@ucbalumnus, I don’t think your modification really gets at the issue.
There is a real problem with minority students getting into colleges for which they are underqualified and then struggling academically once they get there. My daughter had a college roommate like this. She was a member of an underrepresented minority group, and she was desperately over her head at the college she was attending. There was some question as to whether she would even be able to graduate, let alone get into medical school, which had been her dream. If she had been white or Asian, she would not have faced this problem because she would not have been admitted to the college in the first place.
Other students don’t face this problem because they don’t tend to get into colleges for which they are underqualified.
So there may be a legitimate rationale for suggesting that high school guidance counselors work with minority students to help them choose a college where they are likely to do well academically. I don’t see a need for them to do the same thing with the rest of the kids. The rest of the kids are likely to be qualified for every college that admitted them. (This is even true of legacies, who are typically not underqualified.)
Maybe not for athletic recruits. During freshman year (granted, more than a decade ago) DD roomed with a recruited athlete at BC. Well into the semester, the athlete asked DD, “remind me again, does the Earth go around the sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?”
DD was not one to invent stories at someone else’s expense, so I believe it.
Genetics (though it is not politically correct to say so) and I'd guess this is a pretty big part of things. According to my hard to follow grandmother, some great-uncle was mathematician to the czar of Russia (I wonder what such a job entailed). My father was considered a virtuoso mathematician among theoretical physicists and was very accomplished. I have a BA, MS and PhD in a mathematical discipline from top schools. It should not be surprising that one of my kids has a serious dose of mathematical talent;
Setting expectations that the kids will a) try to work hard, b) continue to get better at things that matter, c) understand that it is OK to fail as long as you learn from it, d) learn to prioritize, and e) not peg their self-image on being the smartest person around as there will always be someone smarter. I think Carol Dweck's work suggests that one can get smarter over time if one believes one can.
Parents setting good examples of Point 2.
Providing heavy doses of stimulation early (reading challenging books to them, engaging with them around intriguing logical and math problems for them; engaging them in artistic endeavors)
Trying to put them in groups of kids who have compatible attitudes. ShawSon is self-driven (drive at the 99.9999 percentile so it doesn't matter what group he was in, but early on, it was probably better that he wasn't at the most competitive place as he had to learn to cope with severe dyslexia) but for ShawD, we put her in a private HS because she tends to reflect the attitudes of the kids around her and wanted to surround her with an academically serious, hard-working peer group.
A heavy dose of luck. ShawD, who has done very well and is told frequently that she is very smart in the hospitals where she is training -- she wants to be a Nurse Practitioner and doctors regularly say,"You are so bright. You should go to medical school" -- did not inherit the mathematical talent. Both kids fell in with good crowds and not bad ones -- one can only steer them so much. While both had serious medical issues in childhood, they were able to get past them. Etc. Lots of luck involved.
What your D observed was noticed by DS as well at his college.
DS attended some pre-orientation program mostly designed for minorities (he would like to know more about campus before the school starts and attending such a program enabled him to do that. There were only two non-minority students there.)
As such, he happens to know many students in his class with the minority background.
Later in the class, he noticed the majority of them could not survive in some program that the competition is more fierce (e.g., the first mid term average for an introductory science class that is “not low enough”, i.e., deserving a science credit for a science major, could be as low as 46 out of 100.)
In DS’s year, there was a minority student decided not to attend DS’s college and chose to attend a newly-started BS/MD program in his state (that state has a lot of minority population.). I think his decision was wise – he himself said he believed that his preparation for many science subjects was likely not at the level that would be competitive enough at a national research university if he were a premed there.
In the current system, a minority student whose qualifications say “directional state university” gets into the flagship state university, one whose qualifications say “flagship state university” gets into Cornell, one whose qualifications say “Cornell” gets into Harvard, and one whose qualifications say “Harvard” also gets into Harvard (because there isn’t anything higher).
So you’ve got four minority students here, and three of them are in the wrong schools.
We’re kind of straying from topic when posting observations of and recommendations for students not raised in our homes. I would love to hear from URM parents with successful students - perhaps some already have posted. Same question - what worked?
Will you define URM for purposes of your question @patertrium? And also, the measure for ‘smartness’? Would NHRP scholars parents count? NMF? Perfect ACT? If so, I’d be inclined to say that a smart URM would be a smart non-URM. Nature plus some nurture so as to not stunt their growth (academic/social)… they gobble up opportunities such as reading or math games, so seeking those opportunities without forcing it upon them is key when they’re younger. Also, learning an instrument, as long as they express interest…even a simple recorder, drums or guitar. Violin not necessary. Exposure from birth to at least a second language is not harmful and may actually enhance their academic success.
Ben Carson. I read his bio and he said his mom was a single mom so she told him and his brother to go to the library after school. That must have worked wonders for him.
Leaving aside the IMO unwarranted assumptions about minority admissions preferences, why the assumption that there’s actually all that much difference between the rigor at, e.g., Directional State University and the University of State—Flagship?
Just to add a few more details re: Ben Carson- his mom was a cleaning lady from Detroit who worked for affluent people in the suburbs of Detroit. I believe she herself was illiterate. Ben Carson was starting to go down the wrong road due to some peer pressure and she noticed that the folks she worked for all had a lot of books in their homes. She started requiring that her children go to the library and read at least one book a week and write her a book report even though she couldn’t read it. He eventually excelled in school and now is one of the top pediatric neurosurgeons in the country. If I recall the story correctly I think he had already showed potential in school so the books and her requirement seem to have nurtured potential that was already there not created it.
Clearly genetics is critical at some level. However, within a reasonable range, I think the role in genetics in the success of a child is overstated. I understand that some children are much easier to raise than others, and that some kids seem to make good decisions so naturally that as a parent you are really reluctant to take any credit.
None of our three kids are super geniuses, but they are all better than the average students by a significant amount even if they are unimpressive by cc: standards. All three are currently in the top 3% on standardized tests. On cc: I am not sure whether that is good or bad. lol
There are many things that we do with our kids that are different from some parents. Here are a few that come to mind.
We make our children a top priority. We talk with each child every day (or text with the one in college.)
My spouse and I communicate with each other about how to deal with complex issues.
We teach them that family matters and friends are important.
We are close and supportive every day. We know each one well.
We encourage them and challenge them often.
We talk about effort a lot and only occasionally tell them they are smart for being successful on an assignment.
We make school and homework a priority for them, and make ourselves available to help with homework.
If we are no longer able to help, we offer to get a tutor to support them, if needed.
We prioritize reading, writing and math above all other subjects.
They are all involved in athletics. We drive them to practices endlessly. We attend their athletic events.
We correct their grammar often. We encourage them to read. We discuss what they are reading with them.
We attend teacher conferences. We are involved in PTO.
We discuss the importance of education and college.
We tell the it is okay to fail. We tell them we will support them if they fail.
We tell them they are loved, no matter what grades they get, but we challenge them to be their best.
We tell them that trying a hard thing and failing is not shameful; being afraid to try the hard thing is shameful.
We tell them we have their back.
We teach them to respect teachers and adults.
We involve them in an academic activity or camp almost every summer.
We work hard to maintain open communication lines with the high school, and college kids.
They don’t know that dropping out of high school is an option, not from us anyway.
We have never had a discussion about whether they want to go to college.
College discussions center around what subjects they might study in college what college is like, why college is important or colleges that might be a good fit.
We teach them that math is hard for everyone and that everyone gets better at math through effort not talent.
We teach them to be curious, and have a sense of wonder. We watch shows about science and nature.
We teach them to question everything and that no idea is off limits to questioning.
We teach them to be humble and not to brag about their accomplishments.
We teach them that when other people brag, to congratulate them and be happy for them.
We challenge them to talk with teachers or coaches to resolve issues directly. We give advice about what to say, but expect them to handle the issue or, at least, the first attempt.
We trust our children, but we always know where each kid is and when they will return.
Those are a few things that come to mind. We have made a lot of mistakes, but we try. We are proud of each child for their unique abilities and personality.
There is a CCer who is likely a single mom from Georgia whose D has been extremely successful. We do not know which buttons she has pushed right. From her previous posts, it seems that she and her D were very close to each other – this is definitely one of the ingredients that could help her D to be academically successful: Have a mother who cares about her future and she is willing to listen to her.
There seems to be more successful URMs (defined according to their ethnic group) whose parents are new immigrants (who themselves could be from the “upper or upper-middle” class of their origin country) than successful URMs who grew up, say, in a rough neighborhood in the inner city. The rough neighborhood in some inner cities could be like a “death trap”: Even for a kid with a great potential, it is still very challenging for him/her to get out of that trap. Here, the nurture factor is more important than the nature.
Re: why the assumption that there’s actually all that much difference between the rigor at, e.g., Directional State University and the University of State—Flagship?
It does not have to be that different, if the rigor and the grading could be as follows (just as a thought experiment here):
Supposed that there are 6% of students at a flagship who are NMS, and only 2% of students at a directional university who are NMS. If the percentage of flagship students who receive the A grade is 3 times higher than that of directional U. students, and the rigor of the same course is comparable between these two schools, there is then no difference between these two schools in terms of the rigor and grading.
This could be done. But it is up to the instructor to decide whether he or she is willing to do this. It is often the case that the instructors “give in” and is not willing to use the same standard (sometimes because it may become too discouraging for the instructor to raise the bar like this because it is likely that too many students may fail.)
Some may argue that the real difference between a higher-ranked school and a lower-ranked school is due to the composition of the pool of students – which may affect the overall academic environment when the instructor at a lower-ranked school does not have the “spine” to set the academic standard at a lower-ranked school to be exactly the same as that at a higher-ranked one.
We are URMs and my children grew up with a single, working mom and on subsidized school lunch. In general, I suspect much of the advice here that applies to non-URMs applies to them: teach them to read early, foster a love if learning, send them to good schools, foster their interests and expose them to foreign languages/ music if and when possible. The one thing I would say was different was to be willing to fight for them: that they be held to top standards, that they be in the highest groups/ AP/ honors classes, that they be considered for opportunities. There were many people along the way who have been willing to sell them short. Unfortunately, what they achieved in school has not necessarily translated to the workplace.
First, thanks for sharing with us your experience and insight.
Could you elaborate the statement that is quoted above? In particular, why is this so?
I once read an article in which a female student was described as being aspired to be as successful as her male counterpart. This was back in the early cold war days when the physics was considered as a very desirable and challenging major for many very competitive students. She decided to pursue the theoretical physics because she thought this might be what the most competitive male students may major in. She did great on it as a student. But when she entered the workforce, she soon found she still faced an uphill battle. She found out that she lacks the skills obtained by participating the (major) team sport; From such EC activities, her male counterparts might have obtained/honed their life skills that were critical at the workplace (especially for advancing to the management) but there were no (major) team sport for females when she grew up!