Your objective is to GRADUATE FROM college, not GET IN to college!

<p>I just had to say that.</p>

<p>I've been perusing the threads in "College Search and Selection" forum and I get the sense that so many of us so focused on "prestige" that we may be losing sight of the big picture.</p>

<p>It's part of human nature, I think, to want to better one's lot in life; to improve one's standard of living. Going to college, and I'll admit, going to a "better" college can help us do that. There's nothing wrong with that at all.</p>

<p>But the desire to place ourselves higher on the ladder of life can also have a downside. It can be a trap. The easiest way for me to explain the trap is by analogy: </p>

<p>My son grew up playing soccer. He has talent. When he was in middle school and high school he was a legitimate candidate to try out for some of the most elite teams in our area. It was validating, somehow, to be able to say he was a player on a team that was known to be "good," because that meant that he must also be "good." The temptation to always try to make it onto a more "prestigious" team was a constant pull; a "carrot" always dangling out there in front of a player. The temptation is hard to resist. There's something intoxicating about being part of something great, or at least potentially great. It's self validating; it can make you feel better about yourself. It can elevate you in the eyes of your peers. But it can also crush you.</p>

<p>In my son's case the problems began when he actually made it onto one of those "great" teams. He almost never played in games. Sure, the coach was great, and my son learned a lot in the practices. But he was over matched. The talent pool at that level was beyond his reach. He worked so incredibly hard in those practices. He did all the right things. But after a while it became evident that at that level he was simply not destined to be a regular player. It was heartbreaking, as a parent, to watch. It was demoralizing for him. His motivation waned. Without game experience his skills diminished. Soccer was no longer a passion. It became a job.</p>

<p>In the end, looking back, he probably would have been much better off being a starter on a "B" level team. He'd have been happier, and thus more motivated. His skills would probably have <em>improved</em> rather than diminished.</p>

<p>That's the trap of "prestige." It can be great for a while. But you can get in over your head. If you get in over your head it can crush you. </p>

<p>I submit that what you <em>don't</em> want, over the next four years, is a constant struggle to survive. I submit that what you <em>do</em> want is to be challenged, for sure, but to <em>thrive</em>.</p>

<p>Go ahead and apply to some "reach" schools. But after you've been accepted and you're deciding which school to attend, look beyond the rankings and the prestige. Think about how you want to spend the next four years of your <em>life</em>. Beyond just the rankings, what <em>environment</em> to you want for yourself? What do you envision yourself doing? What will keep the fire burning? What will keep your passion(s) alive? When you're not studying, what will rejuvenate you? What will recharge your batteries and give you the energy and the motivation, when you do get back to the books, to hit them hard? What school can give you those things? Go there. </p>

<p>I submit that the happier you are <em>at</em> school, the better you'll do <em>in</em> school.</p>

<p>I understand your analogy with your son's soccer experience, but you're assuming that students who get admitted to reach schools are in over their heads and can't keep up. In general, colleges don't admit students who don't appear capable of success. And while there are only a certain number of players on a soccer roster who can see action, it's quite reasonable for all the students at a given college to be successful if they're motivated. True, the goal is to graduate, but the different routes to that goal differ vastly in quality of experience. Similarly, the goal of dining out is to ingest food, but there's a big difference between fine dining and fast-food drive through.</p>

<p>You have to get in to graduate...</p>

<p>gadad said "you're assuming that students who get admitted to reach schools are in over their heads and can't keep up."</p>

<p>I'm not assuming that at all. But I am saying that the likelihood of that happening is greater at reach schools, so be aware of that as you go through your evaluation process.</p>

<p>gadad said "In general, colleges don't admit students who don't appear capable of success. "</p>

<p>Agreed. </p>

<p>But both of gadad's comments miss my larger point, which is...</p>

<p>Don't get so caught up in "prestige" that you lose sight of the bigger picture.</p>

<p>"You have to get in to graduate..."</p>

<p>I guessed you missed the entire point of the message.</p>

<p>"Don't get so caught up in "prestige" that you lose sight of the bigger picture."</p>

<p>I'll buy that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's the trap of "prestige." It can be great for a while. But you can get in over your head. If you get in over your head it can crush you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If by "prestige" one is to use the size of the endowment or even selectivity, that is seldom the problem. Elite colleges generally have the highest graduation rates, especially among minorities and students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Therefore the analogy with competitive sports teams breaks down. If anything, the college system works in completely opposite fashion. </p>

<p>Studies have repeatedly shown that students admitted to more selective colleges will perform better than if they had enrolled at less selective institutions. Part of the reason is simply regression to the mean. A strong peer group will push the below average student to perform at a higher level. A URM is much less likely to fail at Harvard or Amherst than at State U. He is also much more likely to thrive and reach his maximum potential in a more academically challenging environment. The support structure is such that few students fall through the cracks and extra resources are available to students who fall behind. Class sizes are small, faculty/student ratios are low, individualized tutoring is available. That is part of the added value of elite colleges. Even in majors with high dropout rates such as science or engineering, a student is better off at a more selective college. A student good enough to be admitted to MIT is much more likely to go through the program successfully and in shorter time at that instititution than if he had enrolled at a less selective college where he would be left to sink or swim. </p>

<p>While there could be many reasons for a student to pick a lower ranked school over a more selective one, fear of not graduating or not achieving one's maximum potential should definitely not be one of them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I've been perusing the threads in "College Search and Selection" forum and I get the sense that so many of us so focused on "prestige" that we may be losing sight of the big picture.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's true, but this is a forum about figuring out what college you want. Are you surprised that people are focused on getting in?</p>

<p>I largely agree with cellardweller's post.</p>