<p>Polo–I was responding, via anecdote, to an earlier post in which it was implied that elite degrees are not needed to enter the field of PWM as much as they are in IB. My comment was not intended as a brag, so there was no need to be rude. And sevmom and others, if you had carefully read my post 208 you’d see I allowed for the fact that students just as well-qualified as elite school students, eg. high school vals, do attend state schools for engineering and thus would likely be adequately prepared in math–like your kids were. I was wondering what happens with those who aren’t, because they too attend. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, these threads always make people feel that they or their children are being personally attacked, no matter how diplomatically the topic is broached. And I do believe I was diplomatic in post 208. It is simply a fact that some students are better prepared, and some are also more academically inclined than others. No one is suggesting the latter are better people or that everyone else is dumb. But surely we can all admit that there are super intelligent people out there whose ability goes far beyond the average. And surely we can also recognize that intelligence is only one aspect of educational preparedness. Through no fault of their own, some students have not attended high quality primary and secondary schools and thus are less prepared for college work.</p>
<p>Unless the honors classes are entirely separate, the standard of instruction is always going to be a bit lower at less selective schools. Teachers typically aim their content at the median student in the class (don’t want to leave too many people behind), and at the less-selective schools this will mean a lower standard.</p>
<p>Less selective schools can also promote a “big fish in a small pond” syndrome among the honors kids. A student who might be merely average at Princeton might not try so hard when they are one of the best at another university.</p>
<p>The following is less diplomatic: My D was on the normal advanced math track in high school, so she took calc as a junior and then AP Stat as a senior. So she had adequate, but not great math preparation going into college. She has really, really struggled in math at S*, and thus knows it would be unlikely she’d succeed in an engineering major there. However, her former high school classmates who were average students and on the typical math track in high school, and took the Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, Pre-Calc. high school sequence, have nonetheless gone on to our state flagship to major in engineering. So it does make me wonder if D is underestimating her abilities, or whether there is a bigger difference in engineering programs than what CCer’s like to believe there are.</p>
<p>*I should note that two other parents of S students I’ve spoken with have reported similar experiences for their kids who come from different high schools in different states.</p>
A lot of folks struggle in upper division math in every school. Maybe it is a little harder at Stanford, I don’t know. Probably for those in the CS department. Probably significantly harder at MIT or Caltech. But most engineers (aside from possbily academics) learn most of what they use at work, not in school. Really, I work with engineers from all these schools. I participate in industry groups and on websites with engineers from all these schools. I testify against consulting engineers from all these schools in cases. There isn’t that big of a difference. </p>
<p>I took Calculus as a barely 16 year old in 1973, which was pretty unique. Aside from some of the proofs and some of the three-D stuff, I found it pretty trivial. Nevertheless I struggled mightily in several upper division math and engineer classes at lowly UCSD and UCLA, despite my preparation.</p>
<p>THe stats from the incoming freshmen taking this test did not impress me. Take a look at it. You don’t need to be Einstein to get 100% on this thing.</p>
<p>I think it also depends on whether the bottom quartile is still academically motivated or not. And I think it also depends on the extent to which a given student may be dispirited if he or she thinks that the majority of kids around him or her don’t really care about school / studying / intellectual pursuits all that much.</p>
<p>Many students go to K-12 school in the presence of general student populations, including less motivated students. In an “average” high school, perhaps only a third of the graduating class goes on to four year college, so the majority of students may not have the same academic interests as a student going to a four year college.</p>
<p>Perhaps what really matters to the highly motivated student is if the school (K-12 or college) has offerings suitable for high motivation students, whether or not low motivation students are also present.</p>
<p>aka the famous eating the food leftovers and learning the art of calligraphy at Reed. Perhaps, it time for the Cupertino genius bunch to send a few top employees for a couple of semesters of fun at Reed and regain their competitive advantages. </p>
<p>Fwiw, those stories of rags to riches, as well as the successes of people who ditched college a la Bill Gates, remain truly exceptional. For every success story, there are millions of cases that did not turn out that well.</p>
<p>Well, you might find some comfort in knowing that there are probably more people who agree with you than visible from the reactions. It so happens, that posters tend to reply to posts when they disagree. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, one of the reasons why the HYPS and similar schools are debated so often on an anonymous forum is because the parents (and students to a lesser extent) have learned that speaking about the schools in their own community or social circles is often viewed as bragging or “rubbing it in,” especially when the students who attend such schools are not very numerous. </p>
<p>In the meantime, the anecdotes of the valedictorian and straight A student being battered at schools such as Stanford while the middle of the pack of the HS accumulates the As at purported tough engineering colleges are not hard to find. Those are quite common in Texas for students attending the UT and TAMU flagships. </p>
<p>It is what it is. Reality versus diplomacy.</p>
And your expertise on engineering schools and the engineering profession comes from exactly what? What is it that you do anyway? Aside from message board expert.</p>
<p>Nobody would argue that all schools are created exactly equal. OTOH, with the exception of a few programs at a few schools, those differences when it comes to engineering curriculum are completely overblown. At least when it comes to producing actual working engineers. </p>
<p>If we were forced to rely on on top twenty schools to produce every decent engineer, we would be in serious trouble. And seeing as how, at least according to records on here, many kids with perfect SATs and impressive STEM credentials are often turned down by these top schools, they obviously aren’t getting all the intelligent students. </p>
<p>Look at that MIT placement exam. And then realize there are actually incoming MIT students who get more than one problem wrong on tests like that.</p>
<p>And to be clear, I’m just talking about engineering. Actual engineers who design rockets and motors and buildings and bicycles and bridges, and some who program I suppose. I wouldn’t hazard an opinion about another field I know absolutely nothing about.</p>
<p>We all live in a world where people have a range of abilities and competencies, and people who are very good at one thing may be less good at others, etc. If you are going to get “dispirited” by that, you have some major problems. I would think the more serious issue is that if you live among people who value gangbanging more than doing calculus problem sets, you may wind up doing more gangbanging and fewer calculus problem sets. But I really don’t see that as an insurmountable issue at any realistic alternative to snooty colleges.</p>
<p>I have a relative who is a fairly famous professor in her field, which is social-sciency leaning a bit towards the humanities. She is VERY academic, intellectual, something of a space cadet as far as real life is concerned. What she writes (and wins awards for) is generally impenetrable – and I am not someone who is intimidated by garden-variety academic jargon.</p>
<p>Anyway, she has spent most of her career at a large public university where she got her PhD (and whose department is highly regarded in her field). Her undergraduate degree is from an Ivy, and she has taught as a visitor both at one of HYPSM and at Swarthmore. She insists that her upper-level undergraduate students at her public university are every bit as good (meaning “smart” and “interesting”) as those at any of the other universities with which she is familiar, and that the main difference between them and the kids at, say, Swarthmore, is that the latter don’t work for pay more than 10 hours/week (and many of them don’t work at all for pay during term time), and aren’t doing anything really besides school, whereas most of the public university students are working 20+ hours/week and often dealing with complicated family situations.</p>
<p>GFG, I did reread your post #208 and you implied that the “top kids” go to elite schools and the “average kids” go to state schools. I was just noting that many “top kids” as well as “average kids” do go to their state schools. That is probably most true in states like Virginia,California, Michigan,etc. But the reality remains that most kids DO go to their state schools (or to schools in states with reciprocal agreements ). More kids seem to also be following the merit money. Recruited athletes are getting good opportunities at many schools. I truly have nothing against “elite” schools and have family members that have gone to and/or are attending now (an HYP school). However, I do think there are great opportunities at many types of schools.</p>
<p>And of course, for everyone out there still looking at schools- everyone should know that getting A’s and excelling in engineering at a state school is a piece of cake. :)</p>
A quick look at past exams from Math 51 at Stanford didn’t reveal anything too different from what I’ve seen elsewhere. This was not a thorough comparison and I don’t know anything about the severity of the marking process. YMMV.</p>
<p>I do believe that engineering is ‘flatter’ than other programs in terms of difficulty across different schools. That being said, there probably are some curricular differences, including within a given institution. I don’t ascribe much meaning to these variations.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example I am familiar with. At Minnesota, there are four different math sequences a student with AP credit could follow and still wind up with an engineering degree. The most rigorous - designed for math majors and requiring a separate application - is unquestionably more challenging than the standard track. However, I would argue that it is not a better preparatory course for engineers (unless they are interested in the mathematics for its own sake). In fact, engineering students who choose that path have to take an additional course later to pick up some material not covered by the very in-depth, proof-focused version.</p>
<p>In other words, increasing the difficulty of foundational math courses does not necessarily improve their effectiveness in preparing students for the engineering curriculum. And, increasing the difficulty of the curriculum overall does not necessarily improve its effectiveness in preparing graduates for careers as engineers (I can’t speak to this point from experience but I think many practicing engineers would agree).</p>
<p>Right. I was going to suggest that lots of kids seem to have trouble engaging with pure math. My kids certainly did. On the other hand, when they encountered issues that interested them and analytic tools that required somewhat advanced math, they had no trouble learning the math they needed to know to do the work they wanted to do. It was more a question of caring about it and committing to it than of having the intellectual capacity to handle the math.</p>
<p>There may be a special dynamic at places like Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, where lots of math-heads hang out. If you are taking proof-based courses with people who live and breathe that stuff, and you aren’t getting the hang of it, then you could easily conclude that you are not good at math. If you just took a “math for engineers” or “math for statistics” class, however, you might feel perfectly competent.</p>
<p>What level would you consider a reasonable alternative to snooty colleges? For example, my state flagship when I was in high school was Mizzou. Reasonable or not?</p>
<p>I would think lots of kids would get a fine education at Mizzou (and probably have a great time too). My Ivy educated BIL actually started out his teaching career there. He was there for about 10 years before moving on to a top 20 private. He did like it there and sent my kids Mizzou t shirts all the time.</p>
<p>Ditto. It so happens that my wife’s BFF is a Mizzou graduate (+ Penn Law). She does feel that the education she received there lacked some breadth, and she cared about sending her children to high-quality LACs. But no one sitting next to her in class would have thought she was someone who had trouble understanding difficult material. And she hardly got “dispirited” at Mizzou.</p>
<p>Look, I am a big fan of snooty colleges. That’s what I wanted for myself and for my children. I am just trying to be realistic about how much their special sauce is worth. I don’t want students to think that their lives will lack meaning if they “have to” go to a wonderful university like Mizzou.</p>
<p>TheGFG, I did miss that you noted in #208 that a val COULD end up at a state school. Sorry. I do think that most top kids do thrive at elite schools. And that many top students also enjoy the atmosphere of their state schools. The state schools end up with some late bloomers also(that would not have been competitive for elite schools out of high school) as well as of course, the more academically average kids. Luckily, there’s a school out there for everyone.</p>
<p>Get off your darn condescending horse, will ya! </p>
<p>Reading comprehension might present a challenge at times, but take a look at what I wrote to see exactly where I claimed to have expertise in the “engineering profession or schools.” All I did was report a personal knowledge of the types of grades students from my graduating HS class (and my sisters’) obtained at various schools, including engineering schools in Texas.</p>
<p>Of course, for some, it seems better to cling to vicarious hearsay or anecdotes from decades ago. All of us rely on collecting anecdotes. If you feel that yours are inherently better or more appropriate. so be it. If you feel that you are better qualified to discuss Texas, TAMU, or a school such as UTEP (know for its engineering program) … so be it. In the meantime, I’d think that knowing how dozens and dozens of friends fared in THIS decade at schools discussed herein is quite valid. And, at the risk of cobratizing my posts, I could bring in quite a number of family members, ranging from current students, recent graduates, or … instructors.</p>
Yeah, apparently that’s how you form your opinions -
But if you are stating that this is the extent of the value of your opinion - what a few high school colleagues told you - well, don’t state it as a fact. Your anecdotes are no better or worse than anybody else’s. And of course, if you are limiting your opinion to “elite” schools vs Texas public schools I admit you likely know better than I on that pretty limited front. </p>
<p>And I have no idea what you are talking about with “decades” ago. I work in the field. Now. I hire people. Entry level people. I interview people from every “level” of school.
I interface with people at all levels of the engineering profession. That’s how it works in my field. I don’t just work with folks who attended school the same time I did (which was in fact only about 15 years ago the last time I went). In fact, that would be a bizarre sort of profession to be in - where all your experience is with your college contemporaries.</p>
<p>xiggi, I have to say you run with some pretty accomplished peers if everybody is getting A’s so easily at the Texas engineering state schools. I have Virginia Tech’s graduation program in front of me since S2 just graduated. MOST engineers got no honors at all. Cum Laude starts at 3.4 . It was the same at S1’s school, UVa. There are just not tons of engineers getting A’s with EASE. It certainly is possible to get A’s but it is not easy.I am very surprised that the very good Texas engineering schools would be so different. That it is so easy to get A’s there.</p>