<p>But here is a question relevant here: do you judge a school based on its best students, or based on its worst students?</p>
<p>It appears that most public prestige rankings are mostly based on the worst students (i.e. those with the lowest HS GPA and test scores that will be admitted), rather than the best students (i.e. those who go on to top level PhD programs in their majors). For a school like Arizona State University (which is probably similar to University of Missouri in this respect), where the base level admissions standards are quite low (e.g. admitted with 2.7 HS GPA with 960 SAT CR+M and 19 ACT), but which does send some graduates to top level PhD programs in their majors, which students define the school?</p>
<p>And yes, of course I want my kids to eventually marry people who are as smart and funny and talented and compassionate as they are. I guess I trust them to find those people when the time comes, whether it’s in college/grad school, at a coffee shop, in a recreational volleyball league, through friends or whatever. It is not something I wring my hands worrying about, because I have every confidence that they will make good judgments in the future, just as they do now.</p>
<p>When we were looking at schools, we judged them by the middle 50% at the point of matriculation. Not only what those numbers were, but how wide a range they represented. This gives you (I think) more of an idea of what the academic “center of gravity” is for that school. This approach may not work as well for very large schools with honors programs, though.</p>
<p>"The problem is that a smart kid at a state school, surrounded by many attractive and charming people who are, well, not all that bright, may somehow be seduced into proposing marriage to one of them. In the heat of passion, IQ may seem superficially to be less important. </p>
<p>The issue will come to a head 20 years later when the resulting kids - your grandkids - just don’t ‘get’ multivariable calc, and spend a good deal of time in shopping malls. Projected admission rates to HYB* by then will be less than 1%, and top genetics will be an absolute prerequisite."</p>
<p>It’s this kind of characterization that is very offensive. It suggests that the bulk of students at a state school are well, not that bright…and also that everyone in every useful position would have need of multivariable calculus…and that public state school students, in general, are more preoccupied with hanging out at the mall than they are their studies, and thus their offspring will be genetically inferior.</p>
<p>But how many such small LACs are willing to be used as safeties (i.e. do not consider “level of applicant’s interest” or otherwise make it difficult to be a “sure thing” for admissions)?</p>
<p>A large school may have a critical mass of outliers (at both ends) for there to be suitable course offerings for the outliers, but a small school may have too few outliers for there to be course offerings for them. How do you account for that?</p>
<p>A: “I feel like having a steak–let’s go to Sammy’s Steakhouse.”
B: “You can get a steak at Fred’s Fish House.”
A: “Yes, but there are a lot more different steaks at Sammy’s.”
B: “There’s nothing wrong with the steak at Fred’s.”
A: “I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it; it’s just that if I want a steak, it seems to me to make more sense to go to a steakhouse.”
B: “What do you have against fish?”
A: “I don’t have anything against fish, I just feel like having steak.”
B: “What are you, some kind of anti-piscatorian?”
Etc., and so on…</p>
Outside of the USNWR “top 20,” and also outside of the east coast where there are many more applicants for the available slots (thus pushing up “selectivity”), there are many. Small LACs that are working to build their reputations nationally know they are going to be safeties for a lot of smart kids, especially those from outside the region they are located in. Level of interest/understanding of a school’s particular attributes can be demonstrated through answers to essay questions, which should be easy enough for a smart kid to write.</p>
<p>"He may like the kids on the rec team, and they may be nicer–but playing with them won’t really help his soccer skills–in fact, it will hurt his soccer skills, because he’ll have trouble developing the skills that require teamwork–i.e., if nobody can effectively pass to him.</p>
<p>But people just feel squeamish if similar sentiments are expressed with respect to academic ability."</p>
<p>Hunt, I don’t have anything against brilliant students who prefer a highly selective school and prefer to socialize with people who are like them and have similar interests. </p>
<p>Where I get offended is when generalized terms are used to blanket students at other schools. Just as in sports, where VERY talented players may not get their top pick and should have a back-up plan, and will likely be disappointed - also should academic superstars plan accordingly. It may or may NOT mean their skills don’t get as “polished” as they would have liked.</p>
My kids were fortunate enough to get admitted to a really good medium-sized school. My daughter was initially interested in LACs, but one of the negatives for them was the limited course selection. Sometimes there are creative ways around that, like the consortium of five schools in Massachusetts.</p>
Who? I don’t think anybody on this thread, including Pizzagirl, has really done this. If you’re talking about some unknown parent that somebody heard say this at a high school meeting somewhere, what’s the big deal? I continue to think that too many people hear “I want to go to college with smart kids” and translate that into “Dumb kids are unworthy of me.” They are not the same.</p>
<p>A: Let’s go to Sammy’s for a steak.
B: Sorry, I just can’t afford Sammy’s. Let’s go to Fred’s Fish House.
A: Forget it! It’s Sammy’s or nothing!</p>
<p>How many people at selective schools are pre-med? If you’re a doctor, you’re dealing with “regular” people all the livelong day, explaining concepts to them, and so forth.</p>