We are speaking from two different perspectives but I don’t think we are disagreeing.
Your perspective is whether the average kid at Harvard will be affected by something like Math 55. Of course not–we are in agreement on that.
My perspective is whether the kid who has extraordinary talent in one area, in other words by definition is already an outlier, benefits from having a concentration of other outliers as peers. I think it matters a great deal for those kids.
Anyway, I have said all I wanted to and more about this perspective, so I will stop now.
@hebegebe, but where are you getting your certainty of belief from? Have you been able to compare being around 95 percentile, 99 percentile, and 99.99 percentile people? And in what settings? And those percentiles in what ways? And as @blossom mentioned, those concentrations exist in various places. So say that Cal actually has a greater number of super-outliers in a particular area than Harvard. Harvard may have more of them as a percentage of the student body, but when the percentages are tiny, tell me again, what particular advantage does those super-outliers in a particular field being 1% of the population rather than 0.5% of the population confer?
Hebe- I do agree with you. If you have a kid who is an outlier in some area, then I think it behooves the family to at least kick the tires on a few of the options where your kid will be part of the group or the middle of the pack or however you want to characterize it. Perhaps you can’t afford one of those options- if so, your kid will still get a college education. Perhaps there are other considerations- distance, other needs and preferences, etc. But for sure- if your kid is talented at the tippy top level, at a minimum, know what trade-offs you are making if your kid doesn’t apply to one of these super concentrated schools.
On this we agree. I don’t think you tell your kid whose music instructors are trying to prepare him/her for a Julliard or Curtis audition that “it doesn’t matter where you go”. If your kid is that good- then yes, it matters. My state college’s directional campus has a nice music program. It is designed to teach students who want to become K-12 music instructors and choral directors, and there are some kids who have done a joint program with a seminary for a certificate in sacred music instruction. And a relatively new program in music therapy for kids with spectrum disorders, elderly dementia patients, etc. All well and good. But they aren’t candidates for Peabody or Curtis from the get-go, so to explain to their parents that the level of play at one of these conservatories vs. the state directional is both cruel and pointless.
I think where we disagree is about the middle of the bell curve.
But we do agree on what happens at the far end of the tail.
Harvard and other larger colleges generally offer several levels of freshman math/science/… classes. At most colleges, few students take the most challenging level of intro classes, so whether a college offers a Math 55 like super challenging intro class beyond what students would find in an honors class at a state flagship is only applicable to a small portion of students. Instead students generally choose level of classes based on a combination of level required for degree, placement tests and background in field, and what they think best helps their goals… rather than what classes offer the highest concentration of advanced students. If anything it’s more common for students to seek classes with a lower concentration of advanced students, thinking that the class will be easier and/or protect their GPA.
I’m not familiar with Harvard math classes, so I’ll use Stanford as an example instead. Stanford’s Math 51H (honors version of multi-variable calc) has been compared to Harvard Math 55. It’s my understanding Math 51H is less challenging and rigorous than Harvard Math 55, but still more advanced than other Stanford freshman math classes. The relative distribution of autumn quarter sections for different freshman math classes at Stanford is below. Note that very few take Math 51H. More take the Math 19/20/… sequence. which is the slow pace version of single variable calculus. A similar pattern occurs in other fields.
Math 19 – 4 sections
Math 20 – 2 sections
Math 41 – 6 sections
Math 41A – 2 sections
Math 42 – 6 sections
Math 42A – 2 sections
Math 51 – 18 sections
Math 51A – 2 sections
Math 51H – 2 sections
CME 100 – 3 sections
CME 100A – 2 sections
Of course there is a bigger jump in USNWR then in Forbes. Forbes ranks all colleges were USNWR ranks only universities. To get to number 30 with Forbes you need to go through Williams and Swarthmore and Pomona et al. For comparison Hopkins is ranked 68th or something on Forbes. I found Forbes’ rankings more useful. I think most top high schoolers are choosing between the top liberal arts schools and universities, Brown has far more to do with Vassar then to say university of Arizona. My daughter’s search criteria was size focused and ran across the larger liberal arts schools and smaller universities. BTW my daughter is at Rice and it is fantastic. She landed a paid research internship as a freshman and is continuing that research in Africa this summer and will probably be published.
Pursuit of the PhD is but one measure, and it’s as legitimate as any. It is the highest degree conferred in our system of education. Your attempt to make it sound like not too big of a deal is a stretch.
I can do the same thing: there are a ton of sh** law schools and other professional schools out there. I don’t really think sending a kid to law or biz school at some second or third tier school is that impressive either. At some point you have to consider the data even if it doesn’t give you the answer you want. The general point that a relatively high % of kids with an undergraduate education from a top LAC wind up with PhDs probably means that they are being well educated, and it is also a good explanation for why their five-year salary information may be misleading.
The quality of an institution’s capacity to educate undergrads is, to me, a heck of a lot more established by its ability to produce people with the educational base, focus, work ethic and dedication it takes to get a PhD in almost anything than its ability to send a kid to law school … and you’re hearing that from an Ivy League educated lawyer.
I started a thread on the Money ranking that just came out here in the PF. It’s “outcomes” in the methodology don’t use Phd production or prestigious awards at all. I wonder what it would be like if it did.
@panpacific fair enough. I saw that response. My only point was really to validate the PhD as measure of successful undergraduate preparation. I don’t think the PhD is as easy to pursue, and certainly not to obtain, as you make out to be, and certainly many PhD programs are as competitive and rigorous as going to Med School, which by many, many, oh so many accounts, is more of an exercise in stamina than anything else for those bright enough to meet the threshold intellectual requirements. And if we’re going to add top law and MD schools, which you suggest in your original post, then we should focus on the competitive PhD programs as well.
I think they’re all useful measures, and my understanding of the data is that strong LACs also send droves of kids to professional schools too. I would argue the MBA track is not as instructive on the point we’re discussing, because I don’t think they’re that rigorous and the real purpose they serve at the high end is to stamp your admission card to the iBank club. Obviously I’m revealing a bias on that point.
@Data10 But it also means Amherst is better than so many universities and so many more universities are better than Williams… I am just scratching my head on how those two can be so different in “value adding”…
Oh, I’m sure they have their “methodology.” But any list trying to compare a Tier One Research University with a 2,400 student LAC is just nutty, IMHO.
I don’t know. My D’s college list had LACs and large Us on it for various reasons, and her eventual decision came down to two - one of each. From the perspective of a kid/family choosing a college, separating them may seem silly.
@OHMomof2, my son had both types of schools on his list too, and his final choices came down to a couple of each as well, but they’re completely different animals. And while an individual student might be better served by a very good LAC (especially if it’s affordable) than a giant research university, if you’ve visited many of these schools, making a statement like Dickinson College is a “better” school than Georgia Tech is just silly.
I’m all for the data Forbes collects (although I agree with others that “four-year graduation rates” mean different things at different schools); it’s the official “rankings” I find absurd.
There is no generic undergraduate student. Too many variables (COA, major, proximity to industry, an on an on) that are as much dependent upon the particular student as the total resources of the college or university.
@PurpleTitan, while that seems like an odd comparison to me, at least they’re both top-tier in their respective categories. I’m no expert on either school, but my impression is that they’re both pretty outstanding across majors.
I don’t know how anyone who has seriously investigated, for example, the STEM offerings of any of those LACs I cited could argue they’re on par with Georgia Tech or UT (or Penn State, Pitt, and MANY other large public universities, for that matter).
They might be a better FIT for a particular student interested in studying a particular subject, but beyond that? To make a claim that they’re objectively better? Sorry, who am I gonna believe, Forbes magazine or my own eyes?
