Rejecting Harvard?

College Search & Selection
121

<p>Hey you are not inept haha. Although that is not my quote it is true. Some people need their hand held others are go-getters. The LACs are nice for people who still need those development skills (that is not a knock it is just what it is), but as I said in my previous posts, sometimes I find they are too sheltering. If you are talking Hollywood, then you are going to have to be a go-getter at the highest level. No better way to test your chops than by being the big fish in the big pond, not the big fish in the small pond. Check out what Mira Nair has to say on the Experience Harvard video. She makes a great point. Tommy Lee Jones has a spot too.</p>

<p>[Harvard</a> College Admissions Office: Experience Harvard](<a href=“http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/experience_harvard/video/index.html]Harvard”>http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/experience_harvard/video/index.html)</p>

122

<p>RISD is the number one school in the world for the Arts. The fact that now they have a combined program with Brown University says it all. If you got accepted to Brown, you can still take courses from RISD (even if u are not in the combined program)</p>

<p>Harvard is Harvard for the things that matter and if you are a fit. Harvard, is not the number one place for Arts studies. RISD is. And that is not just my opinion. It is a fact.</p>

123

<p>I would say Pomona, Harvard, then Brown. But if visiting any of them changes your mind, don’t go there.</p>

124

<p>As a very self-motivated student at an LAC, I resent the depiction of us as “in need of development skills”. Most students at Amherst and Pomona (etc…) are go-getter types - we did have to be accepted! I’ve worked my way around many developing countries on my own (as well as a number of developed ones) without my parents contributing a dime towards anything. I am not sheltered, nor are the vast majority of my classmates.</p>

<p>We don’t attend an LAC to have our hands held. Amherst, with its open curriculum, gives its students more freedom than the vast majority of schools -but I don’t accuse them of hand-holding! The benefits of attending an LAC extend far beyond that.</p>

<p>Of course universities have benefits as well. You just need tp determine which is right for you…it sounds like Pomona.</p>

125

<p>Actually I don’t know a 1 Pomona student who would hold back and wait for anything. These students have accomplished so many things beyond imagination and that is why pomona accepts them. These students just do not talk about it, don’t need to.
That is quite a statement that Pomona students would wait for a professor to contact them. The school would not accept a student such as you described and yes the school caters to students. That is a benefit for an undergraduate as they have unlimited opportunities that may go to grad students at a college such as Harvard.</p>

126

<p>You know something, this CC board loves to lambast LAC supporters over their very unsupported fact that “nurturing” = “handholding”</p>

<p>They scold us on unfairly characterizing big research unis as big, informal institutions with constantly huge lectures and disinterested professors who only care about research. Well, look who is being the hypocrite now? Who is labelling LACs with an utterly unfair, biased, and worse, UNINFORMED stereotype?</p>

<p>Let’s take a look at what nurturing actually means
"to support and encourage, as during the period of training or development; foster: to nurture promising musicians. " - dictionary.com</p>

<p>Merriam Webster dictionary gives an interesting definition of “nurturing”</p>

<p>One word: “EDUCATE”</p>

<p>The other meaning: “Foster”</p>

<p>What, unfortunately, many posters latch on to the primary meaning of nurturing:</p>

<p>“to feed and protect [one’s offspring]”</p>

<p>Hmmm, an LAC doesn’t mean “Lost, Abandoned, Children”. Due a lack of information, or a stubborn, narrow attitude, or whatever, many, errr, very “educated” posters insist on this definition as a feature of the LAC. They say that “sure, if you want handholding or your teacher to carass your vulnerable ego, go to an LAC and have a comfortable life.”</p>

<p>My answer to that is No, this is not what an LAC is all about. A good LAC worth its salt provides as many opportunities as possible for its undergraduates. Research? Yes. Sure, the professors look to students to do research, but applications, seeking them out, and the average process is also involved. What, do you think professors come to your table while you’re eating, and ask you to do research with them? HA. YOU have to ask them, YOU have to prove you are worthy as an assistant in their research, YOU have to work hard by your own, and give up those hours of partying and holidaying too. What LACs do is simply provide more opportunities.</p>

<p>As for the academic life, if you’re talking about grade inflation, don’t even throw the buck on LACs. Many of the Ivys do it, many other private universities do it, it’s something that is done by many. And I’m sorry, but if you are not going to work hard and smart independently, and expect success and nice smiling "A"s! to drop your lap, you’re sadly mistaken.</p>

<p>A good LAC WORTH ITS SALT will self select students and make sure that they are not goody, preppy, SAT-success course enroller who expects the world to revolve around them. They WANT STUDENTS who will CHALLENGE THEMSELVES in a almost CONSTANTLY INITIMATE environment where it is almost certain their views will be CHALLENGED and they will be called on to DEFEND them. They don’t want students who go to class as and when they FEEL LIKE IT, sit at the back, FACEBOOK their friends about HOW BORING the lecturer is and talk about that AWESOME FRAT PARTY that’s going on TOMORROW NIGHT. They don’t want disinterested, unmotivated students, who need to be “encouraged, pushed, or NURTURED” - but they want the opposite.</p>

<p>By the definition that many of you on this board give, you obviously perceive LACs as a top notch, top dollar, candy filled KINDERGARDEN. Wake up, dudes. We’re motivated and hungry too. We’re competitive, less with everyone (so, no, we don’t steal notes, or backstab our classmates, but we do compete with them) but SURPRISE! we’re competitive with ourselves - we expect the best out of ourselves, and we work hard to get it. We just don’t believe in some of the very toxic hyper-competitiveness that goes on in some other institutions - </p>

<p>No, I’m not insinuating Harvard, or any other place, is that kind of institution. I am talking about an institution that an LAC is NOT.</p>

<p>So, good Sirs, Do YOU equate such an environment with a nanny day-care center? Or even a rich, well endowed, elitist high school populated with kids who have no direction in life and expect the silver spoon in their proverbial mouth? If that is so, and if you continue to parade that utterly insinine assumption around, then you act in an appropriately “infantile” manner.</p>

<p>Don’t kid me. Everyone, especially college kids, needs help, no matter how capable, or smart, they are. LACs want to offer as much of this help as they can, precisely to nuture the fire for learning, independence in thought, and a passion to succeed against all odds. The last thing they want to do is give students an academic crutch that will do them no good in their future.</p>

<p>Examine your base assumptions before you vomit them all over this forum, please.</p>

127

<p>^^Take it easy. Your thin skin is showing.</p>

<p>The point is that some folks find all that support, and yes nurturing, at LACs to be just what they are looking for. But others find it to be unnecessary and sometimes even smothering. There is no one right answer. The right answer for you is what sort of school fits YOU. There are lots of LACs for those who prefer that and lots of universities for those who prefer that. Ain’t it a great country?</p>

128

<p>there there. You’ll know where you’re going by May 2. =] So, cheer up.</p>

129

<p>"Consider this, GS. The no-transportation from the airport is a pretty good analogy for a key difference between H and P. P is the classic LAC, and running shuttles from the airport is exactly the kind of thing that a small LAC would do. Students who want that kind of attention would appreciate the fact that P would, in essence, look for ways to cater to their needs.</p>

<p>The type of student who would get the most from H and thrive there would be the type who would google the airport website from home to learn about transportation to the campus, go to the website for the subway, study the subway map, look up the fare, and make a note to bring exact change. "</p>

<p>As a Harvard alum, I agree. And, heck, Harvard is right on the subway line. It’s very easy and cheap to get to the airport from Harvard. It would seem like babying for Harvard to run shuttles to the airport for its students. </p>

<p>Given, though, the dismal public transportation system in LA, Pomona may need to do exactly that to make getting to the airport affordable for its students.</p>

130

<p>First of all this had been a great thread. That aside, I don’t recall anyone saying Pomona or LAC’s were bad. In fact, I am recommending an LAC for a younger family member who needs a more nurturing environment which she can further grow in as I think she would be swallowed in a major institution and frankly is not mature enough to not be coddled. By the way a quick point, compared to my home institution even Harvard is LAC-ish in terms of student population. That aside, the notion that there are not “right and wrong” choices is also relative to a myriad of factors; finances, locale, family circumstance and more importantly options. Now if it was between Pomona and Berkeley, then the choice is not as obvious, but in this particular thread we are talking Harvard. And while it might be “so extra cool dude” to turn down Harvard for “the little LAC that could”, not many people make that choice. That said, Grim, if you and your family have the luxury of relinquishing the opportunities that Harvard provides than kudos to y’all. The kids I assist (underrepresented, low income, first generation) do not always have the luxury of turning down a place like Harvard, so there is my bias. LAC’s are great hideaways for four years for many, but they simply do not expose students to the diversity (in all ways; I do not mean just ethnically) that the major institutions do and in an ever changing world that matters. I think they are changing I love Smith Colleges approach, but they need some growing to do as well.</p>

<p>By the way can anyone find Pomona on this list? Good Luck.</p>

<p>[The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/17/weekinreview/20060917_LEONHARDT_CHART.html]The”>The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices)</p>

131

<p>This discussion is really not about coddling, internship opportunities, or prestige. It is about the most effective way to learn and evolve. Small, guided discussion groups are just so superior in every way to a monologue, even if that monologue is given by a Nobel Laureate. Very little is learned mereley observing. And far too many classes at Stanford, Harvard, Berkeley are observational.</p>

<p>Monologues can be read from the comfort of one’s bed. Intellectually challenging discussions take place with bright peers, and often at an LAC. True education is participatory and engaging, in dialogue.</p>

<p>This discussion may as well be about Yale v. Williams, Harvard v. Amherst, Princeton v. Swarthmore, MIT v. Carleton, Chicago v. … well, you get the picture.</p>

132

<p>“Monologues can be read from the comfort of one’s bed. Intellectually challenging discussions take place with bright peers, and often at an LAC. True education is participatory and engaging, in dialogue.”</p>

<p>The comfort of one’s bed does not expose one to the fire or passion behind what is being said (again some of us are sheltered and like to remain that way). I went to a huge undergrad institution, but I participated fully in discussion and formed study groups with my classmates, (where I had to take the initiative to do so although I know not everyone is so inclined and need it “built in”). I also did this crazy thing called going to professors office hours and even met some brilliant grad students along the way who are now teaching at many LAC’s (because the Claremont Graduate University has a tough time getting their grad students tenure track positions and they sure seem to like to hire UCLA Ph.D.'s) Finally, if you have some gumption you can substitute big lectures for small seminar type alternatives at major universities (again it requires some initiative on part of the student but I think taking responsibility for oneself is part of growing up). Oh yeah, if you are a good student you can take Senior Seminars and if you go to a major institution guess what?!?! They have more than one seminar and you can take those instead of huge lectures for your major fields. You wanna know what else you can do? Take graduate level courses with Ph.D. students who may one day teach at some LAC. Of course you can only do such a thing if your institution actually has graduate level courses. And if I recall, I can’t think of a better discussion then the seminar which was mixed with undergrads and grads, during which the undergrads more than held their own.</p>

133

<p>Everyone, she’s having a hard enough time already deciding. Try to make her choice easier… That’s why she made the thread in the first place. Maybe a bit less arguments–and more advice?</p>

134

<p>Consider that the following people all enrolled in Harvard College (a list like this may already have been made before in which case I’d feel unpleasant):</p>

<p>Al Franken
Matt Damon
Natalie Portman
Tommy Lee Jones
Conan O’Brien
Eugene O’Neill
Jack Lemmon
John Lithgow
Peter Sellars
Ted Kaczynski</p>

<p>Basically, everyone that’s famous or infamous went to Harvard. (It’s probably not a good idea to let these facts decide your decision, if you haven’t already…)</p>

135

<p>

Beg to differ, UCLA. That IS a knock. This is insulting and disparaging to the many excellent smaller schools. Most LACs are small, so have a different feel than a large U. You could just as easily say that large U’s are for people who want to hide in the back of a large lecture hall and sleep, with the likelihood that the professor teaching the class (assuming is is a prof and not a grad student) will never know their name. Not a knock, thats just what it s.</p>

136

<p>As someone who has attended both a large university and a private LAC, I know that UCLA PhD is utterly full of crap and enjoy laughing at his ignorant hateful comments.</p>

<p>That is all.</p>

137

<p>Well said, Seiken. Speaking from the same background (private LAC undergrad, Large U grad school) I couldn’t agree more.</p>

138

<p>“By the way can anyone find Pomona on this list? Good Luck.”</p>

<p>That is not the point. Do you see any LAC on that list, including Williams and Amherst, which have higher SAT medians than Cornell, Penn, Duke, Tufts, Northwestern, Georgetown, Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, all of which are on the list?</p>

139

<p>Cry-iken- No one is hating on LAC’s. My point (if you bothered to actually read my posts) is that Pomona is not Harvard, nowhere close to Harvard.</p>

<p>As for jym626</p>

<p>The LACs are nice for people who still need those development skills (that is not a knock it is just what it is)
Beg to differ, UCLA. That IS a knock. This is insulting and disparaging to the many excellent smaller schools. </p>

<p>No it was not a knock. People develop and different levels emotionally and physically that is just life. I didn’t say slower I said DIFFERENT. Some kids are very sheltered and would be swallowed at a large campus. Small schools do a GREAT job in nurturing those students. Also LACs are very appealing to those who are uncomfortable with the kinds diversity (in all ways) that major universities offer.</p>

<p>Most LACs are small, so have a different feel than a large U. You could just as easily say that large U’s are for people who want to hide in the back of a large lecture hall and sleep, with the likelihood that the professor teaching the class (assuming is is a prof and not a grad student) will never know their name. Not a knock, thats just what it s.</p>

<p>Second point, if you are sleeping during lecture you aren’t lasting long anywhere unless you are talking about a “pay a fee buy a degree” university. And frankly, Grad students know more than professors sometimes. They are fresher and introduced to cutting edge perspectives that sometimes tenured professors are too complacent to keep up with. So I agree with you on that point.</p>

140

<p>UCLA-
If you do your homework, and read the research upon which the NYT article is snipped <a href=“http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1287.pdf[/url]”>http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1287.pdf&lt;/a&gt; you will understand how the data is derived, and you will see that Pomona is in fact on the list. You might also take a look at a previous thread on that topic form a few years ago <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/626-new-revealed-preference-ranking-released.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/626-new-revealed-preference-ranking-released.html&lt;/a&gt; . It is an interesting read. As for your attempt to change what you said to stir up an argument , you said

, and then qualified it by saying sometimes they are too sheltering. Your quote says it all. It comes across as insulting and narrow minded, no matter how you try to qualify it with doubletalk. To call a LAC a “development school” is simply outrageous.</p>