<p>For lower income kids, safeties are usually the state schools and the non-top rated LACS that give good need based aid. On the East Coast, Muhlenberg (Penn lite), Dickinson, Gettysburg, Drew, Goucher, Wooster, Denison, Allegheny, Juniata, Washington, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My own theory on why H ranks so low on student satisfaction is just that.... it's tough being 19 or 20 years old when everyone (including your own professors and institution) keep reinforcing that you're at the tippy top of the heap, it must be tough to be happy 24/7, especially when ordinary life keeps intruding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the problem is quite the opposite. When students get to HYPSMC, etc... they suddenly realize that they're not at the tippy top of the heap any more, but perhaps in the middle, or--heaven forfend--, at its bottom (well, there's got to be a bottom to every heap, no? even one made up of overachievers who got into the most selective schools). That's why the first set of midterms can be so tough. Even at places with grade inflation, students do get Bs and Cs and even Ds and Fs. I've never quite figured out how some students can graduate with a 97+ GPA as the val and sal in our hs apparently do, year after year; but top schools are full of vals and sals, and adjusting to getting an 85 after four years of nothing but 95+ can take a lot of fortitude.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would've felt like those late nights doing physics problem sets or studying for calc so I could squeak out those A's would have been for naught.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the wrong attitude to have. No learning is for naught. And life is not over if you don't get into your "dream school." Both my Ss had a list of several schools they would have been happy to attend, some more selective than others, but all excellent fit.</p>
<p>Were we unique this past admissions season? While not at the VERY top of the ladder, my son was not far behind: approx 1500 SAT, 33 ACT, 3.9 uw GPA, President of 3 clubs (2 of which he founded), president of his own website development company, an Eagle Scout, etc, etc, etc....</p>
<p>And because he had a narrow interest in a major, it was fortuitious that his number one choice and his safety and his financial safety were all one and the same. It had the perfect program for him, gave him lots of merit money, and really, REALLY showed him how much they wanted him to come there.</p>
<p>Of course I know that if he had been undecided on a major, the whole process would have been SO much different than it was. The admissions "process" - which I thought was going to bring nothing but agita - turned out to be fairly straightforward.</p>
<p>Really interesting thread. To both Calmom and Blossom: great posts and really excellent points. I especially appreciate the last paragraphs on both.</p>
<p>Speedo,</p>
<p>I love your description of Muhlenberg as "Penn lite". Can you tell me anything more about it. My son will be interviewing there in a few weeks. It is one of our "likely admits". We have some concerns because the student base seems so regional? Will a kid from Texas fit in?</p>
<p>The son of a friend of ours was a val at my S's HS. He was NMF, etc, and was accepted at Cal Tech. This is one smart kid, but had a hard time finding out that he was just a middling performer in that student population. It was an emotional experience for him, but I think he's pulled through the first year and the second may not be as hard.</p>
<p>I would see no reason for Donemom to defend her son's choice of school or apologize for it. It is a fine school that for some students would be the right school. But for some students as smart or smarter, as talented or more talented that same school could be 4 years of Hell. </p>
<p>There is very little discernible difference between the 10% of applying students who are accepted to these elite schools and the next 10% who go to other top schools and a whole bunch of other kids who for a variety of reasons chose not to apply to any of them. I just don't think that the idea that a student has more engaging classroom or dormroom conversations at one of the ever changing alphabet schools (HYPSDMC or AWS) than at Middlebury or Chicago or Davidson or Grinnell or the University of California can be defended with a straight face. </p>
<p>The idea that the very talented and very gifted "need" HYPSDMC and AWS to find kindred spirits seems to suggest that all those who don't apply or aren't accepted are necessarily less gifted or less talented and that is provably false.</p>
<p>curmudgeon,</p>
<p>It's not that they need HYPS.......S to find kindred spirits. It's just that percentagewise at H etc. there will be more. That's hard to argue against statistically. </p>
<p>I look at this as a Venn diagram, with the circle on the far left having some small percentage who don't overlap with the circle just to the right, and on and on and on. The question is how many circles to the right do you have to go to have no measurable overlap with the circle to the far left? </p>
<p>My sense now is that it is way way farther to the right than I knew. But we don't have to make the circles on the left into target practice. Not that that's what I am saying you are doing, mind you, just a general statement.</p>
<p>And it's also true that nothing says the circle on the left will rule the world and the circle on the right will not. In fact, the corporate world is largely ruled by people who were kids in the circle on the right.</p>
<p>But for some kids, they want to be in the circle on the left, they have worked hard, they have the right kind of brain, they should give it their best shot and we can't gainsay their goal.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon: the examples of schools you pick: Middlebury, Davidson, etc. are NOT clear safety schools for anyone....we certainly know that after this last season of admissions.--those are just ever-so-slightly less selective than HYP etc. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS EVER TALKING ABOUT. So, your making an argument that has no relevance to any point I was making. I think your screen name , however, is very apt.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon:
Certainly students who want to major in some specific fields would be better off at some schools than at the ones deemed "most selective" by USN&WR. And most selective is a misnomer. For MT, as we have collectively been shown, it is harder to get into programs than it is to get into Harvard or Yale or Princeton.
But while Chicago was on my S's list, Middlebury, Davidson or Grinnell were out of the question, as were all other LAcs. It is not about the students. It's about the limited offerings in his field of interest. There are some great state universities with excellent math programs. But going to school with 20-40,000 other students was a daunting proposition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's the wrong attitude to have. No learning is for naught. And life is not over if you don't get into your "dream school."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I realize I could have phrased that better, so I'll take this post to explain. The reason I used those two examples (physics and calc) were because they were two classes where I was borderline A/B+, and so did extra credit to push myself over the edge. I didn't learn anything from it; it was just very time-consuming busywork.</p>
<p>And I never said my life would be over, just that I would be disappointed. Wrong attitude or not, it's the attitude I and many others have, and I think, to a certain extent, it's justified.</p>
<p>"It's not that they need HYPS.......S to find kindred spirits. It's just that percentagewise at H etc. there will be more. That's hard to argue against statistically."</p>
<p>Why sure it is! Just correct for family income and years of parental education (or have the CollegeBoard do it for you.) In fact, given the evidence, I would find it hard to defend the "kindred spirit" notion (other than in family situation) with a straight face. </p>
<p>Certainly I would find it difficult - based on personal experience - to think that the quality of "kindred spirit experience" is higher at AWS (one of which I attended) or HYP or wherever is "higher" than that to be found among those lucky few to be accepted at Berea, or the 35% of high performing, low-income students at Berkeley or UCLA. I think all you could say with certainty is that it will there will be different "kindred" who are part of the experience.</p>
<p>(As for why student satisfaction is so relatively low at H., I think instead of coming up with theories psychologizing the students, we would do better to read what they actually say: large lecture classes, very low scores on faculty availability, relatively low quality of instruction, relatively poor quality of advising.</p>
<p>"But right now, students can go through four years on campus with limited contact with professors. They often take large lecture classes, divided into sections headed by graduate student ''teaching fellows." Small classes are frequently taught by temporary instructors instead of regular, tenure-track professors. And in many cases, advisers are not professors, either, but graduate students, administrators, or full-time advisers.</p>
<p>''I've definitely had great professors, but most of the time you have to chase them down and show initiative if you want to get to know them," said Kathy Lee, a junior majoring in psychology. ''I've had a lot of trouble getting to know enough faculty to get the recommendations I need for medical school."</p>
<p>"Only four schools scored lower than Harvard, but the schools were not named. (COFHE data are supposed to be confidential.) The memo also notes that Harvard's ''satisfaction gap" has existed since at least 1994.</p>
<p>''I think we have to concede that we are letting our students down," said Lawrence Buell, an English professor and former dean of undergraduate education. ''Our standard is that Harvard shoots to be the very best. If it shoots to be the very best in terms of research productivity and the stature of its faculty, why should it not shoot to be the very best in terms of the quality of the education that it delivers?"</p>
<p>(My d. attended Evergreen for a year, was accepted at Williams, and attends Smith, and I am pretty sure she would agree with Momrath's son's comments.)</p>
<p>Donemom, I didn't mean by my post to be saying anything about your son -- I'm sorry if you took it that way. You posted a general comment (about "students who are very gifted and talented and desire to be surrounded by same") and I replied about those students - not having any clue at the time of my post where your son fit in all of that. I think I said things clumsily and Momrath's son said it much better:
It's not like the "safety" for a potentially Harvard bound kid is community college. It is true that the student body is more diverse at less selective colleges, with "diverse" in this case referring to intellectual achievement level. But the bottom line is that college is not like high school. Kids are in college because they want to be there - and most are focused on their learning. The profs have Ph.D's and for the most part are a lot more knowledgeable than the students they teach, and there will always be a small corps of exceptional students. An intellectual kid at a public high school might be frustrated because he is seen as a geek and his academic achievements demeaned ... but college is not like that. There are smart and focused kids everywhere - and it is not too difficult for smart kids to find each other. (Just a matter of making some choices as to where to hang out and what activities to get involved in).</p>
<p>To continue my response to curmudgeon: to suggest that U. Chicago (one of the finest institutions in the country) falls into the category that I was referring to, ie. sure-fire safety, is preposterous. Perhaps you are too eager to misconstrue what someone like me (ie. a parent of an admitted Harvard student) is saying.</p>
<p>Mini:
How many times have you posted exactly this same excerpt?
This thread is not about Harvard. It is about super selective schools of which Harvard is one. So why use it to bash Harvard? </p>
<p>My S has been in some big classes and some small classes at Harvard. He has been able to talk to most of his profs both after class and in their offices. He had very helpful TFs even in courses in which he was a mere auditor. Had he not had that experience, he would never have considered applying there SCEA. </p>
<p>It's enough to make me want to get off CC again.</p>
<p>It could have well have been about YP or anywhere else. But if folks want to make an argument that selectivity and student experience of academic quality go hand in hand, Harvard's own administered survey is the very best antidote, and (to give them credit, one which they themselves acknowledge.) So it is in fact critical to a discussion of safeties. </p>
<p>And, frankly, I don't see why you should complain. It is still likely among the 26 best schools in the country in undergraduate education generally speaking (mind you, they undertook the survey to compare with what they considered to be the 31 top privates), and for certain areas where students have well developed avenues of interests, like theoretical math or applied archaelogy, likely number one.</p>
<p>Calmom, I appreciate your clarification. And I agree that students can seek and find those with whom they have common ground intellectually and otherwise. All I was ever suggesting is that it can be hard to convince a student to "love" the TRUE SAFETY option (which, even for a Harvard applicant, should be much less selective) during the application process when they are envisioning something else. However, I also agree with many posters that if it turns out the student attends that safety school , it is more than likely that he/she can be happy and fulfilled, for many of the reasons you state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"It's not that they need HYPS.......S to find kindred spirits. It's just that percentagewise at H etc. there will be more. That's hard to argue against statistically."</p>
<p>Why sure it is! Just correct for family income and years of parental education (or have the CollegeBoard do it for you.) In fact, given the evidence, I would find it hard to defend the "kindred spirit" notion (other than in family situation) with a straight face.
[/quote]
Let's leave Harvard aside. Speak on a higher level of abstraction. You meant to say it is easy to argue the statistics. You really think that there aren't a larger percentage of "kindred spirits" academically at HYPSAWSP than at some place let's say 20 circles to the right? You think it's all family background? That seems to me to be impossible.</p>
<p>It doesn't mean there is no other place to go to school, no one would say that. But taking that general point too far gets preposterous.</p>
<p>And please, please, please let's not make marite leave. Marite, come over to the cafe, hang out in Sinner's Alley....</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>So are you saying that the excerpt you quoted about Harvard would apply equally to YPSMCAWS? And if not, why drag in a survey that applies to only one of the schools under consideration here? As for Berkeley and other state universities with great math departments, they just felt too big to my S. Back to fit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But going to school with 20-40,000 other students was a daunting proposition.
[/quote]
But all those students are not in the math department! The kid who has taken calculus in 8th grade and is pursuing a math major is going to place right out of the basic lower division courses -- the ones with hundreds of students - and that kid will also quickly draw attention to himself in a way that will open up some other opportunities. I mean, the faculty does tend to notice who their most gifted students are. </p>
<p>I think that people who have not attended large universities might have an unreasonable fear, in the same sense that small towners might feel intimidated by a big city. But it's not like that at all. You make friends among your dorm-mates -- in a large dorm, it might just be the kids on your floor; and among those who share similar activities; and once you settle on a major, among others in your department. I graduated out of a small interdisciplinary department at a big university -- I had many small classes, a lot of individual attention. I didn't feel like a face lost in the crowd. I felt like I had my own self-created world within the university, and that I was the center of that world. And I was only 16 when I started college, and had been a very shy kid -- definitely not the leader-type. </p>
<p>I wouldn't think that a large university would be the best environment for everyone -- but the very high achievers who win admission to Ivies are also for the most part kids who would do very well at large state universities, where their level of involvement and ability would set them apart at the outset. They would be the top of the heap in a place where there is a tremendous array of resources and opportunities.</p>