<p>Barrons,
I can’t find the link to the reference you are referring to in post# 60, but I thought it wasn’t the mere act of applying to top schools, but of having been ADMITTED to the top schools, but matriculating elswehere. Can you link the reference? Is it in that old (2006) WSJ article linked above?
Lots of old data being presented (mine included). We need to get our kids to update this research!</p>
I agree with the second half of this, because I believe that motivated people will be able to make money, no matter where they go to college. I continue to think, though, that earnings is an imperfect criterion for “success,” especially if we are talking about people who go to highly selective colleges, many of whom choose careers that don’t pay all that much, such as in academia.</p>
<p>As for the qualify of the education, what, exactly, does one measure to determine that? Perceptions of its quality? Performance on subsequent tests? I think it may be that people who are focusing on earnings as a measure of educational outcomes probably focus on subject areas where interaction with other students is less important in the educational process–perhaps sciences and engineering, subjects like accounting. In something like an English seminar, though, the quality of the other students has a tremendous impact on the experience. Will that difference be measurable? Maybe not, since the seminar is not really about learning facts about literature. But students who have been in magnet programs and selective enrichment programs like CTY, as well as “regular” classes, will understand the difference quite easily, and many will prefer a college experience more like CTY and less like “regular” high school.</p>
<p>No stats have any effect on success of individual, only person can control and many are successful even given initial unfortunate circumstances. So, forget about Elite college, just do the best in any place will work, there is no, absolutely none exceptions even in some unfortunate negative conditions. Hard working person will achieve, period, even if he is so lucky at some point of his life as to get a job at McDonald. Hard working person will find a way to turn any unfortunate (by others) experience to a learning one for himself, to use it as “spring board”. It is all inside you, no prestigious place can add much more and no “no name” place can take it from you, no exceptions.</p>
<p>Because it’s hypocritical, annasdad. There’s no difference amongst colleges, anyone can get a good education anywhere if they apply themselves, and it doesn’t really matter if you’re with a “thick” pool of smart peers or just the average joes and janes. But you didn’t believe that when it came to high school. You are getting on the case of some of us for valuing elite colleges when you value an elite high school.</p>
<p>The analogy I would use is that if you’ve grown accustomed to eating in nice restaurants, the fact that the food at Applebee’s is just as nutritious and healthful is not terribly persuasive–unless all you can afford is Applebee’s. Then you realize that the nice restaurants were a luxury that isn’t essential. It doesn’t make them less nice, though.</p>
<p>There is no controversy whatsoever, but it was crucial for my kid to attend private prep. HS, while we did not care which college she attended simply because by the time she applied she has proven that she will do fine at any place. Yes, there is a diff. between 14 y o and 18 y o, IMO, but others might think differently, then they should have a different goal for their kids. We are NOT in the same situation by no means, every family is different and has its own set of values.</p>
<p>That’s exactly what seems to be going on here, Hunt. Annasdad justifies what he can afford. You know, not everyone can afford everything - that’s how life goes! But it’s sour grapes to think that because you can’t afford a place, it can’t be any better than what you can afford. I can’t afford the Ritz - doesn’t mean I have to pretend it’s no nicer than the Hilton just to feel better about my choice.</p>
well that ought to make the admissions people collecting app fees happy. Wonder what it will be now that people are applying to 15-20 schools. Was the updated study done before or after the implementation of the Common and universal apps? It would be interesting to see if that still holds true.</p>
<p>The studies have looked at performance on GREs, MCATs, GMATs, LSATs, the CLA, and other quantitative measures.</p>
<p>You can argue that those tests don’t measure all valuable learning - and I would agree. But I find it difficult to accept that if there are no differences in those easily measurable markers (and there aren’t), that there are going to be in less-easily-measurable areas. Unless, that is, you’re prepared to argue that graduate and professional schools don’t know what they’re doing when they weight performance on those tests very heavily in selecting the best and the brightest for their programs - and that a test that measures critical thinking has no validity in assessing the overall quality of a college education.</p>
<p>PG, I’m not going to go over, yet again, why I made the decision I made about my kids’ high school education. Go back and read my past posts if you’ve forgotten and are really that interested. But you persist on making this about me and completely ignoring the data - I can only conclude that it’s because you have no answer to the data.</p>
<p>You made your decision re your d’s hs education for the very same reason some of us have made decisions to send our kids to elite colleges. Don’t try to pull some story that IMSA > Small, Rural HS with few facilities but Top Elite College of your choices isn’t > Average Directional State U. It’s the same exact thing.</p>
<p>No, PG, I did not make the decision to send my kid to her high school because I consider it, as you yourself said in another thread, a “luxury good.”</p>
<p>But so what? Address the data - if you can.</p>
<p>It’s not what I said. I didn’t say my REASON for sending my kids to the schools that I did was BECAUSE they were luxury goods, a la buying a Cartier watch. I believe the “product” is better in an elite college compared to an average directional … just like the “product” is better at IMSA or the Latin School of Chicago compared to my kids’ public high school.</p>
<p>Why is there any argument? we are different, why all these internet statistics is so important. the onely thing that is important is for your own kid to achieve what he/she meant to achieve, and it is only important to your family, not anybody else. So, in our family, we decided that happy kid has a better chance to achieve and this decision was driven by a kid herself…and looking back it happened to be true. Much more true as now she is surrounded by many from Elite (very tops) colleges and see that she has made very correct decision for herself. But she is smart to realize that whatever UG these people attended has worked for THEM. It is very funny how 21 y o can figure out that while all of us here in our 40s thru 60s cannot see.<br>
Student personal match to specific college is very important, what works for some will not work for others. If kids themselves see it, then we better listen to them…maybe just once in a great while.</p>
<p>Without seeing more than the abstract and the first page, it’s hard to say what exactly it means. Pascarella (who I note is one of the co-authors of this study, and it post-dates his 2005 tome) and Terenzini make very clear that within given institutions, what a student does plays a huge role in what the student gets from the educational opportunities available. If being in an honors program means the student is more likely to engage in the behaviors that research shows enhance learning outcomes (“student involvement in the academic and nonacademic systems of an institution, the nature and frequency of student contact with peers and faculty members, interdisciplinary or integrated core curricula that emphasize making explicit connections across courses and among ideas and disciplines, pedagogies that encourage active student engagement in learning and encourage application of what is being learned in real and meaningful settings, campus environments that emphasize scholarship and provide opportunities for students to encounter different kinds of people and ideas, and environments that emphasize scholarship and support exploration, whether intellectual or personal” – Pascarella and Terenzini, p. 642), then the study you cite is completely consistent with the existing data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re making an assumption that I haven’t seen data to support - that the differences in between what different students do at college that may explain, in whole or in part, the difference in educational outcomes that the article you cite reports are the same things that differentiate what a student at Harvard does versus what one at Cleveland State does, when the differences between the entering freshmen are controlled for.</p>
<p>And Harvard vs. Cleveland State would not be the best example, for two reasons: (1) there are differences between outcomes at different colleges, even after controlling for characteristics of the entering class - it’s just that those outcomes do not correlate with selectivity or prestige (or several other factors often used to classify colleges), so a head-to-head comparison between any two schools would be of limited value; (2) I would suggest that you would have to look long, hard, and probably ultimately unsuccessfully for enough students at those two institutions with similar characteristics to make a statistically valid comparison. You could, of course, probably compare Harvard to Case, Case to Ohio State, Ohio State to Kent State, and Kent State to Cleveland State, and draw conclusions from the results; how valid those results would be, I’d have to leave to others with more statistical sophistication that I have, 30 years after I last studied or used statistics.</p>
<p>BTW, thanks for engaging the data in this discussion; would that other participants would do the same.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link, barrons and bovertine. Interesting read. They made an important additonal point, as I take it, by noting that :
So for many, the relationships and connections they establish are extremely important in increasing the likelihood of “success” after college.</p>
<p>I agree that highly intrinsically motivated people will likely do well overall, as in the school and work environments they will be self starters, hard workers and pursue many opportunities they see. This is an important personality trait, but while it increases the likelihood of success, it doesnt guarantee it.</p>