<p>Well, at least they are consistent. Been in that spot for years. Am picturing a large blackboard at USnews Hqtrs with some schoools names carved into the wooden frame on certain rows…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the opposite claim could be made (that the classroom instruction you get at Harvard or Stanford isn’t necessarily any better than what you’d get at Vanderbilt or Grinnell … it’s just that H & S tend to enroll greater numbers of students with stratospheric stats and exceptional ECs.)</p>
<p>Is the classroom instruction at Vanderbilt or Grinnell any better than it is at your local “directional” state college? The college rankings don’t measure that very well (not directly, anyway). It may stand to reason that better reputations and richer resources do tend to attract more accomplished students and faculty. What educational effects would result? Would they be worth a big cost premium? The limited evidence I’ve seen (esp. Krueger & Dale’s research) suggests that for most students, there is no clear financial pay-off to attending more selective schools (after controlling for college selection effects.)</p>
<p>I’d like to interject for a moment to point out emphatically that what people may be referring to as “top schools” includes the “top students” factor as some have already suggested. This is not to say that there are not any top students at the non-top-schools, but what we are dealing with here is the notion of “critical mass”. When a school is not diverse enough, and I don’t mean racially, but I also don’t not-mean racially, and when a school does not have enough “leaders” and evangelists, the likelihood of production of effective student-managed projects dwindles. As an example, I’ve pieced together my career with a panoply of encounters with different kinds of “schools”. The “top school” is like an experimental bomb-vessel filled with highly reactive, passionate, volatile substances. The mere fact that materials have been mixed in a such a way nearly assures a socially reactive, productive or explosive result; a kind of life-experience revolution that has lasting effect. MIT, Cambridge, and the like, as well as the smaller schools like Williams and Dartmouth have this kind of milieu. The mid-tier school, like a Boston University, well, sure, it is okay, but the ingredients are diluted, and the reaction is less forceful, sometimes suppressed. Because for every student trying to produce a change, there are four or five others watching TV or drinking at a bar in apathy. The lesser tier school, like a Pace University, has an uncertain mixture, most of it mundane and nonreactive, like a local high school. It takes up space, suffices a category but does not in itself, as an institution, necessarily produce anything unique as a collective when top students are not available, because the objectives of the substantiation is different, workaday, interchangeable with any other place that wants to fill a seat.</p>
<p>Oh God. Much more of this and my stomach may have a volatile, explosive reaction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, no! The shame of attending a laggard! My son is doomed!!!</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that he chose doom since I think he was also accepted at a couple of the exalted top tenners :). On a side note -Northwesten. I need a spell check.</p>
<p>My son chose the top honors program at our state flagship. He turned down two “top 10” schools, including my alma mater. He turned down a half-tuition merit scholarship at a top 20 school. I made sure he overnighted and attended accepted student events at all these schools. He made his choice and is very happy, with an excellent roommate situation, excellent grades, all kinds of clubs and activities. And he is saving enough money to assure he can attend any professional school at full fare with what we already put away for him. Perhaps he reasoned that the most successful and happiest people we know curiously did not attend “top ten” schools. Some of the most egocentric and least friendly people, many with only a modicum of personal success, are the ones with the “top 10” degrees. Go figure. My perspective has certainly evolved over the years.</p>
<p>NP Lakemom. From a student’s perspective, I really think it’s the culture/student body/sometimes the resources that makes the biggest difference.</p>
<p>It’s a choice between having a student body that’s mostly engaged and focused vs. a more ‘mixed body’. I’m sure a person like myself could find friends in a mixed student body but it’d be more work and the campus vibe would be less appealing to me. </p>
<p>The way my country runs science fairs is very good- it’s usually a 3-10 day gathering where kids not only present/get judged but also spend time socializing. All the kids share similar interests so its really quite easy to just strike up a conversation with someone and talk about random topics like…idk, science education or the misguided political philosophy of X party. You’re respected for how smart you are and simply, it’s cool to be nerdy!</p>
<p>So yeah, I think for certain students, especially those skewed to certain areas will find MIT and Caltech or an Ivy or better known school a far better fit than a less selective school. It’s all about individual fit and where the person goes. Again, certain opportunities also might be better a top schools- research at Caltech/MIT comes to mind, better connections at Ivies, stuff like that. </p>
<p>While I’m sure an kid smart enough to go to or even apply to half of the above schools will do well even with an education from a directional state school if they try, the experience might not be as good for them, especially if they fall into the ‘hyperintense about stuff range’. </p>
<p>So yeah tl;DR - yes, but it depends on the person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Verily I say to you, he did indeed read the Gospel of the USNews, but did not believe. And now he has been cast out of the Garden of Everlasting Success.</p>
<p>The argument for attending a “top school” based on the premise of a life experience doesn’t necessarily require financial success or typical “facebook”-style material success or even academic success, although the latter is more or less a given. And once again the issue of “how much did I save by going to a state flagship or somewhere less expensive” doesn’t apply if the award-grant / merit-aid to a worthy candidate eliminates the cost factor. Some people attend a certain school for the experience of the school at that stage of their lives. People who turn down such an environment can be respected for doing so for their own personal reasons, but it doesn’t take away from what such an experience offers to others looking for such an environment. And certainly any top school will give benefit to a student’s professional career, but that isn’t all that is entirely the point about attending a so-called top school. This last point seems to be getting overlooked or perhaps ignored based on more tangible, apparently pragmatic concerns.</p>
<p>I did not attend a so-called “top” school but I was satisfied with my choice of Michigan State for my undergrad studies. It was a big school, which I liked because I attended a big high school. I like being in an environment where folks can be themselves and folks will not be in your business because it is just too many damn folks around. What I also liked about MSU was that it has a huge placement services for graduating seniors. On top of that, MSU had a lot of different majors with some being backups (or alternate majors) for students who may not have been admitted to the more competitive majors, like:</p>
<p>applied economics (in college of social science for folks not admitted to Finance)
computational math (in college of science for folks not admitted to computer science)</p>
<p>MSU was lenient with allowing adding courses once the preferred majors were registered. With MSU’s placement services (and relationships with many employers), students could still get placed while MSU kept its strict policies on the more competitive majors. I benefited from that with my first gig with a big company right out of school.</p>
<p>We won’t even get into all the fun that comes with attending Michigan State.</p>
<p>For grad school, it was all about business and resume decoration. U-Wisconsin had a 30-credit, non-thesis, coursework-only, mostly-online M.S. Engineering program which allowed students to pre-qualify as a non-degree student before being admitted. That was ideal for grad students like yours truly who partied hard as an undergraduate and did not have the highest of GPA’s BUT had real work experience in the industry. Plus, since I work in the Washington DC area, work is federal government and defense-driven and college degrees are more about “if you have it” than “where it is from”. Still, I wanted to stand out from resumes that read: Maryland, Maryland, va Tech, Maryland, Virginia and throw in a double “Big Ten” in there :-)</p>
<p>Point of clarification: I did not mean to imply that you receive an inferior education at a non top 10 school. In fact, I think the education you receive is quite good at all the schools. I think PolarBear has it right that being mixed in with a lot of other high performing kids improves the results for everyone.</p>
<p>For the record, although my son was accepted to Harvard, he decided to attend the State Flagship school. We expressed our preference (Harvard), but the choice was his.</p>
<p>Interesting comment I heard from a Lawyer about two of the top law schools in the State: One will teach you which form to file and when. The other will teach you why and what you want to accomplish with the forms.</p>
<p>…and the others will teach you how much to bill for filing each form!</p>
<p>Oh, gag, polarbearvsshark. I love me some elite schools, but you know, there are PEOPLE at BU and Pace and wherever else who are lively and passionate, and don’t deserve to be called “mundane.”</p>
<p>
Currently teaching a physics course at a “directional state college” and here is what I can say about the difference between DSC and a higher level school. Many of my students have problems with the most basic algebraic concepts. They struggle with applying math concepts to problems even if they are grasping the physics. As a result I have to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to rectify their issues enough so that they can (hopefully) advance to mastering at least simple problems. </p>
<p>At a school with students at a more advanced math level (as I would expect to find at “top 20”) I would not have to spend time trying to get people up to speed and would be able to cover more material and present more challenging examples, rather than focusing on the simplest ones I can find.</p>
<p>^^^ If the school has Honors sections, that can help some of the higher performing students. On a similar note, my D took music classes in College, and they had 5 levels of the into classes depending upon your ability. The kids in the top two levels were amazing.</p>
<p>On a related note: When I took Physics at a State Flagship college, my TA could not understand why you use the static coefficient of friction for a rolling wheel. He said the wheel is in motion, so you use the dynamic coefficient. I said my peace, and let the kids in the section try to figure out who was right.</p>
<p>If a wheel is rolling (without sliding) wouldn’t there be a static coefficient at the rim and a kinetic element at the axle?</p>
<p>Hmm. This wheel thing forced me to pull an old merchanics book off the wall and it talks about something called coefficient of “rolling resistance” caused by minor deformation of the wheel.and which will ultimately cause a rolling wheel to come to rest.</p>
<p>None of D’s lectures (not a single one) was taught by TA. The profs’ focus was UG teaching, this was priority #1. At higher ranked research UGs (D. talked to some of her HS firneds), profs priority is research, that is how university obtain grant money and ranking. Her friends at these UG (including privates) indicated that they had TAs lecturing (I do not have stats how often and in how many classes). In addition, at D’s school, profs were available at office hours and D. has used these a lot, when she had a slightest doubt about her understanding of cetain concepts. Why not? She did not mention about dealing with TAs at all. I believe that TAs responsibilities were only checking the lab reports.</p>
<p>What is the wheel made out of?</p>