<p>soozievt, </p>
<p>dstark is just baiting here. No discussion in the OP’s mind.</p>
<p>This is anecdotal, but my DD is taking a small seminar-style class that by its title seems to have attracted some of the “less-motivated” students (the title makes it sound like it might be an easy class). She took the class because she was genuinely interested in the topic. She said the class is basically a one-on-one discussion between her and the professor. The professor has on numerous occasions voiced his frustration with the class. So, in this case, being around “less smart” (or however you want to define it) students is definitely impacting the learning experience. DD dreads the class because of the lack of participation among the other students.</p>
<p>Soozievt…</p>
<p>"The answer to the question in the way you phrased it is that no, if you go to school with kids who are “smarter” than you, you will not “lessen” their education. </p>
<p>But I know where you are getting this idea…from another thread. And I think you missed the point there. It isn’t really about “smart.” Those who have a very strong work ethic, are highly motivated, crave challenge and are driven, often prefer to be in an atmosphere where that is the norm. They enjoy it more. Kids who are not like this will not lessen their education but students who are like this PREFER to be challenged by their peers. It isn’t just about smart (or SATs or anything like that)."</p>
<p>“Those who have a very strong work ethic, are highly motivated, crave challenge and are driven, often prefer to be in an atmosphere where that is the norm”</p>
<p>If a person wants to go to a school where 90+% of the kids are motivated instead of 50%, then the student should go to a school like that.</p>
<p>But don’t tell me (and you’re not doing this) that student is valuing education more, or the parents value education more, than the student who chooses a different atmosphere, or the student that has no problem with motivation when others aren’t motivated.</p>
<p>If a person can get a great education at a school, and prefers a school where fewer people are motivated, I don’t see any virtue in choosing a school where everybody is motivated over a school where most students are motivated.</p>
<p>As far as partying goes, one of my best friend’s son is at Brown right now. And the students are motivated. And smart. They also get drunk, have sex and use illegal drugs. (I don’t have a problem with this.) Just like the unmotivated students.</p>
<p>“Kids who are not like this will not lessen their education but students who are like this PREFER to be challenged by their peers.”</p>
<p>You can be challenged by peers all over the place. You don’t have to go to an IVY or IVY type school.</p>
<p>If you prefer and IVY or IVY type school… fine.</p>
<p>I know many people at Stanford. Great school. Most of the kids are very motivated. Smart too. And the people I know are proud to be going to Stanford. It’s not easy to get into the school. These kids define their school by the high caliber of students. </p>
<p>That’s great. Stanford is a great place.</p>
<p>There are other schools where there are many great students too. But for some reason, those schools are defined not by the strongest students, but by the weakest. As if the weakest effect the strongest. This is why you see the title of the thread.</p>
<p>Some people define schools by the weakest, least motivated students. So, if a person is not affected by the weakest students, why do we define schools by using the weakest students as the measuring stick?</p>
<p>Like I said, there are many state schools with large amounts of very strong, motivated students. There are also more weaker students. So because there are more weaker students at a state school, and I go to one, I don’t value education as much as somebody who sends their kids to a school with fewer weak students?</p>
<p>That’s nonsense.</p>
<p>A college advisor came to my son’s school and said that kids should apply to colleges where they will be equal or above the average student body. If you get into a reach college where you are at the bottom then you will probably struggle and be unhappy.</p>
<p>OK - let me give it a try based on my extensive cc education. And I know it’s not a direct answer to the question by the OP.
If I go to a school where there are a number of kids who are NOT as smart as me, then it will feel like going to the dentist for a root canal. And that shouldn’t make the kids and parents who choose this option feel bad…it’s just an individual “fit” thing.
So if I go to Stanford l might tell someone that if I had to go to UC Santa Barbara for money reasons, I might want to jump off a cliff. And it’s really just because I don’t like to hang out with kids who are stupid. No offense. Really. I know plenty of smart kids who are OK with hanging out with stupid slackers. But not me. It’s a personal choice.</p>
<p>“So if I go to Stanford l might tell someone that if I had to go to UC Santa Barbara for money reasons, I might want to jump off a cliff.”</p>
<p>I know somebody who scored a 2370 on the SAT and chose UCSB over Stanford, partially over money reasons.</p>
<p>Loves UCSB.</p>
<p>There aren’t that many stupid people at UCSB. (My wife went to UCSB. :))</p>
<p>Of course, a student who is “not as smart” will not affect other students’ education.</p>
<p>OTOH, a high-achieving, more advanced student, at a school where the average SAT is, say, 900 M/CR, is probably not going to get the same education as he/she would at one with a higher level student, simply because the classes can’t move at the same pace or cover the same material.</p>
<p>We’re not talking UCSB here. But there are schools where that 2370 will not get the education that is possible elsewhere. I know; I work at one. Those students bail all the time (well, we don’t get 2000+ students, but our ‘high level’ ones transfer out frequently.)</p>
<p>So, the answer is no. A less achieving/motivated/accomplished/smart (choose your epithet) student will not affect classmates. The converse is true, too. A student at a much higher level will not single-handedly affect the pace/magnitude of class learning, either.</p>
<p>You won’t affect much, but you stand to gain if you can hold your own in the more competitive environment.</p>
<p>RE dstark’s post #23,</p>
<p>Finally, something we can agree on! :)</p>
<p>Way to go!</p>
<p>I think it depends on learning style & there are advantages to attending a school where you are the sharpest crayon in the box
For example- profs will * love you* if you raise the level of discussion, & take advantage of their knowledge and pick their brains. You could be a shoe-in for extra projects and study-& can take advantage of extra opportunities on campus.
You may be eligible for extra funding/scholarships & can get great recommendations if you don’t slack.
However- slacking could be easy to do- and a slippery slope
.</p>
<p>By attending a school that is above your basic skill level- you can be challenged to keep up, but can also get behind quick and feel over your head.</p>
<p>remember that even at community colleges- competition for hiring is fierce.
I have had profs at CCs who have taught at 4 year schools- but like the CCs because of work schedule/location.
the profs at a state U are not going to be lacking in skilz</p>
<p>If a student is anticipating many years of schooling, i.e. med or law school, they often may opt to spread expenses out over the years rather than spend it all for the BA.</p>
<p>They also may be attracted to other amenities like sports teams or the college town/weather.</p>
<p>dstark, now you bring in an entire different factor…those who “value” education. I certainly agree that those who send their kids, as well as the kids themselves, to less selective colleges ALSO value education! That is not what many of us are talking about. We’re talking about fit. If the state school fit my kid the best, I still am me and I still value education. </p>
<p>I’ll go back to what I wrote in another thread about tracked classes in high school. My girls were content in high school insofar as they were able to take challenging classes due to tracking (Honors classes and such) or even both were allowed to accelerate and take classes with higher grades. In elem school, our school individualized and allowed the kids to work at their own level and pace and to work with higher grade levels. The time in my kids’ education when they were the least content was in our middle school which is grades 7/8 here. Our middle school doesn’t have tracked classes. The girls were coming out of an elementary school that allowed them to work beyond their grade level, as well as independent studies, in depth research and so forth. All of a sudden in middle school, everyone was taught the same thing. My kids were beyond the level and were bored and quite unhappy. They crave challenge and dislike when the material is too easy, etc. We had to have a lot of accomodations made…independent studies such as in math, taking courses in the high school and so forth. It was one of the only times in my D1’s life I have seen her cry. THIS is what some of us are talking about. A certain kind of learner craves the stimulation of difficult classes with high standards and where the others in the class are similarly driven in terms of rigor, challenge, motivation, drive, etc. They dislike classes where others are not as devoted to excel or don’t have the work ethic and drag the class down or where the work is too easy. So, it has nothing to do with a “better education” or “valuing education” but more to do with fit. For certain kids, the state U is a wonderful fit. It wasn’t for my own kids. I would send my kids there in a second if I felt it was the best fit. And they’d get a real good education too. And there would be SOME kids like them on campus but not the majority. Where they go to college, they have been pushed by their peers. They LIKE that. Others might not care a bit about that and that’s fine. We all know our own kids. </p>
<p>I have taught at five colleges in my state. I have seen the typical level of motivation. There are some who have strong work ethics but many who do not. I recall when my kids were very young and in elem school and I was teaching at a college in my state (a private one that is not too selective) and my own children, who happen to be excellent writers, wrote BETTER than some of my college students. I had students who did not do any work. My own kids not only do the work, they go WELL beyond what is required out of choice…to push themselves. They take on EXTRA work. They have no free time. They are a certain TYPE of kid. It has nothing to do with being “smart.” I have a niece who graduated from PSU. She is smart and gets good grades. She is a very different type of kid. She did no ECs. She went to class and did the work and graduated. No significant achievements. Nothing really on her resume. No summer jobs in her field. Just different. My kids are not “better.” Their level of drive is entirely different than many of their peers at less selective schools. They thrive being around other students who are doing some amazing things. It pushes them. They are not satisfied or happy in school when it is too easy or others don’t care as much about it all. </p>
<p>By the way, nobody said that people don’t party at schools like Brown. They do. Be that as it may, my kid had very little free time to party a LOT. Just on occasion. Her ECs ate up her time on top of all the schoolwork. Same with my other kid. She is scheduled every day all day, every night and weekend. She has a little social time but not a lot. My kids had to get up early 7 days per week. They can’t party starting Thursday night and all weekend like my niece did at her school.</p>
<p>Everyone who has posted has valid pieces of the discussion and I don’t really disagree with anyone. My perspective, though, centers on the differences in individuals…some kids run strong at the head of the pack and some run strong coming up through the pack. Some just like running with the crowd. If you have a particular child who needs the pack to accelerate them then those children will do well at a school where they have competition. If you have a child who soars when they are in the front - then that child might do well someplace where they are the “class star.” I can’t imagine any teacher or any prof running a class for the bottom 10th or the top 10th. I’d guess if anything most will pace for the top quartile. I don’t think any student in the bottom 10th is going to “lessen” anyone’s education.</p>
<p>soozie,</p>
<p>I go to a state school (flagship but third tier :eek:), and I’m one of those kids/students/people who you might describe as being highly motivated. In HS, I had a 4.0 UW, 12 AP courses and an additional self-study AP test. I gained proficiency in a language that is not too common in HS settings, studying under a teacher who received a national award for being the best HS teacher of said language. I got a Gold Award (equivalent of an Eagle Scout), was very involved in community service, recived awards for my writing, and held numerous officer positions in numerous clubs.</p>
<p>I chose my school both for the excellent merit aid I was offered and because I truly enjoyed the school when I visited (three times!). I was one of 32 students (it varies between 16 and 32 students a year, based on funding) selected to receive a scholarship where the average UW is 3.98 and the average ACT is 31. I had serious doubts coming to my school, worried I would find myself surrounded by drunkards and slackers. I’ve been pleasently surprised.</p>
<p>During my ~2.5 years here (I’m a current junior), I’ve taken full advantage of the courses offered (taking between 19 and 21 credits a semester), double majoring with a minor. I’ve done and will be doing research with multiple professors, am currently writing a BA thesis, worked as a TA in multiple classes/departments, have a two-year job offer (TAing/service job), am currently doing a clinical internship on campus, spent last summer at a nationally competitive internship, serve on a couple of executive boards, joined a sorority in which I currently hold an officer position, etc.</p>
<p>There are other students on campus, just as, if not more motivated than me, intensely difficult classes, and brilliant, accessible professors. Yes, there are slackers, too, but there’s also a certain “critical mass” (tm curmudgeon) of bright, motivated students. Would I have gotten a better education at a more selective school? No idea.</p>
<p>question_quest, you’re too smart and mature for this thread. </p>
<p>Really.</p>
<p>I’m glad to see things are working out well for you. Good luck to you.</p>
<p>OP: A single student can’t spoil the environment and so the effect is unobservable but it is true that you can gain iff you go to a college where the average student is as good as you are or better.</p>
<p>So if you are in the top 25 percentile by a great margin. i.e. the middle 50% SAT1 is 550 - 650 and you are above the 750 for all the sections then you will be wasting your abilities by going there. Similarly if you SAT1 for each section in the 550 - 600 range and the middle 50% SAT1 is above 700 for all sections then also you will be wasting time at that college as you may be lost catching up.</p>
<p>So it is up to you to decide where to go and why or why not.</p>
<p>question_quest…you sounds like a wonderful accomplished student and you are making the most of your college experience. Bravo!</p>
<p>Let me be clear…I guess I wan’t before?..but I believe there ARE students at state Us every bit as smart and motivated as those at very selective colleges. I know some myself. Great students are at EVERY college. The difference is that when looking at the ENTIRE student body at a less selective school, there is more variation in this way within the school, than at a highly selective school where the majority of the student body is similar to kids like you at the top of their state U’s. Same thing happens in high school. My kids went to a public high school where not everyone is even going to college. The top kids at our high school could rival any kids at some tony prep school, no question. But the entire student body at our public rural school was not on par with the entire student body at a private prep school. Same idea. I do not paint the entire state U with a broad brush stroke. There are very accomplished students at every state U. I have also taught at five colleges in my region and had a handful of excellent motivated students. But they stood out and were not the norm. </p>
<p>As far as getting an excellent education at your school…I have NO doubt that you are getting one. I never said that the education at a more selective university was a “better education.” I think I have written enough posts saying the opposite. It is more about the experience and fit overall per student. A certain type of student prefers a certain kind of learning environment. Finding that environment is critical. It is not about “best schools” but about “best fits.”</p>
<p>When I went to college, I was pretty well prepared. I didn’t feel that I was smarter than my classmates, but in some classes I felt that I knew more than some of them. But in one particular class–French–I clearly knew significantly less than all the other students in the class. I don’t think that affected the other students at all, because I kept my mouth shut as much as possible. It was tough for me, though, because I had to work hard to try to catch up, and it ended my study of French for good. I would really, really not want to be in that position for all or most of my classes. On the other hand, I took a couple of classes that were “too easy.” The lectures were too simple, and there wasn’t much interesting work. Those classes were boring. I wouldn’t like all of my classes to be like that either. So I think that for a lot of students, the best environment is probably one in which most of the other students are from the same general region of the bell curve.</p>
<p>One other thing: if you think that another college student is “smarter” than you, just keep watching him in various contexts, and he will probably demonstrate markedly stupid behavior of some kind.</p>
<p>To dstark and others who think similarly…are you against tracked classes in high school (AP, Honors, regular/prep level, remedial level, etc…whatever system a school uses)? I ask because if you think this makes sense in high school, why not in college? My kids took the hardest classes at their high school and would not have been happy in the easier tracked classes. I venture to say that many kids in the easier track classes would not have been happy in the Honors ones. So, to go to college where all these levels are mixed, creates a different learning environment than high school. For some, they want to continue that sort of “tracking” and be in class with other Honors type students or for some others, to NOT be in class with the Honors students.</p>
<p>Hey sooz - honors colleges can take care of that kind of thing for the most part. And if you go to a good school (I know the definition differs on that) - you will find many smart kids in the regular classes too…especially for upper level courses.
My s is in an honors class right now that is presenting some problems. He works in group and he clearly feels among the weakest in the group…and that’s not sitting well. Since it’s a small class and a small group, he really feels like he’s dragging them down. It’s not the first time this is happened, and I must say, this is NOT the concern we thought we would have with this school. Just goes to show that there are always surprises - things are not what you expect them to be - evaluating fit with colleges can be tricky.</p>
<p>soozievt, I’m not sure you understand my thinking. :)</p>
<p>"Let me be clear…I guess I wan’t before?..but I believe there ARE students at state Us every bit as smart and motivated as those at very selective colleges. I know some myself. Great students are at EVERY college. The difference is that when looking at the ENTIRE student body at a less selective school, there is more variation in this way within the school, than at a highly selective school where the majority of the student body is similar to kids like you at the top of their state U’s. Same thing happens in high school.</p>
<p>I don’t think high school is similar to college.</p>
<p>At good schools, including good state schools, there are so many difficult courses, plus grad courses, most students won’t have trouble being challenged.</p>
<p>So your high school analogy doesn’t work for me.</p>
<p>I’m not against students being challenged. I never said I was.</p>
<p>“They crave challenge and dislike when the material is too easy, etc. We had to have a lot of accomodations made…independent studies such as in math, taking courses in the high school and so forth. It was one of the only times in my D1’s life I have seen her cry. THIS is what some of us are talking about. A certain kind of learner craves the stimulation of difficult classes with high standards and where the others in the class are similarly driven in terms of rigor, challenge, motivation, drive, etc.”</p>
<p>And you can only get this at private schools like Brown, and not at state schools? </p>
<p>Come on Soozievt… what your kid wants to go to is a school where most people think like your daughter… but the rigor of the courses…give me a break…you can find plenty of rigorous courses at many places.</p>
<p>It’s about atmosphere, not rigor.</p>