<p>Well, in many ways, state schools are not “good enough.” Not because they’re public, or not elite, or not prestigious, or not … It is because the financials require substantial limitations in many cases. btw, these limiters are NOT limited to state schools! Massified, passive, unengaged learning allows people to complete the course absent of really learning much of anything. And cost along with mission (research, publishing, “service”) become the essential variables in tenure and promotion. Teaching and advising students is for too many, merely nuisance, and of necessity so. They simply are not rewarded or recognized for being great teachers and student advisors. btw, advising students properly … not merely making sure their courses are in line to fulfill grad requirements … is very demanding and consuming. Most profs love to do it, but don’t because they know it’s a big-time loser. Too many students graduate with absolutely no association or meaningful connection with more than a few profs. Crank 'em thru.</p>
<p>And one more major issue in this one is simply this … there is NO cohesiveness to programs/plans of study. It’s take a course here, a course there to fulfill “group” or area requirements … and you’re good to go. Liberal arts programs are increasingly poor at providing a genuinely rich learning experience. And it is that life of the mind that will allow people to be contributors in both their work and personal lives, imo.</p>
<p>I think the idea of “top schools” is just based on things like US news rankings, which take into account academic and post graduate factors. These factors, along with less significant things like prestige, are what determine what is “top”. I will admit, I only applied to so called “top” schools plus the UIUC (my state school) but it’s not because I felt I was too good for the UIUC, I just didn’t like the atmosphere (I would know what that’s like because I live in Champaign). </p>
<p>Why did I otherwise only apply to “top” schools? Well first off, I will say that all of these schools are exceptional for my prospective major(s). Second, I wanted to go to an institution of with a very high level of rigor (and here you can’t really argue - universities like UChicago or Princeton have far more rigorous math classes than the UIUC. Ive actually taken classes at the latter so I can attest to this).</p>
<p>Quote:
“My issue with the use of the word prestigious, is how so many posters on CC are only interested in how prestigious their college is perceived by others. Students want to make their decision on which college to attend based on this, rather than more important attributes such as fit and cost.
The issue is that high school students are notoriously self-conscious and shallow. Prestige and bragging rights are everything to a teenager.”</p>
<p>I take issue with this. I believe most High School students are not notoriously self-conscious and shallow or interested only in Prestige or bragging rights. I think well balanced students are the exact opposite, and that is how I see my daughters and most of their friends. I’ve been reading this site for a while, and I think this site attracts a small select group of people who think that prestige and the top this and that is the be all and end all, and they infect their children with the same disease. Folks, this need to feed the ego, if that’s the way a person is, does not stop at college. It stays with them their whole lives. These people need to have the best jobs, the biggest houses, the highest incomes to feel like they are worthy human beings. In short, this describes people who will likely never be happy or satisfied. Its kind of sad that people ruin their own lives by putting themselves in these chains, without even realizing it.</p>
<p>What about “party school?” I was told by a family member of a family member that my daughter’s low prestige state school is a huge " party school" and that there is nothing to do except drink. My daughter is involved in a lot of campus activities that do not involve drinking ie volleyball, soccer, clubs in her major, etc.
Please excuse my grammar. I obtained my masters at a CUNY. Still can’t believe that people hired me. The funny thing is that in my field the CUNY schools are harder to get into than Columbia ( for a masters degree).</p>
<p>“stellar” – Don’t know why, but this word is used so much on this site to describe stuff. Stellar GPA, stellar school, stellar ECs… </p>
<p>“party school” – I hate the negative connotation that this often carries. People always seem to use “party school” in a condescending way, such as “I got into _________, but it’s such a party school (aka its academics must suck because its students like being social… right?)” </p>
<p>“rankings” – I find it really annoying when people always bring up rankings. “Oh _____ is ranked 3 spots higher than ______ in USNews, it must be a better school.” Seriously, I doubt rankings actually matter at all to people who aren’t tiger parents/high schoolers.</p>
<p>The real problem with college rankings, such as the USNWR national and regional rankings, is that their objective metrics are primarily “inputs” to the schools, rather than “outputs”. These rankings are heavily biased towards student body profiles, which are comprised of a variety of input factors (GPA, SAT, ACT, class standing, etc), and very little on the quality of the product (i.e. the graduated student). In essence, what are we actually ranking here? </p>
<p>It’s similar to choosing your next new car based on the quality of the schools where the engineers who designed the car graduated from, as opposed to buying a new car based on the output results, such as how the car handles, interior quality, performance, ammenities, reliability, etc. </p>
<p>Perhaps the CC gurus should borrow from the B1G and call the “top” universities the Leaders and the “top” LACs the Legends. </p>
<p>On a serious note, it is obvious that the people who created the organization of the forum relied on the commonly available information and loosely followed the ubiquitous USNews rankings as the basis of their “selection.” And that it is obvious that it has not been a moving target. To the great dismay of the vocal USC contingent. </p>
<p>As far as the Ivy League segregation, it would be hard to expand beyond the eight listed school. Unless one wants to add the moronic Public Ivies and alternate monikers.</p>
<p>I believe you have an excellent point there, however, that still doesn’t explain why elite schools have single digit acceptance rates. Clearly, even well-balanced and non-prestige driven high school students are still flocking to these elite schools in droves. I assume not all of them are members on this forum, and I assume most of them flock to those schools for the pedigree and prestige, regardless of whether or not they think they are making an unbiased choice.</p>
<p>Some have tried to present different rankings. That is why we have the CRAP rankings from Forbes/Vedder, the Mother Teresa rankings from WaMo, and a slew of others who envy the commercial success of a dying magazine, and would love their share of the cake. Hard to resist is it does not require much integrity or scientific knowledge.</p>
<p>Right! Except that those some people were not created here. They simply found a venue to express the sentiments they acquired in their community. It gives CC way to much credit to think that the “disease” was born and spread here. </p>
<p>Do you think that people waited for CC to start worrying about the right PreK, the right 1-12, and the ways to game the system with all kind of crutches?</p>
<p>“Do you think that people waited for CC to start worrying about the right PreK, the right 1-12, and the ways to game the system with all kind of crutches?”</p>
<p>I think that the more time people spend reading this type of stuff, the more likely they are to be infected with this prestige disease, so the answer is yes and no, because the US News rankings, etc., helped to start the whole process. When I went to college decades ago, there were no “rankings”. Of course we knew of the IVY Leagues, the good schools, the community colleges etc., but I do not remember people, or kids, being so hyper about the schools they or their children were attending. I remember taking my SATs in 1972, looking at my score, realizing that it was good enough to get me into my flagship . . . where I went, or possibly into an IVY League, which I never seriously considered. Were CC available to me back then, I suspect I would have felt based on my SAT that I deserved an IVY and that only an IVY would be good enough for me. Honestly, I never recall going to my flagship and saying to myself . . this school is not good enough for me. I’m not sure I would feel the same way now given all of this prestige mania on this site and others.</p>
<p>By the way, can somebody tell me how to quote here?</p>
<p>For many, many families, the elite schools are far cheaper than the state schools, if you can get in. For families with incomes under $60k/year, they are practically free. Even at twice that income, they are generally cheaper than the publics.</p>
<p>So folks line up, just like for the sales on the day after Thanksgiving.</p>
<p>I disagree with you here. I think cost is a serious consideration, but that’s not the primary motive behind the decision to go to an elite school. The primary motive, in most cases, is prestige, and the perceived quality associated with prestige.</p>
<p>Case in point, many well-performing students can get full-ride scholarships, and/or large scholarships to “normal” schools. Therefore, cost is really a non-issue for good students. In the end, the thing that draws those students to Ivies and “elite” schools is the prestige.</p>