I don’t think this is even close to being generally true, though it could be accurate for your school district. Maybe your D is special and would be bored under any circumstances, and maybe she’s killing it in the graded areas of her French class. In all the years my kids took foreign language, being good at speaking it wasn’t the bulk of their grades. Some people don’t pick up the talking part as easily as others, but still do great work in the class.
Of course, to have have any meaningful conversation about this, we have to talk about the myriad choices of secondary education out there. Through my own experience with a mix of these options, nobody is giving out grades in high performing publics or independent schools in the greater Seattle area. Maybe we’re just the last defense of high school rigor here in the otherwise mellow PNW. Probably not.
When I compare my own high school education with what my kids had in terms of rigor and earning grades, it’s not even close. The good old days weren’t always good, and tomorrow’s not as bad as it seems. I’m almost convinced that my two IB kids were better educated in high school than I was after earning my BA. I’m actually serious about that assessment. When I was HS in the 80s, very few schools offered math through calculus. In many places, like mine, you had to truck over to the local CC to take it.
IDK - I see it as harder today than it ever was. The SAT comment, which sounds a little political, is a topic for another thread.
Apologies- I misinterpreted and assumed you meant Olin, the Engineering college! You are correct if in fact you are referring to Wash U- the program is somewhat similar to Wharton, similar outcomes, although a different lifestyle I think (Wash U is gorgeous, manicured, set apart from the city; Wharton sits in the middle of Philly and although some of the campus is attractive, you don’t go there for the landscaping!
My bad.
Although my point still stands- DON"T use rankings to predict fit!
I think that some students are particularly attracted to academics and weigh other “fit” factors much lower in comparison. I look back at the schools that my S applied to and they differed greatly on many of aspects that are routinely focused on in CC “fit” threads. Things like rural/urban, large/small, and climate were to him, afterthoughts. What mattered most to him was the academics.
I recall there was a brief time when my W and I feared that he would accept at Berkeley as we did not see the fit. He, on the other hand, looking though his academic goggles saw only a strong CS program. Luckily, he received other, better, options.
I’ll add that I borrowed the whole of my law school education (which admittedly was a much lower number back then, even adjusting for inflation). At the time, it seemed like a mountain of money. Then after a couple of years in private practice, it seemed like a pile of money. Then a little later, it seemed like a total no-brainer. Sure, I was big law, but big law salaries then weren’t in the zip code of what they are now and the debt seemed significant to me. But in hind sight, not borrowing and not going would have been objectively stupid.
I think that some students are attracted to - I would change out “academics” and replace with “rank” or “perception.” Do you really think the teachings at WUSTL are vastly different than Illinois or Bradley or Syracuse, etc. The quality of student will be higher yes - and the perception and ranking will be higher.
Academics can and often are the same at many schools - including at lesser ranked or perceived lesser schools.
When I did my MBA, my roomies best friend was at Wharton and their sole focus from day one was job prep.
While we grinded, their academics, according to this student, were on the lighter side.
There is a baseline accreditation from AACSB that reputable business schools in the US generally have. However, there can be considerable variation between AACSB-accredited business schools’ curricular organization and content beyond the baseline.
Some sectors of business are also elitist in hiring, so they may prefer prestigious business schools or colleges (and not necessarily look specifically for business majors if the college as a whole is prestigious enough).
I do not, in general, think that academics are the same, but it’s incumbent on the student to judge that independently. Our S researched his target schools extensively comparing the classes he wanted to take over 4 years, the professors that would be teaching them, the research labs available, and the ability to not only get seated in a class, but the ability to take graduate level classes as an undergrad. Along all these academic measures it was clear that some schools are better equipped to deliver than others.
I do think the teaching at WUSTL is significantly different than at Bradley, to take one of your examples. At the top-ranked colleges and universities, professors almost always have lighter teaching loads, often a 2/2 (two classes/semester). At lower-ranked universities and colleges, that load can go up a lot, all the way to a 4/4 teaching load. So the professors’ training in graduate school might be the same, but their ability to focus on students is different.
I think that colleges where there is a 4/4 load there is significantly less demand/expectation for research and publication, and more of an expectation on the quality of instruction.
Academics are not the same everywhere, but excellent academics are available at institutions with little in the way of “prestige” or rank. Researching the specifics of the university’s departments of interest is important to do.
It’s not just assumption - there are kids (admittedly small sample size) on CC and reddit/a2c who have been successful with this approach. It’s not for us, but it works for some. And yes, they are applying blind to schools they’ve never seen. But they get in - I would argue it’s not scattershot - kids with great activities and scores/grades and can write - do get into a wide variety of “top” schools.
The kids who are not successful are those without across the board amazing grades who are hoping by dint of a good essay they can aim higher.
Adjuncts are usually considered (on CC) Bad. Universities which employ them are VERY BAD.
But a B-school can have an adjunct teaching a Strategy course… who happens to be the former CFO of a Fortune 50 company who orchestrated 5 of the most successful mergers/acquisitions of the last decade.
That’s not a “bad” adjunct- that’s a great adjunct. So these ratios don’t mean much unless you do a deep dive. A business professor who is deeply involved in research and industry could be one who is only modestly interested in teaching. Or it’s someone who has students regularly doing consulting projects in industry, who has his/her contacts outside the university serving as mentors, judges for case competitions, making introductions for financing promising student start-up businesses, etc.
So is the cup half full or half empty? Sometimes the professors with the lowest “teaching load” are doing the MOST on behalf of their students! They are providing them with real life opportunities to see theory in action, they are “out there” getting their students invited to roundtables and symposia, they are working their rolodexes whether it’s for internship connections, getting students hired on a research project, or whatever.
Interesting point on calculus. As a child of the 80s, yes, calculus was offered at all the high schools in our area and beyond calculus. Statistics and also advanced algebra (vector math and the like). In some cases, we used 1st year college textbooks. As for French and other foreign languages, I don’t think the level of spoken French was very high but anyone with ambitions to progress majored in French at college AND spent a year abroad to become fluent.
In general, sciences and math in 12th grade was about equivalent to 1st year physics & chemistry in math engineering school. Learned nothing new. This was by design, as colleges recognized that some may have come from high schools without the same rigor. But of course, even with this “catch up” scheme, those who came from easier high schools flunked out.
I think the word you are looking for is “rigorous” and not prestigious. Many entry level roles in large companies don’t require much “business knowledge” (or any, in fact). So a history major from Rigorous College has (likely) demonstrated more sophisticated research skills, ability to assimilate large quantities of information, the ability to read tons of material and extract the three important ideas, vs. the Business major from Open Admissions college who has never written a paper longer than three pages and most tests are multiple choice. The prestige may or may not be there, but it’s the rigor that suggests that the core skills are there.
Many companies have “mini-MBA” programs or similar- it doesn’t take four years to teach the analytical tools (discounted cash flow analysis, etc.) to make someone a productive entry level employee if the writing, reasoning, math skills are there.
When I was in high school (when about a third of graduates went to four year college, mostly in-state publics; some more went to the local community college), calculus BC was the highest level of math offered. It was not the norm like in @nyc10023 's area to offer beyond calculus, nor was calculus completely absent like in @cquin85 's area.
More recently, about 7/8 of high school students in the US attend a school that offers calculus, although this is lower in rural areas and for Black students in non-suburban areas, according to https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/unequal-access-calculus-could-hinder-low-income-and-black-students . However, just because a high school offers calculus does not mean that it is available to a specific student, since such factors as middle school math placement can affect whether a specific student may be able to take calculus.
The top 50 USNWR includes colleges as varied as Caltech, Chicago, and Ohio State. I’d be surprised if any student was interested in such varied colleges as all of the USNWR T50. And even if they were, I’d expect the application quality to decline significantly with so many applications, as would the ability to show demonstrated interested, which is considered at many of the colleges. There are far better approaches, even if under certain scenarios a larger number of applications can increase average number of acceptances.
Yes, exactly. But when Acme Inc. looks for people to fill these entry level roles, they equate “rigorous” college to T20 or top SLAC. How does the state college grad, who has the same research skills and writing ability get their entry level job (if they don’t have a relative who eases their way in)? They don’t. And so the kids today instinctively chase “prestigious” college because they feel that Acme Inc. will look kindly about BA in history from prestigious college. And they wouldn’t be wrong.
I don’t know if there is a kid who would apply to Ohio state AND Chicago and Caltech (unless from Ohio). But I bet there’s a kid who has applied Chicago, Indiana and CMU (maybe not Caltech).