there is a youtube video of a student who transferred from UGA to Georgia Tech, a jump in selectivity. in her video she states the business classes were harder at UGA.
any school will have easy classes and hard classes. it’s prob teacher-dependent more than anything. I’m sure you can coast through Harvard or Yale if you pick your classes right. And I am sure you can have an incredibly difficult time at Univ of Maryland or Ohio State no matter how smart you are if you challenge yourself.
I think we’re generalizing a bit too much in this thread. To properly evaluate, one needs, at the minimum, to look at the college-wide minimum graduation requirements and the minimum major/degree requirements. That assumes the student only aim to meet the bare minimum. A student who is looking for more depth in her/his major(s) also need to take into account what advanced courses are available and how advanced they are.
I’ve spent the last few years moving around the country and teaching at about a half dozen colleges as a postdoc or visiting professor (the academic job market is rough, y’all), and I taught at two others while I was in grad school.
This pretty much sums up my experience. I tend to have higher expectations when teaching at a highly selective college – assigning more (and more difficult) readings, assigning more complicated essay topics, grading more rigorously, etc.
I’ve had some very bright and dedicated students at directional state schools, but overall the level of performance is noticeably lower than at top universities and LACs.
Yes, the academic job market is tough. My sympathies to you!
If you decided to teach at a directional state school the way you do at a highly selective school, what do you think would happen? Possibilities that cross my mind include many students dropping the class, possibly negative student reviews, or students upping their game. And when teaching at these schools do you think the level of performance amongst the students is due to a lesser degree of academic skills or a lesser degree of drive to master the content?
A related question would be, if a college’s level of admission selectivity has changed over time, do the faculty alter the rigor level in the above aspects to match? Many colleges have become more selective over the last few decades, and some have outpaced their peers in this respect as they gamed the USNWR rankings to attract even more applicants through USNWR ranking prestige. But have the academics become more rigorous over time?
Similarly, at colleges have become less selective over time, is there pressure to reduce academic rigor to prevent graduation and retention rates from falling more than is typically related to reduced admission selectivity?
I’m not sure that can be answered with any concrete data, but as a high school teacher, the rigor of my non honors class is somewhat determined by the academic level of the students. Last year’s cohort was particularly weak and we had faculty meetings about how to accommodate them. Obviously that variation would be less in honors or AP classes, but the regular track classes in a 9th grade cohort would somewhat shift to the lowest common denominator.
Most would drop or struggle, I think. There’s more wiggle room with regard to pace and rigor in upper-level courses – especially mixed undergrad/grad seminars – since those are more self-selecting, but in general not as many students could handle it.
That said, I always encourage students to make use of office hours, which are not just for students who’re struggling or need help; I’m more than happy to dive into course material at a deeper level with motivated students.
A mix of both, but mostly the former. I’ve had a lot of smart but lazy (or at least intellectually incurious) students at schools like UCLA and USC.
If the posts on r/professors is anything to go by, many professors at universities with declining enrolments are seeing students come in much less prepared as the universities become far less selective in attempt to bolster enrolment. Covid apparently has also had a significant and ongoing impact on the college preparedness of incoming classes. Many professors on the sub report that they are experiencing significant pressure from their universities’ administration to not fail students, and so by extension have no choice but to lower the rigour of their courses.
Selectivity and “better” are really just perceptions that are gained by what Newsweek is telling them from their useless ranking system of “pet” schools. The only apples to apples comparison you can make is by major. That’s how job skills are actually earned and where you can have measurable outcomes. Comparing institutions is like comparing apples and onions and calling one better. It’s far too general of a comparison.
How are we determining rigor for various universities? For instance, Salisbury recently had the greatest number of Fulbright Scholars this past year amongst master’s/comprehensive universities and it has an admissions rate of 91%. U. of Wisconsin-Eau Claire is another school that I believe has done well with postgraduate fellowships. Its acceptance rate is 77%. I don’t know what the rigor is like at these universities, knowing nobody personally who has attended, but in looking at outcomes, it appears as though there is sufficient rigor, at least for students who want it. How that comes across all classes, I don’t know.
I do recall that my mother earned a Master’s in Tax from a commuter college. But that commuter college had a higher passage rate on the CPA exam than the state flagship (which was not within an easy commuting distance). Again, this speaks to a particular degree rather than the university as a whole, but for accounting, it appears as though the less selective school provided more rigorous instruction in this particular field than the flagship.
No, Princeton is NOT superior, in fact, I believe it’s a poor value with limited options relative to the price tag. High school students would do well NOT to aspire to go to schools like these to preserve their own mental health. The kind of burdens they place on themselves for a “chance” to get into these schools is the definition of toxic perfectionism. It’s a mental breakdown waiting to happen.
I know dozens and dozens of grads (young, old, in between) who are about as far from the “toxic perfectionism” that you describe-- Princeton, Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc.
I know- you had an uncle or an aunt or someone’s cousin who told you not to go there, everyone is suicidal, etc. And Princeton-- in your view- is for robotic rich kids.
But I’d love to see a shred of evidence supporting your assertions.
Since there are many kids whose sticker price would be meaningfully lower at Princeton vs. Boise State, I’d say the mental health benefits of NOT working 15-20 hours a week, plus loans, makes Princeton the clear win for a lower income family!!!
I think he might have meant the mental health effect of “everyone and their parents” aspiring into elite schools, possibly that ambition controlling many decisions during their school years, given that ultimately there’s a >90% likelihood of disappointment – regardless of how many AP classes, how many SAT/ACT retries, how many hours of piano lessons, how many team sports, how many Olympiads, and how many clubs founded/presided.