<p>As the parent of a kid with a Chicago>MIT, I think a lot of it depends on the major the student plans to study (or the things the kid wants to study besides MIT’s GIRs and major). Suffice it top say there were a lot of people surprised my S didn’t attend MIT!</p>
<p>OTOH, I have another kid who will face a VERY tough decision should he be fortunate enough to choose between over Tufts vs. Chicago.</p>
<p>
I agree with your post except for the above quoted paragraph. It simply doesn’t make sense to rank honors colleges as completely separate from the public universities in which they reside–because they are NOT completely separate. Even the most rigorous and comprehensive honors programs will necessitate taking ~75% of one’s courses in non-honors classes (“contract” honors, where a student does extra work in return for honors credit, does not address the difference in peer ability or overall class environment). A Schreyer honors course might be equivalent to one at Amherst, for example, but an Amherst student will graduate with at least 32 Amherst courses; the Schreyer student cannot, simply because no honors college can replicate all the core upper-level courses of every major offered by the university.</p>
<p>When I visited Pitt, my tour guide was a Chancellor’s recipient (full ride) who had been admitted off the waitlist to Haverford, her first choice, but ultimately declined. Finances were a consideration; she was double-majoring at Pitt and seemed happy but not necessarily free of regret.</p>
<p>Keilexandra – I think you are over idealizing the courses & environment at top-level colleges and underestimating the quality of many courses and professors at lower ranked colleges. My daughter has taken courses at Columbia that she thought were poorly taught and a waste of her time; my son took classes at a CSU where he characterized his profs as brilliant and incredibly knowledgeable about the courses he was taught, and where many of his classmates had rather incredible credentials of their own. Keep in mind that a class at a public U. might be a mix of traditional students in their late teens and early 20’s, along with some nontraditional students who are returning to school after a variety of life experiences that bring a lot to the class environment. </p>
<p>In general my daughter has had a far more rigorous education than my son – but the Amherst student who was batting 32 for 32 would probably be unusual. My son entered the CSU as a junior transfer, and had to take some introductory level courses to fill basic requirements of his chosen major. His experience was that several of the profs for those intro courses were quite good, but in general the other student were disengaged and not particularly capable – but that was also because some of those intro courses were required for other students to fill basic distribution courses, and many simply weren’t interested in the topic. But when my son got to the advanced level courses, things changed – there was a smaller group of students, all with the shared interest in that major – and so the level of discourse in those classes was much higher. And that’s where he started to really benefit from the presence of those nontraditional students who brought a lot more real-world experience to the table. My son by that time also could have been characterized as non-traditional – one of his early frustrations was realizing the huge gap that existed in terms of life experience between himself at age 24 and 18 year old classmates, not just in terms of outside experience, but in terms of life history. </p>
<p>Obviously the overall tenor and expectations of a top university are not the same as a less selective college, but I think frazzled’s post illustrates why the ranking system just doesn’t work. You can’t really measure an honors college that way, nor can you get an accurate picture of colleges like Barnard or Pitzer or Scripps that have close ties and shared resources and essentially shared campuses and resources with other differently "ranked: colleges. </p>
<p>Many Universities are a conglomerate of smaller colleges, and you can’t really “rank” each subordinate college as being identical. How can you equate Cornell’s College of Human Ecology with their School of Hotel Management? Or lump NYU’s Steinhardt School with Gallatin? </p>
<p>Even within a single college, if a student has a clear idea of what they want to study, then the relative strength of departments and undergraduate majors comes into play. I think a savvy student with a clear idea of an intended major will look at factors such as individuals who are on a particular school’s faculty, the overall strength of the faculty in that major, or placement rates for jobs or internships related to that major.</p>
<p>calmom - I was speaking primarily of class size in honors vs. regular university courses, although peer ability is also an important differential. With today’s terrible PHD job market, I have no doubt that the professors even at tier 3 schools are excellent. But for the highest probability of the most intellectually challenging experience possible, I believe in–and am willing to pay extra for–a top LAC.</p>
<p>If a given university’s honors college would be higher-ranked than that same university as a whole–which is the assumption upon which frazzled2thecore’s speculation rests–then it follows that there must be something “better” about the honors college experience. These benefits are often enumerated as stronger advising, smaller discussion-based classes, and a higher-level peer group–all characteristics that contribute to an intellectually satisfying education. If the honors college is to be considered on its own merits, then presumably it will be “ranked” by these characteristics instead of the equivalent assessments of the university at large. </p>
<p>Rankings–agree with them or not–place a premium on small class size and overall academic peer strength. My point is that it would be misleading at best, and deliberately deceitful at worst, to rank an honors college as if it were an independent entity offering honors-level class sizes and peers when in reality a honors student will experience a majority of “regular” non-honors class sizes and peers.</p>
<p>
I agree wholeheartedly–but most high school students, even if they don’t declare as undecided, are not “set” on an intended major. It’s still useful to look at individual department strength, but if you choose based on that strength, you’re rolling the dice that you will be among the small minority of students nationwide who doesn’t change their major.</p>
<p>The issue of conglomerate universities like Cornell and close cooperative agreements like the Claremont Consortium are separate from that of ranking honors colleges separately from their home universities. A student at Cornell’s College of Human Ecology can graduate without ever taking a course in the College of Engineering; a student in the Schreyers Honors College cannot graduate without taking numerous non-honors courses at Penn State. </p>
<p>There are other threads where one can discuss the numerous failings of subjectively flawed yet highly statistical ranking methodology. Hopefully this one can remain focused on the OP of considering why a student turns down a "clearly higher ranked’ college, while accepting the inherent advantages and disadvantages of rankings as a starting point.</p>
<p>
I know several students who fit this characterization by Frazzled, and agree there’s a clear difference between the honors and regular colleges. I’ve also noticed students in this demographic who’ve decided to go to medicine and decided that it’s not worth paying a private college premium for the undergrad degree.</p>
<p>
Actually, my son started out in a small tier-1 LAC, which he selected precisely because of the desire for small class size – and his experience was that the small size detracted from the value of the class. Basically the small classes were taught in an interactive, discussion-based fashion rather than lectures, and my son’s experience was that it would start out fine, with interesting and stimulating discussion. But after a few weeks, the classes became boring because the same individuals would tend to dominate, and they would end up saying essentially the same thing over and over again. In the small environment it was very predictable what a given individual might say, and my son found himself spending a lot of time wishing that certain students would just shut up and give the class a chance to hear more from the professor. </p>
<p>This is not a pre-conceived bias – again, he turned down a spot at UC Berkeley precisely because he wanted a LAC for small classes. It’s just that he learned quickly enough that his fellow students didn’t tend to know any more about a given subject than he did. </p>
<p>Also – please don’t assume that all classes at a public U. are huge. My own experience at a UC was that I had a good mix of small, medium size and large classes. I remember some seminars with as little as 6 or 8 students. Probably on average over 4 years, a typical class would have 35-40 students. And after my son transferred to a CSU, his classes were generally smaller than most of the classes my d. was taking at Barnard.</p>
<p><em>shrug</em> I’ve been in small seminar classes before–of varying sizes and peer abilities, including a four-person intro class with two non-traditional students at a Tier 3 school–and I’m aware of the disadvantages of a discussion-based school. But 35-40 students is a “big” size, though not “huge,” and it really hurts the quality of discussion.</p>
<p>It’s generally accepted that small classes > large classes. Lots of exceptions to that–some people learn better lecture-style, some people find peer discussion stifling like your S did–but that general convention is what rankings are based upon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I think that you are selling Penn State short by assuming that all of their non-honors classes are somehow second rate. </p>
<p>I have no idea what an individual’s experience may be, but I know that two students taking the same course at the same college in different sections with different instructors can have vastly different experiences, depending on the quality of the instructor. And I know that two students in the same class can also have vastly different experiences, depending on the individual’s degree of motivation and interest in the material. </p>
<p>I think Americans have been sold a huge bill of goods by the US News ranking system when it comes to what they are willing to pay for college. If it were a matter of a small price differential – say, comparing a college that cost $10,000 per year with one that cost $15K per year – I would think it very valid to look at rankings. But the rankings don’t equate with value in the realm of $40K annual tuitions & $60K COA’s. The cost differential is far more, IMHO, than the quality differential. A lot of students and their parents are looking at paying huge sums of money for a moderate improvement in overall quality of the experience.</p>
<p>^That assumption was made by frazzled in postulating that Schreyers Honors College, if isolated, would be higher-ranked than PSU.</p>
<p>
I agree. For the demographic that frazzled identified, the cost is usually not worth the quality differential–but such a moderate differential does exist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you place a value on a quality education? Or, a very high quality education?</p>
<p>I risked what was pretty much a guaranteed acceptance to Columbia (because of very strong connections) because I wanted to apply early to Brown, which is not only a tiny bit less prestigious but also much tougher for me to get into. It was a pretty huge risk, because my Columbia sure-thing was only true for early, so if Brown hadn’t worked out, I would have thrown that away. Luckily, I got accepted and am now very confidant that I made the right choice. </p>
<p>My dad wasn’t so happy, as he had always wanted me to go to Columbia (he is an alum), and went through all the effort of assembling his connections so that I would definitely get in, but in the end, at the last minute, I just couldn’t do it. I’ve lived 10 blocks away from Columbia all my life and I just did not like the idea of going to college in NYC, as much as I love it. Also, I got the impression that NYC sort of ate Columbia’s campus life, leaving the community (or lack-there-of) very disjointed and the students more aloof than passionate about their school. On the other hand, I’ve never met a Brown alum or student who doesn’t LOVE Brown. </p>
<p>He’s happy for me now, and happy that I’m happy with my choice, although that doesn’t stop him from making occasional witty cracks about Brown not being a “real” school (in jest of course), and making UPS jokes (what can Brown do for you?).</p>
<p>So in retrospect, I didn’t really turn anything down (considering I was never actually admitted), and it wasn’t a clearly higher ranked college (although I do think Columbia is more prestigious), but my anecdote still felt relevant to this thread lol.</p>
<p>
The question isn’t education vs. no education. </p>
<p>The question is good education vs. marginally better education. </p>
<p>We make those value judgments in every day life, but I don’t think most CC’ers would go for the same differential with other purchases, such as a house or a car or vacation. </p>
<p>I’m grateful for the financial aid packages that allowed my kids to attend pricier colleges for a fraction of the tuition, but I feel kind of sorry for many of their classmates who are paying full freight. Not for the ones who come from exceptionally wealthy families – if they can write the check without making a dent on their lifestyle, then that’s no problem – what’s the point of having money if you can’t spend it? But I do feel that families who are struggling to come up with their tuition or who have gone into substantial debt to pay for an education that is only a marginal improvement over the offering of a public school or a school offering substantial merit money to their kids are getting a raw deal – much of it that stems from misinformation due to marketing.</p>
<p>I’m sure there are many $$$ private colleges that are even substantially worse than some state honor colleges; however, I do believe colleges like UChicago, MIT, Harvard and Stanford offer much better education. It is hard to put a price on this kind of quality and experience, some consider it priceless.</p>
<p>Well, they certainly offer much better hype in their marketing materials.</p>
<p>In my district quite a few students do turn down Ivies and other highly ranked schools for Schreyer or UPitt Honors, but only very, very occasionally for PSU or UPitt without honors. In fact, many people would think it strange for a student to be paying full tuition somewhere else (unless the somewhere else is Harvard, Yale, or MIT) when they could get a Schreyer education for much less. I think this is a public school thing, though, or was until the latest economic crunch. </p>
<p>With UPitt, there are students who will not matriculate unless they receive a full tuition scholarship, or sometimes a Chancellor’s Scholarship offer, or at least an invitation to the interview. And many,many top students will turn down PSU if they are not accepted into Schreyer. So, yes, getting back to the OP, I would after all make a distinction between the two, both because students do, and because the experiences inside and outside the honors colleges do seem fairly different even if students do take many courses outside of the honors colleges. </p>
<p>The complaints that I have heard about Schreyer (and also UPitt honors)from highly accomplished and motivated students actually have little to do with course rigor. A Schreyer matriculant or UPitt honors student can generally avoid crowded or watered-down lecture classes and lack of sufficient “challenge” in the curriculum by enrolling in an honors section, using AP credits, taking graduate classes, taking upper-class courses in or outside of the major that are known for their rigor, or taking an overload of classes. Schreyer gives a further advantage of priority registration. Outside of the classroom, there are research professors who will go out of their way to hire honors college students as assistant even in freshman year, and advisors who will connect students with professors looking to hire assistants. And these state schools are not known for grade inflation.</p>
<p>The complaints that I have heard have been that outside of the honors programs, students do not feel as if they “fit in” socially with the bulk of the student body. This bothers some students and some majors more than others. While chances to be mentored by a professor may be greater for individuals than may be the case for most at higher-ranked schools (a big attraction for many students), counseling may be superb for honors college students, the honors college peer group stat wise may not be different from more highly ranked schools except at the very highest and lowest ends) and research choices and course offerings may be far more plentiful than at liberal arts colleges with smaller faculties (also a consideration for many students), more mundane student activities (Greek organizations, club sports) may not feel as inviting. Many students who have gone through AP tracks in public high schools might get discouraged at finding themselves again in a small intellectual group among a larger party school atmosphere.</p>
<p>The other complaint I have heard is that upon graduation, employers and some grad and professional schools DO brush aside honors college graduates in favor of the name-brand, especially if there is a glut of college grads on the market. I have not heard that students who have nonetheless gone on to highly-ranked graduate and professional schools that Schreyer or UPitt honors left them unprepared for the rigor compared to graduates of “name brand” schools. In fact, what I have heard indicates quite the opposite…</p>
<p>I don’t think i’d give up Harvard for anything either. I’ve always thought my friend made a mistake even though she might not want to admit.</p>
<p>Visiting colleges with my younger, less academic child has been a real eye-opener. I naively assumed he was being admitted to “lesser quality” schools (all of the schools are small, private LACs). What I have found is that these kids are just as passionate about their interests as those at big sister’s school and they are also being admitted to top grad programs (eg: Harvard law (only one out of the class last year), Johns Hopkins (medical school-one last year), Chicago, ect). I was amazed at the caliber of schools some of these kids are getting into for PhD, law , medicine. Essentially, I feel no doors are closed by choosing a less well known school if the academic environment is challenging, the grad school admits from the school are strong and the student has the motivation to work hard and seek out the available oppotunities.</p>
<p>hornet it is so nice to see this perspective from someone who has mothered kids with different academic profiles.</p>
<p>DD didn’t apply to any elite schools but was accepted to CPSLO and several others that were ranked higher than the school she ended up attending. I admit to being concerned that it wouldn’t be rigorous enough for her (wrong) and that she was somehow settling even though I supported her choice. </p>
<p>Flash forward a year and my kid is having a fabulous undergrad experience at this school. Having D1 basketball experiences (as a sports band member not an athlete) she could not have had, had she matriculated to any other college to which she had an acceptance. </p>
<p>So what I am saying is that you never know what side benefits are to college selection and what may be around the next bend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said. Thanks for sharing, hornet.</p>
<p>Naive question; Don’t we know most of the time before we apply how much it will cost?</p>