<p>
It’s my impression that this “implicit assumption” is being projected on people who are simply saying that they would prefer to be around high-achieving kids while in college. This always gets translated into, “Are you saying that other kids are unworthy?” Thus my little play.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, “dispirited” was lifted from another poster in another thread who said that s/he would have been “dispirited” if s/he had to go to her state’s flagship university due to all of the lower achieving students there. The reason for starting this thread was to consider how common it actually is to have students who would dislike being around lower achieving students, thus leading to the possibility of such students not being able to find any safeties that they like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very well said. And frankly I think it’s less about the actual quality of the education and more about being able to socially fit in with peers who aren’t as academically inclined and serious about one’s studies. I would have been dispirited if I’d had to attend my state flagship (not a powerhouse) along with the kids from my hs who weren’t academically inclined. If that makes me snobby, so be it. Doesn’t mean there wouldn’t have been smart kids there, but they wouldn’t have been as “thick” as they would have been at a better school. I would have had to put on big-girl pants and just dealt with it, of course, but that wouldn’t mean it wouldn’t have been socially rougher. It IS exhilarating for a smart kid to go to a place where pretty much everyone is very smart. I don’t see why we should have to deny that. Why that gets translated into “oh, goodness, can’t even breathe the same air as other people” is beyond me. No one is talking about being insufferable or rude or arrogant.</p>
<p>Would you dislike being around lower achieving athletes if they were on your soccer team? If you were looking for a job, would you rather be in a firm of motivated go-getters, or one with mostly complacent, mediocre workers?</p>
<p>I think this is just a case of trying to characterize something as negative which in many (but admittedly not all) cases is actually positive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one is saying anything of the sort. No one is saying that state schools are the province of the mentally deficient, or that it’s horrible, or that the Ivies are the only game in town where one can be challenged. So don’t even pretend that’s the scenario being discussed.</p>
<p>Hunt,</p>
<p>Regarding the play:</p>
<p>Reread the Opening Post - try to see it from the other point of view. It’s not difficult to see the implications.</p>
<p>Hunt,</p>
<p>“It’s my impression that this “implicit assumption” is being projected on people who are simply saying that they would prefer to be around high-achieving kids while in college. This always gets translated into, “Are you saying that other kids are unworthy?” Thus my little play.”</p>
<p>I think you’d find that most high-achieving kids would prefer to primarily hang around, converse and study with mostly other high achieving kids…and that’s true anywhere. The implications in the opening post went beyond that, I think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know whether to feel flattered or stalked, ucb.</p>
<p>When my son was in high school, he had two sets of friends. One set included kids from the IB program he was in–all really smart kids, heading for good schools, with lots of extracurricular interests. The other set of friends, from his old school, were nice guys who liked to play video games, and that’s what they mostly did. I don’t think going to college with people like the first group, and not like the second group, would make him a better person, but I did, and do, think that it would make him a better student.</p>
<p>Well, because I was on the other threads, I was pretty sure ucbalumnus wasn’t advocating this idea, but rather was characterizing this mythical student who couldn’t stand dumb peers, and was pretty much inviting what I saw in the first set of responses.</p>
<p>And again, this whole thing is just so subject to overstatement. Are you “dispirited” if you are in an English class in college and find that the discussion is not as advanced as you would like, or if you find that your math class is going awfully slowly because the teacher is teaching to the median? Maybe “dispirited” is too strong, but you’re not elated, and you might wish that you could get some better classes. And in many colleges, including flagships, you can get better ones–but depending on how they do things, it may not be until you get into upper level classes.</p>
<p>"Would you dislike being around lower achieving athletes if they were on your soccer team? If you were looking for a job, would you rather be in a firm of motivated go-getters, or one with mostly complacent, mediocre workers?</p>
<p>Of course not. The opening post said there would be other high achievers there - just not as many. It is not my experience (at least not here - and maybe that’s the problem) that the state flagship is full of primarily low achieving mediocre, complacent young people. In fact, the majority of them are in the top 10% (at least) of their graduating classes, or have scored rather highly on their SAT/ACT, most of them without studying much, because that’s not a big thing here. So, in fact, most students at the state flagship would be considered “high achieving”, while maybe 20% would not fall into that category. So the characterization of such a school as not acceptable as a safety because of the large number of low-achievers is, yeah…offensive.</p>
<p>I think this is just a case of trying to characterize something as negative which in many (but admittedly not all) cases is actually positive."</p>
<p>Nope. As I said, GO FOR IT. Just understand that it might not happen, and be willing to accept a back up plan.</p>
<p>The really smart kids (the ones with emotional intelligence as well as stats and facts intelligence) would probably plot a path out of this ‘funk’ and move forward with the options in front of them.</p>
<p>[quoe] It is not my experience (at least not here - and maybe that’s the problem) that the state flagship is full of primarily low achieving mediocre, complacent young people. In fact, the majority of them are in the top 10% (at least) of their graduating classes, or have scored rather highly on their SAT/ACT, most of them without studying much, because that’s not a big thing here. So, in fact, most students at the state flagship would be considered “high achieving”, while maybe 20% would not fall into that category.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That differs wildly state by state. No one is saying this about “state flagships in general.”</p>
<p>There’s an implicit assumption in these posts from kids who don’t want to attend school with “lesser” intellects-that they are somehow unique. That is, these kids seem to think they’ll be the only smart kids who ended up at their safety school due to financial pressures or rejections from reach schools. I understand the desire to attend school with kids who are as smart as or smarter than oneself, but really the vast majority of students will find an intellectual peer group wherever they end up.</p>
<p>Feeling you want yourself or your kids to attend school with all high achieving kids is fine. If that’s a priority, there are great options out there and hopefully the kids that this is important to will end up with good options. What I have a problem with (as happened in the other thread) is when perfectly fine schools, even flagships , are being characterized (by those that didn’t want that for either themselves or their kids), as nothing more than places where the less academically inclined that “just want to party” and lack ambition end up. It’s uncalled for, and frankly, insulting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. They aren’t thinking that they are the “only smart kids.” They’re worried that it will be HARDER socially to find that intellectual peer group since they won’t be as “thick.”</p>
<p>@ Pizzagirl: LOL! :)</p>
<p>@ Hunt: Fair enough. I do draw a distinction between</p>
<p>a. A student who is high achieving, longs to go to a super highly selective school and will be disappointed if they don’t get in, but has a viable back up plan they can live with and makes, as another poster put it, lemonade out of his/her situation. Maybe they learn to lead in their new environment, start something new to expand the mind, raise the bar, or just occupy their own mind with challenges.</p>
<p>b. A student who is high achieving, longs to go to a super highly selective school and will not consider any other option because they just cannot stand being around a population of people who may not be quite as bright as they are - even if there are some there who are. He/she lacks the ambition to make lemonade, or to be a leader or to occupy his/her OWN mind with challenges.</p>
<p>"Is it that you don’t really believe that anybody is any smarter than anybody else? Or that people who are smart aren’t entitled to an education that fits their needs? "</p>
<p>Neither. If done right, and I see it done right every single day at D’s school, a school can indeed teach each according to his or her needs. My D and her academic peers and those even smarter and higher achieving are challenged, while those who need extra help, even hand-holding ALSO get what they need. It takes extra money, time and small classes to make it work, but it does work. </p>
<p>just because a kid is bright doesn’t mean they don’t also enjoy some of the same things a “gen ed” kids might enjoy, like sports and other EC’s. My D has friends from school, church, EC’s and neighborhood. Many interests, many IQ’s, many aspirations. Makes for some wonderful friendships even if they aren’t discussing high-minded topics at every turn. Her life is so much fuller now than it was when she was insulated from the general population.</p>
<p>
Of course, not all flagships are created equal. The flagship in my state is pretty good, and has a good honors program. 21% of students scored over 200 on the CR section of the SAT. At some highly selective schools, however, that number is over 75%. Does this mean the students at the flagship are a bunch of drooling morons? No, they’re all capable students, and some of them are super-smart. But there are a lot of them that won’t be academically competitive with those kids at the super-selective schools. The question is, to what extent, if any, do they hold back the super-smart kids who are at the flagship. If they don’t hold them back at all, it is (in my opinion) because the flagship segregates them in special honors classes. And if they do this, what are the supporters of the flagships so self-righteous about? Those kids aren’t rubbing shoulders with the lesser mortals, either–at least, not in the classroom.</p>
<p>It’s another question–and an interesting one–whether ECs benefit from having mostly super-achieving kids on campus. I think it depends on the EC.</p>
<p>"That differs wildly state by state. No one is saying this about “state flagships in general.” "</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I realize, and that’s why I conceded that might be part of the disconnect.</p>