Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
College Confidential’s “Dean,” Sally Rubenstone, put together 25 of her best tips. So far, the "25 Tips from the Dean" eBook has helped more than 10K students choose a college, get in, and pay for it. Get your free copy: http://goo.gl/9zDJTM

Ohiodad51 Senior Member

1,630 Points 3,240 Visits 1,837 Posts
Last Active:
Registered User
  • Re: Middlebury Completes Disciplinary Process Over Charles Murray Protest

    I think this will provide some insight into what Robert George thinks should have happened. He has written pretty widely on the general subject.

  • Re: Is a Princeton education intrinsically more valuable than a USC or UCLA one?

    My son is at Princeton and he actually has high school friends at both UCLA and USC. I know this will offend three quarters of the usual suspects, but specifically speaking about undergrad, it's not even close. All usual disclaimers apply, all three are great schools, a motivated student can have amazing success from a whole lot of colleges, blah, blah, blah. But don't kid yourself. If for no other reason than the obscene amounts of money places like Princeton have to throw around at research projects, study abroad, facilities, financial aid, etc, etc., the experience is going to be very different. Anecdotally and now that the boys are half way through undergrad, it seems from one remove that the manner of education is somewhat different. I won't pretend to know a whole lot about either USC's or UCLA's undergrad experience, but I have talked casually with my son's two friends. There is nothing like Princeton's precept system. To my knowledge, neither has anywhere near the relationship with professors that my son has (although a fair amount of that could be personality tbh). According to my son, the classwork also does not appear to be as rigorous, but he is assumedly just guessing from their discussions.

    As far as intrinsic value, I guess it depends on what you mean by value. For well over 90% of the population, it is very likely that a Princeton education will be cheaper. I understand that for coastal Californians and those on the eastern seaboard who are in normal terms extraordinarily well off (salary +$250k) this may not be true. But for pretty much everyone else it will be. Simply going by the numbers, and again with all appropriate disclaimers, the cohort of kids at Princeton will be more accomplished, and will have shown a greater aptitude for certain academic disciplines than at either UCLA or USC. While these types of measurements are not the be all end all, they do exist, and should be acknowledged in any fair weighing of one against the other. On other matters, Princeton's system of junior papers and senior projects, plus the abundance of opportunity for funded research appear almost designed to get kids into grad schools. I don't believe either UCLA or USC has anything comparable. I would think that has some intrinsic value. I can say that neither of his classmates has done the research work or had the internships my son has had. That too has value. Certainly everywhere except perhaps Cali reputationally Princeton's name will carry more juice. That has value as well. As I said earlier, my son at least believes he is working harder, and learning more, than his friends, but that is in some ways at least subjective, and I assume hotly debated. Oh the other hand, Princeton has nothing even close to UCLA's film school or USC's center for the arts.

    There are other things in play here besides "intrinsic value" though, and in many ways those "enviornmental" factors should probably carry great weight in any decision as to where to attend, because at the end of the day USC and UCLA are what I would call "prestigous enough", meaning that they are schools of a quality that will not close any doors, and will be of great assistance to a motivated student as they move through life.

    UCLA and USC are orders fo magnitude larger than Princeton. Princeton is in a suburb, and while I don't really think of LA as a "city" in the normal sense of the word, both UCLA and USC are manifestly in it. UCLA and USC have a much larger jock culture, and the USC/UCLA game will have just a bit of a different feel than Princeton/Yale. Both have a much larger graduate presence, neither guarantees housing for all four years and in fact most students don't live on campus at either. All of these things are very different than what a student would experience at Princeton.
  • Re: Early recruiting

    Lacrosse recruiting has gained a random active follower

    Lol. I have an extended family member who is lacrosse girl. Trying to learn what I can.
  • Re: A fascinating article about Charles Murray

    It is not all that surprising, or unique to Murray, that identifying an idea with a speaker or writer known for specific controversial or political views will prime listeners or readers to have a tendency to favor, oppose, or otherwise judge the idea based on what they think of the speaker or writer.

    I think this is true, and while asking people to keep an open mind would seem to be a hallmark of true intellectual inquiry, it appears to be a bridge to far for some. The article even highlighted this distinction in the difference in scoring when the author's name was known, although even accounting for that bias the survey participants still scored his speech well within the bounds of normal discourse.

    To me, one of the interesting points of the article was that even presumptive academics need to work to guard against preexisting biases and take ideas on their own merits. The other interesting thing was the relatively muscular defense of Murray's work even in the Bell Curve as normal academic scholarship. I find it fascinating and somewhat heartening that there seems to be a consistent effort from academics presumptively on the left who have defended Murray's work. If we are ever going to get back to a more rational discourse, it will start there.

  • Re: Early recruiting

    Though I don't know many coaches who would give a scholarship before a prospect has actually visited the campus.

    This happens quite frequently, particularly at the higher levels where kids are being recruited on a national level. Or at least it does in the "major" sports. Lots of football, basketball, baseball recruits get offers before unofficial visits. Lots of kids can't really afford to travel across country and go to various schools, particularly before an offer is out.

    I also wonder now if the reason that the Div 1 council tabled the general proposal about no offers until September 1 junior year was to give this proposal a few cycles to see how things work in a more contained enviornment. That might make sense, and would seem to explain the inconsistency, although with the NCAA, betting on rationality is never a sure thing.