<p>Making sure to clarify that annasdad himself has made no such claim, and that the much more limited claim he has made, as a very helpful poster noted upthread, is based on anecdotal evidence. That said, I have had other alumni tell me that when they got to college, they found the foundation level courses to be largely a waste of time, and that they had no trouble with courses in which their peers from other schools really struggled. That’s no doubt at least partly due to the fact that the kids from annasdad’s schools have spent three years in a residential school environment that’s run much like a college (though with some important differences), and I would imagine students from other boarding schools can say much the same.</p>
<p>But I think part of the reason is very likely the fact that they are used to an extremely rigorous program and have come to understand that you have to work hard to get good grades. Take a look at the grade distribution in the profile document that ucbalum linked upthread. It takes a lot of hard work to get an A. These are very, very bright kids, most of whom come in with 4.0 averages from seventh through ninth grades (the average entering GPA is 3.8-something); yet typically, only about 4% will complete their three years at annasdad’s high school with 4.0s. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think that the science labs at most colleges with a serious science program would be more impressive than those at annasdad’s high school. Annasdad has toured the biology labs at one college (not one of the ones that makes the crowd on CC ooh and aah either) and can verify that this is true, for at least that college. I would also think (in fact I know) that the science courses at any college with a serious science program go far beyond the breadth of those at annasdad’s high school; after all, it is a three-year high school, and students don’t major in a specific science (although many do informally concentrate), so there is no need to offer a soup-to-nuts biology curriculum, for example. I’ve never heard of one of our students exhausting the science courses that are offered; I have heard of a few very brilliant students exhausting the math offerings and going on to independent study.</p>
<p>What make the school more rigorous than some college programs, I think (and I admit I’m speculating, to an extent), is the method of instruction, which collegealum (a graduate of a school with a similar philosophy and similar rigor in a different state) described upthread, and I can’t improve on his description. I’ve had alumni tell me that the inquiry-based instruction (to use the buzzword) is more akin to what they experienced later as graduate students than what they got in undergrad, which (they say) tends to be “here’s the principle - now go into the lab and do these experiments to verify what I’ve just told you.” I also know there is substantial evidence to show that inquiry based instruction is a very sound technique.</p>
<p>Since I have sent two kids to college and have one to go, I will tailor this list to her.</p>
<p>For all of them, it had to be an accredited college. Since I homeschooled (and still homeschool the last child), we have gotten advertisements from one particular college that is not accredited. I was very surprised to hear that the actual community college for my city is not accredited when I moved here last summer. I hadn’t even heard of that college because all the brochures that both the military and our real estate agent sent us referenced the neighboring county’s community college which has a building and classes at a satellite location in our county. Before this experience, I didn’t even know that any public institutions exist that are unaccredited. I always had thought those places were either for profit, shady institutions or certain religious schools that spurn accreditation over philosophical differences. </p>
<p>Next, the college has to be a comfortable place for my child to be a practicing Christian and politically conservative. I would not say there can’t be Occupy people on campus because even on my d’s campus which has a much larger Republican group than Democratic group, there were a few students with signs out this fall. D met one of these students in one of her classes. The kids don’t need everyone to be the same but in the same vein, they didn’t and don’t need everyone to be different from them either.</p>
<p>Finally, I wouldn’t approve (or pay) for a college that was either truely mediocre or which was way below the child’s abilities with no range of ability students. WHat I mean is that main state schools and some specialized state schools are fine. But there are schools where the average student scored about as well as my last daughter did at age 12. That won’t be an acceptable place for her to attend at age 18. A school like my 2nd child attends or my first child attended, where the average is below them but there are plenty of smarter students attending too is perfectly acceptable. I don’t think child three would be interested in such a school but who knows. Right now, she is most interested in a school we visited because her sister had applied there and she really liked the school and its science program in particular. That school would fit criterion #2 too.</p>
<p>This is not true if you are referring to the entire set of college level courses in sciences.</p>
<p>However, a more limited claim would be that a super-elite science-focused high school would teach what is ordinary college freshman level science and math at a more rigorous level than most colleges teach the same college freshman level science and math courses.</p>
<p>This would be neither surprising nor hard to believe, since the super-elite science-focused high school is teaching to the top students in science and math, while the college is teaching to more ordinary students who are merely at normal grade level (or even behind, after having taken remedial courses), since the top students in science and math have likely enrolled in college sophomore or even junior level courses as college freshmen, skipping the college freshman level courses since they have already had them in high school (although some may be retaking the freshman courses in order to gather easy A grades for pre-med or pre-law purposes, or for medical schools that do not accept advanced placement due to high school work).</p>
<p>It is also likely that something similar occurs at other school transition levels. For example, students a year ahead in math take algebra 1 in junior high school, while students at grade level in math take algebra 1 in high school. But the junior high school, knowing that it is teaching to the best-in-math students, may teach algebra 1 at what would be considered honors level by the high school, while the high school may not even offer honors algebra 1 at all.</p>
<p>What allows them to use a more rigorous method of instruction in science and math is that they can assume that all of the students are honor students (from a college standpoint, not a high school standpoint) in science and math, unlike most colleges, other than a few super-elite STEM-focused colleges.</p>
<p>I attended football games (even though I’m not a football fan) because it was an easy way to socialize. Only attended a few basketball games. My husband was the master carpenter for Waa-Mu one year, and we still try to go every other year or so – this year we’ll go with my son, which is cool. I periodically attend other theater performances on the campus as fits my schedule. I don’t remember too many Dillo Days, but I was on the committee that ran Mayfest. These are all good things. Theater is good, and socializing is part of life; I’m tired of the holier-than-thou any-social-gathering-must-be-evidence-of-lack-of-seriousness attitude. </p>
<p>To annasdad’s question as to whether I was one of the girls on the rocks with the beer? Well, I don’t like beer, and I don’t drink it, so I would have had a soft drink instead. But I came to NU with a boyfriend already there (a year older than me), and went from dating him to dating my now-husband, so I didn’t do a lot of casual dating / frat party stuff. But you know something? I should have. Absolutely should have, and I encourage my kids to do the same. I had a chance at a particular now-celebrity-actor that I didn’t take, that I regret. Because life is too short. And I’m sitting here in my late forties with two college age kids going … all that studying, and all that seriousness … I should have combined it with more socialization. Don’t get me wrong – I did socialize – and held leadership positions in my sorority and in a particular campus organization. But life is not all about academics, even at a fancy-schmancy elite school where we take ourselves and our brains very, very seriously.</p>
<p>Jumping in without having read the whole thread. Admittedly, I have a bias towards large state universities (on the basis that they are cost effective to help save $ for grad schook, have a lot of majors for undecided students, and offer tons of activities and opportunities). </p>
<p>When we did college visits, I absolutely hated U-Miami in Ohio and Villanova. Both of certainly offer good educations, but they also seemed extremely preppy and white-bread. My 60s-70s self cringed in horror at the popped collars and careful grooming. No sweat pants, protest-posters, or dweebs in sight. </p>
<p>One of my kids actually did choose a school that fell into this category. Loves it. Sigh.</p>
<p>Annasdad has not made that claim because he has no evidence that it is true. But neither do you have any evidence that it is not, as long as one defines “better” as “taught more rigorously.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that the courses at annasdad’s D’s high school go well beyond “ordinary college freshman level science and math courses,” (biochemistry? org chem? biophysics? number theory?) though, as annasdad pointed out above, don’t approach the breadth of courses available at a college offering majors in those subjects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you telling me that “super-elite” colleges, as defined by student selectivity, are teaching to “ordinary students who are merely at normal grade level (or even behind, after having taken remedial courses).” Really? Northwestern (average ACT something like 32)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes inquiry based instruction work, in my opinion (I don’t know if there is research on this), is the motivation of the student, much more than their native intelligence. Students who want to learn and are willing to do the work can learn effectively with this technique; students who are intent on sliding through with the least amount of work possible will probably learn more from attending lectures, no matter how bright they are.</p>
<p>I agree that FRESHMAN level science and math courses at pretty much any college are going to be the same or easier than most AP or better high school classes, after all, that is what an AP class is supposed to be. ANY science class that is a required class for non-science majors is going to be an easy class for a science major. After freshman year, however, you picked the wrong school if your child’s science classes are easier than their high school classes.</p>
<p>Well then, I guess that the 32 kids from my D’s high school who have trundled off to Northwestern over the last three years picked the wrong school. Of course, most of those kids’ high school science and math courses went far beyond the standard AP level.</p>
<p>“I agree that FRESHMAN level science and math courses at pretty much any college are going to be the same or easier than most AP or better high school classes”</p>
<p>-General assumption that is by far not true.
D’s first college Bio (D. had Honors HS Bio and AP Bio - ‘5’ on exam, A’s in both - private prep. HS) was advised NOT to be skipped to assure success in next Bio classes. She said, good that she di not skip it. The class went thru AP material in first 2 weeks and then moved on. It was taught by 3 profs being in the class at the same time, each teaching his specialty - Botany, MicroBiology, Zoology. Class derailed good number of HS valedictorians from pre-med track. Good that it was freshman first semster, so that the ones who fell out could still re-think their future without much waste. This was not at any Ivy / Elite, my D. went to state UG.
General assumption about college science classes and HS AP’s is NOT correct. However, college Honors English was complete waste of time for my D. She did not learn anything new after her AP English, but required to take it because of “4” on AP exam. Another example is about Chem. D. never had AP Chem., was not offerred at her school. She was hand picked by prof for SI position (job that lasted 3 years) because all of her tests were 100+% and kids were seeking her help.<br>
It depends on UG / HS combo, but there is no general picture about it, AP’s may or may not help, and some HS’s would have regular classes taught at higher level than APs at other schools.</p>
<p>Wow, MomfromTN, suggesting that someone you don’t know has a personality disorder. That’s a nice twist on the grand name-calling tradition on CC. This is helpful how?</p>
<p>My experience a million years ago at Harvard was that my senior year prep school classes except in languages and science (girls school a million years ago --sigh…) were as good or better than freshman level classes.</p>
<p>I’m very sorry, I really didn’t mean that to come across as bad as it did. Again, I’m new to this forum, and if I could delete it I would. I was being sarcastic, and it wasn’t as funny as I meant it to be. Annasdad, please accept my apologies.</p>
<p>What stats/grades would convince you, assuming that I had access to them (which I clearly don’t)? I identified the source of my assertion. To get more specific (not too specific lest I identify the student), the student was a biology major who recently graduated from Northwestern and was admitted to a super-selective graduate program at an extremely prestigious Eastern research university. Her father, who reported her comment to me, is a science professor at another Illinois university. You can take it for what it’s worth, or what it isn’t.</p>