<p>It is obvious that everyone has a different opinion as to which school is the best in the long run. So, I will add my opinion as well…I think that what matters most is that the student feels that the school is the right fit for them…if the state flagship school is where their heart lies…great! If they feel that the Ivies are the perfect place for them…great! If they feel that, deep down inside, they will not feel right carrying loans and want to base their decision partly on economics…great! If they want to carry loans because they will always wish they could have attended the more elite school…great! Each student is unique with different goals, aspirations and values…what I wanted my S to do most was to ask himself the tough questions and decide what was most important to him…not to what society thinks should be important to him, not what is important to his friends or neighbors, but what decision will enable him to say…my decision to attend this college was the best decision I ever made and I made it because it was right for me…and, my hope is that he will learn to do that with all of the major decisions in his life and fulfill HIS dreams. For me, that is always the right choice.</p>
<p>dstark. </p>
<p>It may or may not be about being a member of a club. Probably it is.</p>
<p>However, it is also about something else. Not all learning is the absorption of content. Highly intelligent people, in the traditional sense which I of course do believe is not the only kind, have an uncanny ability to function at a meta-level in their thinking. The “elite schools” will have a higher than average collection of people who see patterns, who have counter-intuitive insights, whose thinking takes leaps that can actually cause the listener to gasp.</p>
<p>Do any of these skills have a direct link to financial success or power in the world? Maybe not. But there is just no way to logically argue that these skills don’t exist. And no way that I can see to logically argue that these skills don’t exist in higher concentrations at the top schools.</p>
<p>Keep the arguments separate or they all lose fidelity. The ideas that Ivies and their ilk do not equal success or that there are many highly intelligent kids at other kinds of schools or that there are many ways to learn are good solid ideas. Please don’t taint them with less solid ideas.</p>
<p>Alumother expressed what I have been trying to say. And Dstark, as i’ve tried to convey to you, I got that feeling of leaping thought while being a member of the extremely tight-knit honors English program at UMichigan–maybe some people here are saying its’ only present at HYPS, but that’s not what most people seem to mean.</p>
<p>However, at the LAC I started at, I had very, very little experience with those kinds of interactions with fellow students, and everyone who did operate at that plane transfered to places where they weren’t one of the few. It’s not fun; it was not a growth experience. It was kind of deadening, to tell the truth.</p>
<p>I think that we learn from everyone around us; certainly I learn millions of things from my students and their varied backgrounds, despite the fact that I guarantee you that you wouldn’t send your kids to the college I work at. My own kids went to an extremely “non”-competitive high school; we didn’t have to pay for the privilege of meeting kids from different backgrounds because we live that every day. But for four years, they can stretch their minds in an environment of far-reaching academic possibilities with peers who uniformly challenge their abilities and push them to go further.</p>
<p>I don’t give a rat’s patootie what that gets them later in life; that was never the point.</p>
<p>
Again, I think this gets to the crux of the “dispute.” It gets you that experience, which can be an advantage in any number of ways and doesn’t have to = money, power, status, etc. It can just be an amazing experience that changes how you look at yourself and the world around you.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Of course. Which is why schools try so hard to attract students from all over the country and the world. Just in my singing group, there were: a truck driver’s kid from Anchorage, Alaska; the scion of a Hong Kong banking family; a Miami Cubano; a farmer’s son from eastern Washington state; a Filipino immigrant from east L.A.; the son of a Marine and a babysitter from the rural Midwest; a Ghanaian prince; as well as the expected upper-middle-class white kids from the suburbs of Long Island, Bethesda, etc. Again, I’m not saying that you won’t find that kind of mix at other schools – but when I talk about learning from the other kids at elite schools, I’m not just talking about stuff they learned from books.</p>
<p>Alumother,</p>
<p>“Highly intelligent people, in the traditional sense which I of course do believe is not the only kind, have an uncanny ability to function at a meta-level in their thinking. The “elite schools” will have a higher than average collection of people who see patterns, who have counter-intuitive insights, whose thinking takes leaps that can actually cause the listener to gasp.”</p>
<p>Your use of the term “meta-level” suggests that elite college students do a better job of identifying important data and integrating it into a cohesive framework. Upon what do you base that belief?</p>
<p>Here’s my guess: Your last sentence basically describes the typical National Merit finalist, because the SAT historically rewards those who see patterns, make counter-intuitive insights, and make us gasp (although the gasp part is more emotional than logical). Historically, elite colleges have high percentages of National Merit finalists but as more NMFs disperse thoughout the colleges, your argument is weakened that elite colleges have a monopoly on student achievement.</p>
<p>Alumother, The elite schools have a high percentage of intelligent, academically motivated students. I don’t doubt this. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean these schools aren’t also clubs, silver spoons, whatever.</p>
<p>The students at these schools don’t have a monopoly power on intelligent thought. You never know where an intelligent idea will come from. There are plenty of places where you can engage in intelligent matters. It might be easier at certain schools, but it can be done at many places.</p>
<p>And the kids I know that are going to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford are very bright kids. I see bright kids going to other schools and if I associate with these kids, I think I can learn just as much.</p>
<p>When I read this thread, I can’t help thinking about the Kennedy administration and the Vietnam War. All those super bright people in the Kennedy administration, and if they took the time to actually talk to the Vietnamese leaders (who didn’t go to the top schools), they would have discovered that the Vietnamese and the US were fighting two different wars. We could have saved thousands of lives, but all that intelligence led us to…</p>
<p>If people want to go to school with mostly intelligent, high achievers that’s fine with me. I’m not saying you are not getting this at the IVYs.</p>
<p>Garland, I’m not sure what you are driving at. What did I say that you object to?</p>
<p>
I base that belief on 30 years of life lived meeting people since I was 18 and first went to college. It is my experience that if I gather 50 people from top schools in one room, and 50 people from mid-level schools in another room, among the 50 people from top schools I will find more people who can and like to engage in meta-level thinking than I will find in the other room. Caveat here is if the 50 people in the mid-level room are recent immigrants then it is possible that the rooms will function similarly as in my experience many highly traditionally intelligent people from other countries wind up in universities that recruit overseas and the top schools have not done so extensively until very very recently.</p>
<p>So shoot me.</p>
<p>Alumother,</p>
<p>I notice that you have a problem with people who challenge your ideas. Is that typical of elite college thinking, too?</p>
<p>Consider yourself shot. :)</p>
<p>So if your daughter didn’t go to Princeton, but instead went to Wisconsin, I should look at her differently?</p>
<p>We are obviously in the hall of mirrors, and there is truth on all sides, and all the mirrors are cracked.</p>
<p>But I still have etched in my memory a televised town hall meeting from the 2004 election that took place in Minneapolis. A woman in her late 40s got up and said, “Mr. Kerry, we are middle-class but are having trouble making ends meet. My husband has been laid off twice in the last 4 years, and we are without health insurance. We having difficulty paying for our kids’ college education. And our retirement funds have been exhausted by my husband’s layoff. What is it in your experience that makes me believe you can truly understand what I am going through?”</p>
<p>Kerry thought for a moment (he really is a thoughtful guy), and then launched into, “When I was in Vietnam…(people of all races and classes, etc.)” It was at that moment that I was sure he was going to lose.</p>
<p>Now the interesting thing is Kerry attended Yale at a time that it was MORE economically diverse (Karabel has the data) than it is today. But it made no impression on him, apparently, whatsoever. The only contact Kerry had had with folks of lower income for 20 years after Viet Nam was in prosecuting them.</p>
<p>I expect that the lower-income folks who attended Yale got HEAPS out of it (as I did at Williams), and some of it because we were able to live in the rarefied air of upper class expectations, and take on some of them for ourselves. I know I did. But I think it would be stretching the point very far to suggest that these elite institutions are great melting pots of intelligent and gifted - when the overwhelming evidence (to me) suggests that they are just not.</p>
<p>Hanna’s post may be one of the most relevant here since she has experienced both a top LAC and one of the Ivies as an undergraduate. Her distinction between the two is unsettling. After all, Bryn Mawr alumnae have one of the highest percentages of PhDs, so they’re not exactly underachievers. The undergraduate experience at both schools - and what is expected of students - is vastly different, and I’m not sure you can really know the difference without living through it. From one perspective, you can say that Bryn Mawr is a better place to attend if you want to stay in academia (and therefore more desirable), but Hanna points out that the two educations are not similar at all.</p>
<p>As for all this “silver spoon” and “most powerful families in the nation” description of Ivy League students, it’s wrong. Yes, there are rich kids there, but there are also public school graduates, first generation immigrants, kids who grew up on reservations, international students - all kinds. Parents may be CEOs and doctors, but they may also be elementary school teachers, plumbers, or farmers. The commonality is high achievement. The silver spoon image may have been true in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but it is not accurate today - at least, not enough to generalize. </p>
<p>For the poster who asked if it’s the same experience to be among 5000 talented kids or to be at a college of 20,000 where 5,000 are talented. The answer is no. Dilution makes it difficult to find the 5,000. They are scattered throughout the campus and throughout the majors.</p>
<p>When I think of Kerry and Bush, “Great Minds” doesn’t come to my mind. I’m sure I could have learned something if I was in the same classroom with them. Did they go to class? :)</p>
<p>Is Smith elite? We haven’t had a president who graduated from the school. :)</p>
<p>Perhaps you could clarify what a discussion of “meta-level” thinking might look like? </p>
<p>As I said, I have my own Ivy degree and have had some of the best and deepest discussions of all with two friends: one a Rutgers grad, and the other a non-flagship state U grad.</p>
<p>DRJ4 - That is rubbish. I have a problem with people who challenge my ideas? I disagree with people who disagree with my ideas.</p>
<p>And dstark, if my daughter went to Wisconsin she would still be the person she is now and you should look at her just as she is. Remember how I said ON AVERAGE? One human is not an average.</p>
<p>And -Allmusic- sure, it’s possible those are the deepest conversations you have had. As I said, I mean on average in a given university. Average. Average. Average.</p>
<p>Or let’s try momwaitingfornew’s concept. Dilution. Dilution, dilution, dilution.</p>
<p>“if my daughter went to Wisconsin she would still be the person she is now and you should look at her just as she is.”</p>
<p>Are we about to enter a nurture versus nature debate? :-)</p>
<p>No, Alumother, it isn’t rubbish. I have tried to read and understand your comments. I have responded seriously and, just as you have made some good points, I have made some good points. And yet you have become exasperated by the debate. That is illustrative of one of the problems I have with elite colleges today. </p>
<p>Elite colleges recruit stellar students and produce quality graduates, but somewhere along the line they become Stepford students who are less able than most of us to tolerate different views. And I use the word “tolerate” on purpose. You don’t have to agree with me and I don’t have to agree with you, but we do have to listen to each other’s views and consider whether the other guy might be right.</p>
<p>DRJ4:</p>
<p>Lets keep the acid out of this. Alumother was just defending her point of view, admirably I might add.</p>
<p>I think there is a point all the participants are probably missing, and that is the influence of wealth.</p>
<p>Hanna, for example, described how the kids she was around all had the courage to reach out and just decide to DO stuff, and it seems she ascribed this to the fact that these kids were all smart. I sincerely doubt it. Smarts are required, but without money backing it, you can just forget it. The reason those kids could just up and say “Let’s publish, and lets get Halle Berry” is because they knew they had a LOT of money at their disposal so that, putting their brains with it, they could make it happen.</p>
<p>State U, may not have the great concentration of wealth that the ivies have. So, they may lack the swagger that you might find at those schools. It is hard to cavalierly decide to rule the world when you have nothing to begin with. Still, I have taught my kids to decide to rule anyway - even if not cavalierly.</p>
<p>"Is Smith elite? We haven’t had a president who graduated from the school. "</p>
<p>Maybe we should! Actually, I’d take a woman president who graduated from any college. (Of course, she has to think like me, too - a small hurdle.)</p>
<p>As for whether Smith is elite or not, I don’t know. Certainly the acceptance rate doesn’t make it so, although the education might. I’ll tell you after my d. has gone through her four years there.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>Alumother is the one who responded to my question with “so shoot me” and then called my response rubbish when I questioned her ability to deal with being challenged. As John Wayne might have said: that is not acidic, that is fact.</p>