<p>What I found most impressive in the article is the parents’ value of curiousity and hands-on experiences in their approach to educating their children. The didn’t sign their kids up for enrichment courses, prep courses or expensive college summer programs- the didn’t have them at that time and most likely couldn’t afford it even if they were available. The father took a pay cut and switched jobs so he could spend more time with his children and enrich their education on his own. The key factor that I believe has led to their success in their careers and their continued pursuit of knowledge is the approach the parents took in teaching them “the idea that learning was exciting”. They exposed them to the arts, music, science and literature for the right reasons-not for prestige, too be competitive to “get into the best school” , and not to impress ad coms at the most selective schools.</p>
<p>This is why as college students they took classes -not in their major- but just because they were interested in them. Isn’t that what a undergraduate experience is all about?</p>
<p>So - I think the point of the article is not whether they would have benefited from an Ivy League education. You’ll never know that and who really cares. They seem to me to be happy, thriving adults who still have a passion for their field of interest and acquiring knowledge beyond thier specialty. Interesting that some CCers spend so much time arguing this point. The real point I think is that these siblings succeeded because their life-long passion to learn was instilled by parents who encouraged a hands-on, risk-taking approach to learning and life. They played instruments even without having talent! God forbid your child does not have talent these days and continues an activity just because they like it! I loved their quote, “we didn’t want a yesman type of kid -we didn’t want to squelch them.”<br>
So individuality, creativity, and “thinking outside the box” were valued. No wonder they all became scientists. </p>
<p>BTW- I have met, become friends and worked alongside Ivy school grads. Some have truly impressed me with their intelligence and open mind in acquiring knowledge without bias. Others have bored me with their arrogance and elitist attitude of thinking that their Ivy League education is a ticket to a life of privelege and superiority. Guess which ones are my friends?<br>
There is an 85 year old man who lives at my mother’s retirement community which includes retired doctors, past presidential advisors , authors, whom I am sure several hold PHD’s.<br>
My mother tells me everyone laughs about the fact that within 5 minutes of conversing with this gentleman, he will let you know he attended Harvard. Is that more important than what he has accomplished in his life?</p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal has ranked New College as the nations #2 public university for sending graduates to elite law, medical and business schools. There are elements of a top notch education that are available at public colleges.</p>
<p>perhaps it’s just me…it seems that some cc’ers are almost uncomfortable with the fact that these siblings did as well as they did, without the (as the title states) snazzy undergrad degrees.</p>
<p>surely there are many alternate paths that might have influenced their lives had they been taken. as others have noted, there is no way to know this…nor imho any reason to speculate. </p>
<p>the truth is they are successful. and for so many students who cannot go to the Ivies, or top schools this is wonderful news. to parents who have dedicated themselves to raising their kids with a love for learning this is wonderful news.</p>
<p>I’m glad you mentioned New College - this small, Florida school is helping produce some stellar academicians. Notice I said “help produce”. It’s the combo that’s the key - the energized, engaged student in the right environment produces the best result. Many folks think that the school can help make/break the kid, but college is actually just the enhancement of what was going on within the kid to begin with.</p>
<p>The college can make a huge difference. Take two schools with almost identical SAT scores: Susquehanna U and Christopher Newport U.
Susquehanna grad rate = 82%
Christopher Newport grad rate = 52%</p>
<p>That is a 30% difference in grad rate with almost identical students,</p>
<p>SATs for Susquehanna = 1020-1210 (25th and 75th percentile)
Christopher Newport = 1030-1220</p>
<p>My formula for success:
40% innate abilities and temperament at birth
40% parental upbringing and its contributions
10% quality of college
5% neighborhood and school system
5% everything else</p>
<p>I think it’s all on the student. The student decides how successful s/he will be… no matter where s/he goes.</p>
<p>The reason why the Ivies have better statistics? Better students go there because they’re more “prestigious”.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter where the best students go. They’ll still be the best at the end of the day. It’s about how driven you are to succeed.</p>
<p>Collegehelp, your list of “schools which produce the most PhD’s” is a classic example of correlation vs. causality. (Mind if I use it next semester in the intro statistics which I’m teaching?) </p>
<p>What you have done is look at a collection of people (not institutions) who tend to be fiercely academic, highly motivated and furthermore may have had significant advantages (including good secondary schools, bright parents and money) – how surprising it is that many of them then go on to graduate school? I would suggest that the fact that they all passed through an Ivy League school on the way to getting a PhD is merely a small part of the picture. I’m extremely doubtful that attending the Ivy League school is what CAUSED them to go to graduate school. </p>
<p>(Likewise, women’s colleges tend to produce lots of Ph.d’s. I think THAT’s because the sort of young woman who chooses a woman’s college over socializing with boys is also likely to want to go to graduate school, enjoying the life of the mind and all as she does. I think it’s doubtful that the women’s college itself had that much of an effect on either her decision or her ability to go to graduate school.) Just my two cents.</p>
<p>I think people are making the presupposition that the only way to be “successful” is to be a professor at a famous school or win a Nobel Prize. Most people, and even most Ivy League students, don’t aim to be “great.” You don’t need a prestigious degree to be a good doctor or journalist or teacher. If you do aspire to do “great things,” your choice of college might matter. If you want to be President, go to an Ivy League school. If you want to win a Nobel Prize, go to Caltech. But if you want to have a successful career, be happy, coach your kids’ little league team and maybe serve on the city council instead of the Senate, then go wherever you can do well and be happy.</p>
<p>Also, a lot of people seem to be saying that an elite degree “changes” students or somehow makes them into better people. You could argue that public schools offer a different, but still valuable, experience. The real world isn’t full of bright and motivated people who are willing to have conversations about poetry and global politics like you’ll find at the elite schools. It might be a good experience for kids to spend their formative years around people who are more like those they will actually encounter in daily life.</p>
<p>I once read an article written by an English professor at Yale. He was describing a time when he was standing in his hall with a plumber, and he found that he couldn’t make conversation. He didn’t know how to talk to a middle class, relatively uneducated person like the plumber. I wouldn’t be surprised if the kids in the article benefitted from being exposed to a more realistic segment of society during their education.</p>
<p>Momzie-
The causality in my list of PhD producing colleges is reciprocal between students and the colleges themselves. The best students go the highest quality colleges. Colleges enhance their quality by attracting the best students. The best faculty want to work where the students are the best. Colleges enhance their endowments by attracting excellent faculty. Large endowments make it possible to enhance the educational quality. Quality begets quality. The arrows point in every direction. Causation causes correlation.</p>
<p>Let me put it this way: you cannot necessarily measure how much students grow by their GPAs in college. I’m at dinner with my friends talking about economics and politics while my high school friends are at dinner at our state school talking about how drunk they were last night. It’s a completely different culture, and one that has the ability to profoundly transform students.</p>
<p>“I would suggest that the fact that they all passed through an Ivy League school on the way to getting a PhD is merely a small part of the picture.”</p>
<p>Of the thirty schools on collegehelp’s list, five are Ivy League, and the highest placing is 10th. Being Ivy League doesn’t guaranty the highest level of academics.</p>
<p>Look at it another way: If a list of the top 30 future-PhD producers is compiled, chances are high that there will be 30 schools on the list. Somebody has to be in the top 30!</p>
<p>Actually, I think self-selection is perhaps the top unifying factor. HS students who are most interested in PhD-level academics are aware of these 30 schools, and so choose them because of these reputations, making self-fulfilling prophecies. Along the way, these schools see what is happening, so tend to gear themselves for such students.</p>
<p>“I think people are making the presupposition that the only way to be “successful” is to be a professor at a famous school or win a Nobel Prize.”</p>
<p>Which people? I’ve never heard anyone suppose this. Never ever, not even here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>bigp9998, your comment only suggests to me the difference between you and your friends. I doubt any of you, whatever your choice of dinner conversation, wholly encapsulates all that the institutions you attend have to offer, whether positive or negative.</p>
<p>It was an example. You know perfectly well that it wasnt meant to encapsulate everything my institution has to offer.</p>
<p>I do think that some schools, more than others, encourage students to think of becoming scholars and set their students on that path.</p>
<p>I would also keep in mind that in some circles, up to around ten years ago, a Ph.D., even or especially in the sciences, was viewed by many students and their families as a kind of “consolation prize” for those not smart enough to become doctors, lawyers, or other professionals, and not fortunate enough to have the family or personal connections to get into a good position in the business world.</p>
<p>Nowadays, in our “winner take all” culture, many of the best and brightest perceive a Ph.D. as a huge gamble on par with attempting to make a living as a professional musician or athlete, given conditions in the academic job market, lack of loyalty to employees on the parts of multi-national corporations that hire Ph.D. scientists, and the likelihood of becoming “overqualified” for many jobs outside of academia. Far safer to look for another path that does not require such a huge investment of time and talent for uncertain returns.</p>
<p>I do have to wonder what advice these six siblings are giving their own children when it comes time to select colleges and careers.</p>
<p>I think this is a great article that shows that given enough motivation and hard work, success is possible regardless of what college you go to. </p>
<p>That said, without going into debates about the qualifications of people who go to “snazzier” colleges versus people who do not, I would like to refer people (especially the more Economics-minded), to a wiki article regarding Michael Spence’s 1970s signalling theory. </p>
<p>As a very short summary, it suggests that whether or not more education or a better-brand college is actually provides any more skills, the belief of the employers that a person with more (or a snazzier) education is more productive will lead productive people to obtain snazzier degrees. It’s actually a very interested Chicken and Egg topic and I highly recommend the original paper.</p>
<p>For non-Econ people, however, the wiki article is more useful: <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)</a> .</p>
<p>Just some food for thought. My personal opinion, however, remains that a student’s own motivation is always what matters most.</p>
<p>“My personal opinion, however, remains that a student’s own motivation is always what matters most.”</p>
<p>Even better when that student’s motivation can be sparked by family, classmates and teachers. It seems that inspirational teachers can have an especially strong influence.</p>
<p>Some have said that the benefits of the college are attributable entirely to its selection of students. The significance of post #84 is that colleges themselves can make a big difference even after controlling for the selection of students. Same selection of students but far different graduation rates at Susquehanna and Christopher Newport.</p>
<p>The college itself can make a big difference.</p>
<p>collegehelp your comparison doesn’t work because you use SAT scores as the sole basis. SAT scores alone tell us very little about the students at those schools or about the schools themselves. From personal experience, I know that there are some pretty significant differences between Susquehanna and Christopher Newport and between the students attending. </p>
<p>While I don’t think the example is a valid one, I do believe specific schools make a difference. I just don’t believe the distinction is as simple as the generalizations you and some others here have made.</p>
<p>SATs tell us more than any other single index. They capture a lot about ability and upbringing.</p>
<p>Collegehelp: No offense, but your last post makes you sound like a shill for Collegeboard. The SAT has had to defend itself, morph itself, because it has been found so wanting for so long. The latest 2400 test was Collegboard’s answer to losing the California market over the old, insufficient 1800 test in use for so long. And now they’re finding out that out of the 3 sections of the test, the MOST predictive, the writing, is not the one required by all schools. </p>
<p><a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/FYGPA_Validity_Summary_keyfindings.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;
<p>[FairTest</a> Reacts to the “New” SAT Validity Studies | FairTest](<a href=“http://fairtest.org/fairtest-reacts-new-sat-validity-studies]FairTest”>FairTest Reacts to the "New" SAT Validity Studies - Fairtest)</p>