter the world of academia, his undergraduate college choice COULD greatly influence his career in many regards. A more prestigious undergrad degree seems to smooth the future path.</p>
<p>I have been thinking about the words more prestigious college and whether that is the same as a better college. What is our most prestigious college? Most would say Harvard. What is the best college? Most would say Harvard. Are there exceptions to this, where a college has a big ole’ bunch of prestige but is not considered to be a really good school?</p>
<p>Whether a more prestigious college is the same as a better college depends on the field. Harvard, for instance, has at least one weakness: engineering.</p>
<p>Don’t confuse “prestige” with “popularity” either. Harvard is popular, but its “prestige” is geographic. And its reputation can work against grads seeking opportunities west of Pittsburgh.</p>
<p>My research has uncovered that; prestige (or what I call beneficial “degree cred”) is regional.</p>
<p>Beneficial degree cred = something that might “get you in the door” in some cities.</p>
<p>For a given student’s goals, possibly, but not necessarily. For an aspiring English major comparing Kenyon and Cumberlands, yes, the more prestigious Kenyon has a better English department. But an aspiring mechanical engineering major comparing Harvard and Florida A&M may choose the latter despite its much lower prestige.</p>
<p>Look at schools based on the student’s goals. Prestige may be relevant to the goals (depending on what they are), but is only one of many criteria that may possibly be relevant in determining a good fit. For your aspiring English major and teacher, look at the strength of the English department, as well as the available teacher education and credentialing programs.</p>
<p>Harvard’s popularity is global - but if you’re looking for a job in the Midwest? University of Chicago, NU or ND carry as much “prestige”, and might work better for an individual, at least as far as getting you in the door.</p>
<p>Further to UCB’s point - if you’re looking for a career in “business” (as generic as that sounds). Ross (UMich), Mendoza (ND), Booth (U of C), Kellogg (NU), Carlson (UofM), Kelly (IU) - I could go on and on - and would argue that all carry more weight than a Harvard degree. Again, west of Pittsburgh.</p>
I don’t understand your distinction between ‘more prestigious’ and ‘better,’ and the answer is subjective in either case.</p>
<p>There are many cases in which schools that are ranked highly according to USNews (or others) are not accorded the same level of respect by different groups of people, if that helps answer your question.</p>
<p>Quote from parent:
“My take seems to be that is if he wants to be a high school teacher…”</p>
<p>Why pigeonhole a 17 year old into one career path regardless of prestige or cost? I think there are statistics that show that a majority of college students don’t graduate in their original major and many schools don’t even encourage the student to declare a major until sophomore or junior year (assuming the student doesn’t want to be a high school teacher by default).</p>
I wasn’t going to get involved but I have to disagree vehemently at this point.</p>
<p>Institutional affiliation is not at all irrelevant from the standpoint of an individual student. When I was applying to PhD programs in mathematics, I was told repeatedly that I would not have been admitted as a Bryn Mawr student if I didn’t have a record of classes from the University of Pennsylvania and also letters of recommendations from there. The more selective PhD programs simply didn’t trust my undergraduate college. FWIW, I am the only liberal arts college student in my current PhD program. I was also the only liberal arts college student who had been offered admission to a couple of other “top” PhD programs in a several-year period. </p>
<p>And my institutional affiliation did not only matter for my graduate school applications. When I signed up for my first class at Penn, the professor told me point blank that he would rather not have me in the class because he believed that math classes at Bryn Mawr were not “rigorous” enough to prepare me for his class. When I participated in an REU after my second year in college, the adviser mentioned that the main reason he accepted me was my gender; he didn’t trust my undergraduate background but he felt obligated to have a girl in the group. When I was awarded an NSF fellowship, my institutional affiliation to Penn was highlighted as one deciding factor in my reviews. </p>
<p>That’s for math, not English, but it certainly does show that institutional affiliation can matter quite a bit for an individual student.</p>
Actually Harvard’s prestige is pretty much global as I found when I got a job in Germany based on my Harvard degree even though I had studied architecture at Columbia not Harvard. It also got me a job in LA one summer. In both cases my bosses explicitly said they were hiring me because I was a Harvard grad.</p>
<p>You’ll get no argument from me about whether or not Harvard is the best school. It may be in many fields, but certainly not in all. My oldest chose Carnegie Mellon for computer science over Harvard, and convinced us (pretty easily) that he was making the right choice. And as a graduate of Harvard I am all too aware of its shortcomings. I think you are mixing up the notion of prestige, which Harvard has in spades, and connections which are more limited and where the local school may serve you better.</p>
<p>b@r!um - that’s sort of depressing. I always thought Bryn Mawr had pretty good name recognition.</p>
<p>However, hasn’t b@r!um previously posted that the math offerings at Bryn Mawr were not as rigorous as elsewhere, perhaps contributing to its relatively low reputation for admission to PhD programs in math, even though its general reputation and prestige is good (among those who know that it exists)?</p>
<p>Pretty sure that for going on to PhD programs, the reputation in major of the undergraduate school matters a lot.</p>
Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that that’s true for many LACs. I was talking about math pedagogy with a Williams professor not too long ago and he said that Williams had the same policy of making math “more accessible” than it would be at a research university of the same selectivity; he also elaborated on how the department struggled to help their occasional top caliber math students get admitted to appropriate PhD programs. </p>
<p>That’s just one conversation of many. To be honest, I am no longer surprised that some math PhD programs categorically refuse to accept students from liberal arts colleges. (There’s concern about a potential lack of rigor at less selective universities too, but PhD programs seem more willing to consider applicants from those universities on a case-by-case basis.)</p>
<p>This experience has made me look at colleges in a whole different light. I am less concerned about class sizes, student-to-faculty ratios or most other numbers you’d find in a Common Data Set, and more concerned about work standards, course offerings and post-graduation outcomes.</p>
<p>Could it be that this was due to Williams’ small size, so that the math department needed to “market” the major to a wider audience of students in order to keep up enough student interest in the major? Of course, that would be detrimental to those who wanted a more rigorous treatment of the material.</p>
<p>However, the top math students may have it easy in that they are often two years ahead in math, so they may look at a small LAC’s course catalog and eliminate it due to the likelihood that they will exhaust the available math offerings if they go there. Could that be another reason why small LACs’ math departments may not cater to the top math students?</p>
<p>Look, I don’t have all the answers. I only meant to share an observation that students might have fewer options coming out of some schools than others, contrary to claims made earlier in this thread.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to derail this thread or start a discussion about the ins and outs of a math education. I’ll answer your questions but I hope that we can let this discussion die (or continue it elsewhere) afterwards.</p>
<p>
Unlikely. The math department doesn’t need 10% of Williams students to major in math to be a viable. Many departments at small colleges survive with only a handful of majors. (I’ll take Bryn Mawr numbers now because I’m more familiar with Bryn Mawr. The math department has 9 faculty positions for 30-40 majors each year plus service courses. The physics department has 7 faculty positions serving 5-10 majors. Computer science has 7 faculty positions for no more than 5 majors.) </p>
<p>
It’s true that students who are several years ahead in math rarely choose to attend a LAC. On the other hand, many graduate school applicants coming out of the prestigious research universities were not significantly ahead either and they wouldn’t a priori be overqualified for a LAC.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen, the average incoming math major at Haverford isn’t that far behind the average incoming math major at Penn. Fast forward 3 years and there are worlds between them. The two schools just provide very different environments with different expectations and different resources.</p>
<p>My feeling is that the “Best College” is the one that will not only give your child a good chance for future success, but also the one where he will be happiest. Most of the points being made here focus on how/whether a school will impact his post-graduate life… but what about the four (or more) years he will spend there? </p>
<p>For most kids, this is the first time they will live away from home; their first step into independent adulthood. These are important years. The people he meets, the non-academic opportunities he has, the entire campus atmosphere and all the experiences he has will play as big a role in shaping his future as the diploma he receives. Not to mention, when students are truly happy, content and engaged, they tend to do better academically. </p>
<p>Using this definition of “best”… if the best college also happens to be a more expensive one, is it worth the cost? In my opinion, it definitely is! </p>
<p>This is how we ultimately chose our D’s school. Yes, it just happened to be one of her more costly options, and also one of the more prestigious. And yes, she could probably achieve the same goals at a less expensive, less well-known school. But this one was truly was the best fit for her, and an amazing place to spend four years of her life. It does mean some sacrifice and doing without on our part, but we figured this is probably the last ‘big’ thing we will be doing for her, and we feel that this gift of four wonderful, happy years and a lifetime of great memories will definitely be “worth it.”</p>