<p>While true, not all kids do…especially those who are viable/aspiring to the respectable/elite colleges. </p>
<p>I am also not sure going to one’s local/regional colleges necessarily restricts one only to that particular region depending on the college and/or field. </p>
<p>Along with folks from its state of Ohio or Midwest, my LAC has large contingents of students from the NE, Mid-Atlantic, West Coast, and Chicago with reasonably strong alum networks in those areas to match. Many other colleges such as UWisc-Madison or Indiana U also have reasonably strong alum networks in other parts of the country. </p>
<p>For instance, UWisc-Madison has a strong alum following in the Bay and LA areas because so many Californian students go off to UWisc-Madison for excellent academic programs and change of scenery. They also have strong alum networks in the NYC area because so many NYC students whose parents are aware of the academic reputations and/or students desiring a change of scenery are encouraged to attend. </p>
<p>It was a defense of the NE kids, cobrat. That they can see more than HYP. Of course some go farther. Most? I don’t think so. The fact that many NE kids do apply to HYP can have many causes. And effects. I don’t think the middle of the Bell Curve is as fixated on HYP as just looking at the numbers applying there would seem to show.</p>
<p>As true as that might be, that represents an argument that is quite different from one about the selectivity of the schools. I have no idea how the markers of excellence looked like when the dinosaurs still roamed the earth, but my generation has been well aware that there is an entire world of academic excellence beyond HYPSM. In my old neck of the woods, people attending the honor colleges in Austin or College Station might not be “as” impressed with the Northeast scene, and for good reasons. Same thing for Rice! </p>
<p>But again, that does not change anything to the fact that the schools listed on top of that infamous USNews tend to have the highest statistics in terms of selectivity. Right or wrong, those schools do admit the best and brightest students in much larger numbers than the schools at the end of the first page. </p>
<p>But nothing says that among the several thousands colleges in the US, there are not hundreds of great choices for students culled from all ranges. </p>
<p>I agree it’s not most. Am concurring with your defense and also saying many NE kids aren’t nearly as provincial and narrow-minded about college choices/geographic locations as some forum members would have one believe. </p>
<p>“In each of the past four years, Stanford football has finished in the top 10 in the coaches’ poll and the AP poll, with the exception of finishing 11th in AP this year. Research by economists at Chicago and BYU has found that being ranked in the top 10 in the final AP poll is associated with an average increase of 6% - 8% in the number of students who send their SAT scores the following year.”</p>
<p>That makes perfect sense. My alma mater got an increase in applications about 15-20 years ago when the football team performed uncharacteristically well and got to a bowl game. Davidson got a bump a few years back when their basketball program did very well. And so on and so forth. Like it or not, sports success puts schools on the radar screen of Joe Q Public, which is why it’s amusing to suggest that a school’s rise among Joe Q Public is due to “recognition of its academic prestige.” Uh, no. Like it or not - and I don’t, but that’s neither here nor there - sports prowess is often the lead contributor to brand equity and recognition. </p>
<p>I liked apprenticeprof’s post about how the name/prestige of a college can make a difference. I’d like to add another one–I think real quality and prestige are part of a loop–real quality adds to prestige, but prestige adds to real quality. You can see this with colleges that took aggressive steps to get a stronger student body–as they did so, their prestige also increased. As their prestige increases, they can attract more strong students, and better faculty. I think this is what Wash U has successfully done, for example.</p>
<p>So the real trick is to pick a college that isn’t that prestigious now, but will be in 10 years. Then you’ll reap the benefit without having to fight so hard to get in.</p>
<p>Or, kind of like when my clients would want me to come up with a concept that was new, unique, never-tested and guaranteed not to fail in market :-)</p>
<p>FAU-Wilkes comes to mind (<a href=“Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_L._Wilkes_Honors_College</a>) …
but would I bet on it being “prestigious” in 10 years? Not really. When I was applying to colleges, the other Florida honors college (NCF) was still a private school. If I’d been willing to bet money that year on one college moving up in prestige, NCF probably would have been the one. Instead, within a few years it was teetering toward bankruptcy before being absorbed into the state university system.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, NCF was, and is, a fine college. In my opinion the real trick in picking fine, under-the-radar colleges is to forget about prestige altogether. For instance no LACs, not even A/W/S, command much nationwide let alone international name recognition. So if you like small colleges, you may have to forgo that ego-boost in exchange for a great fit and a great learning experience minus the single digit admit rates. A better feedback loop is to build a good reputation over 10 or 20 years among colleagues and friends (which you can do with or without a famous alma mater).</p>
<p>A better feedback loop is to build a good reputation over 10 or 20 years among colleagues and friends (which you can do with or without a famous alma mater).
Yup. And keep your eyes open to where your own influencers went. Not just the teeny pinnacle who went to Yale and ended up president or on SCOTUS- but the people who affected you and your own growth. There was an older thread that noted where many influential people got their degrees. The notion you only find movers and shakers, inventors, your own best doctors, etc, at elites-- well, sure, some of them. But their degrees are no guarantee you will benefit. </p>
<p>Where influential people our age attended school is not a reliable indicator of which schools are a good bet for this generation. In the 60’s and 70’s, students were far less likely to travel far from home for college, so there was probably less of an academic talent concentration in the top 30 or so schools. The Ivies were not financially accessible to the middle and lower classes as much as they are now, so the elite private schools were not even an option for most top students. There were also fewer international students competing for university spots and then for jobs in the US, and less globalization of the economy in general. Therefore, our parents didn’t have to worry if people in Texas or North Dakota or Singapore had ever heard of Slippery Rock State College in PA, because there was never going to be a need for them to interview in those places for a job. With so many acquisitions and mergers of companies, today’s student also has to worry about the reputation of his school in foreign countries, since one could be interviewed by employers born in China, Germany, Argentina, or Japan. </p>
<p>(Funny you mention Slippery Rock. It was in mind because one of my best teachers ever went there.)
Good point, btw. But still, unless Stanford increases its seats, not everyone will get a spot and they just naturally have to go elsewhere and make the most of it, continue toward their goals. And, the qualities that will make one able to successfully navigate the global scene will still be more than just where you go the degree. I worked for Chinese and Germans, had Japanese, Middle Eastern and other corporate clients. Granted, I’m not in my 20’s. But still, the quality of your actual work matters</p>
<p>"In the 60’s and 70’s, students were far less likely to travel far from home for college, so there was probably less of an academic talent concentration in the top 30 or so schools. "</p>
<p>While I believe this to be true, I wonder if it’s true if you control for socioeconomic status. For example, I went to a public high school in an affluent suburb of St. Louis and “our” kids went all over - for the kids who were so inclined, no one thought twice about hopping a plane to go to MIT or Stanford or what-have-you. My kids’ high school was relatively less affluent / more mixed, and even though it was 30 years later, had much more of a stay-in-the-state mentality. I wonder are there any statistics on this - what % of students now travel more than X miles to go to school now versus in the past? Just curious.</p>
<p>Another thing to consider is that up until the mid-'60s, most high school graduates didn’t go off to college as a high school diploma was considered good enough for many middle class jobs. </p>
<p>Also in that period, the Ivies and many other private colleges were shut to various groups on SES, ethnic, religious, and other grounds. </p>
<p>Consequently, parts of the landscape of what was considered an elite college was very different. For instance, up until the mid-'60s, many older NYC area residents felt the smartest kids in their classes went off to CUNY/CCNY or the Federal Service Academies whereas the Ivies and many elite private colleges were perceived as “for the rich kids.” </p>
<p>I believe that some of your older NYC friends went off to CUNY/CCNY because that’s what was feasible and affordable and a good value for the money, and that the Ivies were perceived as intimidating and for rich kids. I don’t believe they then thought of CUNY/CCNY as “elite colleges,” though. “Wise choice for me and my situation” and “elite college” are two different things.</p>
<p>No. Folks that age stayed in the city because the Ivies had soft limits on the number of Jews they’d take. It kept a lot of great students in that system and it WAS elite in its upper tier.</p>
<p>Actually, they did…which shows you know nothing about the higher education landscape I’m referencing…or the fact CUNY/CCNY was held in such high esteem by NYC area locals and employers before the late '60s and admission difficulty and anxiety was similar to how we currently feel about the top elite universities nowadays. </p>
<p>It’s one reason why many older New Yorkers of that generation and those of us with the same clue laugh when MSM reporters without a clue use General Colin Powell as an example of someone who “settled” by going to CCNY rather than NYU in the '50s. </p>
<p>If they had bothered to do research into the higher education landscape of the '50s, they would have understood that it wasn’t only because it was far cheaper*…but also because CCNY was considered a far superior academic institution at the time. Back then, NYU was a safety for those who didn’t qualify for admission into CCNY/CUNY schools as several neighbors over the years who were NYU alums from the '50s would have no problems admitting. </p>
<ul>
<li>It was free for city residents until 1975.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>There was a time when CUNY had an edge that attracted many kids. Just don’t know if we can compare “then” to now. Nor that any one set of impressions holds for all or for many or for things today.</p>
<p>For the record, nine CCNY alumni have won Nobel Prizes (Julius Axelrod, Kenneth Arrow, Robert Aumann, Herbert Hauptman, Robert Hofstadter, Jerome Karle, Arthur Kornberg, Leon M. Lederman, and Arno Penzias). </p>