<p>rebekah nathan, I think your observations are right on.</p>
<p>I did not intend to point a finger at NAU. In fact I would imagine most students do enjoy the school. The location is absolutely beautiful with lots of outdoor activities. However, the Princeton review does list the average SAT as 986. The IPEDS website lists the 25-75 SAT ranges as 490-570 for both verbal and math. SATs are a matter of record and are reported to NCES. I did not look up the class rank for admitted students but I would not be surprised that most students are from the top quarter of their class. I lived in Arizona long enough to have a good knowledge of the public schools. Even in the better areas of Phoenix the schools are not very good and in most of the more rural areas they can only be described as poor. In terms of academics, NAU is by no means the worst. Still I don’t believe you have described the culture at “AnyU.” You have described the culture at a low ranking institution in a State which has a minimal intellectual culture.</p>
<p>If you think I do not like Arizona, you would be wrong. I love the beauty, the outdoor activities, even the climate. There is no place I would rather be than the four corners area. I am also glad that I left Arizona and, for most of their school years, my kids attended school in another State.</p>
<p>Of course bright, motivated students at institutions like Harvard and MIT spend more time on schoolwork and are more inclined to serious conversation than those on most college campuses.</p>
<p>I’m not particulary interested in those outside the norm. Motivated students will do well where ever they find themselves.</p>
<p>I’d like to know what kind of colleges can help more typical students – those who haven’t yet been engaged intellectually.</p>
<p>Or is this impossible to nurture this in college students – students will just follow their natural inclinations and nothing can be done to spark intellectual curiosity?</p>
<p>Precisely. And that’s why a generalized talk about “undergraduate culture” is not going to be helpful to you.</p>
<p>You can find bright, motivated students at NAU (viz William Stein) and you can find students who coast at HYPMS. But there are fewer of the first kind at NAU and fewer of the second kind at HYPMS.
My feeling is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. At least, however, in order for it to drink, there must be water.
It’s easier for students to get lost in large universities where academic support is not easily accessible and information about how to get such support not well advertised. While many lecture classes, such as Michael Sandel’s at Harvard can be electrifying, unmotivated students–the kind that come in late, sit in the back–can also be lost in such classes. It is much better to be in classes that have recitation sections or that are small, and where the teacher notices if a student is missing or has not done the work; in such sections or classes, student participation is key. I’d also avoid schools that have a reputation for hard partying.
There are plenty of schools that are not as selective as HYPMS that provide a supportive environment and a challenging curriculum. Posters have mentioned Loren Pope’s Colleges that Change Lives as a good resource. I have visited some colleges, including from Bates, Bowdoin, Wesleyan, Carleton and a few others and have been impressed by the students and profs. Kalamazzo College in Michigan is known for sending its students abroad.
However, a student who is looking forward to 4 years of partying might be resistant to attending such colleges. They tend to be smaller and to be located in small towns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Colleges in the US are stratified by the students they enroll and how much they cost. This reality is merely codified by publications like USNWR, but would still exist without such publications. This thread began with the question above – does the experience described by Rebekah Nathan merit $160K over four years? My thought earlier, is that the kind of experience described usually costs significantly less. Basically, you get what you pay for.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to downplay the scholarship involved in such a study, and its subsequent book, but I really think that the findings only apply to less selective institutions – which of course does not mean that they are not wonderful places of learning, well-loved by faculty and students. But to compare NAU with schools like UChicago, Columbia, Middlebury, Williams or Dartmouth is like comparing apples to oranges. The populations of different colleges are significantly different, and the findings of research at one type of school do not necessarily apply to other categories. The students who make it through the sieve to attend a selective school are already engaged intellectually, and that tendency grows through the UG years. </p>
<p>Whether it’s possible to inspire that level of interest is a good question, but one to which we’ll never have a definitive answer, I believe. By the time a student is 18-22, patterns have been set. Unless they encounter some class or professor which ignites a dormant interest, I don’t think it’s possible for a college to completely transform a pragmatic, lower-achieving student to accomplish what Stein did.</p>
<p>Most institutions are less selective. There are only about 2% of colleges and universities that are most selective. </p>
<p>If there are students at Chicago and Columbia that aren’t similar to the students in the study, so what?</p>
<p>The study reflects over 90% of the kids. The argument that it doesn’t reflect everybody and therefore isn’t valid is ridiculous. Exceptions do not make the rule.</p>
<p>My point is that I don’t think the colleges really ‘create’ interested, engaged students. Students choose a college based on their interests and aspirations – it’s too late to try to make a non-academic student really interested in philosophical issues at that point. Also, RN’s reply to some threads really DID imply that her findings were valid for the majority of undergraduates, a conclusion with which I disagree.</p>
<p>Rebekah Nathan’s book really struck a chord for me because, in my experience, her findings reflect many characteristics of our society as a whole (and I don’t think it is surprising that college culture is reflective of the larger culture).</p>
<p>So I do think talk about generalized college culture is of value, because it informs me that I need to seek an exceptional situation for my student if I want her/him to have a different kind of experience.</p>
<p>marite, it is funny what you said about horses and water because that is exactly the conclusion I reached. </p>
<p>I am thinking that colleges in metropolitan areas would provide more opportunities, however. Students in a small college town will find most of what there is to do at the college, whereas in a city, there is the possiblity of pursuing other interests (more offcampus work possibilities, civic organizations, or whatever).</p>
<p>Carleton, Bowdoin, etc. would be reach schools for the student of which I am thinking (not to mention they are in college towns). Many of the colleges listed in Pope’s book are also in the middle of nowhere.</p>
<p>Fendrock, I don’t think that it is helpful to talk about ‘generalized college culture’ for a variety of reasons. Each college has a personality – stronger departments, weaker departments, sports programs, popular ECs – these attributes become a common culture for that school. I just don’t think it’s fair, or useful, to make sweeping comments, such as that all private colleges have intellectual student bodies, and all large public universities are party schools. </p>
<p>This quest for ‘fit’ is what most parents who have been through the process try to figure out. Given a particular student, with a particular academic profile and interests, what school will nurture and challenge that student to reach his or her potential? It doesn’t mean that every student should aim for Carleton or Bowdoin etc, but there are choices within every strata. You can read about different schools, but I’ve found that the best way to get a feel for a school is to talk to people who attend it. I’m also not sure that the urban/rural issue is that relevant. I can think of many intellectually stimulating schools in a variety of locations – sometimes, being in a large urban area can reduce the intellectual focus due to the many distractions.</p>
<p>Seems we have a point of disagreement about the value of generalizations.</p>
<p>Here are two generalizations: Most students have their own cell phone. Most college students have a TV in their room.</p>
<p>Are there exceptions? Of course. Is college life different now than in the days when most students had to use the one pay phone in the hall and shared the TV in the common lounge?</p>
<p>I would say – yes, it is. </p>
<p>I find these types of observations interesting, and I find it of value to consider how common behaviors and experiences impact the feel of campus life.</p>
<p>I just wanted to address some of the points raised by rebekah nathan </p>
<ol>
<li>Mandatory courses are one reason for intellectual malaise among college students:Yes, I do believe that there are a number of students that are not intellectually curious enough to want to take certain courses. However, in same cases, it is the colleges’ fault! As a good example, my son attends Towson University, which is part of the Maryland state university system. He is mandated to take 10 courses from ten different categories, which is akin to a Chinese menu. This, of course is in addition to the individual school’s core requirements. Many of these categories don’t even make total sense. For example, there is a category for creativity in which he has to take courses such as jewelry design and art, yet there is no music option in the creative category. My son loves music and would love to take something in this area. However, sadly, I guess the 'wise" curriculum specialists in Maryland don’t deem anything musical, even music theory, to be creative.</li>
</ol>
<p>History, economics and sociology are all in different categories too, which makes me wonder whether professors among these disciplines ever communicate with each other or even can communicate with each other. </p>
<p>I truly believe that if schools allowed more flexibility in choices for core requirements, students would be more interested in what they take! In fact, ideally, schools should do what University of Rochester does: have only two required core courses: English and Writing. Few people like being told what to do, and fewer students are going to appreciate courses that are thrust down their throats!</p>
<ol>
<li>Better high school training: I can’t speak for most readers of CC, but when I was in college, I was required to take 4 years of English, Math, Science, Social Studies, Gym and usually either study hall or music. Period! Today, some high schools are looking more akin to community colleges than high schools. Kids take advanced history courses such as 20th century history, molecular biology, statics, psychology, and much more. More kids are taking AP courses than ever before, and consequently, more colleges are refusing to take these AP credits than ever before. Many college today require a “4” or even a “5” to get credit. Even with these scores, many college put limits on the amount of AP credit available. Maybe they believe that they will lose money.
However, for whatever the reason, many kids dislike having to retake courses that they took in high school. </li>
</ol>
<p>Frankly, to me, college kids should take college courses and high school kids should take high school courses. I do believe that these upper level courses are jading kids from wanting to take similar college courses.</p>
<p>I will use my daughter as an example. She has taken 3 AP history courses and and AP English course. In addition, she has take 4 actual college courses, some of which are history,psychology and sociology. She is OD ed on these areas! Sadly, despite getting As and B’s in the AP courses, she failed all AP exams. Thus, she needs to retake these stupid courses again! I can also assure you that her high school courses were not watered down either. They were tough! Maybe retaking similar courses in jading students.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Lack of proper teaching in college: I also have taught in college. College don’t usually give a lot of points toward tenure for top teachers. The main key for tenure is the quality of research that is published in academic publications. Teaching is “the gorilla sitting in the corner of the professor’s office.” In many cases, it is more of a nuisance for professors to teach since they really aren’t rewarded with tenure for doing so, unless they are REALLY SPECTACULAR or they are teaching at some LACs. Thus, what incentive is there for quality instruction or to become a better instructor? Let me answer that : none!</p></li>
<li><p>College employment of some faculty is questionable: We have seen numerous posts about professors whose English isn’t really understandable. How can any institution hire someone who doesn’t speak English well and fluently without any dis tractable accent? Sadly, this is a theme that permeates many institutions. No wonder kids are turned off.</p></li>
<li><p>Large intro classes: At many schools, especially large state schools,intro classes are large and impersonal. This certainly doesn’t foster “warm and furry” feelings among students. Schools may try to break down the large lecture with smaller study groups, usually headed by a TA, but this still doesn’t solve the problem.</p></li>
<li><p>Some schools do have a lot of philosophical discussions outside of class. I have attended/taught at a number of institutions, some of which are more selective than others. At the more selective institutions, students do seem to care more about their work. There are more discussions present. Also, some schools,by the nature of the work, have a lot of discussion going on all the time. Just drop by schools such as St John’s in Annapolis! Thus, intellectual curiosity does vary by school and by student. I would love the author to spend the same freshmen year at Yale or at good LACS or at St. John’s. I would bet that she would come back with different findings.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Bottom line: I am not exonerating lazy students. However, there are a number of factors that could be improved to enhance the attention and interest of students, many of whom are indeed turned off by the current system.</p>
<p>fendrock:</p>
<p>While there must be water for the horse to be able to drink it, the horse has to be willing to drink. As Sjmom suggested, it is not possible to turn an incurious, disengaged 18-year old into an academically focused one. Putting him into an environment full of hard-working, high achieving students may backfire (see the thread on white flight from Asian-dominated schools). The trick is to find colleges that put a premium on academic achievement and are not dominated by hearty party types. I also wonder whether a student who is easily distracted would be better off in a metropolitan area.
I do not think that HYPSM or Bowdoin and Carleton are the only possible alternatives to NAU. There are many smaller colleges that are less selective, where the students don’t all have SAT scores in the 1500s, and yet provide an excellent education in a supportive environment. Carolyn and others have provided information on such schools. Maybe Carolyn and others will chime in on this thread; otherwise, it may be a good idea to search the archives for threads on this topic.</p>
<p>marite – I completely agree that putting a less than engaged student in with a bunch of high achievers is not a good plan.</p>
<p>Although I haven’t spent a huge amount of time on this board, my initial impression is that more of the discussion focuses on getting in to highly selective schools than not. (I have seen many posts from high achieving students asking about their chances for getting into HYPSM; very few from merely “good” students looking for a good fit.)</p>
<p>It is not possible to turn an incurious, disengaged student into a focused one – unless the student finds something to engage him/her, like story of the NAU math student. I certainly believe there are colleges out there that provide kids with opportunities to get excited where they weren’t before.</p>
<p>taxguy, you make some excellent points about how things could change to engage students more.</p>
<p>I especially like taxguy’s assessment of mandatory courses. It sounds like Towson has a lot of departmental politics and departments trying to protect their student base. It would be much better if they had to compete with other departments for the students. It might do a lot to improve the quality of the classes. I also think taxguy is correct when he states that UG’s need more teaching and less research. There are some advantages to attending a school with big name profs and a lot of high powered research, but it does not help at all when large intro classes are taught by disinterested faculty with the help of grad students who may not speak english very well. It would be a lot better to have dedicated teachers. They would not need doctoral degrees and big salaries. Maybe the classes could even be smaller.</p>
<p>fendrock:</p>
<p>Carolyn has a homepage with lots of useful info on a wide range of colleges.</p>
<p>Fendrock,who is citing Marite, notes,“marite – I completely agree that putting a less than engaged student in with a bunch of high achievers is not a good plan.”</p>
<p>Response: My kids previously attended a middle school where stupidity was considered “cool” and intelligence was frowned upon. We subsequently moved to a new areas which had a very different cultural envirnment in the schools. First it consisted of 40% Asian who were very hard working and determined. This changed envirnment made my kids work very hard and probably harder than if we had remained at our old school. </p>
<p>In addition, in my opinion, the quality of their friends changed to those who are very academically focused. I would say that the average GPA of my son’s friends increased about .5 to 1 full point ( with some exceptions). Yes, our new school was much tougher , and my kids were probably in a lower class rank than they would have been had we stayed in the old area,but I am very glad that we moved. I also liked the Asian culture of determined hard work plus I loved all the sushi restaurants around! LOL</p>
<p>Moreover, as Marite noted, “you need water to make a horse drink.” However, who said that the water needs to be far away. If you bring the water to the horse, they will drink it. Likewise, if you provide the competition, enviornment, and qualty courses, kids will rise to the challange.</p>
<p>Consider the teacher , Escalante, who taught Calculus in a poor, inner city hispanic high school. He took kids who were not motivated and doing poorly to doing well on AP calculus exams!</p>
<p>This point seem to be proving itself out socially. In many Maryland highschools, black and hispanic students do not do as well, in both GPA and SATs and in other standardized testing ,as white students perform. However, in our high school , black and hispaninc students perform every bit as well as their white counterparts! The culture of competition and of achieving excellence is catchy! I should note that many of our URMs are not rich either! </p>
<p>Bottom line: We need to raise the bar of the learning levels at our school. By doing so, our kids will stretch their minds and achieve more than they every would have imagined. If only all teachers would understand this!</p>
<p>Let me use my S’s experience in heterogeneous classes to try to make the point about putting disengaged or struggling kids in with hard-working, academically focused students.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in another thread, the 9th and 10th grades were heterogeneous (for a while, thanks to the ideological zeal of a principal with no real administrative experience). Ability levels ranged from barely able to read at 5th grade level to well above college-bound senior SAT scores. Not surprisingly, the high achievers were upset at the unchallenging nature of the classes. More surprisingly, the struggling students were also upset. They felt they could not compte, so “what’s the use?” They were defeated before they had even tried, feeling that there was no way they could get even Cs when put in the same class with kids whose skills so far surpassed them.</p>
<p>The trick is challenge kids, by putting them in environments where they will have to work, where others are also working hard, but not in environments that are so beyond their ability to do well no matter how hard they try that they will give up. And in college, where there is less parental control, and less pressure from teachers and administrators to keep up with work, it is easy for disengaged students to fall between the crack.</p>
<p>Taxguy, excellent points.</p>
<p>Actually, this is in keeping with the discussion of “generalizations” and cultural norms.</p>
<p>The pressure to conform is high (in most situations). So, if peer pressure suggests it’s not cool to be excited about your courses (as documented by Rebekah Nathan), most students will fall in line. Similarly, students who are excited about ideas will pull the less enthused aboard with them (I hope).</p>
<p>Still, to continue beating on our metaphor, different horses like different flavors of water. That’s why a broad array of choices (interesting courses, demanding internships, high quality extracurriculars) is a good thing – especially when coupled with high expectations for the students (as exhibited by Escalante).</p>
<p>marite – I would think that the admissions process would make wide disparities in student ability less likely at the college level.</p>
<p>Fendrock:
A couple of points. First, is the issue of identifying which college to apply to, which I believe was your original concern. It is the responsibility of the applicants and their families (with the help, if possible, of a good GC).
The second is the disparity in students’ abilities in college. It is likely to be less wide in smaller LACs and selective private universities than in large state universities where students can run the gamut from high achievers (winners of national or even international level awards) in honors programs with merit money to students who scored below the national average on their SATs/ ACT.</p>