The Ivy League has done a great job, but there is great quality around the country

<p>Hawkette, it doesn't matter whether I have other objective data or not. As soon as you decide which objective data to use, the process isn't objective anyway.</p>

<p>Hawkette, you use SAT scores to make your points over and over again. Actually, average SAT scores. </p>

<p>If we can't measure the quality of a school objectively, it doesn't matter whether you use objective data or not. </p>

<p>Objective data can be very overrated anyway.</p>

<p>You didn't answer my question. I don't see what the problem is, it's objective. I'm sure you can answer it.</p>

<p>Two people invest the same amount of money over a 10 year period. One makes an average of 10% a year. The other makes an average of 20% a year. </p>

<p>Who made more money?</p>

<p>Tarhunt, I know all about objective data. </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Let's summarize the thread into points we can all agree on. </p>

<ol>
<li>The Ivies are great schools.</li>
<li>Other great schools exist. </li>
<li>Many students apply to Ivies because they're Ivies (read the WAMC threads).</li>
<li>You can be a happy success or a depressed failure regardless of which school you attended. </li>
<li>Schools can have great student bodies with or without test scores.</li>
</ol>

<p>I think that sums it up.</p>

<p>Hawkette: You misunderstand me. I never said that the students who go to the elite prep schools that you mentioned would not prefer to go to an ivy,or the other handful that you refer to. Many would prefer to remain closer to home, within the bounds of the Northeast, and eliminate other parts of the country because of this preference. What I said was that the aforementioned schools would be a preference, but that there are kids who do, in fact attend Rice, Notre Dame, etc. Of course, they do. </p>

<p>Graduating classes in NY prep schools are rather small, so it would not be unusual for only two or three kids to be going off to a particular college (I understand that "rather small" is a relative term, dependent on where one comes from, around the country. My frame of reference: I graduated from a public high school in NYC with 2,000 other seniors. It is not uncommon to find graduating classes of 600-1500, with 600 being small. Prep schools generally graduate no more than 100 students, give or take). Also, many of these prep schools are very impressive, with impressive kids, hence the larger numbers accepted by the top elites, which happen to be within no more than 4 hours of NY. </p>

<p>How do I know this? I am the mother of prep school children. And you came up with your conclusions, how? By reading, of course, and therfore, you are not able to put the numbers you see on paper, into the proper perspective. That is why knowing one's background is so important to others' understanding of a particular point of view.</p>

<p>The point that I continue to make is that we, in the NE...including the obvious states besides NY, and probably to include much of Maryland, are very well aware of all of the options. You are way off the mark when you make comments about the provinciality of Northeasterners. The comment is downright foolish. Do not assume that your own experiences reflect the experiences of the rest of the country. I do not speak for you, and what you know, based on what you see in your own life. I certainly accept what you say to be true, in your world. But don't tell me that you know what really goes on all over the country. You certainly do not understand the mindset in this part of the country. Absolutely not.</p>

<p>Hawkette: When have I said that ..."other non-northeastern colleges are (not) equally as worthy" ??? I am the one who advocates students choosing what fits them best, in terms of their academic ability and their happiness...exactly what I encouraged my children to do.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Tarhunt, I know all about objective data. </p>

<p>Thanks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No you don't. You prove over and over again that you don't understand the concept. Here's an example.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As soon as you decide which objective data to use, the process isn't objective anyway.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK. So I do a multivariate analysis of the relationship of certain factors to human weight. From that analysis, I find that certain factors are closely related to weight, such as shoe size, height, belt size, shoulder width, etc. I find that other factors have no relationship, such as clothing material, hair color, etc. When I regress, I find that I get an r squared of .98 if I consider relevant factors. That means that, given those factors, I can predict an individual's weight to within certain tolerances and within well-established levesl of confidence by knowing those factors.</p>

<p>What YOU'RE saying is that, if I choose relevant factors and exclude irrelevant factors, the numbers aren't objective because I CHOSE what factors to include? Really? Can you give me a proof of that. Please do so in mathematical terms.</p>

<p>Now, here's the thing. We have no agreed-upon benchmark for school quality, so we can't regress against those benchmarks. So, we make assumptions about what school quality might be, and what sorts of factors we might find that have a relationship to that definition. Some of those factors can usually be measured objectively, and those objective measurements are very useful WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE DEFINITION.</p>

<p>Most businesses work this way because of the impossibililty of nailing perfect definitions and measures in chaotic systems.</p>

<p>I think I'm going to start calling you Captain Obvious. You make pretensions about being a mathematical wizard and, yet, most things you say have been clear to other posters on this board since, oh, about the 5th grade.</p>

<p>Tarhunt, that is not what I am saying. </p>

<p>"OK. So I do a multivariate analysis of the relationship of certain factors to human weight. From that analysis, I find that certain factors are closely related to weight, such as shoe size, height, belt size, shoulder width, etc. I find that other factors have no relationship, such as clothing material, hair color, etc. When I regress, I find that I get an r squared of .98 if I consider relevant factors. That means that, given those factors, I can predict an individual's weight to within certain tolerances and within well-established levesl of confidence by knowing those factors."</p>

<p>Those things you mention in the above paragraph are facts that can be measured.</p>

<p>You can form strong opinions about the validity of SAT scores, but they are not the same as measuring a person's height.
A person who is 5' 9" is taller than a person who is 5'8". That's a fact.
A person with an SAT score of 2100 compared to a person with a score of 2020 is what?</p>

<p>I prefer Feynman's take on measuring the social sciences.
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=9CaL5NslOxE%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://youtube.com/watch?v=9CaL5NslOxE&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>warblersrule
I think you captured the gist of the discussion. Brands have great power in our society, but they sometimes obscure the real underlying value of a product or that of a competitive product. Such is the case with colleges. We may not uncover any absolute truths (too ambitious an objective IMO and different colleges serve different needs), but this might open some minds to the quality of products outside of the conventional wisdom. </p>

<p>dstark,
Ok, I'll play along as I am curious to see how you use this to try to unravel my and a college's use of standardized test data. I choose the 20% a year. </p>

<p>tarhunt,
I agree with your thoughts on the measurement of variables related to the college experience. I think that you and I would agree that the key metrics originate from the following guidelines for determining the quality of an undergraduate experience:</p>

<ol>
<li> Quality of students that you attend with.</li>
<li> Size and nature of the classroom in which you are learning</li>
<li> Quality and nature of the instruction being provided</li>
<li> Sufficient resources to fund the mission of the college and a willingness to spend those resources to support UNDERGRADUATE students.</li>
</ol>

<p>Several of these are measurable to some degree although the faculty teaching judgment and the willingness of an institution to spend resources are pretty tough to evaluate. </p>

<p>Beyond this is the issue of fit which I consider the most important, but I believe that it often gets overshadowed or compromised by the prestige issues. For example and as was earlier stated, there probably aren't many students looking at both USC and Cornell. Different schools, different environments, but are they qualitatively and quantitatively different? I would expect Ivy defenders to strongly assert the superiority of Cornell, but a more detached evaluation might lead to a different (and IMO more accurate) conclusion. These schools aren't meaningfully different in terms of the quality of the students that attend and the size/type of classroom experience that they enjoy. I don't think we have the data on the quality of classroom instruction. Same with the willingness of the college administration's to spend on undergraduates, but I do think that it would be fair to say that Cornell has substantially more resources per capita.</p>

<p>The measure of worth is NOT just an SAT score which students obtained in High School. I would never denigrate the quality of education, particularly without first hand information, of another college or university...including the Ivy League....but what gripes me about the Ivy is this notion of noblesse oblige and their assumption because they attract and retain the creme de la creme of students with exceptional SAT scores they are apriori a better school. I will tell you this much. I have met a number of Harvard graduates in my life, including ONE college admissions officer at another institution, and some of them were less than positive about many of their experiences. Not to pick on Harvard but just saying that HIGH SAT's does not necessarily equate to a better school for EVERY student. </p>

<p>Who is to say that even a school which admits students with modest SAT scores is not a "better school' for those kids and a superb well regarded community citizen which produces quality graduates each year who enter the workforce and adult world with great skills, deep knowledge, high integrity and a zeal for learning...that such school has done a superb job of taking average or slightly above average kids and making them into great people....even some super stars in the making?</p>

<p>If someone gets into an Ivy, I congratulate them and wish them very well and every happiness and success in life. But I also think to myself that they will be expected to be superstars for the rest of their life because of that pedigree and for some that is a heavy burden to carry. I have as much admiration for a university or college that does a great job of graduating students who will become excellent citizens, parents, mentors and counselors to others and not spend the rest of their life walking around feeling better than everyone else.</p>

<p>I also think that some kids are better off at lower ranking undergraduate schools, particularly liberal arts colleges and then going to Ivy League schools for graduate and professional schools.</p>

<p>But it nauseates me to see people saying essentially, "my school is better than yours because we have better SAT scores than you." Its not just Ivy League schools that are guilty of that either.</p>

<p>In a hiring mode, I would MUCH prefer a genuinely humble but ambitious person, who has unimpeachable integrity, who has worked hard and done great things with the gifts that God gave them, particularly if they dont come from privilege. Not to say kids like that dont exist at Ivy League Schools as they have done a much better job of reaching out to underprivileged kids and to kids outside the northeastern prep schools the last 40 years or so. But if someone came in an interview and started quoting their SAT score and exuding an attitude of entitlement because they went to an Ivy League School, I would immediately show them the door. Ditto if they went somewhere else.</p>

<p>Credentialism and elitism exists in society because there are many credentialists and elitists at the top of the heap. That is unfortunate in my view. Narrow minded and superficial. Not to say a company (or hiring manager) should not pick the best qualified person....and from a pool of college graduates that person may or may not be an Ivy League graduate. They may have gone to Middlebury, or Wesleyan, or Duke or Florida State.</p>

<p>I am always, WITHOUT exception, full of joy and best wishes for people who work really hard, keep their nose to the grindstone and truly deserve the best that life has to offer....and then get rewarded for it....perhaps with an Ivy League acceptance letter. More so if they DONT come from privilege, but from a background where they had to make their own success happen without the benefit of rich parents and pampered privilege. If someone happens to have a well to do family, but is also hard working, humble, honest and considerate...never arrogant or condescending, then I am also delighted for them and offer my heartfelt congratulations. </p>

<p>But suggesting that SAT scores is the measure of what is a better or best school is nonsense in my view.</p>

<p>I went to an above average, though not elite private college. I had kids in my classes and professors there who were positively brilliant....and didnt have perfect SAT scores either. One of them became a Rhodes Scholar. There were several Fulbright Scholars in that class. I love to sit down with people who went to different colleges and have discussions about their experiences and exchange anecdotes and laughter. But enter that discussion with SAT scores and a notion of "my school is better than yours" and the discussion quickly ends.</p>

<p>If I had the stats or my kids had the stats and if we had sufficient financial aid or scholarships to attend an Ivy School would we pass it up? Likely not....but it would all depend on many factors, fit (warm and fuzzy feelings, that welcoming feeling, are people like me feeling, smiling faces, helpful atmosphere and not cut throat, etc.) etc.</p>

<p>Its true that Ivy kids generally....indeed 98% of them, have extremely high SAT scores and gpa's. Good for them! Well done! But there are hundreds...even thousands of kids with similar scores at OTHER colleges around the country. I know a small off the beaten path private college in the south. The administrators there told me that they had more than 25 kids in their incoming class (attending freshmen) who scored above 1425 on the SAT. Obviously they wanted to go there. Will they get an inferior education there? I hardly think so.</p>

<p>To me, in a perfect world, people of vastly different educational backgrounds and scores would go to college spread out all over the place and we wouldnt see a hoarding, so to speak, of the best and brightest at the elite schools. Why? Because the richness of a college learning experience in the classroom and all over campus is from talking with and working with people of different perspectives. Of course, that is not reality. No, I am not a socialist. Not by a long stretch. I am not a bleeding heart liberal either. I just have issues with elitists.</p>

<p>My diatribe is over now. Thanks for listening.</p>

<p>mrsopresident: "Also consider that, if your looking for "diversity," Cornell is way more diverse than USC. USC is 99.2 percent Caucasian and 0.8 percent Native American (for undergraduate only). While I don't have the complete number for Cornell undergrad, I can assure you that its wayyy more diverse (Cornell generally having about 5% black enrollment, 6% Hispanic enrollment, and an even higher Asian enrollment). While not "perfect," its more diverse than USC!"</p>

<p>99.2% caucasian?!? Where on earth did you get those numbers?!? I'm sorry, but that's just not true and WAY OFF. Take a look around USC (and according to USC's official numbers), and you will realize it's really more like :</p>

<p>47.0% White American
21.0% Asian American or Pacific Islander American
13.6% Hispanic American
5.8% Black/African-American
0.8% Native American/American Indian
9.1% International Students</p>

<p>Source: USC's official 2007 admissions factbook
<a href="http://www.usc.edu/private/factbook/2007/all_byethnicity_07.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usc.edu/private/factbook/2007/all_byethnicity_07.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>For Cornell's Class of 2011:
40.0% White American
15.0% Asian American or Pacific Islander American
5% Hispanic American
6% Black/African-American
<1% Native American/American Indian
10% International Students</p>

<p>Source: Cornell Admissions Information '11
<a href="http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I'm not sure that's "wayyy more diverse". Nevertheless, while USC is a great school, I don't think the USC/Cornell comparison is very accurate. There is no denying the Ivy-League prestige.</p>

<p>Hawkette, there isn't enough information to know. 20% does sound like more than 10%, and they are both objective data points, but you have to know how the percentages were calculated. 10% can be more.</p>

<p>Which leads me back to the "objective" data. Even if I buy the argument that higher average SAT scores mean stronger student bodies, how are these SAT scores calculated?</p>

<p>What is the average SAT score for USC students? We don't know.
So I don't know how I can take SAT scores for USC and compare them to any other school. I don't know how I can use USC's published SAT scores to measure USC's student body when I don't know what the SAT scores are.</p>

<p>I don't mean to pick on USC. I actually like USC.</p>

<p>Also, how far do we take average SAT scores when evaluating schools?</p>

<p>How about companies?</p>

<p>If I look at Microsoft, should Bill Gates, Ballmer, and Allen fire everybody? If they did, the average SAT score of the employees at Microsoft would go up, but where would the company be? Maybe, the employees with lower SAT scores than the founders are adding value. </p>

<p>Why are average scores the metric instead of the amount of strong students at a school instead? Don't you believe in critical mass? Or how about the amount of strong departments? Is a school better with 50 strong departments than a school with 30 strong departments? Is a school better with one strong department if that is what I want to study? Is a school better with students from many different financial backgrounds or is a school better when it is made up of mostly rich kids?</p>

<p>What about kids who are very creative thinkers or are strong in certain areas but are not good test takers? Should schools not take these people if it lowers their average SAT scores? Or because it is easier to measure SAT scores than creative people, should we just take the high SAT scorers?</p>

<p>You have subjective opinions about schools. I have subjective opinions about schools. Because you use objective data that can be measured, are your opinions more valid than mine? Are they more valued than mine even if I went to a school, or my kids go to a school, or I work at a school?</p>

<p>One more thing. I find Jessica Alba very attractive. Is that objective or subjective?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I hope you aren't basing that 99.2% mentally off of the cliched "University of Spoiled Chilidren" because that's very archaic and the school has changed dramatically since the 1990s.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>USC has improved dramatically in terms of the quality of students they admit. When I was applying to schools in the late 1990s, you could pretty much get into USC easily with a B+ average and some extra cirriculars...it was more of a matter if whether or not you could afford it. </p>

<p>I believe growth in student population with better academic records has in a sense "floated all boats", but USC's gains have been impressive.</p>

<p>Why are we not asking ourselves, "what kind of person does X,Y, Z school graduate?" </p>

<p>To me, personal and professional ethics is very high on the list of qualities I would like to see in a college graduate, among many others like class rank, gpa, awards etc.</p>

<p>If they studied abroad, what did they do and what did they LEARN?</p>

<p>What would the graduate say are the top 5 values of an education at their college?</p>

<p>If I ask them, "why did you go to X,Y, Z college" (it could be USC, Cornell, Stanford, UCLA, Duke, UVa, Yale, Davidson, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins....you name it) I would hope the answer is not, "because it had better SAT scores than other schools or was ranked higher by USNWR." I would hope they would say something like, "I was very blessed to get into X, Y, Z college. I went there because I really liked their program in bio-chemistry and their overseas opportunity in Chile to discover environmental solutions to ABC problem!" Or, "I felt a strong desire to go to school in a different part of the country where I had lived my entire life and to meet different people. The people at that college made me feel warm and welcome and they emphasize community and problem solving." Or, "I came from a small school and wanted to experience the challenges of going to a large state university and learning to navigate a big campus and take advantage of all their incredible resources!" Or "Its where I felt best able to perform at an optimum level but still have a healthy and positive social life, making lifelong friends" Or whatever.....but NOT its USNWR ranking!</p>

<p>dstark,
Thanks for your response and the civil, constructive nature of your questions. I think you make a lot of excellent points and, along with friedokra’s later comments, shine a light on many of the legitimate criticisms that people have with college rankings. </p>

<p>IMO, your questions are especially appropriate as applied to a single individual as he/she goes about his/her college search and tries to find the best individual fit. However, I’m not as convinced about their application to an entire institution. As mentioned previously, I do believe that there are some absolutes that have value in judging a college. Will such quantitative calculations conclusively show college A to be superior to college B for an individual? No, but I believe that they can provide some insight and allow us to make some judgments about the collective environment and what the undergraduate student will experience in his/her peers and in the classroom. Will these judgments be universally applicable and universally correct? No and therein lies the weakness in making definitive arguments. But, unlike what I think you are saying, my response is not to make no judgments, but to do so with data…and the customary disclaimer that personal fit trumps all data. </p>

<p>Re your criticisms of the SAT, that may be best answered in a separate discussion. I don’t have the same level of distrust in this measure as I find it is much more correlated with the typical high school student’s transcript than not. Like you, I have heard many exceptions and I have some modest understanding of the cultural bias that Tarhunt referred to. But I don’t believe that those pitfalls are so serious as to discount the value of the data point. And I think that most college admissions counselors at the so-called “elites” would see this the same way. I believe that they understand the weaknesses and the strengths of the standardized test and use it as one, sometimes very important, standardized data point. </p>

<p>One thing that I had hoped to accomplish in this thread is to explore the impact that branding has on the college search process. In retrospect, I was na</p>

<p>How about we all be quiet and pretend we agree?</p>

<p>Hawkette, I didn't say Jessica Alba was a good actress or that she makes good movies. I have never seen any of her movies. ;)</p>

<p>I think there are plenty of opportunities to get a great education at schools that aren't ranked highly and where the average SAT scores aren't sky high. </p>

<p>Branding is very important in education.
Is there a better brand than Harvard in the US?</p>

<p>
[quote]
One thing that I had hoped to accomplish in this thread is to explore the impact that branding has on the college search process.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then why didn't you just come out and inititally post that thought for discussion, Hawkette? Instead, in post #1 you write of "undergraduate education." In later posts you circle back to (your favorite topic) SAT scores, which has been discussed ad nauseum on cc. Now, five pages later, you raise (another) interesting discussion point.</p>

<p>I agree-H is the top brand and Y and P aren't far behind and provide a lot of brand strength to the other five Ivies. Take the Ivy label away from Dartmouth, Columbia, U Penn, Brown and Cornell and I think that people will say that they are great colleges that can give a great education...sort of like Rice, Wash U, Emory, Georgetown and USC. </p>

<p>I also think that geography and proximity to the NYC media center has an outsized impact in the branding. Put Rice in the Northeast and Presto! Bingo! I would bet that it becomes a favorite of the NE intelligentsia. Or put Wash U in NYC and the media would be talking about the plucky university that has cleverly raised its profile with the country’s top high school students to the same level as Columbia and maybe even HYP. Blasphemous to Columbia supporters no doubt, but actually IMO a lot closer to the truth than the outdated status quo wisdom about the superiority of the non-HYP Ivies.</p>

<p>bluebayou,
Branding wasn't the reason for the thread, but maybe it should have been. It is a good topic for future use.</p>

<p>Actually, I think Harvard might be the best brand including industry, entertainment, sports, not just schools.</p>

<p>Where I live, Stanford is the number 1 private school choice, though. :)</p>

<p>One thing that upsets me about going to a non-ivy elite is the assumption that my fellow east-coaster make that this school was not my first choice (it was), and that had I gotten into one of the Crazy 8, I would have chomped at the bit.</p>

<p>(N.B. I didn't apply to any Ivies, so I have no idea what my outcomes would have been).</p>

<p>When I visited Yale, I had no other reason for liking it rather than the fact that it was Yale, and the same was so for all of the Ivies I looked at. (That's not to say that it's not a wonderful school.... it is.... it just didn't have anything that specifically attracted me to it or made me want to go). Applying to Yale because it was Yale, or Ivy because it was Ivy seemed to be awfully flawed logic to me. A while back, I started a thread about the schools I wished I considered as a high-schooler... none of them are ivies, and some of them are not considered all that "elite" (i.e. in the same field as Hopkins/Northwestern)</p>

<p>Of course there's the argument that the college brand is some sort of investment careerwise.... but I've always seen career as separate from college, and my career aspirations are not in competitive fields, anyway.</p>