<p>Nice one slyvt....Thanks for the clarification</p>
<p>I'm going to stick my neck out here. I think calmom has been on the record that visits to campuses aren't that important and I get the feeling she's now saying her kids haven't found a good social match in their colleges--correct me if I'm wrong--so I'm going to suggest that visits to campuses might indeed be a good way to decide on fit.</p>
<p>I tried to edit this to be nicer--calmom is great--but I was too late.</p>
<p>There is an old Russian joke the punchline of which states "One should not confuse tourism with immigration" . I have a feeling that in some cases positive campus visit doesn't translate into an overall fantastic college experience. :)</p>
<p>Not to mention the obvious point that with all the chest banging that regardless of whether your kid goes full ride or full pay it all works out for the best.... nevertheless the colleges own statistics on 6 year grad rates and transfer rates suggest that indeed, some kids don't find a home and end up leaving.... or find a better home and end up transferring.</p>
<p>The kids I know who left or transferred had reasons ranging from "missed GF too much to be so far away" to more serious academic concerns-- intended major wasn't as strong as the course catalog suggested; focus of the major was too pre-professional (or too academic/theoretical than kid wanted); other kids worked too hard or partied too hard; etc. And I'm not suggesting that transferring is a bad thing, nor am I suggesting that a kid who does a year or two at college and decides that now is not the time.... all fine and legit.</p>
<p>However, I think it's naive to assume that since most kids like where they end up I can just toss the dice with my own kid and assume that s/he will do just fine. Everyone likes to think their child is the resilient one, the one who can make lemonaid out of lemons, the one that will go to a low ranked school and find the great professors and win a prestgious fellowship and get a 4.0 thus making a top law school a slam dunk-- and of course, many kids can and do all of this. Other kids really need to be in the kind of environment where they've got to prove themselves, not just freshman year but every day, in order to maximize their own potential and opportunities.</p>
<p>And then some of us wind up able to afford it and the kid says they like it better with some reasons that make reasonable sense and we say OK.</p>
<p>I think there's an awful lot of mixing up of apples, oranges, bananas, and other fruits in this thread.</p>
<p>The OP seems to be talking about academic fit. Others are talking about the social scene; still others about distance from home, GF/BF, etc... And once again, there is the unexamined assumption that more expensive is better.
I am minded of shopping. One can shop at Target, Macy's or a small boutique. Value is often in the eyes of the beholder.</p>
<p>The issue of fit is greatest at a LAC because it is likely to have a more homogeneous population in both academic and social terms than a mide-ssized or a large university. LACs range the gamut from mediocre to excellent; what they have in common in small size. At mid-sized and large universities, there is more diversity of interests and backgrounds. That is particularly true of large universities. I expect that at most, a student can find true academic peers. The high achievers can do so by taking more advanced courses--something that is much harder to do in high schools with their fairly rigid curricula, inflexible schedules, and limited offerings. But large universities are not for everyone. My argument is that what one pays for at mid-sized universities and LACs is not necessarily better academics but a smaller environment. I'm thinking that academically speaking, my S would have been well served by a large university such as Berkeley or Michigan or Wisconsin or Penn State, or UIUC all of which have great math departments. But socially speaking, he was better off in a smaller institution. So that's where he ended up.</p>
<p>I would agree we are talking about apples, oranges, a whole bunch of different fruits and maybe even some vegetables and meats. Not too unusual for an internet discussion. </p>
<p>Maybe we should return to the OP's original topic: "you get what you pay for." There are some really great schools, many are private and many are expensive. For those really great schools, even the high cost may represent a bargain for the right student who fits and will benefit. There are also plenty of very expensive private schools with modest academics. For many if not most I would conclude you really do not get what you pay for. Many of us have had to analyze and make tough college cost-benefit decisions. On a national basis, we are probably the exceptions. Many kids do not have the academic achievements to gain admission and many families can't afford the costs or won't even consider the sacrifices necessary.</p>
<p>I think that in general you do get what you pay for. But, to state the obvious and what has been discussed to death in those other threads, sometimes what you're paying for is the brand name. Some people don't need/want that brand name because of their personality, their intended career or future educational goals, or because of the geographic area in which they live. Others do.</p>
<p>One aspect of the name brand college that we've noticed as ordinary middle middle classers, is that the school S attends includes some rather nice little perks whose cost is no doubt part of the reason for the big price tag. While appreciated by S, I would prefer not to have to pay for them automatically. For example, S's suite has a bathroom that is cleaned regularly by a maid provided by the college. Much appreciated and more sanitary, I'm sure, but I'd rather they reduce the room cost and let the kid clean it himself. Another example is the trendy and pricey a la carte meal plan debit system. Whenever he eats, he doesn't pay school cafeteria prices, he pays chain restaurant prices. The food is apparently good, but S could survive just fine on cafeteria quality food until he starts earning his own living. We live modestly and simply and sometimes I feel S is living way to well for a college student. (Talk of taking sailing and golf to cover his phys ed. requirements made me pretty envious.)</p>
<p>I've had alot of time to think about this, 4 kiddos in college for the past 6 years.</p>
<p>Year after year another kiddo, another process, more schools and more decisions.</p>
<p>I have come to realize that for my children what has worked best for each one of them were different choices with great variety but when all is said and done it ended up being for the SAME reason.</p>
<p>Granted I did not see it at first, heck I didn't see it until recently 5 years out.</p>
<p>But what has really shown to be a significant factor in contributing to their growth on so many different levels was decisions that resulted in putting themselves in situations that they needed vs. what they perceived to WANT.</p>
<p>Sometimes this was discovered through mistakes, accidentally or in some cases a hard examination of themselves. Sorting who they were from who they wanted to be and where they wanted that journey to take place. Could they get there if they were comfortable, safe and secure? Or did they need to leave their "comfort" zone and really reach for something that until now had been outside their grasp?</p>
<p>And I am not just addressing "academic" fit, but social, geographic/distance, physical, leadership, climate and opportunities. Each of mine examined their choices and whether they realized it or not they ended up picking the choice that would be most difficult for them. For my middle daughter it was leaving home, going 3000 miles away and attending a large OOS public and participating and traveling in a sport in which I had always taxied her to! For many years we spent time back in forth in cars, at practice and now she was all by her "lil ole self"!! She ended up switching to a major which she now loves but with her specific learning disability she had never contemplated before, now its "what disability?" after making Dean's List every semester as a classics major who is also pre-med. Surprise to all of us.</p>
<p>Same is true for her brothers. What I thought would be perfect fits they walked from and choose what I thought would be far, far from perfect. My crazy sports fanatic, short wearing, flip flop, Taco Bell lovin' plebeian son who gets math with NO NUMBERS loves, loves his greek and roman history classes with some physics, econ and orgo all thrown in at a small private which seriously probably wants to disinfect his seat after he vacates it daily!!!</p>
<p>But again he is flourishing and relishes every minute. Same for my more sensitive, gifted writer and true history buff loving his tenure (I say time-served) as an astrophysics major who on Saturdays does mandatory urban commando training at a service academy. He is beyond satisfied. Oh yeah, I was wrong on that one. I predicted doom and dire consequesnces.</p>
<p>They love leaving me with egg on my face. Although the sports-fanatic gets to play ball while his bro is having to sit that one out. So as he says "who's your daddy now??"!</p>
<p>Of course for us the money was an issue, HUGE issue. But when all was said and done and they picked their schools the money had already worked itself out. They played the "if money was no issue where would you go game?" first and they each had the same result even when they figured the money in. </p>
<p>Weird, huh?</p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>maybe its not what you pay for but you get what you earn, you get what you put into it</p>
<p>
[quote]
...I believe top tier schools are most likely to be most valuable to high potential kids who did not push themselves in HS ... getting thrown into the deep end with no where to hide will force them to face their lack of focus ... while sending them to an mid-tier school because "they didn't earn the right to go to a top tier school" is putting them in an environment that allows them easily to continue their HS ways. </p>
<p>Imagine the result if all the 'elite' schools let it be known they prefer smart slackers over smart hard workers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not on an admissions committee but I doubt it is that easy for them to know who the slackers are or are not (but they probably can guess who might be). </p>
<p>What they say from my file was a classic lopsided applicant ... my math/science grades and scores were excellent while my english/language grades and scores were pretty good ... and at Cornell, where I went, it added to 50% SATs and OK grades (just barely top 10%) and a very tough course load (for my HS). From that academic view they could tell I was smart and was motivated in math and science and that I wasn't in love with English and languages ... I do not know how they would know I had done no work for my grades (although it would be a reasonable guess I wasn' killing myself in english and the languages).</p>
<p>At the same time our Val did much much worse on his admissions .than I ( and a lot of other students with lower grades but who were quicker) ... he had a 4.0 but was petty much a grind and it sure seems like colleges figured it out given his college outcomes ... to me upside potential seemd to be one of the elements of the decision process at elite schools.</p>
<p>It seems a lot of people want colleges to line up kids by HS academic performance and accept the kids from the top of the pile down. Colleges clearly do not do this for all their slots ... one dimension they explicitly talk about is building a class and trying to round out the class across lots of dimensions. I also wonder if there is discussion about for which candidates will school X make the biggest difference. Maybe they consider applicants who have shown very high potential when passionate and schools pick some of these applicants to try to draw out this potential. If they do this for some spots in each class I would not consider that a bad thing.</p>
<p>Really interesting stories kat, and parabella, I love the punchline. I'm thinking you're more likely to get what you want/need in a school by doing good research rather than by forking over more cash. And then, as kat says, putting all you've got into the place you (meaning the student) choose. But informing that choice with in-depth research up front makes a lot of sense. This isn't quite immigration or marriage, but it's a long term relationship.</p>
<p>My suggestion is to go on ratemyprofessor.com for the school you are unsure about and check out the comments from the students. Then go on the ratemyprofessor Harvard site (or the branch of some other top school). Compare the student writing. You can do this on facebook or another student site also. It sounds silly, but the quality of the students will shine through in casual writing. Ivy students use slang and slack off in casual writing also, but I guarantee you that there will be a noticeable difference between the MAJORITY of comments from tier 4 students and the majority of comments from tier 1 students.</p>
<p>That's a great idea, railoraine!</p>
<p>^^^Frankly, I don't think that idea gets us anywhere. We all know that there is a higher concentration of top students at top tier universities and colleges. The real questions, IMO, are (1) whether or not there are a sufficient number of good/great students to form a social and academic network, and (2) are there enough challenging courses/professors to keep the most talented students challenged?</p>
<p>Simply proving that there are more poor students at less selective colleges does not answer those questions.</p>
<p>Ratemyprofessor comments are directly correlated to the student's satisfaction with the grade he received or the ease with which he received it, and little else. Mostly one word comments or less ("awesome"), many are just jokes ("He made us actually read the book!"), or obviously just careless typing ("gave pop quizes all the tme"). I think the comments on Princeton Review are useful if you are trying to get a feel for what the students are like, what they value, and the general atmosphere (if you can't visit yourself).</p>
<p>Gosh knows, I hope people don't make assumptions about my literacy based on my haphazard posts on CC. </p>
<p>Funny story (or maybe not): S had a professor notorious for being ridiculously difficult. His ratemyprof ratings go on for pages, none positive, with most ranting about how they failed or had to drop the class. S has a little bit of a mean streak and he gave the guy all smilies and said, "Easy class. I got a high A".</p>
<p>I like what katwkittens said:
maybe its not what you pay for but you get what you earn, you get what you put into it</p>
<p>Also, I think if academic rigor and fit are what you are looking for, then sometimes you'll find it at colleges that aren't the expensive/no merit aid ones. I love ISI's <em>Choosing the Right College</em> because it really dissects each college's academic rigor. It's from a libertarian/conservative perspective, so you may have to allow for that if you're not there, but I've not seen another guide that comes closer to letting you know if your student will get a real education at a school or not. I was surprised at the number of unknown gems in the book. We looked at some colleges we'd have never thought to before reading it.</p>
<p>I believe there are several great colleges for any student out there. How to balance fit/academics/reputation/money when it comes time to make a decision though? That's a tough one - I wish there was an easy answer because we're right there with you!</p>
<p>An earlier poster pointed out that if one is a top student, s/he doesn't need an entire college full of other top students necesssarily for there to be fit--just enough to form an academic peer group. I think railorane's suggestion was only meant to give a rough idea of whether or not there were enough bright kids there judging by how they express themselves. (As far as the accuracy of the ratings, I wouldn't know but in high school my S would read the intellligent comments about high school teachers and later found them to be accurate as far as teaching style, etc. Rigor is quite subjective, though. I wouldn't recommend the site as a way to judge the quality of professors.)</p>
<p>It is not enough to have some academic peers like some sort of social club. Teachers must teach at the level that is appropriate to the students. To a small degree they can set high standards and demand a level of commitment. They cannot teach at a level where the majority cannot keep up, whether this is due to a poor academic background, limited abilities or more commonly being unwilling to expend a lot of effort. The top student in the mediocre school will often not be challenged and often will not learn as much as they would in a more rigorous environment. They may not realize their limitations until they go elsewhere and then find their background and ability to deal with challenges is limited.</p>
<p>I think the trick is to find a school that has a range of offerings, especially at the higher levels. This is where a bright student would find intellectual peers and profs pitching their teaching to these advanced students. Consequently, a bright student would be better served in a large public university than in a mediocre private LAC.</p>