<p>The only difference I have seen in getting degrees from both a directional state and a top 2 (in its field of study, top 10-20 overall) school was (a) the quality of the BAD students was top notch at the better school (good students are good regardless) and (b) the top schools tended to have more brand name professors, which on some instances attracted more $, i.e. funding, i.e. opportunities and (c) there was a good chance that the better school would have more equipment / facilities / etc.</p>
<p>But one can’t judge a program by faculty that may not be teaching much due to research loads, or by decked out facilities that won’t help much either…</p>
<p>I think you have to know your child – know where they will be challenged (but not overwhelmed), stimulated by their peer group (but not devolving into partying all the time). One kid may thrive at a state school, another may not be challenged enough. </p>
<p>I also think when they’re younger, private school may make a huge difference for one child, but not for another. I think if you could potentially find a separate unique educational program for each child – one @ public, one @ private, one home schooled.</p>
<p>“Over the past 30 years, research on how college impacts student development has continually pointed to the peer group as perhaps the dominant change agent during the college years (Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). A college student’s peers act as a reference group, or an environmental source of sociocultural norms in the midst of which a student grows and develops (Clark & Trow, 1966). A large body of empirical evidence has been collected over the years to support this conclusion (Astin, 1977, 1993a; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).”</p>
<p>“The influence of friendship groups on intellectual self-confidence and educational aspirations in college.” *Journal of Higher Education, July 1, 2004</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go that far considering the many examples of objectively bad students(lazy, entitled, bullying to Prof/TA) I’ve witnessed and heard about from Prof/TA friends at various elite universities…including the vaunted Ivies. </p>
<p>Instead, what I would argue is that the proportion of such students is palpably less than what you’d encounter at lower-tiered institutions. In other words, there’s a greater critical mass of highly motivated high achieving students to serve as good examples and to inspire a given student to greater efforts if he/she is so inclined.</p>
<p>“the quality of the BAD students was top notch at the better school (good students are good regardless)”</p>
<p>Amen. This is what it’s all about for me.</p>
<p>I took an English class with mostly freshman classmates during my first semester at my first college and again during my first semester at Harvard. Both instructors were superb. In both classes, students exchanged and discussed weekly reaction papers. At the first college, this was a tiresome exercise in copy editing. At Harvard, week after week, no matter who was sitting next to me, my classmate’s paper was not just well written, but shed light on something in the text I’d failed to notice. Yes, this inspired me to improve my writing, but more importantly, I was learning material directly from my classmates. I got so much more value out of the class because of my classmates’ consistent level of skill.</p>
This discussion is number 5,000 in a series on CC, but I’ll weigh in anyway. The statement above is true to an extent–but only to the extent the schools you are comparing are reasonably comparable in academic rigor. The kid who wants to go to the University of Georgia instead of a more selective school can certainly get a high-quality education. He will have to sacrifice some of the things he would get at a more selective school, but if he is motivated, he will get a great education. But what if he goes to a college where the typical SAT is not in the 600s, but in the 500s? He isn’t going to find many classes at all taught at the level that would challenge him. In order to get the excellent education he needs, he will have to find some way to get extra education outside his classes.
So while it would be nice to think you can get the educaton you want anywhere, you really can’t.</p>
Which college was this? Maybe it’s true at some places, but didn’t you transfer out of Bryn Mawr or some such institution? Not sure when you attended, but back in the day I believe Bryn Mawr’s SAT scores rivaled the top colleges in the country, so it’s hard to believe your freshman English class was full of illiterates. Or are you talking about another school.</p>
<p>To go to my previous example, it’s easier to earn an A at SFA than an UT. At other schools, for instance, a semester course is split into two semesters, to make the material easier to manage. It’s like the difference between AB and BC Calculus – BC does everything AB does, but at a faster pace and covering more material. The students in BC tend to be stronger mathematically than the students in AB.</p>
<p>I am reminded of a proverb told to me by a Jewish friend, “Better to be the tail of the lion than the head of the fox”. I looked it up and found this interesting interpretation:</p>
<p>I attended UIUC in the 80’s. A fine campus with many top notch students and many many not so top notch students. Most were drawn from small farm towns in the central and southern part of the state and the suburbs of Chicago. I had an outstanding education, but my intellectual growth did not take place until graduate school. Perhaps I didn’t join the right clubs or take the right classes, but it is very difficult to find your soul mates in a crowd of 30,000 people. Social activities centered around bar hopping, frat parties and dorm functions. </p>
<p>Just as it is best to purchase the smallest house you can afford in the best neighborhood, it is best to send your kid to the most selective school they qualify to attend.</p>
<p>While I’m inclined to agree with you personally, this is not necessarily universal. Some people actually do benefit from being the big fish in a small pond just as much as some kids prefer being one of many small fish in a gigantic ocean.</p>
<p>I agree. I had an outstanding education but little intellectual growth as an undergraduate at Northwestern University. My intellectual growth came in grad school.</p>
<p>Yes, it was Bryn Mawr, and if you want me to go into greater detail about the mess I saw in those papers week after week, I can. Their SAT scores may have been OK, but for the most part, they were crummy writers. They had to be prodded into talking in class, too. The content of The College News (the BMC paper not shared with Haverford) was consistent with my experience in the class, but they don’t seem to have a web site, so I can’t link to issues from the mid-90s to illustrate my point. I don’t doubt that those freshmen in my English class graduated from BMC good writers, but they didn’t start out that way. At Harvard, they did. (Both of the courses I’m talking about were for students not majoring in English.)</p>
<p>This was 15 years ago and one person’s experience, but that experience is that there was a marked difference in the range of readiness among the freshmen. I agree with turbo that the top students are top everywhere.</p>
<p>For those who don’t remember Belkin’s “Opt-Out Revolution” piece: it was a 2003 article in the NYT where she examined the trend of women educated at elite colleges who left high-powered and/or fast track careers to stay home with their children. It generated, to put it mildly, a great deal of discussion. Belkin herself attended Princeton.</p>
<p>So it’s fascinating to see how her life since that point–raising two boys, who (as she’s written about) are more type “B” than are their parents–has influenced her opinions and writing. </p>
<p>The author of the initial WaPo piece that Belkin comments on doesn’t say that it’s “BAD parenting to push your child to do their best, and aim high”. Just that it’s a bad idea to make getting in to one of a handful of colleges the alpha and omega of everything, regardless of the child’s talents, interests, and capabilities.</p>
<p>Your experience at Bryn Mawr matched my experience at Northwestern. I just never saw any of these ‘magical’ and ‘intellectual’ discussions happen even in smaller seminars. Most of us had to be prodded to speak up, the same couple of people spoke in every class.</p>
<p>Again, just one person’s opinion from years ago. Perhaps it has changed.</p>
<p>My three attended three distinctly different schools but each found their respective intellectual and social peer groups (not necessarily the same for each). Each spent time with others who motivated them, challenged them, entertained them, etc. Some of these were borne from very unexpected, even improbable circumstances which only added to the excitement and wonderment of their experiences. </p>
<p>My point is there are a lot of variables at play and the interactions students may or may not encounter at one school verses another are largely unknowable. The whole experience is so much more about the student’s personal qualities, character, and resourcefulness than the ethereal reputation of a specific institution.</p>
<p>So Bryn Mawr, ranked 25 (LAC), and Northwestern, ranked 12 (uni), are basically just “Good Enough” Colleges. Or at least they were merely adequate schools back in the day. Man, it really is tough out there.</p>
<p>Of course, I guess everyone’s experience varies, regardless of the school.</p>
<p>People, every college has kids majoring in beer pong and partying. Every college.</p>
<p>The point is not to draw a line somewhere and arbitrarily decide, “These are the colleges where Kant and Hegel are breakfast discussion, and these are the colleges where Lady Gaga and Katy Perry are considered pundits”.</p>
<p>I always find Belkin’s tone so annoying-- like she’s the first person to ever try to be a good parent to the kids she’s got, rather than hang onto some fantasy about parenting. But her message is a good one even if it doesn’t fit all kids all the time.</p>
<p>I don’t think an intellectually oriented “life of the mind” kind of kid is going to find his or her people at every single college in America. I know enough faculty people at all sorts of places (including several vocationally oriented state colleges and CC’s) to realize that some institutions are set up to get students a degree which leads to a job, intellectual enquiry be damned. And it’s foolish to pretend that a kid who wants to major in Classics or Philosophy is going to find their academic niche in every college in the country.</p>
<p>But for every parent out there who thinks their kid is doomed if they don’t get into Harvard or Yale, there are dozens of colleges where their kid could get a wonderful and fine education.</p>
<p>So balance is important. Knowing your kid is important. Knowing what you can afford is important. Understanding how your kid is going to take advantage of opportunities (or not) is important. Etc.</p>
<p>I originally liked this piece because I get so tired of the “brand name” discussions I hear here and IRL. And like I said, my district does not routinely send kids to Ivies nor to lots of top 25 schools (whatever that means ). I cannot imagine what it is like in an adjacent suburb where many many kids compete and get into these types of schools.</p>
<p>I do think there are many schools where one can get a great education. And I do believe that for most people, their initiative and personality skills, and work ethic will end up being more of a factor in their success or happiness, than where they went to school.</p>
<p>I do believe that because I am not a super extrovert, nor do I have the ability to schmooze and advance myself politically, I did get a better start in my career due to the college I attended. And the connections I made there have been very valuable over the years.</p>
<p>But 20-30 years ago, admissions decisions and processes were not nearly as cumbersome as they are today. Next year when my S will be applying, I hope to rachet things down a notch and help him find the best place FOR HIM, and not make the next 18 months even more of a pressure cooker for him and us.</p>
Yeah, but at some colleges it’s not an official major.</p>
<p>Actually, I agree with what you said. Balance is key. But I think that while it’s a mistake to think that only Harvard will do, it’s also a mistake to think that it’s a waste of money to send a smart kid to a challenging school.</p>
<p>FWIW, I think there’s a bit of a Catch-22 situation here. Different colleges provide different resources and different outcomes; I think that’s pretty clear. The problem is that most high school kids don’t really know what kind of outcomes they want, and they need the college experience to figure that out.</p>
<p>There’s a silver lining, though. At least for the demographics on this forum, there are almost always some affordable and high-quality options available. A well-rounded, reputable institution on the level of a good state flagship offers “good enough” resources and outcomes for the overwhelming majority of possible student needs.</p>
Belkin herself attended Princeton.</p>