<p>^Really? I have had, and have now, plenty of friends who are not book-smart. But they are all quick or witty or clever or interesting in various ways. They are curious about the world, or about how things work, or about how they can push themselves in whatever their passion is. They come from many different backgrounds academically and otherwise.</p>
<p>Try doing some of what “average” people do and you may discover what a brainiac you’re not. A lot of what is done in this world involves synthesis of body and mind and requires hands on skills and equipment that the “intellectual” may never have encountered. Taking on some of these challenges can be humbling, make for startling discoveries, and help one appreciate others more.</p>
<p>Wasn’t on an IQ test or SAT, was it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not that it’s “not OK,” only that here we are talking about safety schools for extremely bright kids. The expectation that they will find their quirky-smart-but-not-D&D-playing “tribe” is lower than it might be at one of their top-choice schools.</p>
<p>
I think it’s because there is a very strong impulse in the American psyche towards egalitarianism, and it just seems wrong, somehow, to say that one person is smarter than another, or a better student than another. It’s like it’s saying that one is a better person than another. If you’ve noticed, some people seem uncomfortable even with the idea that one person is a better musician or athlete than another. I think this impulse is admirable, up to a point. But every once in a while, Harrison Bergeron does come along.</p>
<p>Deborah, you might enjoy this article if you haven’t read it already:</p>
<p><a href=“The Case for Working With Your Hands - The New York Times”>The Case for Working With Your Hands - The New York Times;
<p>
</p>
<p>No argument whatsoever.</p>
<p>I’m also a bit bothered by the implication that the super-smart are so much more fragile than the rest of the kids out there that they will be more damaged by having to attend a “second tier” university/LAC or the honors program of their state school than their merely smart peers who are disappointed at not being admitted to these schools and are having to settle for their safety schools/programs, the gen. pop/ of the state school or “third tier” U/LAC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this impulse is nothing new as a book on West Point’s history pointed out how many in the American public during the 19th century wanted that institution to severely reduce its academic requirements as seen through the following book:</p>
<p>[The</a> Best School: West Point, 1833-1866 - James L. Morrison - Google Books](<a href=“The Best School: West Point, 1833-1866 - James L. Morrison - Google Books”>The Best School: West Point, 1833-1866 - James L. Morrison - Google Books)</p>
<p>Pizzagirl and Hunt,
I certainly don’t have a problem with the idea that some people are smarter than others and that, particularly during college, might want to commune with people who will help them to stretch intellectually. I did have a problem with the original question as posed. Maybe it’s a strawman, but the idea that the exceptionally bright can’t find a place that will stimulate them outside the rarified atmosphere of “super-selective schools” reeks of social snobbery to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But no one ever said that! </p>
<p>No one has ever said that this density can only be found at super-selective schools. I thought I said something upthread that we’re not talking about the pretentious, ridiculous “how will I handle Carnegie Mellon or Tufts when I should have been at MIT.” </p>
<p>I deliberately chose Macalester and Mizzou as my example. Is Macalester a super-selective rarefied school? No. Does it fit my personal criteria for “dense enough”? Sure.</p>
<p>And I certainly don’t have a problem with a kid loving U Chicago or Princeton or Reed and being thrilled to be in a place where the concentration of kids with similar interests is so high- unlike most High Schools. I think it’s fantastic- and is a credit to what our educational system gets right (it doesn’t get everything right, but this it does.)</p>
<p>What I don’t get is the constant refrain that therefore this same kid’s safety schools must all be terrible, anti-intellectual, ill fitting environments. Any of the Jesuit colleges are going to have kids who are interested in philosophy and antiquity and literature (the further down in selectivity you go, the smaller the concentration- but they are there.) Many of the woman’s colleges (not all). The humanities departments at even big, party school flagship state U’s (not talking Virginia, Michigan or Berkeley) are going to be populated by smart, thoughtful “bookish” kids. I’m not talking the kid at big state U majoring in PR or Leisure Studies. But the kids majoring in Renaissance Studies or doing an interdisciplinary major in Antiquity and Archaeology.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine a kid whose interests are so rarified that he or she couldn’t find a peer group. Will there be more of them at Chicago? Yes. Are they hard to find at U Illinois? Show up at a lecture on “Catullus and Obama- who was the better Orator” and you will see them sitting in the seats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But no one said this either. And no one has dissed the Jesuit colleges or the women’s colleges. It sounds like things are being attributed that haven’t been said at all.</p>
<p>Hunt, these days Harrison Bergeron would likely be homeschooling, and I’d have been chatting with his mom on lists for years. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Macalester is no one’s safety. US News ranks it #24 among national LACs (for those who care about rankings). Only 37% of applicants are admitted. The 25-75% ACT range is 28-32.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I get that you’re making a more subtle argument and for the most part I agree with you that there’s no shame in students wanting to attend schools with kids they consider their intellectual peers. What the OP posited, however, was a bit more extreme. To wit, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only because the OP is using an extreme definition of “safety” – one that requires a safety school to be one that the student wants to attend. Not one that the student could tolerate. Not one that the student would be willing to settle for. But one that the student actually wants to attend.</p>
<p>Maybe we need to consider a less demanding definition of “safety”?</p>
<p>Sue22,</p>
<p>I don’t see anything snobby about some academically high-achieving students needing to be in an institution with a large critical mass of other students like themselves. One’s educational experience is not only within the classrooms, but also with one’s classmates in dorms and campus. </p>
<p>However, that’s not to say that all academically high-achieving students have such needs. Some prefer being the big fish in a sea of smaller fish and others could care less either way. </p>
<p>Moreover, just because one prefers going to an institution with such a high critical mass of fellow high achieving/intellectually serious and engaged students doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll need it for the rest of their lives.</p>
<p>I enjoyed being surrounded and benefitting from being surrounded by that high critical mass in HS/college and yet, continued to maintain friendships with neighborhood kids and post-college friends who weren’t as academically high achieving or have little/no interest in discussing academic topics for hours on end. </p>
<p>Then again, I feel every individual has an interesting story behind them if one takes the time and effort to get to know and engage them in conversation. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I wouldn’t be thrilled if an undergrad class kept being held up by a critical mass of slower students who stop a Prof. every 5-20 minutes because they couldn’t keep up academically or worse, couldn’t be bothered to pay attention. </p>
<p>While I have gotten good at keeping myself entertained when this happened in a lit class, one classmate was fed up with another classmate we dubbed “water girl” because her stock answer to every question the Prof asked her was “Water, a symbol of life!”…even when little/no reference to water was ever made in the literary work under discussion. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Granted, while that account may be an argument against seeking the high critical mass of fellow high achievers to avoid that issue, I’ve heard from alums/former attendees* it was far more frequent and worse at the local public college system and some of the state campuses…including the top flagship.</p>
<ul>
<li>This factored in their decision to transfer out to more academically respectable/elite institutions.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Was that special program at a highly selective university?
First, the classroom. Take standard freshman classes and hang out with people who impress you in class.</p>
<p>Second, academic and professional extracurricular organizations. SPS, IEEE, Pre-med AMSA, etc.</p>
<p>Third, special interest housing. Most large universities offer this.</p>
<p>Fourth, trial and error in other pastimes. Enjoy your non-academic activities and just see who you fit with.</p>
<p>I think we’re really having two conversations here. The original question, “…could a picky student not be able to find any safeties?” and is this reasonable?;</p>
<p>and the more moderate question posed by Pizzagirl and others, “Is it reasonable for highly intelligent students to want to attend a school with a high proportion of students with a similar IQ?”</p>
<p>I would answer the first question with a no and the second with a yes.</p>
<p>I might even argue that it’s not so much “similar IQ” as it is similar “seriousness of purpose.” I think there is a difference between people who take learning and studies seriously (not to the point of not having lives, but who really care) and people who don’t and who are just punching the proverbial clock in college.</p>