<p>Interesting thread. I work at a fairly popular private college. Last year at this time, we were working overtime to get the apps done for ED. This year, we are done by noon, and it has nothing to do with the efficiency of the workers! The volume of apps are just not there compared to last year.</p>
<p>NYmama, wow, that is interesting. I thought there was always going to be healthy supply of wealthy families who do not need to be concerned about merit and/or financial aid. I guess even some of those families are a bit nervous.</p>
<p>I'm not at all surprised that apps are dwindling for the expensive options. The gap in educational quality between fine privates and St Universities is much less than it was 20 years ago. Our s reported a week or so ago that he'd feel like a fool if he had chosen the top ten private over his St U (big merit scholarship) now that he realizes how much he loves his honors program.</p>
<p>when oldest d went through the college search process, we noticed that the private colleges, most definitely, emphasized that she would graduate in 4 years PERIOD. at one public we visited, the admissions rep admitted that there was an increase in students not graduating in 4 years. at that same college, we spoke with a department chair who seemed critical about the cuts in state funding and indicated that not only did it contribute to increased class sizes but that some classes could not be offered as often as before. </p>
<p>this would appear to be a contributing factor in students not being able to get their required classes in during the 4 years and having to stay over 4 years to complete their degree. </p>
<p>what will be the impact on the publics in coming years if there are budget cuts due to decreased state funding ? where do they make the cuts ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The gap in educational quality between fine privates and St Universities is much less than it was 20 years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some people have said the contrary in this very thread. (Personally, I would have to get to the level of detail of defining "educational quality" and naming the specific colleges before I could express an opinion on this issue.) When money is scarce, state budgets become tight too. What are the state colleges in your state saying about whether their level of funding from the state legislature is adequate?</p>
<p>The quality issue is interesting because different people have differing opinions on what quality is. If it is the level of difficulty, then the state universities have a hard problem. The capabilities of students are generally not at the level of the best privates so what do you do? Fail large numbers of students? There are state universities that do just that. If you can't keep up, then you fail the class.</p>
<p>I'm sure that there are some that do grade inflation or come up with other ways for students to pass courses. It can be up to the students to find the professors with the toughest and most rigorous courses to get the best education possible at a state university.</p>
<p>Others consider the amount of personal time available with professors to be the mark of quality. Or the opportunities for research. Or the amount of tutoring available. Or lab resources. Or how understandable professors are.</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The gap in educational quality between fine privates and St Universities is much less than it was 20 years ago. <<<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Token: >>Some people have said the contrary in this very thread. (Personally, I would have to get to the level of detail of defining "educational quality" and naming the specific colleges before I could express an opinion on this issue.) <<<</p>
<p>I completely agree. Just like there are "top tier" privates and publics there are "lower tier" privates and publics as well. </p>
<p>The "top tier" publics - because they are typically very large schools - sometimes have to accept some students that a "top tier" private would not, but that doesn't mean that the quality of education suffers because of that.</p>
<p>toneranger >> Unfortunately, I think there ARE kids who get merit scholarships who did NOT work very hard. <<<</p>
<p>That may happen ... but I think that is more the exception and certainly not the rule. </p>
<p>For any top student - even those who don't need to study much - to get the high GPA, he/she must do the assignments/essays/projects, do them well (follow the rubrics), and turn them in on time. </p>
<p>Some of these students have been blessed with great memories, and they use those memories by paying attention in class - so studying isn't that necessary. Of course, these same students must do some studying if their tests and/or class discussions involve information that was not presented in class (and could only be learned by reading their textbooks or assigned readings.)</p>
<p>It seems that you are almost implying that many students get merit scholarships, but don't work very hard (otherwise why bother to make such a statement if you think it is a rarity). At my children's high school, I am very much aware of who has received merit scholarships (the principal lists their names and their scholarship amounts in his monthly newsletter). I can tell you that those are the hard-working students. Those are the ones who write the superb essays, the ones who take the hardest curriculum that the school offers, the ones who take hard classes as "electives" - these kids aren't "slackers." </p>
<p>Yes, there was one top student (a girl) who liked to project the image that she "never had to study." She was able to project this image because she never carried a backpack and never brought any books home. Well... her mom confided in me that the reason that her daughter never had to carry any books home was because her parents had purchased a second set of textbooks for her home use. My point is that some "smart kids" like to pretend that they don't "have to study" because they think that "removes" the "nerd status" that would get applied to them. They want others to think that instead of studying, they're out having fun like everyone else. When in reality, they are working hard behind closed doors.</p>
<p>"My point is that some "smart kids" like to pretend that they don't "have to study" because they think that "removes" the "nerd status" that would get applied to them. They want others to think that instead of studying, they're out having fun like everyone else. When in reality, they are working hard behind closed doors."</p>
<p>Yes, I even saw that as a college prof. A star student in my department was a handsome guy who was always joking around in class. He told me that when students asked about his grades, he'd always deliberately look disappointed, and would let his expression be his answer, even though he was getting straight "As" and winning national awards in journalism.</p>
<p>He was an excellent writer, who also spent lots of time rewriting his work, but never let his peers know how hard he worked.</p>
<p>He wanted to be accepted by others, so did his best to look like a slacker, and refused to follow my request that he speak up intelligently in class, and let others know that he was working hard out of class. He wanted to keep being regarded as a "cool" guy by his peers.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, however, both sons got merit awards from colleges even though their grades were mediocre. That's because both sons devoted their time to ECs, and had made some impressive achievements in those ECs. In both cases, the ECs were done outside of school, so it's possible that many of their peers didn't know about their accomplishments, which required sons to do much work independently. </p>
<p>Sad.</p>
<p>The Dean of Admissions at George Mason University wrote a good article about this today. His advice: It's not as bad as it seems. Don't Panic! Don’t</a> Panic! How the economy should impact your college search Not Your Average Admissions Blog “A Beneath the Surface Look At Everything College Admissions (with a few shameless plugs)”</p>
<h2>JL quote...>>> "My point is that some "smart kids" like to pretend that they don't "have to study" because they think that "removes" the "nerd status" that would get applied to them. They want others to think that instead of studying, they're out having fun like everyone else. When in reality, they are working hard behind closed doors."<<<</h2>
<p>Northstar quote...>>>>> Yes, I even saw that as a college prof. A star student in my department was a handsome guy who was always joking around in class. He told me that when students asked about his grades, he'd always deliberately look disappointed, and would let his expression be his answer, even though he was getting straight "As" and winning national awards in journalism.</p>
<p>He was an excellent writer, who also spent lots of time rewriting his work, but never let his peers know how hard he worked.</p>
<p>He wanted to be accepted by others, so did his best to look like a slacker, and refused to follow my request that he speak up intelligently in class, and let others know that he was working hard out of class. He wanted to keep being regarded as a "cool" guy by his peers.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, however, both sons got merit awards from colleges even though their grades were mediocre. That's because both sons devoted their time to ECs, and had made some impressive achievements in those ECs. In both cases, the ECs were done outside of school, so it's possible that many of their peers didn't know about their accomplishments, which required sons to do much work independently. </p>
<h2>Sad. <<<</h2>
<p>Yes!!! And I think the boys in this country are more likely to try to avoid the "nerd rap" by either hiding their academic success or by not even trying when they've been given the gifts to succeed!!! </p>
<p>One reason that I like honors programs at colleges is because virtually all the classmates are trying to do their best and are trying to get great scores.</p>
<p>JL50 - yes, there may be differences by region and by school... but I DO see kids who don't work hard getting merit scholarships. And it's not what I would call a rare thing. Perhaps our definition of working hard is different. I don't consider going to class and turning assignments in on time working hard. What I do see, as you mentioned, are kids with terrific memory skills and inborn smarts who breeze through when others are struggling. And ace tests without studying. Lucky dogs. I have people in my family who fit in this category.
Yeah, these same kids sometimes hit a wall when they go to college due to poor study skills. And some of them end up LOSING their merit money since many scholarships are tied to GPA. So, it all seems to balance out in the end.
I know it's lack of resources - but I just have a problem with those schools who go strictly by the numbers. Giving a national merit scholar a free ride is just ridiculous IMO - there are so many more deserving kids who may not be as good at "test taking." It's an easy way out...
But we digress from the topic...<br>
I continue to think that honors colleges are a good choice for certain students. And I give KUDOS to those colleges that make admissions decisions in a holistic manner.</p>
<p>toneranger: >>> I don't consider going to class and turning assignments in on time working hard. <<<</p>
<p>I think you may have misunderstood me. What I meant is that some of these "smart kids" who seem to breeze thru school are more likely to pay close attention in class, sit towards the front of class, ask questions when something isn't clear, take quality notes in class, keep their papers organized so that reviewing for midterms and finals is a breeze, and/or follow an assignment's rubrics to the "T" (so they don't lose easy points by having their margins wrong, citing their sources incorrectly, or some other minor flaw that results in an A paper becoming a B).</p>
<p>Often the difference between the "struggling B student" and the "breezing A student" isn't simply being "gifted". Oftentimes, the A student is better at organization, prioritizing, paying attention to detail, focusing in class, and not being afraid to ask a question when something isn't clearly stated. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that all the B students aren't "working hard." But, some may not be "working smart". Some may not have been taught the most efficient way to approach their homework, how to take proper notes, how to study, how to memorize, how to read for information, how to "stay on task," how to avoid distractions in class, etc.</p>
<p>toneranger: >>> And I give KUDOS to those colleges that make admissions decisions in a holistic manner. <<<</p>
<p>Yes that is nice. However, larger (especially state) universities don't have the time or resources to give a holistic review of each applicant when they are receiving thousands & thousands of applications and they must process them all in a timely manner. Also, some state legislatures may require a simple GPA and SAT/ACT formula so that silly games, nepotism, and other "back door approaches" don't infiltrate their systems.</p>
<p>Using a simple formula of GPA's and test scores may not always be the "fairest way," but when dealing with thousands of applicants, it may be the only financially feasible way.</p>
<p>BTW... I know that athletic admits are a totally different story. They often don't make the required stats, but allowances are made because of the "status" schools get (and sometimes money) for fielding quality teams.</p>
<p>jl50ish,</p>
<p>Evidently you are not familiar with U Cal admissions. And you might not have seen what U. Mich did before its supreme court problem. </p>
<p>Maybe you don't consider these places "larger"?</p>
<p>In fact, selective state universities have not been formula driven for a long time, if ever. Yes, grades and scores count for a lot at state U. Same as highly selective private u.</p>
<p>I think the real difference is between selective (i.e. those that turn away a good percentage of applicants) and non-selective institutions. The former look for the best. The latter look for those that can survive. </p>
<p>Most flagship state universities (maybe all?) are selective and look beyond grades.</p>
<p>jl50ish - sorry if I wasn't clear but I was specifically referring to honors colleges when I made the comment about holistic admissions.
There are certainly good flagships that don't offer holistic admissons (UTEXAS, PSU for example) and the reasons why differ.
But why not offer it for the smaller subset who aspire to the honors college? Why not make them apply to show interest? Why not go for more than GPA and SAT for this subset? Look at ECs. Look at leadership. Why not?
In the larger scheme of things, my biggest beef is with those schools that shower NMFs with money. Many do it so they can list how many NMFs they have. What a waste of money!<br>
And we will agree to disagree on the issue of merit money and whether or not it usually goes to kids who work hard. To me getting a high test score does not equal working hard. There are too many schools out there who dole out money to good test takers. My opinion.</p>
<p>Not sure about Texas, but PSU's Schreyers Honors College is highly holistic.</p>
<p>newmass >>> jl50ish,</p>
<p>Evidently you are not familiar with U Cal admissions. And you might not have seen what U. Mich did before its supreme court problem. </p>
<p>Maybe you don't consider these places "larger"?</p>
<p>In fact, selective state universities have not been formula driven for a long time, if ever. Yes, grades and scores count for a lot at state U. Same as highly selective private u.</p>
<p>I think the real difference is between selective (i.e. those that turn away a good percentage of applicants) and non-selective institutions. The former look for the best. The latter look for those that can survive. </p>
<p>Most flagship state universities (maybe all?) are selective and look beyond grades. <<<</p>
<hr>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>Not only am I familiar with the UC system, I'm a graduate of a UC school. Most of my siblings and relatives have gone to either UC's or Cal States (or both). I have nieces and nephews in the system now.</p>
<p>I realize that UC's "fool around" a bit with their "scoring process," but some students (it used to be the top 12.5% and I think it may now be the top 4%) are guaranteed admission simply by their GPAs in that specified list of classes. </p>
<p>However, even the UC's aren't able to really get away from using a "formula". That is why there is always so much controversy when each year the UC system complains that their enrollment of URMs isn't where they'd like it to be. If they were really allowed to ignore or minimize scores and GPAs and more strongly weigh other factors, they would be able to admit more URMs. They would love to be able to use more "subjective" scoring methods, but they can't. </p>
<p>BTW... Some TOP flagships look "beyond grades" (as much as their legislatures will let them), but many states' flagships do use formulas simply because there are too many applications to "wade through".</p>
<h2>toneranger >>> jl50ish - sorry if I wasn't clear but I was specifically referring to honors colleges when I made the comment about holistic admissions. <<<<</h2>
<p>Oh... I understand now. </p>
<p>Yes, there seems to be a "mix" when it comes to "holistic" vs. formula for admittance into honors programs. Some schools use one method, and some use the other.</p>
<p>My son's school does use GPAs and SAT/ACTs..... But... if you don't "make the grade" upon entrance, and you have a 3.3 GPA the first semester, then you can be admitted based on that one semester alone. I think that is a rather "fair" alternative. A student who might not "test" well, could purposely select their classes so that the "mix" isn't too hard so as to meet that 3.3 GPA requirement. </p>
<p>You may not like that either, but don't Honors programs that use "holistic methods" have a minimum GPA requirement in order to STAY in the honors program??? If so, then this isn't really all that different.</p>
<p>Thanks Yeoldstudent!</p>