“…identify those that fit you,” yes. But among those, the ones where you fit what they want. After all, in the end, they do the choosing.
The major problem with the U.S. higher education is that there are way too many great schools to choose from…
I think elite schools becoming more selective (thus the academic sticker shock) and the fact that we now have far more schools we consider “elite” comes down to a few things. First is the number of students whose parents expect them to attend college has greatly increased over the past 30 years. Many more students have parents who were college educated and went further to prepare their children than in the past. The result is far more high achieving students. It has become much easier to investigate colleges and ranking systems have made many more consider selectivity as a factor than in the past. Far more students are considering a distinct group of schools as necessary to apply to. Finally is the ease which students have in applying to multiple universities. More students with better grades applying to more schools (it is not all unusual for a student to apply to 10 or more schools, rare if not unheard of 20 years ago) which for all intents and purposes have not increased enrollment has resulted in the disconnect with aptitude and selection. In the end many universities have a lot of students who look very similar on paper to choose from and most of them would be fine students at their institutions. In the past it was probably far easier for these colleges to choose amongst a smaller number of applicants who applications were more diverse and who applied to schools they were likely interested in because researching them and the time necessary to apply was much more difficult. I think we have created the idea of entitlement.
Having read this entire thread it is my belief that there is not a sense of entitlement for many students or their families. Of course there are exceptions to this, most often when significant wealth and legacy are involved.
For the vast majority it is a matter of unreasonable expectation based on two primary elements. The first being how hard top students work and the second being that it is not understood how ridiculously competitive it is to be admitted to elite schools.
We experienced this in our family. There was absolutely no sense of entitlement but there was expectation. What wasn’t apparent enough to us even as educated involved parents was just how difficult the very top schools are to get into.
@TiggerDad:
“The major problem with the U.S. higher education is that there are way too many great schools to choose from.”
Yes, actually. The sheer number and diversity (which requires research) + the immense increase in admissions difficulty at the tippy-tops (and it keeps going up, too).
As I mentioned, in no other country has the difficulty of admissions to tippy-tops increased anywhere like this much.
That Gladwell article is from 2005 and entirely leaves out the period when Harvard started its financial aid initiative and when socioeconomic diversity became important to selective schools. It’s not even relevant.
The emphasis on “character” and a variety of talents makes for an interesting campus, versus classes full of perfect stats. Holistic admissions is not random, but is harder to predict, that’s all.
I can never get over the length of any thread with “Ivy” in the title. Gladwell implies that all the interest in Ivies is based on hope for high income. Is money the reason for this interest?
Also please note the anecdote about the Harvard grad hemming and hawing about going to school “in Cambridge.” Unless Harvard grads remain in a bubble with fellow Ivy grads, they face a lifetime of prejudice about being brainy and elitist (“entitled”?) and their parents are assumed to be pushy and/or rich.
In my view, it took until post #102 by melvin123 for the explanation that holds locally to emerge. The top local students have insane work and activity loads, and they are lucky to get 6 hours of sleep a night. This is crazy, but it is actually rather difficult for an outstanding student to avoid being sucked into it, unless the student is happy going to a second-tier or below in-state public university, due to a host of complicating factors too numerous to detail here. Of course the student could still succeed quite well in life, but his/her undergrad academic experience is unlikely to be comparable to the academic experience elsewhere, without a lot of luck plus some very serious effort by the student and some very serious interest and guidance by the university faculty.
The high school work load that has been taken on makes it hard to “settle” for a safety, if a student is of Oxbridge caliber academically. The work in itself could be rewarding, absolutely, if the assignments contributed sensibly to learning. In a number of cases in the local classes, this was not true–the assigned workload often times actually hindered learning, in my view.
I may have actually used the term “entitled” to admission to a top school–in a positive sense–to describe a classmate of QMP’s, although it is more likely that I wrote that he “deserved” admission to a top school. I was not just comparing him to the local pool, although I had some years of knowledge of the local school’s students who were admitted to the top few schools. As a scientist, I have national scientific contacts. I hear about the accomplishments of a quite a number of top students from top high schools, in each year’s cohort of high school graduates. To modify the ad for Farmers Insurance, “I know a thing or two because [I’ve] seen a thing or two.” This particular student had trouble with admission to “top” schools, and in my view that really should not have happened.
The student in question later became a Hertz Fellow. He had a highly successful internship at Siemens, and impressed the people for whom he interned at Battelle sufficiently that they flew him out on a private jet to meet the CEO. I wasn’t surprised in the least, because I knew him. He is a fine person, in addition to being brilliant. He also contributed very significantly to the undergraduate community in his university. (I have personal knowledge of this.)
What are the odds that I know the only student in the US who really ought to have been admitted to a very top school, but for some reason fell afoul of the admissions practices at the places where he applied? I’d guess: zero.
In the UK, he would have had no problem, and no admissions drama.
Note: I couldn’t put the “I” at the beginning of the Farmers Insurance quotation in brackets, though that would be correct, because it converted all of the rest of the post to italics!
Quant- if this student ended up at a true second tier (not just winging that he’s at CMU instead of Harvard- both of which are top tier) then he got bad advice- or got good advice he did not take. Ended up at UIUC in the sciences instead of Columbia? He may have been in a department SUPERIOR to the one he was shut out of.
I know kids who end up at Framingham State (in Massachusetts) who “should” have been at a research university- but NOT because the system is broken, or because of any of the reasons you are implying. Parental ego, inability to let the kid travel more than an hour from home, these all play a part-- but they aren’t the fault of the “top tier” colleges in America.
“Trouble with admissions to top schools”- what the heck does that mean? Shut out from Princeton and Stanford? That is not an admissions strategy.
Just not true Quant. At our very competitive HS, the top kids are as you described and aim for and get into the super elites. There are plenty of kids that work hard but get a full nights sleep, play a sport, and have a social life. They are not getting in to super elite schools, but have good results at top 25-40 schools that are certainly not “second tier” unless you considered anything that is not top 2, second tier. Certainly, every one of those good but not perfect students get into our big state U.
To some extent it is this attitude that drives the race - anything not super elite is second tier and therefore not good enough.
A quick google search will show there is concern in the UK that admissions to the top Universities is not entirely fair. Kids with wealthy parents, white kids and kids that go to the top private schools are much more likely to get into the top colleges than poor kids of color at public high schools. The sorting may just start at an earlier age. Certainly, a kid with a top quality high school education will be better able to write a persuasive essay on a complex topic that will impress a faculty member as well as more likely to do better on the exams.
And to add to Mom2’s fine post- sometimes a college ranked #30 on some arbitrary list IS the top tier for certain disciplines or departments. You may think of this as opaque- but to me this describes the vitality of a higher educational system which does have something for everyone. Kid is going to Cooper Union (not as cheap as it was when it was free, but still a bargain for a kid who can commute) instead of a college with a bigger “brand”? How is that a tragedy if the kid is interested in one of the disciplines where Cooper Union has a bigger profile and distinguished faculty? Kid studying applied math/statistics at Rutgers-- which has a MUCH bigger reputation among employers than it does with HS kids in New Jersey who seem to think it’s Year 13 of high school? To me that’s a superb outcome. Ditto for the SUNY’s- you can’t imagine the contortions that folks on Long Island go through to find (and pay for) some third rate college which is NOT Stonybrook… it is mind boggling when the kid is an auto-admit to a fine research U which has top departments in the sciences.
By the way, I mean top 20, not top 2 in my post.
It doesn’t help to pick one or two anecdotes and then indict the system top colleges choose to use. I’m sorry, but that direction is not fair. Maybe not sound.
Do we really say, but he got less sleep? As if that’s a valid college decision point? When these (left-field) wild cards are thrown in, we can lose the rational track. In real life, it’s more than “potential.” Or what friends and family think. You can’t pretend a kid only has one shot, one or two colleges he “deserves,” and all else is a blow, an affront (to him and to our personal opinion.)
The brightest tend to forge their paths, despite. And success in life is much more than an envelope in senior year of high school. It hinges on a willingness to drive further, not settling for just the soccer trophy in lower school.
And America is the land of second and third acts. Not every successful adult showed their true potential at age 17 and that’s perfectly OK.
One thing I will mention is that as recently as, say, 15 years ago, our urban public high school sent no one to Ivys/top schools but then a few kids/teachers began asking, Hey why not, so everyone started applying and now there’s at least 10 to 20 kids a year who get into the top 20 schools. So I guess my point is that many kids do make it in and its not unrealistic to have them aim for it.
I think one of the problems here, and with CC in general, is that we are dealing with 17/ 18 year old kids, many of whom have a set of expectations foisted on them. @blossom what you say is obviously true but it can be difficult to grasp at that age. To me this is about poor parenting; if some poor kid thinks their life is over, that they have let someone down, by not getting into MIT then the issue does not lie with them. And to be honest, that mentality seems to be present among some of the adults on this site. Yes I want my kids to max out their potential and Im not ashamed to say so but more than anything my kids are good people who are much more mellow about this process than their neurotic dad.
@mom2and The is no doubt wealth counts in the UK. Independent schools are 7% of the high school population and yet 40% of Oxbridge entrants are from independent schools, in certain colleges it is as high as 55- 60%. Clearly there are some very bright kids but its also true they are expected to apply and have the resources which coach them towards the goal of matriculation. Oxbridge takes about 350 kids a year where the requirement is Latin and/or Greek at A level, Classics making up the lions share. The number of state schools still teaching those subjects to A level I would say is close to zero. Only wealthy independent schools have the resources to teach a class where the class size is probably less than 10. A recent statistic was the top 6 independent schools send more kids to Oxbridge than 2000 state schools combined, wealth and class is alive and well in tertiary education in the UK, Why does this matter? Certain fields, the judiciary, politics, media and the civil service are dominated by Oxbridge graduates, a situation which will only get worse as increasing tuition costs and the removal tuition caps will put off the least wealthy kids from applying.
Wouldn’t the biggest reason for high achieving students to go to less selective local public universities be parental finances and related factors?
- Parents have high income, but cannot afford the EFC even at good-financial-aid schools.
- Parents are divorced and uncooperative, preventing financial aid at many good-financial-aid schools.
- Parents are poor, so they and the student live in a low cost area that attends an underfunded low performing high school where the counselors rarely see students who go beyond the local community college and therefore have difficulty giving good advice on college to a high achieving student.
UCB- sometimes it’s parental finances and related factors (usually divorce but occasionally medical costs/bankruptcy) but it’s also other issues. It takes some level of engagement for a kid to go out of the bounds of your local mass transit system and not every parent cares that much. Or it’s cultural- the girls live at home until they are married, period full stop. Or religious-if the local Catholic college doesn’t have the right major, then the kid can get a BA in “whatever”. Or familial expectations- nephew’s 1st birthday party, grandparents anniversary brunch, cousins bridal shower- these are all treated as “command performances” so the local former teacher’s college becomes the default option (even when money isn’t the issue) once the parents realize that a kid living two hours from home is NOT coming home every Sunday. Or keeping their HS job as a youth counselor at their church.
But you can’t pin this stuff on the higher ed system in America (as some posters are suggesting) nor does it mean that the application process is opaque.
What I have posted is absolutely true in the instance I have posted. The possible reasons advanced by other posters do not apply in this case. If this is not how things play out in your area, then you are fortunate. But it beggars belief that I would know the only instance in the entire country where this happened.
Are the CC single initial schools really better than other “top” schools? Well, it depends on what your goals are. For a very bright aspiring academic, I think they might actually be better. I have only few concrete comparisons that I can make between curricula at different universities, but here are a few specifics:
mathmom went to Harvard and among other classes took German. I took German at Reasonably Good University. We both read Duerrenmatt’s “Der Richter und Sein Henker.” mathmom read it in the second semester of first-year German. I read it in the second semester of second-year German.
A friend of mine was an undergrad at Caltech for two quarters. Then he transferred to WUSTL, which is a very fine school. However, two quarters at Caltech wound up giving him credit for two years at WUSTL in science and math.
Caltech used to use the calculus book by Apostol for freshman calculus (not sure whether they still do). You won’t find that level of freshman calculus at most places. You won’t find the equivalent of Harvard’s Math 55 at most places (maybe a handful of others).
The largest number of books I had for a history course as an undergrad (assigned reading, you were supposed to really read them) was 3. The largest number of books QMP had for a history course (assigned reading, you were supposed to really read them) at a CC single-initial school was 12. Also, they were actually better books.
For most students, these differences make no difference at all to ultimate career success. For a student who is genuinely interested (maybe enraptured is a better word) in academics, they do make a difference.
You can object that learning is not a race, and it doesn’t matter when a student gets to “Der Richter und Sein Henker” or to Apostol-level calculus, as long as the student keeps going. But that is true only in part. If a student has the talent, interest, and work ethic for an academic career at a research university, the student has to be at the top of his/her field after completing a post-doc or two. That is not so many years to build experience and accomplishment.
The level of grad school that one can get depends to a certain extent on the level a person has reached upon graduating from college. Harvard and Princeton tend to draw their grad students in math from the “top” schools. (Harvard Law and Harvard Med are different–they draw from a wider range of universities.) The type of post-doc that one gets depends in turn on the graduate experience. I think it does not make sense for a university to decline a student who has excellent accomplishments and excellent potential, and who would benefit from the level of courses on offer there, in favor of a student who does not actually want or need the more challenging courses.
I know others disagree. (Please don’t caricature my viewpoint, though.)
I have spent some time in the UK. They have fine undergraduate communities in Oxbridge, without considering community building as an admissions criterion.
Looks like I struck a nerve…
My point was, competition is incredibly important. Rewarding success is incredibly important. whether it be in sports, academics, the arts or business, someone is trying to take your spot. They’re putting in their 10k hours while you let up. That’s OK. You don’t have to be the best, but don’t expect unrealistic outcomes, like:
- Getting drafted by MLB.....when you didn't take 200 extra ground balls after practice
- Getting accepted into Carnegie Melon's BFA for theater program (take 20 kids to weed down to 10 out of 2k auditions) - when you didn't immerse yourself in everything available
- Or get that interview / job at MBB or Goldman above your elite school class mates (or even worse, you didn't get in - almost no shot) when they got the 4.0
Not saying there isn’t pressure and kids don’t work hard, but I see sooo many kids who are shocked and disappointed they weren’t good enough. Worse their parents rant and rave about how great they are at all these things. Believe me, I’ve been through the whole competitive sports Yr round in FL for every sport. Coached, mentored, etc.
Have always been very honest (and encouraging - but realistic) with my kids. If they’re not the best, I’m going to tell them. If they want to improve, I’m going to show them how. But what I’m not going to do is let them expect anything from anyone (except love from their family / friends and respect if they’ve done nothing to deter). I used to always tell my son, “Hey you’re a good player. I know you’re disappointed you got pinch hit for when the game was on the line. That’s OK. Johnny’s a great hitter. He’s better at that than you. You see that don’t you? So coach had to go with what made sense for the team. Now, if you want to get better at hitting, we can work our tales off. But it’s not going to change EVER if you don’t do something about it. Oh by the way, getting pinch hit for is fine, if it’s fine with you.”
No false expectations about anything including college and getting a great job.