Choose school with greatest academic challenge OR more comfortable option?

[kathieh1]

Originally Posted by BUDgirl

It would be awful for him to try to go the more challenging school and then suffer failure. He could get all stressed out and even though he is trying really hard, it just becomes too much for him. That can be hard to get over from the kids point of view.

My view is a bit different. A student ready to go to college is pretty much an adult, and at some point we have to stop worrying about whether not getting an A every time will hurt their self esteem. Every kid is different, and for some a less challenging environment is the right answer, but fear of failure is in my view not a good reason. I would leave the decision to the student who can make the choice based on their past experiences - but I hope I'd let my emerging adult challenge him/herself even if success wasn't guaranteed. Obviously if you fear your student will be completely out of their depth there.. that they got admitted as a mistake for example, then that's different.

My D is one who likes to be challenged and doesn't care if she always gets an A. She will try to do her best, and if she DOES succeed at something hard - by her own hard work - she takes a lot of satisfaction in knowing she risked failing by trying it. She is also able to change direction and "fail" without it crushing her since there are so many challenges to choose from.

[hornet]

My son applied to 10 LACs two years ago and got into all. These were not top 40 LACs. He chose the lowest "ranked" of the group. I went with his decision. I will add that the school he chose to go to was not a "party" school; I probably would not have supported that type of choice. Two years later and much more confident about his abilities, he is transferring to a more competitive school. The school he is leaving has lots of good things about it and he has matured so much as a result of starting college at a school well within his comfort zone. It helped him to build his confidence and regain the academic footing he had before slacking off in high school. He easily could have stayed where he was-lots of friends, supportive professors, etc. I think, by choosing the school that was least threatening, it allowed him to grow into his intellect, if you will. He feels ready to be pushed more. He chose to transfer to one of the schools the "Daily Beast" refers to have having students with the hardest workloads.

I am glad I listened to him. Different kids respond in different ways, however. This may not be a good path for some.

[amtc]

My younger 2012 daughter would have a nervous breakdown going to a more rigorous school, we are all in favor of her going to the one where she is more comfortable. She will immerse herself as deeply as she wishes if she feel comfortable and secure enough. If she feels stressed or competitive she will close down and do little to nothing. As usual, it all depends on your kid and what works best for him/her.

[bethievt]

I trusted my kid to decide. The college will not admit a kid who can't do the work.

[ClassicRockerDad]

Not everybody HAS to work that hard to be successful. For many really bright people, academics often takes a back seat to other things that they have going on. There really is a crowd at Harvard who will take the easy road but spend 60 hours a week on some EC, and they will do just fine.

A fulfilling life is about make the choices that will lead to happiness and prosperity. It's not always the most rigorous option.

A colleague of mine who did his undergrad at a state school but graduate school at MIT said that he could never have gone there as an undergrad because he needed time to digest the material.

I think comfort is paramount.

[annasdad]

For those interested in evidence, the conclusions are clear: (a) what a student does after getting to college is much more important that what college the student goes to, and (b) a motivated student can get an essentially equivalent education at almost any college.

On just about any outcome, and after taking account of the characteristics of the students enrolled, the dimensions along which American colleges are typically categorized, ranked, and studied, such as type of control, size, and selectivity, are simply not linked with important differences in student learning, change, or development. Despite structural and organizational differences, institutions are more alike than different in their effects on students. After adjusting for the characteristics of the students enrolled, the degree of net change that students experience at various categories of institutions is essentially the same.

--Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini, “How College Affects Students, Volume 2: A Third Decade of Research.” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005, p. 641

[ucbalumnus]

Originally Posted by SteveMA

Honestly, is calculus at Harvard any more difficult than Calculus at State U? It's still calculus.

It probably isn't, but that is likely because the top math students at Harvard already have had calculus and go on to sophomore level math, where Harvard offers a standard sequence (Math 21a-21b) and three(!) levels of honors sequences (Math 23a-23b, 25a-25b, 55a-55b). Regular freshman calculus at Harvard would be for those who are not that good at math, relative to other Harvard students (there is even a slow-paced calculus course offered as well).

On the other hand, some schools like Caltech and Harvey Mudd do make freshman calculus more like real analysis.

But, beyond the super-elite STEM school and honors math course exceptions described above, most freshman and sophomore math course sequences are fairly well standardized. However, not all courses are completely standardized -- in some cases, a more selective university will pack the same course material in a smaller number of courses or credits than a less selective university. One example is a state flagship whose introductory computer science sequence is three courses for 12 semester credit units, while a mid-level state university in the same state has the same material in five courses for 17 semester credit units.

[vonlost]

As already indicated, some "rigorous" schools pack, e.g., into one semester what some less rigorous schools present in a year's course. I think this does translate to a better education, and is generally more stressful for students. And as already said, these schools won't admit applicants who haven't shown (via their apps) that they can handle it.

[Sop14's Mom]

"A large part of the impact of college is determined by the extent and content of one’s interactions with major agents of socialization on campus, namely, faculty members and student peers" (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991, p. 620). In fact, according to Astin (1993b, p. 398), peers are "the single most potent source of influence," affecting virtually every aspect of development—cognitive, affective, psychological, and behavioral."

"What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature," NPEC, July 2006, 42.

[lotsofquests]

I think this is an example of a vicious cycle. To make the best of the college experience, a student should choose based on self-knowledge of learning style etc., but one of the main purposes of college is to gain self knowledge.

I think some kids know how they learn best. When we visited Swarthmore, my son said that he would not apply. After two years in a rigorous IB program, he didn't want to be in what he perceived was a high stress school. He also recognized that he liked to be at the top of the pack, competing with the other four or five at the top. He made the right decision for him and is now a sophomore at another small LAC which even my husband now admits is perfect for him. (H really wanted him to go to another higher ranked school). S is challenged without being stressed TOO much. He is more involved in activities than he was in high school, but has learned that he needs to set limits there also.

Choosing the right school is a tough. The more the student knows about him/herself, the better the fit.

[Marian]

And as already said, these schools won't admit applicants who haven't shown (via their apps) that they can handle it.

I don't think it's good to be too confident that any student who was admitted to a school is capable of doing the work there.

There are exceptions.

One exception is the student whom the college really, really wants -- because of URM status, perhaps, or geographic origin or a special talent -- but who is not quite qualified to be there. My kids have told me of URM friends at college who struggled academically because they had gotten poor educations at poor high schools and really weren't qualified for the college where they ended up.

Another is a student who has always gotten a lot of help. Perhaps the student's parents helped the student to plan projects and organize study time because the student didn't have the skills to do this alone. Or perhaps the student has always had difficulty with certain subjects and has worked with tutors. The transition to a very independent academic life in college may not work out well for such a student because the supports that the student always had in the past are no longer there.

[DrGoogle]

Post #41. I agree I'm not confident that just because one is admitted one is capable of doing work there either.
And I don't think this problem is URM specific, 2 of my kid's friends are both white. One was smart in math/science, smart enough that the teacher requested her to be in his class but due to work ethics(which I've always suspected all along) she barely made it in some courses, had below a B average for scholarship. Granted she was accepted with much lower grade from her high school than my daughter but she had a hook, female in engineering and got in. The other friend must came from a weak high school, he had sky high GPA(4.6+) received scholarships from top UCs and her university, but didn't do so well and lost the trustee scholarship.

[oldfort]

Don't flame me, but I am reading that book Admission, it is a fiction, but has a lot of "true facts" as known to the author (it is a fun book to read). In it she did say that sometimes they have admitted some below standard students (500 SAT) due to their other outstanding qualities, and their track records have not been great. But I don't think that happens often, and of course we know our kids and we would know if our kid got lucky.

[frazzled2thecore]

Marian - Good points, but I can also see that a student who is used to asking for help when they run into trouble might fare better than one who has always breezed through classes, but has been learning because classes have been small and teachers aware of the needs of their students.

We have actually walked this walk twice, with one student choosing the "less rigorous" school and another choosing an "elite" school. No easy answer, especially if a student is not sure whether or not they want to go pre-professional, whether they want to major in STEM, humanities, or social science, or even whether they hope to concentrate only in an area in which they have considerable talent and experience or dabble in higher-level classes outside of their major.

We have noticed (as others upthread have pointed out) that difficulty of intro classes can vary widely (freshman gen chem at some schools mirrors junior year physical chemistry at other less rigorous schools, for example), that some majors at "less rigorous" schools are viable only for the most talented students at these schools, and that rigor of classes in languages such as Mandarin, Arabic, or Japanese can be extremely variable, such that it is even possible to emerge after four years of study and a sky-high GPA in a less rigorous program with less proficiency than the average student who has taken only two years (or even less) in a more rigorous program.

I do not think there is any easy answer to this question. To throw another wrench into the mix, at less rigorous schools the student who had hoped for time for a more active social or EC experience may find that compatible companions are lacking, or students who choose the more rigorous school for academic challenge might find that they are distracted by the option of having an active social life.

Each option has its advanatges and disadvantages, and it is best to take a close look at the student.

[YaleGradandDad]

a motivated student can get an essentially equivalent education at almost any college

annasdad:

I know those conclusions are clear to you as evidenced in other threads you post that top kids will get equal educations no matter where they go. I beg to differ for many of the reasons listed in Sop14 Mom's "evidence". No way am I going to believe that two years in a local community college followed by two years at a competitive state U. are going to lead to the same kind of personal and academic growth that same kid would get at a top 50 public or private. Sure you can probably meet basic academic prerequisites to enter the job market with either just like I can fill my belly at McDonald's or Morton's but the content and experience is not the same. This is true to a lesser extent even when a kid (or parent) chooses to drop a tier or more to obtain merit scholarships. Now some parents are saying their kid needs to be at the top emotionally and for them that would be a wise choice. Others have to make too many financial sacrifices to meet the costs of a match institution and it makes sense to get a full ride to be the big fish in a small pond to bolster the institution's stats and reputation. You seem to think otherwise with your oft quoted studies but all these decisions require trade-off.