<p>But I think it’s a stretch to state that because selectivity doesn’t make a difference with respect to GRE, MCAT, etc. scores, that there is no correlation between selectivity and educational quality, especially given what the Braxton (1993) article shows.</p>
<p>Going with Mimk’s post - The assumption that one can do well at a state school vs a prestigious school is a big fallacy. Some state schools have as much competition for grades as any prestigious ones deemed harder (that is a fallacy within itself but we digress). It is important to research the schools which have weeder courses for premeds (you may get a 93 and end up with a B because they grade on a curve) and not fall into the trap of state schools = 3.8 GPA.</p>
<p>I should clarify that I wrote my above post a little tongue in cheek in the sense that I don’t believe that college is all about positioning yourself for medical school. I think there are other things to consider when picking out a college besides how it might serve your gpa. And it’s worth remembering that not everyone who starts out pre-med stays pre-med. You might want to consider the strength of a school in case you find yourself with other passions once you’re there.</p>
<p>Weeding out is quite relevant though for med school or other tough fields like CS or EE. Why go to Berkeley and get weeded out if Cal State Fullerton has no competition in premed or CS (I have no idea this is the case but I am throwing it out there).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Braxton study is one study, and deserves consideration. But (a) it is just one study, and (2) studied specifically to LACs, not research universities, and (3) is based on the assumption that there is a correlation between educational quality and test rigor. I certainly think that there is a possibility that (3) obtains, though it remains an assumption. It’s also interesting to note that in a similar study reported in P&T (pp. 79-80), a study of course examination rigor at 40 research universities differing in undergraduate student body selectivity, the conclusion was, “Selectivity had no significant relationship with the percentage of examination questions asked at the higher-order levels of comprehension, application, or critical thinking levels. This finding suggests that more selective research universities tend not to give any more rigorous examinations than less selective ones." Then, a caveat, “To the extent that rigor in course examinations reflects similar rigor in the instruction received (an association that cannot be determined from the study),” then a weasel-worded proposal, "it may be that undergraduate selectivity alone is simply not a particularly effective way of identifying universities that have demanding academic programs.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In post #166 above, I quoted a passage early in the article (excerpted on a web site) that pertained only to LACs. Since that post, I went on to purchase and read the complete article. In the rest of the article, Braxton does go on to examine the relationship between undergraduate admissions selectivity and the level of understanding required by course-examination question at research universities.</p>
<p>In investigating 4 academic fields at 40 research universities, Braxton does not find the same relationship between undergraduate admissions selectivity and more academically demanding course examination questions. He offers several possible explanations (as well as several caveats). One of the possible explanations is that
</p>
<p>One of his caveats is that
</p>
<p>I find these observations provocative, but as annasdad says, the Braxton study is [only] one study.</p>
<p>What are the fields and institutions in this study?</p>
<p>Thanks, annasdad and tk21769 for developing the initial point. It’s giving me a clearer picture and making me think more about college choices for my younger son.</p>
<p>One of the reasons why I thought the Braxton study was more important was that it actually looked at stuff that was going on in the classroom, as opposed to using the score on a GRE or critical thinking test, which might tell you only indirectly what was happening in the classroom. So even if it was one study, it was of a different nature in an important way than the other ones discussed. </p>
<p>It’s making me very leary of this less selective LAC my second son is considering. </p>
<p>And in terms of research Us, and right now I’ll put this out, but my thinking is less clear about this, there might simply be more of a culture of weeding out, as there might be less engagement with students, while at a less selective LAC, with smaller classes and more nuturing professors, there might be some pressure within the faculty member to ensure students succeed, and thus adopt less rigourous exams.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably because some research universities (big state universities) are not very selective, but have weaker students who drop out or finish in whatever low-rigor majors are offered. I.e. the course rigor may be similar to that of more selective universities, but the less selective research universities may have a higher dropout rate and a higher percentage of students in low-rigor majors. One effect of this is that some high-rigor courses or majors may not be offered at all due to low student demand, unless the university is very large and has a wide distribution of student abilities (i.e. more selective schools are not taking away all of the most motivated students).</p>
<p>It is interesting to look at distribution of majors at schools of varying selectivity. Liberal arts (including science) dominates at most more selective schools, but is typically only a minority of students at less selective schools. Non-engineering pre-professional majors tend to get more popular at less selective schools, while engineering exists at some more selective schools and disappears completely below the mid-range of selectivity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Small schools are less likely than large schools to have a wide enough range of student abilities and motivations (as well as having smaller selections of courses and majors), so it is more likely that a student of significantly higher or lower ability and motivation than the median at a small school will feel mismatched in terms of finding appropriate courses and majors.</p>
<p>I think when the question is pre-med, if there is the goal of whittling down the number of kids making it to jr year, still thinking of med school, it changes the equation. In the worst cases, there is no sense of simply work your butt off. The tests can go way beyond class teaching, reading and lab experiences. There are many kids who have commented on this, from a variety of schools. In this case, it’s not just about the kid deciding free-will to change to a more captivating major, nor adding hours of study. </p>
<p>I agree which whichever posters are saying even publics have tiers. At the best, one could encounter the same weeding- and I suspect it’s fairly certain. It’s important not to generalize in calling someplace a “big public research instuituton” just based on size or public. The research done at, say, UCLA is superb. At some of the Cal States? Dunno. Depends. I doubt it can compare, widely across the board, humanities and STEM. And yes, weeding exists at those sweet LACs.</p>
<p>I’m glad Annasdad added his thoughts about fit. You have to match the kid and the school- it’s not always enough to say, LAC vs larger school, prestigious vs lesser…“you’ll learn as much at either sort.” You want the right balance of classes that meet your needs, the profs whose work is relevant to your interests, some understanding of the level of prep your peers come in with. For the purposes of this OP’s question: yes, she could be wonderfully stretched in a competitive academic environment- but have her future hopes dashed by her measurable performance. True, even at a lesser school, she would have to put in the hours and the smarts. But maybe the inherent fit is better. Maybe, with solid work, she would gain special attention from profs, earn some research opps, be empowered.</p>
<p>Understand that even P&T are working with some older studies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What ucbalumnus said, plus…a lot of LACs (less selective or “second tier”) pride themselves on their exceptionally high rates of placement into medical school. So they are weeding, to be sure. Giving every student the impression that he/she is med school material is not going to help students or the schools’ reputation.</p>
<p>I do think it is important for pre-med students to choose a college where they can get the highest GPA. (Unfortunately, this can’t be determined ahead of time and often depends on random factors like which professor taught the course, illness during finals, etc.)
However, I’ve seen a couple very smart students who chose the more selective college and ended up with low GPAs which postponed their plans for med school. One eventually got in after taking more science classes at no-name state u. (and getting nearly a 4.0 after finishing with a 3.0 at an Ivy.) The other student is a senior with about 3.2 at LAC where science majors typically have low GPAs and about 3/4 of freshman pre-meds have been weeded out. This student was advised to put off applications and hope senior grades will improve GPA, and if not, also advised to take more science classes at state u. after graduation. Meanwhile, pre-med friends who attended state u. have similar scores but 4.0 GPAs and are interviewing.
Students should consider things like rigor/fit/prestige when choosing a college, but none of those is as important to the goal of becoming a doctor as getting the highest possible undergrad GPA. Choose wisely!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note that even among the big publics, there can be “wide” and “narrow” ones in terms of student ability and motivation.</p>
<p>For example, California, with 32 state universities (UCs and CSUs), has relatively “narrow” ranges of student ability and motivation at each. Arizona, with 3 state universities (UA, ASU, NAU), has relatively “wide” ranges of student ability and motivation at each. So, while ASU may have a similar threshold of selectivity at the low end as some low selectivity CSU, a student of high ability and motivation may find more satisfactory offerings at ASU because ASU has a larger population of high ability and motivation students, while the low selectivity CSU loses most of them to more selective CSUs and UCs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The disciplines are biology, chemistry, history, and sociology*.
None of the institutions are named.</p>
<p>(* At one point in the article, Braxton names psychology as the 4th discipline. At 3 other points, he names sociology.)</p>
<p>Braxton suggests that,</p>
<p>“Although this study did not find a relationship between undergraduate admissions selectivity and more academically demanding course examination questions in research universities, it is possible that such a relationship might be observed if other course-level academic processes were reviewed, such as written instructions or expectations for term papers, other written assignments, and the questions faculty asked students in class. Research should also be conducted to determine if such relationships exist.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Braxton bases his findings about LACs on an earlier paper:
Braxton, J. M., and R. C. Nordvall. “Selective Liberal Arts Colleges: Higher Quality as well as Higher Prestige?” Journal of Higher Education, 56 (September/October 1985), 538-54. </p>
<p>According to Braxton, the findings of that paper “suggest that more selective liberal arts colleges do have higher academic standards than do less selective liberal arts colleges.” But again, course examinations are the only indicator of academic standards he examined in these papers. Please see the quote at the bottom of my last post.</p>
<p>I think one is right to be interested, as a parent, in academic standards at any college one is considering. I wouldn’t leap to the conclusion that every less selective LAC has low academic standards. On the other hand, if Braxton’s study is valid, it would appear that many of the most gifted students in the country, in attending some of the most selective (prestigious, and expensive) research universities, aren’t any more likely than average students at less selective schools to be challenged by difficult, critical-thought-provoking exam questions. As a citizen, I sure hope they are being held to high standards in other ways.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s a very real possibility. If you have courses taught with approximately the same rigor at two universities, one with an ACT range of, say, 24-28, and the other with a range of, say, 28-32, it is very likely that you’re going to have more people fail to complete the course at the former school. If that approximate degree of rigor obtains across the curriculum, it is very likely you are going to have a higher dropout rate at the less-selective school.</p>
<p>To me, that begs a question: are students at highly selective universities with 90%+ graduation rates being challenged to the same degree as students at less-selective schools with graduation rates below 50%? Shouldn’t courses at the more selective school be taught with substantially more rigor, to challenge and stretch the student? There is no evidence of which I am aware that indicates that is going on (aside from anecdotes from anonymous posters on the Internet).</p>
<p>The graduation rate (not to mention the GPA creep) makes me suspect that at at least some of the highly selective schools, the goal is more to maintain the graduation rate and get the most kids out the door with the highly valued piece of paper than it is to produce real scholars.</p>
<p>“biology, chemistry, history, and sociology*.”</p>
<p>History and socialogy don’t change a lot. I am not certain they can change the questions all that much. Biology and chemistry are changing all the time and so I am a bit surprised the exams don’t differ much.</p>
<p>Has the paper done any analysis on the grades as opposed to the questions? This is the primary difference in my opinion for most schools, i.e., how easy or harsh the grading is in those subjects if the paper says the exam content is not any different. </p>
<p>"To me, that begs a question: are students at highly selective universities with 90%+ graduation rates being challenged to the same degree as students at less-selective schools "</p>
<p>There is one factor that drives graduation - money. The selective schools take away the money pressures since they are claiming to fund the FA without loans. However, they encourage such fully funded students to take on jobs in the non-profit sectors, such teach for america or americorps. </p>
<p>Whether they make classes easy so they can graduate - at least at MIT this does not seem to be the case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, there is no evidence that it is not going on either. It is easy to find examples where it is and where it is not, but “course rigor” is difficult to measure directly and quantify in a way suitable for a large scale study.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The stability of knowledge or course content in various disciplines is not at issue here. At issue is whether exam questions at more selective colleges are likelier to be “critical thinking” questions. Braxton finds that the extent to which critical thinking questions are asked on course examinations in research universities …</p>
<ol>
<li>… is influenced by the academic discipline of the course (these questions are less likely to be used on examinations in biology and in chemistry). </li>
<li>… is influenced by the course level (the percent of these questions tends to increase at higher course levels.)</li>
<li>… is not significantly influenced by whether the course is intended for majors or non-majors</li>
<li> … is not significantly influenced by class size</li>
<li>… is not significantly influenced by undergraduate admissions selectivity</li>
</ol>
<p>He does not address differences in grading policies or practices.
Nor does he address whether more selective research universities are any likelier to teach (or test on) the most recent developments in various fields of knowledge.</p>
<p>This raises an interesting point. What are the most appropriate indicators of high academic standards? Braxton focuses on whether professors tend to ask thought-provoking questions on exams. Is that an appropriate focus? I suppose that depends, in part, on one’s educational goals. Is the goal to educate critical thinkers? Or, is it to train diligent students who can perform to the toughest grading standards? Or, is it to produce knowledge-workers familiar with the latest findings of cutting-edge research?</p>