<p>Everytime I read that somebody just wants to go to a school where academics are taken seriously, I cringe. </p>
<p>Aren't academics taken seriously at hundreds and hundreds of schools?</p>
<p>Much less than you seem to think, as least on the basis of the percentage of students who care about something other than [your choice of ECs: sports, binge drinking, going home on weekends to see HS friends, part-time non-academic jobs more than a certain amount, whatever], to the point that it affects the college atmosphere. Of course, there must be a thousand schools where a diligent group of soul-mates could, at least in theory, find each other.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that the only schools where academics are taken seriously are schools made up of upper-middle class students.</p>
<p>The top 20 universities and top 20 lacs according to US News... how many aren't made up of upper-middle class students?</p>
<p>The answer is zero. </p>
<p>Damn poor people. Middle class people. You're morons too.</p>
<p>Let's stop using your word "class." Some poor people and lower-lower middle income people, including some who have posted here, including me, can understand the advantages of leaving behind the anti-intellectual atmosphere in which they may have been raised [I know, lots of exceptions, including children of schoolteachers and poets] to go to a college with a preponderance of more academic types. Please list the lower tier, inexpensive colleges that meet their needs.</p>
<p>"The top 20 universities and top 20 lacs according to US News... how many aren't made up of upper-middle class students?"</p>
<p>My d's is the exception that proves the rule (it's the only one with more than 60% receiving needbased aid, and almost 30% on Pell Grants.) (Whoops, check that: not as many on Pell Grants, but MIT might also be an exception.)</p>
<p>Mind you, though - depends what you call "upper middle class". To afford any of those institutions without needbased aid puts you at a minimum in the top 5% of American families, with average closer to the top 3%.</p>
<p>They take their academics VERY seriously at Berea (and there's much less drinking, etc.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The top 20 universities and top 20 lacs according to US News... how many aren't made up of upper-middle class students?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>DStark:</p>
<p>You should meet the kids on my S's floor: they range from full ride to full fare. </p>
<p>Yes, most students are upper middle class and some have very wealthy parents. But some are on full scholarship. </p>
<p>We did not choose our kids's colleges for the connections they will make. Personally, I find knowing a good plumber or electrician more useful than having gone to the same college and grad school as some very high powered folks (I would not dream of contacting them, nor do I have any reason to do so).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mind you, though - depends what you call "upper middle class". To afford any of those institutions without needbased aid puts you at a minimum in the top 5% of American families, with average closer to the top 3%.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure that Garland will post to contradict you on that. Also bear in mind that plenty of families who do not qualify for need-based aid can only afford to pay full fare by taking out loans--as do we.</p>
<p>Marite, you have to have some tokens. Who are going to work in the libraries and cafeterias? :)</p>
<p>Dstark, there are surely hundreds of colleges where people take academics seriously. There are colleges where you will be bombarded by academics, and then some where you'd need to show a little initiative in order to find the hard core academics. That's the distinction people are making here, and it's not class based.</p>
<p>My bosses bosses bosses kid is at a private U studying Sports Management. He doesn't like to read; he doesn't much like math; he likes "getting wasted" and partying, and his parents, who could pay full freight at any school in the country, wanted to find him a place where he wouldn't flunk out and where he'd have a shot at getting a degree. I don't know how much money they have but dad probably makes $500K a year; mom's a corporate attorney. </p>
<p>The administrative assistant in my group has a son at CMU; she works like a dog; he works like a dog; she says he's like "a house on fire" with all the opportunities around him and he wants to major in everything. Single parent; earns about 45K a year.</p>
<p>DStark, why would you use family income or class as a proxy for the kind of academic experience that a kid will find at a given college? Rich people have dumb, lazy and unmotivated kids just like the rest of us; go to a college with a preponderance of kids like that, and although there may be wonderful intellectual opportunities, a kid will have to work a little harder to find them.</p>
<p>Does that make me a snob? Why is this an elitist attitude? It would have made a great story to tell you that the kid at CMU was actually having a raging intellectual experience at Quinipiac or the College of New Rochelle.... but unfortunately, he got a great fin aid package at CMU and he grabbed it.</p>
<p>Two things....I read many student posts (probably parent posts too) on CC that talk about certain colleges in terms of income later on...like the college is a ticket to a certain income. That is NOT how my kids viewed their college picks at all. In fact, it is kinda a funny concept because one of my kids is entering an uncertain and often low paying field, musical theater. Anyway, they wanted "good colleges" only with the thought in mind of the challenging academic environment and kinds of motivated students that might also be in that environment. Where the name of the school could get them in the future in terms of financial success was not a concept they thought about. ANYONE can be successful no matter WHERE they went to college. Picking a college for them was more about which one fit what they wanted in a school....their college criteria...be it location, major, etc. The part about financial success afterwards was not a consideration as to which school they picked. I don't see one school assuring that any more than the next. </p>
<p>Secondly,
Dstark.....it isn't like a kid can't get a fine education at a less selective school because she/he can indeed. I'm not saying those schools are necessarily less intellectual. The way my kids saw it was similar to the way their high school had tracked classes. My kids would be UNHAPPY in classes that were not the most challenging in the school (at our school, those were mostly referred to as Honors, though some are now being called AP). They do not like work that is too easy. This was an issue in our middle school when we did not have tracked classes. As well, the kinds of students in the Honors classes where we live are not like the students in the easy tracked classes. The level of motivation, discussion, and so forth in classes is quite different. In fact, I know when my kids had to take health classes which were made up of all levels of students, not just Honors tracked students, my kids remarked constantly about the atmostphere in class, kids who did not want to be there, were disruptive, didn't do the work. My kids would do a presentation for their project, nobody would listen who gave two you know whats. There are all kinds of students. What my kids find stimulating at college is to be with kids who have similar motivation and academic strengths who care about the coursework and are also committed to worthwhile activities outside the classroom, and are engaged in many pursuits and have goals and so forth. Do these kids exist at all colleges? Sure, but it varies a lot. I know for a fact that the atmosphere on campus, as well as the academic challenge is different at my D's school than say her state U or state colleges where many friends attend. I know who spent their time partying outside the school day in high school and who was engaged in homework and ECs. The kind of student differs. There are intellectuals at all colleges. There tends to be more of a certain level of student and level of motivation that is more prevalent at some schools than others. It is similar to tracked classes in high school for my kids. For instance, my niece who is a good student but not top student, goes to Penn State. She loves it and is doing well. In HS and in college, she is not engaged in anything outside of the classroom (except social stuff) and is not quite as driven with goals and so forth. She certainly does well in school but is just a different sort of student than my kids. I know my kids feel stimulated being around kids who are very motivated and engaged in school. For instance, my D who is on a varsity team for her college....just had to miss college for a week, which was very hard to do. You can bet her peers were trying to do homework after each race or training day. Other teams from way easier colleges had more time available to live it up after a day of athletics. Their schoolwork was less demanding and/or their personal approaches. I realize that is a generalization and not all kids fit into one end of the spectrum or another, but often at selective colleges, you find kids of a certain preponderance in greater percentages. As well, often the actual work is more demanding and/or the classroom discussions or expectations.</p>
<p>I have taught at five different colleges. Some of these colleges were easy to get into and not too selective. I can tell you that I had some great students but they were in the minority. A large percentage were not that motivated and did the most minimal work. Some were flunking. Some could not write and in fact, at the time, my elem school aged children were BETTER writers than a couple of my college students. I just cannot see my current college aged children having that much in common with that type of student, nor enjoying the lack of challenge. My kids right now are in programs that are VERY demanding. They like that. NOT ALL kids enjoy that or can even handle it. One of my kids is in a selective BFA program that means she is going all day and all night and is very intense. In fact, you can't even miss classes. At some colleges, kids cut classes all the time. At hers, you'd be out on your butt. So, just like the classes in our HS differ greatly depending what track you are in....both the work/challenge and the type of kids in those classes, so generally do various levels of selectivity of colleges. You can get a good education ANYWHERE. Whether the school environment fits you and you enjoy it is another story.</p>
<p>I know I said "two things", LOL, but Marite's post reminds me of something else I relate to.....not every kid my kids go to college with are rich or upper middle class. They definitely are among WAY more kids of that background than they were growing up in our community. However, there are plenty of kids on financial aid at their schools. My D mentioned a fellow student who commutes due to college costs. My own kids are not poor but are on substantial finanicial aid, both scholarships and massive loans. One of my D's has a roomie who is well off but my other D has a roomie from our area who is also on aid. There are definitely many wealthy full pay kids at college, but there are middle class kids on loans and there are even some who are from the lower class, even if there are less of them. Not all kids at selective schools are wealthy. </p>
<p>In my home community, kids from all backgrounds go to college. This is not a well to do community. However, certain families value education more than others and certain kids come from homes where the parents have a college education and some come from homes that don't seem to aspire to a college education, and not necesssarily due to cost. I don't have anything saved for college for my kids but we HIGHLY value education and are educated ourselves so that also has an impact on which kids here go to college or pursue a level of colleges, and it is not all about money.</p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>PS...did not see Blossom's post but I agree wholeheartedly. I have very wealthy clients whose kids I am counseling and the kids are poor students and also unmotivated types academically....they won't be going to selective colleges.</p>
<p>I can think of an "intellectual" example that just came up with my younger child at college. She happens to be a gifted writer. She excels in that area. She has gotten feedback at her university from writing teachers this year (is a frosh) that her writing is one of the best they have seen in class. She said that in a recent writing conference, the professor pushed and challenged her to take it to still another level and she was glad for it but commented, back home they'd just slap on an A+ because it was outstanding and better than what the other kids are handing in (yes, her grades in this course are higher than her peers in it) but the professor challenged her. And I know this is what she wanted when she selected a more selective challenging college. Yes, it would be easier to go back to her dorm and say, I've got an A, I can stop doing more drafts, but instead she was pushed to challenge herself at her level. That would not be the case at a much easier college. I know, as I have taught at easier colleges where the standards were not very high at all, sad to say.</p>
<p>Great topic. I always thought that it would be a good course to offer in the Sociology department. Everyone has their own definition of class: is it your paycheck? The way you conduct yourself? Your ethics? Manners? Is it where your parents went to college? (if they did). Which town you grew up in? Your lineage?</p>
<p>Dstark:</p>
<p>The schools on my S's list were all chosen because of their educational excellence; not because of the connections my S might make or his job prospects. It so happens that several are "prestigious." But just as nobody has heard of Middlebury in your part of the country, how many do you think have heard of Harvey Mudd? Only the parents of a math-nerd, I would think.
In fact, the job prospects for math Ph.D.s are grim. I'm talking pure math, not the kind of math you'd use in an investment bank. But that's what my S wants to pursue, and we are going into debt to let him pursue his passion. We think it is a good investment, not because of illusory future monetary benefits but present educational ones.</p>
<p>Nobody has answered my question (Or maybe I didn't ask it right? ). Why are all the prestigious schools filled with upper and upper middle class kids? If it was just about education, the schools would better reflect society.</p>
<p>Susan, Blossom, Marite, anybody, can you name me some schools where you can get a great education, are prestigious and filled primarily with middle and lower middle class kids?</p>
<p>Income is the easiest way to describe the classes. But your social class, can be determined by your ancestors, where you live, how you wear your hair, your clothers, the cars you drive, where you shop, what you buy, who you hang out with, what you do in your spare time, the way you speak and the words you use, your education level, and yes, where you went to school.</p>
<p>I don't know why that last part is such an issue.</p>
<p>'If it was just about education, the schools would better reflect society."</p>
<p>What makes you think that might be the case? Do you think that talent and cultural background in relation to education are distributed according to a normal, random curve? Or, in the unlikely case that they are, that they are so expressed?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why are all the prestigious schools filled with upper and upper middle class kids? If it was just about education, the schools would better reflect society.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's partly about cost. Some kids with the ability are never encouraged, b/c their family dismisses it as "we can't afford it" - without knowing what financial aid woiuld be available to them.</p>
<p>It's partly culture. Those in the upper and middle class have better educations, in general - so they value it, and help encourage their kids to strive for better educations. </p>
<p>The prestigious schools can't admit kids who don't apply, so there's a lot of self-selection process that goes into it, too. </p>
<p>A dumb example: when we got our S a new cellphone for Christmas, we mentioned to the (young, African-American) clerk we didn't want to activate the new one until he had his college applications in - b/c he still had 7 applications to finish, and he didn't need a "toy" to distract him from his task over break. She said, "whoa, those applications cost at least $50 apiece, right?" - which spoke volumes about a different perspective about college, driven almost totally by different socio-economic circumstances.</p>
<p>dstark: Interesting question. I know many are trying to recruit more and are providing the aid to make it possible to attend, but I see a trend that may make this increasingly difficult. That trend is increasing enrollment in elite state university honors programs. Some of these programs are more selective than some of the top 15 including the Ivy's. For example the SAT range at the Univ. of Washington honors is a low (not 25th percentile) of 1300 to a high of 1600, with an unweighted GPA average of 3.93. What the kids who attend that I know have in common is they chose to attend because of the academics and the money. Some might be considered upper middle class, but others are middle class. With the growth of these programs it may be increasingly difficult for the privates to attract all but the lowest income for whom they offer a full-ride scholarship. These programs are growing in prestige and offer excellent paths into top graduate and professional schools. Perhaps these programs are where one will find the middle class elite.</p>
<p>If it was just about education, the schools would better reflect society."</p>
<p>"What makes you think that might be the case? Do you think that talent and cultural background in relation to education are normally distributed? Or, in the unlikely case that they are, that they are normally expressed?"</p>
<p>Interesting comments. An acquaintance of mine who happens to live in one of the richest areas of the country also happens to volunteer in one of the more disadvantaged places in the country. He said the only difference between his kid and his friends, and the kids in the disadvantaged area was opportunity.</p>
<p>"It's partly about cost" For the well-informed, we could see a double-humped curve. The very best colleges are affordable only by the sufficiently poor, who get substantial need-based aid, and the upper middle class +, who can afford the enormous cost or at least justify borrowing it. For those in between, a flag ship state univerity, preferably with an honors program, or an ambitous LAC with need-based aid may be the best choice for those not willing to take on substantial debt.</p>
<p>" happens to live in one of the richest areas of the country"</p>
<p>Too much focus on the MONEY backgroud as opposed to the cultural backgroud. In my kid's elementary school district, the academically talented kids were the kids of educated parents, not of wealthy parents. This is a district where the parents were either born rich or earn a good income due to their educational background. They are also the kids now headed to Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, Stanford and Pomona.</p>