<p>I go to a very highly ranked high school, so I have learned early on that being surrounded by overachievers is just not my bag. I have never considered myself an underachiever, but I just seem to be cornered by the obsession with getting into the “best school you can”… Most of my top choices would generally either be considered safetys or low-matches for my academic record, but they’re certainly not poor schools… I’m just going to try and avoid the ones that attract masses of Straight-A, Type-A personalities–for my sake and sanity, if anything…</p>
<p>Here is my problem: My parents are going to be the ones paying for my education, and they are trying to dictate which colleges I apply to. To be honest, even the thought of actually applying to an Ivy makes me a bit uneasy because I know that, if I beat the odds and am accepted, I might be made to go. Of course I could just sabotage the application by writing my essay about how my parents are making me apply, reasons to not accept me, etc., but I just wouldn’t have the heart. How can I make them understand that I am not just “burnt out” and trying to take the easiest route through college as possible? Are my methods somehow ignoble? Am I truly and deliberately underachieving, as I have been told?</p>
<p>Thoughts/Comments/Advice/etc is very, very much appreciated!</p>
<p>Your attitudes are not ignoble. It sounds like you have an admirable level of self-knowledge, a valuable thing to have.</p>
<p>There are many excellent schools that have a reputation for being relatively “laid back”. A small liberal arts college might be a good fit for you. Check out Bates, Colorado College, Macalester, or Whitman. If any of these are appealing, do some homework (on this site and elsewhere) before trying to sell them to your parents. Factors that might appeal to them include the availability of merit scholarships at some LACs, or a high rate of placement into top graduate and professional schools. You can point out that many students who apply to Macalester, etc., also apply to Ivies.</p>
<p>The most laid-back Ivy would be Brown. Very selective of course, and definitely not a slacker school. However, you can take courses on a pass/fail basis, and may find more of a “learning for learning’s sake” atmosphere there.</p>
<p>If your profile is very high for the schools that you want to go to, you might be able to get substantial merit aid. If so, you could pitch it as a desire for greater financial independence and responsibility.</p>
<p>You could also try (if applicable) “It’s not highly ranked overall, but it’s very well-regarded in a field that I am interested in.”</p>
<p>Macalester is bad advice. The students at Macalester have laid-back attitudes, but they are still at the very top of their game academically. They are all (well, nearly all) very intelligent and they DO have a competitive streak in them to out-perform the next student. This is by no means a bad thing - but Macalester may not be the school for you.</p>
<p>Hillary2012 may well have more direct experience with Macalester than I do, and I appreciate her balance. However, without knowing more about the OP, saying flatly that “Macalester is bad advice” may be a bit premature. </p>
<p>Don’t overlook, there seems to be a contest going on between bike and his parents. He probably could make a case for Macalester (or similar LAC) to them. That might be harder to do for a much less selective school. </p>
<p>It’s up to bike to decide if Macalester (or Oberlin, or Knox) is significantly more laid back for his tastes than an Ivy League school. “Straight-A” and “Type-A” are not necessarily the same. A Straight-A, Type-B kinda place might be a good enough fit.</p>
<p>I’d second Brown as one that should be on the OPs list and should satisfy his parents. Maybe Dartmouth. I also agree with the “find the Straight A Type B” schools. Chicago is a possibility, too. The kids there are competitive with themselves but I never got the impression the kids were competitive with each other. After that he can drop down a notch and take a look at great schools like Reed, Carlton, Oberlin, Kenyon and the like and others east, west and south.</p>
<p>The OP doesn’t want to be in a place where s/he is surrounded by overachivers. The simple fact is that Oberlin and Macalester are among the best schools in the country. You don’t get a spot at either of those schools by being mediocre - a lot of those students are overachivers. They may not be the best environemnt for the OP.</p>
<p>bike!, I go along with what the other posters are alluding to, you need to find a college that is a good fit for you. There are plenty of really good schools for people who march to their own drummer. I like the suggestions that have been made already, I’d add St. Johns to the list if you really like being off the beaten path.</p>
<p>As far as your parents go, hopefully they just want to see you at a really good school. The schools that have been mentioned on this thread fit that description. Maybe they’ll be agreeable to having those types of schools on your list.</p>
<p>It’s not clear (to me at least) if you’re mainly trying to avoid certain fellow students (Straight-A, Type-A personalities) or very demanding academics; they are different. UChicago and Reed (along with Swarthmore) are among the most demanding academically, but don’t seem to have the reputation you want to avoid. In particular, grades at Reed are hidden, students are never ranked and are not in competition with each other.</p>
<p>Honestly, give your parents a chance – not only are they paying for your education, they are also almost as invested in how well you do as you are. They want succes for you, and some parents think success means a top school. My mother wanted me to attend Emory, whereas I had different ideas (my top schools were also safeties and low matches, although we both agreed on one school – Agnes Scott). Talk to them and come to a compromise list of colleges to apply to – some they really want, some you want, and hopefully some you both want.</p>
<p>And also…don’t stereotype kids at top schools. That’s just as bad as others stereotyping the schools in the lower tiers. There are all kinds of students at all kinds of schools – so at those safeties and low matches, you’re very likely to find many type-A personalities (and kids with straight As). And at those top schools, you’re very likely to find a lot of laid-back students who didn’t have perfect records. I’ve heard from current students that some top schools are known for their very laid-back personalities (Brown and Pomona come to mind immediately). I go to Columbia, and many of the undergraduates here are very laid back and chill. (And the graduate students are MOSTLY laid back and chill.)</p>
<p>I know that one of my friends and her parents had that tug of war, and she ended up applying to the selective schools just to appease her parents. They couldn’t afford it anyway, and she got a really good scholarship to her top-choice school, so she went there anyway.</p>
<p>Chuy, yes, I have mentioned that. They know that I hate that kind of competitive, grade-deflated environment. I enjoy being intellectually challenged, but I’ve always strongly felt that there is so much more to life than that. If I’m studying a ridiculous amount each day (to the point where my other passions are stifled) in order to get good grades and keep up with peers, there’s a problem. </p>
<p>As far as standardized test scores at the colleges I’m looking at go, the middle 50% of accepted applicants (for ACT) generally score 7-3 points below me. To answer vossron, I am trying to avoid huge masses of straight-A, type-A students, and I am also trying to avoid an environment where good grades are <em>the</em> most important thing. I have been considering schools such as American U and Northeastern U.</p>
<p>I just feel like if I were to go to an underrated college with good resources, a good [insert subject here] department, AND be at the top of my class, I could have a much more fulfilling and active undergraduate experience. At schools such as Brown, I’m sure you have to be the top of the top to get certain positions in research, etc. As far as what I’m trying to avoid goes, Hillary2012 seems to have gotten it spot on her previous post.</p>
<p>My question at this point ultimately is about the practice of low-balling colleges. If a student does this, are they ultimately short-changing themselves? What I really want to know is your opinions on low-balling undergraduate schools (especially if the student plans on going on to graduate) and your reasons for having that opinion.</p>
<p>Nope. Never once was asked to look at grades to get a research position. That’d be looked down upon in a most extreme way, in fact. I was not eligible for honors due to grades, but my research advisor would have been ****ed if I didn’t write a thesis anyway.</p>
<p>We don’t even calculate GPA officially.</p>
<p>It sounds to me like you just don’t know what goes on some places, especially since there are quite a few schools, Brown included amongst others mentioned in this thread, where, for the clear majority of students, good grades are hardly the focus (and in fact, are just an afterthought to a process which is the focus). Actually, in my experience, this is a value almost more universally shared by the professors and administration here than the students. There is a definite minority segment that is looking at grades as the sole indicator of the value of their degree-- but they’re a clear minority and you rarely hear from them because it’s considered a faux pas to act that way. One of the first cultural things you learn at Brown is that there are things which are considered “un-Brown” and that’s one of them for sure.</p>
<p>There’s an argument to be made that you will rise to the level of your surroundings, remember teachers have to teach towards the middle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s a ridiculous amount? I studied for about six hours a day, (at Reed), I thought that was a pretty standard amount of time for a challenging undergraduate curriculum. It leaves time for other things but you will have to manage your time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is your goal then you will have to study hard no matter where you are. Don’t try to find a college where you won’t have to study hard. You are paying for the experience and it is only for 4 years. Find a college where the academics and environment is exciting to you.</p>
<p>Oberlin, Macalester, Colorado College, and Grinnell do admit many applicants with the same (or nearly the same) high grades and scores you’d expect of students at the Ivies (or top NESCAC colleges). But my impression is that (compared to HYPS especially) there are far fewer kids at those schools who are double varsity team captains, Intel Science Prize winners, celebrities, or “story” kids. So I’d expect the quality of seminar discussions to be just about as high there, but without quite the same adrenaline levels. For better or worse, depending on you. </p>
<p>But even (or especially) some of the very most selective schools try hard to build balanced classes where there is a happy mix of those super achievers with the more laid back kids juliet describes. It is in their interest to foster good mental health. If anything, bike might find less of that balance, less joyful learning for learning’s sake, and plenty of grade-grubbing, as s/he moves much farther down on the admissions scale. As well as more bureaucracy and less involved faculty at some schools. Not to mention, the schools with the worst reputations for binge drinking or fraternity excesses generally are not the Ivies, the ACM, or the NESCAC colleges. </p>
<p>Don’t confuse observations about kids who are applying to certain schools with the reality of all students who actually attend those schools.</p>
<p>The OP does not want to be an environment with a lot of overachievers. You get to Oberlin and Macalester by being an overachiever. Yes, the “overachievness” of the campus may not be as palpable as it is at Havard, but students there are still at the top of their game and are vying for spots at the nation’s top law, medical, bussiness, and graduate programs.</p>
<p>I agree, and again, for the few posters who don’t grasp what the OP is saying…I’ll try again. The OP is not saying he doesn’t want to be with high achievers, the OP is saying he doesn’t want to be with agressive competitive people. The OP is saying he wants to be around intelligent people…he just doesn’t want to be around competitive people who constantly try to one-up the seat taker next to them or constantly “compare” themselves to their neighbor. I went to a school like that and loved it. And yes, Chicago, Reed and many of the others attract highly intelligent, interesting people who aren’t necessary aggressively competitive with each other. Macalester wasn’t like that - agressive students - 30 years ago but maybe it is today as the poster Hillary seems to be trying to say. Take a look at Carlton…back in my day, lots of incredibly smart kids who weren’t one upping on each other, not sure “today” if that is true. Anyway, it’s not that difficult to figure out that type of culture because the competitive people seems to want to make that known where the more laid back types seem to downplay stuff like that. Good luck.</p>
<p>You raise a point I was thinking all along but didn’t want to broach. Macalester may very well be very different than it was 30 years ago. It certainly seems to have a competitive edge to it today. Of course, I can’t speak about the student population several decades ago.</p>