It seems to be generally accepted that for the most part, students should go to the “best” school that they get into provided it is a fit. This seems to imply that it’s better to be at the low end of the aptitude range at a great school than to be above it at a lesser school. There are, of course, good reasons that a student would prioritize something else (proximity to home, a particular program, cost, a coach) over perceived “quality” , but I’m interested in the situation in which there is truly a choice.
I raise this because I was talking with a friend this weekend who was commenting on how her daughter was thriving at a not-so-selective small regional college because she had been able to take on leadership positions, and this had been transformative and confidence-building. (Indeed, knowing her daughter, I have witnessed a metamorphosis since high school that is nothing short of astounding.) I realize that this will differ from one student to the next – for some, simply being in the company of more capable and driven students will cause them to apply themselves more diligently while for others, being at the top of the heap will develop confidence.
I’m curious as to what others think and what experiences those of you who have sent kids to college have had.
If any competitive grad/professional school is in the picture, get your undergrad degree where you can get the best possible GPA. If a grad school has a 3.7 min GPA requirement, a 3.6 from a highly intense science major at MIT is not going to cut it.
D1 went to a not-so-selective regional private university and thrived, academically and socially. D2 went to a very selective, highly ranked LAC and thrived as well.
There is no one right answer – it depends on the kid. Both of my kids went to schools that were high matches for them, and they both became very involved in activities. grew in confidence, and thrived academically and socially. For each of them the school (different schools) was a very good fit and they felt great about themselves for attending --I think that helped spur them to to move forward and achieve.
Do a search in the parents forum (not cafe). There must be a gazillion threads on this topic.
I think it’s hard to figure out the academic “aptitude” of applicants. Academic aptitude is not the same as IQ. Nor is it the same as high school GPA. Nor is it the same as SAT/ACT scores. There is no crystal ball which allows anyone to figure out in advance how well any INDIVIDUAL student will do at a PARTICULAR college with any degree of certainty. That said…there are some factors which impact different kids differently.
One is that gen ed/distribution, etc. requirements vary enormously. An individual student might do might do much better at Brown, Amherst, or Haverford which don’t really have gen ed requirements than at a university where the students have lower SAT scores but have to take courses the student has little interest in or aptitude for.
Another is exam format. A former colleague’s D majored in engineering–because she is abysmal at foreign languages AND doesn’t write well. Engineering majors were exempt from the foreign language requirements which liberal arts majors had to meet. Almost every exam she took was multiple choice and/or proof or quasi-proof based. She graduated with a good gpa. I know most people consider engineering a tough major, but for this particular kid, engineering was easier due to the lack of foreign language and writing requirements. She went to a very large, prestigious OOS flagship. At many colleges, she would have had to do more writing and maybe even take a foreign language.
Some schools, especially LACs, factor class discussion into grades. Helps some students, hurts other.
I know of two people who chose the less prestigious college with med school in mind and ended up not getting into med school. A lot of it is about MCAT score and “other” stuff. One had a really high GPA but bombed the MCAT–he just didn’t have a good enough science background. He ended up taking a year off and studying for the MCAT on his own while working part time. Score was higher…but not by much. He still didn’t get in. (I don’t know as much about the other case.)
Some law schools do adjust your GPA based on the college you attended. The median gpa of people who take the LSAT (as recalculated by LSDAS) vs the median LSAT is usually the basis for the determination.
Regarding the pond, there is a distinction between a big/little pond, versus big/little fish in the pond. For example, Caltech is a little pond with big fish in it.
This is my D’s experience (so far) at her reach school. She likes to be around kids who value academics. She also appreciates that people may party on weekends but during the week students study. She’s at a LAC with a very high retention and grad rate, so students get done what needs to be done.
My S’12 left his not-very-selective school after a year. Too much partying, too much transferring out or dropping out of his friend group was definitely part of it. Looking back I wish I’d pushed him to take the “better” school, which would have cost more but would have been a more supportive atmosphere and better academic fit. Ah well.
Back in 2006 my top tier kid went to his safety Penn State instead of Cornell, Duke and Swarthmore.
He was in their honors program and was surrounded by many hard working students. He was invited into top research teams, had a great internship, spent a couple summers doing paid research and got into a top 10 Physics grad school. He turned down Yale for Grad school. Graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a BS in Engineering and a BA in Physics.
He was given a full ride +++ and came out of college with a nice bank account balance.
Most people thought he was making a big mistake. It worked out fine.
He left grad school to focus on a different path and just finished his MS in Computer science from Georgia Tech…paid for by his employer. All in all the kid has been extremely well educated.
I’ve wondered about this question as it applies to my own offspring. There are a few schools in this country that admit on merit without consideration of any other factors. They use holistic admission criteria but there are no legacies and no provisions for lower admit scores/grades for athletes. The courses are all taught at high levels. And, despite the fact that they attract students who have usually gotten the very top grades in high school, the course grades are as dispersed as they would be at any university. The difference is that it isn’t the slackers or the goofballs or the athletes that are filling the bottom half of the curve. The courses are tough by any standard and there is no bowing to pleads for better grades. In the end, anyone who passes a class, even with a “D”, knows the material and can solve very complex questions. Wow, just like what you’d expect of a university (but rarely see any more; A country filled with universities where A’s can mean “Barely knows anything”).
So will the rigor of the classes keep students from medical or other professional schools? Maybe. Some will still get in but many who would have straight A’s in other schools will probably be excluded. I’ve heard that the most difficult part of education at some schools is getting in. What does that mean about the graduates when they are getting out? Frankly, if my life depended on it, I’d hire someone from one of those schools that makes sure that any student who makes it through a class knows the material cold, even if they get a lousy grade. And if I had to trust the world to the next generation, I’d want the world filled with the students who graduate from the schools that ensure competency-not A’s.
I’ve also noticed that the level of mastery in classes that give A’s easily is lower than in classes that maintain rigor. If you take a group of students with high aptitude and insist that they work their butts off still, it appears to make a difference in what they learn and what they achieve. I’m not saying that those in the schools that give out A’s like candy don’t achieve. I’m sure they achieve enough to earn themselves A’s. They just don’t have to do as much to get those A’s. What does that mean when they fill the ranks at professional schools? Who knows.
I have talked to my D extensively about this as well. I asked her if she would like to thrive at her safety school, or be pushed and challenged at her more reach schools. Before we heard from any of the schools - her answer was simple. “I want to go to a school that I am HAPPY at.” At the end of the day, she doesn’t care about the name of the school, but where she will learn and fit into the best. She has gotten into two of her safety schools, and will be really happy at either one - she wouldn’t have applied to those if she didn’t want to go. She has been deferred from two reach schools, and still waiting on three more. FIT is the best in HER opinion, and she is the one who needs to be happy in order to thrive and learn at any school. It’s hard as a parent because you want them to get into the “best” school, but they are the ones doing the work.
I read an article a few months ago (I can’t remember where) where a person didn’t get into any Ivies like his classmates did. He therefore went to the honors college at a “lesser school” (and I hate that word) and after graduation ended up at the exact same job as some of his classmates who went to an Ivy School. He got to participated in a lot of leadership things he wouldn’t have been able to accomplish at other schools.
^ The article was in the NY Times and I believe the kid who missed on the Ivies ended up in the Indiana state system, made the best of what was available to him, and flourished where he was planted.
My son was a big fish in a small pond school (uni) and he benefitted trremendously. Yes, he was always at the top of his classes (and frankly didn’t have a lot of competition for that spot), but he was also noticed and this helped him get a spot in his uni’s grad school with a grad assistantship, so he got his first graduate degree this way (the GA covered all of his tuition). By the end of that degree, the school hired him for a full time position and then he went on to earn a second graduate degree (free tuition is a benefit of working at this uni) and his wife also was also able to get her MBA here (since spouses can also receive free tuition).
My daughter also ended up at this school but studied a completely different discipline. She also was a big fish and again, she was noticed by her teachers and the support staff. As a result, several opportunities for jobs and scholarship applications came her way - a seriously nice perk.
So while this uni isn’t very selective, it was a great place for my kids as they were able to shine there.
Perhaps it is more than a few, since there are probably many moderately selective universities that have a simple stats-only definition of “merit” and admit just on that basis. But most are not on the radar of the typical forum poster here, so they may as well just not exist in the forum discussions.
An uncle went to U Chicago for an MBA and works at Target management now. He says he could have gotten the same job with a state school degree and way less debt.
Having observed my DD in many settings with an eye towards advising her on college fit, I observe the following:
In a small pond, she does better as a smaller fish. If she’s clearly among the least able (from lack of exposure or lack of natural ability) in a small-group environment, she will work her tail off to catch up. If she’s towards the top, she will do the minimum required to keep out of trouble and not one bit more.
In a large pond, she does better as a larger fish. In a big anonymous group, if she feels competent initially, she’ll do her own thing to her own high standards regardless of what everyone else is doing. If she doesn’t feel competent initially, she will walk away rather than fight for it.
She does very well in an environment where everyone works hard to improve themselves but no one cares how anyone else does, even if she is a low performer. She does very poorly when participants complete against each other, even when she is a high performer.
My guess is that if she knew with great certainty what she’d major in, and had some exposure to the topic prior to college, she’d do fine in a big public school. But if she had no idea at all, and it might be something entirely new to her or that she had less natural inclination for, she would do better at a smaller school with more personal attention and support.
ucbalumnus, That don’t consider legacy, athlete and that admit only the very top of the high school class? Very few. Once out of the very top, then there is a natural population of students who would normally get B’s and C’s to balance the A’s. So my point only applies to the schools that accept only students in the top, say, 10% of the class and don’t do legacy or varsity accommodations. Very few. CalTech, MIT, and ???
No state flagship can be considered a lesser school/small pond secondary to the elite students found there.
I know a kid who went to the lesser LAC because he said higher percentages of premed students got into medical school. He didn’t get top grades- it backfired on him. Sometimes settling for an easier school doesn’t challenge the student enough to work up to potential and boredom, too many other activities derail academics.
I would much rather find myself no longer the top of the class and be intellectually satisfied.
“Leadership”. There are many different ways to lead- one is scholarship. Learned this from a GT summer camp in our district years ago. Most people think of only a narrow definition. Being in charge of (often junky) activities or business is not the only definition.