<p>investorscooter-
The SAT is a fair, standardized test that evens the playing field for applicants. It is correlated about .8 or .9 with graduation rates. It has great predictive power and always has. I have no interest in collegeboard whatsoever.</p>
<p>“It has great predictive power and always has”</p>
<p>And you really believe this is what makes the SAT fair? Prediction power? This is actually what makes it not fair. It’s only fair if it’s a true solid assessment of a student’s ability to succeed in college which there really isn;t no test out there that can measure that. High school is different from college in that there are those who did terrible in hS and end up doing well in college.</p>
<p>“And you really believe this is what makes the SAT fair? Prediction power? … there are those who did terrible in hS and end up doing well in college.”</p>
<p>SAT is used because it is standardized and its statistical predictive power is good on average. Colleges do look for and find the exceptions by using the other available factors.</p>
<p>What I think the purpose of the article is “Non Ivy League College=/=Career of Mediocrity” Just because you go to the State school does not mean you will forever be below your Ivy League neighbors. Inversely, just because you go to the Ivy League doesn’t mean someone is gonna hand you a six figure salary the moment you leave. Would they have received a better experience from the Ivy League school? Maybe, but when you have six people going to the same school and all of them getting PhD’s, I don’t think any of us are at liberty to argue with that.</p>
<p>Great article - thanks for posting. Glad to see such great things came from a Univ of Notre/ St Mary’s coupling !</p>
<p>I just want to mention, that a highly selective college might not be the best place for someone with a learning disability (depends on the significance of LD, of course). In my case, I have a severe LD and I went to Wellesley. It wasn’t the right choice for me. I did not learn much in college and just struggled for four years to get that coveted credential. I think I would have learned more and enjoyed my time more if I went to a less selective school which is more friendly towards people with disabilities.</p>
<p>Here is one college counselor’s take on the successful Serenos:</p>
<p>Search for the article titled “Our Modern Choices: Engineered or Free-Range Kids?”</p>
<p>I liked the counselor’s article but did not like his choice of terms. The Sereno children were “engineered” but in a good way. The Sereno’s provided richness and opportunity in their intellectual lives. A “free-range” kid sounds more like a neglected child. I think by “free-range” the counselor meant that the parents fed their curiosities, but that is actually good “engineering”. Bad “engineering” is rigid, authoritarian, unrealistic expectations, rote, pressured, painful, boring.</p>
<p>There’s a real howler in the Wikipedia article on signaling that was linked in #95: “The increase in wages associated with obtaining a higher credential is sometimes referred to as the ‘sheepskin’ effect; for the reason that hoods worn during certain graduation ceremonies are made from sheepskins.” The “sheepskin” effect is actually so-called because diplomas used to be printed on sheepskin.</p>
<p>It is a good thing William Shakespeare did not read this thread - it might have made him wonder what he could have really achieved if only he had had the correct education.</p>
<p>westpath: Hear! Hear!</p>
<p>“Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to prestigious college…um I mean heaven”. - The Bard</p>
<p>High flyers and solo achievers like our most quoted literary giant sought their own path and did not subscribe to the herd mentality of the self congratulating.</p>
<p>He may be our most quoted literary giant, but think how many more people would be quoting him if he had gone to Harvard instead of Bard.</p>
<p>ROFL!! Good one, greybeard.</p>
<p>I don’t think it matters where you start, it matters what you do with what you have and what you learn. </p>
<p>Thinking of people who didn’t go to “snazzies”…Ken Burns, film maker…gasp. Went to Hampshire, the hippie school.</p>
<p>For most students it probably doesn’t make much difference for undergrad, but some students can benefit by attending a school that specializes in their particular interests.</p>
<p>Pretty much everyone I know who has or is getting a PhD went to a pretty regular undergrad school. My (dance) partner went to UCinci for undergrad and is getting a degree in chemical engineering there. My aunt got her undergrad degree from Tuskegee (which I guess is sort of prestigious among black people, but not known in the way that, say, Harvard, is) and got her doctorate in Psychology from UCLA. My cousin got her undergrad degree from Western Kentucky, where she went to save her and her parents money despite the fact that she got into “name” schools like Vanderbilt. She got her Master’s from U Louisville on Friday, and received basically every award the school handed out (all but one) and will be starting her PhD there in the fall.</p>
<p>At the same time, I’m sure the girls I know at Harvard and the like are going to do amazingly well. Not because they went to Harvard but because they’re amazing girls all by themselves.</p>
<p>Paul Sereno is an alumni of my high school. Smart man.</p>
<p>Being someone who was both a product of my mother’s similarly free-range thinking as well as a top-tier prep school, I would have to say yes, an Ivy League education might have been helpful, opened up new opportunities, and given them numerous advantages as well as an experience of a lifetime. </p>
<p>However, drawing from my own experiences, I also firmly believe that the roots and dominant source of these siblings’ success lie in their parents’ methods. </p>
<p>From an early age, my parents prohibited watching TV (movies only, and we were lucky enough to be exposed to documentaries and foreign-language films, not just simple shoot-em-up thrillers). Our primary forms of entertainment were academic games, books, museums, and galleries. </p>
<p>Along the way, I grew up with family friends whose parents have very different teaching styles. They also had little exposure to tv, but spent most of their time locked up in their rooms studying for SAT’s, endless standardized test, and overachieving in general. When they went off to their respective Ivy Leagues, they were clever, accomplished and also unable to hold a conversation, not mention completely lacking in common sense and knowledge outside what they read in their textbooks. It’s really not impressive anymore to send a kid to the Ivies. I’ve known dozens of Ivy kids, but only a few who ever truly impressed me with their outside knowledge, original thought, and most importantly, personality. </p>
<p>So really, it’s not one or the other. Ivy League and prep schools can be enriching, but to use a bad metaphor, a tree needs strong roots in order to grow strong branches. The fundamentals of your personality and intellect - namely, your drive, curiosity, and willingness to to be imaginative and open-minded still stems from your childhood. Schools can still drill a thousand facts into a kid’s head, yet fail to instill that invaluable love for learning. That’s what my parents did, which I cannot possibly thank them enough for. </p>
<p>I would prefer to have it both ways, but if I had to choose, there’s no doubt I would pick the curious, bright kid with an average education. An Ivy diploma gives you a boost in life. Traits drive you for the rest of your life. </p>
<p>But it also depends on what you want as a parent. If I were a parent, the most important thing to me would be my kid’s eventual contribution to society. A bold, involved citizen. In that case, free-range completely owns “engineered”.</p>
<p>Wow, this thread truly contains some of the most enriching conversations and inter-conflicting views pertaining to this particular topic that I have ever come across on CC (usually a breeding group for close-minded elitists who would never take anyone’s opinion seriously if it did not match the overwhelmingly popular “Ivy=success” ideology). Collegehelp, to be honest, I glanced through most of your posts concerning college in general (even on other threads) and must say that you come off as a snobby elitist. That might not be definitive of you in general and this is most certainly not an ad-hominem personal attack but, one must say, your comments regarding the Seranos supposedly having had been able to succeed to a further extent through a prestigious education have sparked up quite the controversy on this thread. These very comments, to say the least, do not appeal to me and are, quite frankly, ones that border on the invalid and unbased. As many have said before me, the majority of professors at many prestigious universities around the country do not hold a degree from an Ivy League or a comparably prestigious renowned institution. The path the Seranos’ parents chose for them is one of hands-on experience, the harboring and stimulation of inherent intellectuality, as well as the provision of encouragement for self-betterment in ANY environment, not just one worthy of widespread approbation.
That having been said, I, as a high school senior and soon to be freshman at Emory University, agree with you on one set of facts. I fully acknowledge the facts and figures which objectively document the number of PhD-bound students from various undergraduate institutions. It is no secret that a private, prestigious, and, most importantly, wealthy university provides the passionate PhD-hopeful with ample opportunities and resources to reach that goal. This, however, is for one who is not overly distinct in nurturing technique or overall intellect from the typical smart overachiever. The article makes the point that, for individuals who gather distinction from the aforementioned factors, the quality or rigor of the environment does not matter. These individuals would have been able to succeed anywhere and reach a high level of success despite having had the access to an Ivy League education.</p>
<p>David Brooks has a piece in today’s NYT’s about a longitudinal study, the Grant Study. The article to which he references will come out in the online edition of The Atlantic. Seems quite germaine to this thread.</p>