I think this thread is one of those with an obvious answer. Yes, top schools are full of top students. And the fact that they are obviously translates to teaching to their students’ abilities.
But, it is equally true that lots of top-talented kids cannot afford to attend top schools. Finances are a filter, regardless of ability. Those students are found on campuses everywhere. They stratify on campuses by major/organizations/specialized programs, etc.
My kids have only attend non-selective colleges and I think amg them, the total number of MC tests can be counted on one hand. (4 universities in 3 different states.) They have had seminar classes, essays with thorough critiquing, and classes where the textbook is only a portion of the total course content. And, yes, classes which demand high levels of critical thinking (I am trying to picture sr level chemE classes or physics classes which are educational jell-o. ) Different than at a highly selective school? Yes. Academically deficient? No, not if work experience validates educational background.
If you look though the list of Goldwater Scholars (just one award I happen to be familiar with), yes, students from top schools abound. You also see students from flagships. But, then you also see students from directional/regional schools. https://goldwater.scholarsapply.org/sch-2015.php Those students didn’t receive those awards for sitting in a classroom regurgitating their textbook on MC tests. Professors took interest in those students and worked with them.
Maybe a better question rather than one with an obvious yes for the answer is “are the elites the only path to a highly challenging and successful educational outcome?”
@Mom2aphysicsgeek "Maybe a better question rather than one with an obvious yes for the answer is “are the elites the only path to a highly challenging and successful educational outcome?”
Clearly you can get a great education at a less selective school, especially with a little effort and initiative.
Plus, the whole selective vs. non-selective is a false choice. It is much more of a continuum than a dichotomy. For most people, Penn State or Michigan State are selective schools. Only on cc: are they not very selective.
I looked at the list for Georgia and one of the winners was from a community college. I was surprised I didn’t see Emory University on there, either. Just two UGA and 1 GA State, and the community college.
@Much2learn : Excellent point about non-econ and business majors going to wallstreet…It has been cited and discussed a lot, namely how many Stanford and MIT (usually many don’t think of these two as similar, but the STEM scene at Stanford is much more comparable to MIT’s than other schools in its tier) grads from STEM backgrounds go to Wall Street…
@Much2learn : Excellent point about non-econ and business majors going to wallstreet…It has been cited and discussed a lot, namely how many Stanford and MIT (usually many don’t think of these two as similar, but the STEM scene at Stanford is much more comparable to MIT’s than other schools in its tier) grads from STEM backgrounds go to Wall Street…
@Mom2aphysicsgeek : That student is an example of top talent being underserved in the math department maybe until this year (there is now an honors linear algebra and Vector calculus course for freshmen, and many of the scholars and debate students are in it. It is essentially three intermediate math classes spread over 2 semesters). The student was taking graduate courses by sophomore year. What does this say about the level of the UG math curriculum vs. top talent at the school. This isn’t the first something like this has happened. But glad y’all brought up the Goldwater. Interestingly, Emory used perform much better in that category, producing two a year for several consecutive years in one period of time in the 2000s. That has tapered off (though a friend of mine from Boston…gasp! Somehow managed to get an honorable mention. That is quite an accomplishment because there is a lot of serious competition in that town and likely the district she was in) and Fulbright has been doing well…No Rhodes, but no surprise because I think having D-1 athletes can be advantageous because I believe strong athletes with great grades and accomplishments get a leg up in that one. There is currently an applied physics major training for olympic trials…perhaps they should consider applying for Rhodes or maybe even Gates-Cambridge if they are interested. I had an applied physics/math major friend who was a really good tennis player who made it through most interview rounds of Rhodes, so who knows?
Also:@MotherofDragons: If only looking at those who are from certain stats…I would expect Tech to be represented at least once as tons of its students are from Georgia, but often for national scholarships, you pay the price when you have majors with many classes that grade on stringent curves…Unless you’re truly epic (and those people exist at Emory, Tech, and all those schools you listed that were successful. Unfortunately, at places like Emory, these people are often from other states…It is hard to produce lots of them when many students come from large metropolitan areas and suburbs that send tons of people to other elite schools…chances for GW are higher in areas with less “competition” so to speak. If you are from a large district in a large metro area and win or even get honorable mention, your record and proposal must have been absolutely stellar), it is something difficult to get past.
Only student can make the course better or worse for herself / himself.
It is practically irrelevant where student is taking the class. It is somewhat important who is lecturing though. In many lower ranked colleges, profs are teaching and not TA’s. My D. compared her UG experience at in-state public with her friend’s UG experience at private UG, not considered to be elite, but regarded to be a good place for pre-meds (both were pre-meds). At D’s in-state public no lectures are given by TA’s, only profs and one class had 3 profs being there at every lecture each teaching his own sub-specialty of this class. D’s friend at private UG had many lectures taught by TA’s. So, you make your own conclusion. Both my D. and her friend graduated Summa Cum Laude and graduated from Med. Schools later. I believe that their education was very comparable, both made sure that they did the best in every single class. Just as simple as that!
One can chase the Harvard name and their is nothing wrong with that. But do not say that the top kid will not get a great education at in-state public, as my D. commented: “I will do fine anywhere” and she did absolutely fine along with many other top caliber students around her, most of who are MDs now.
Most of the posts in this thread support a position that being in the Honors College or Honors Program at a large public or less-selective private can be the best compromise between affordability and quality educational experience. Including smaller classes, more faculty interaction, enhanced internship and research opportunities, and being surrounded by very bright students. That’s where we are parked.
Engineering or the sciences MIGHT be an exception, I’m not certain across the board. It probably matters less if grad school in the engineering/scientific/medical specialty isn’t in the immediate plan.
We saw a post during the summer that (I’m probably paraphrasing a little) “the Honors Program at [College X who offers full OOS tuition based on high stats] is full of students who were eligible for Top 20 schools but simply needed to spend less.” It was a huge Eureka moment for us and really shaped the development of D’s list. Which, just to clarify, doesn’t happen to include that particular College X.
) Different than at a highly selective school? Yes. Academically deficient? No, not if work experience validates educational background.