<p>Viewpoint,
My current experience as an Ivy student contradicts every single thing you just said. Most of the people here are NOT rich, and we don’t behave like we’re on “vacation.” Granted, I can’t speak for every student at every Ivy. And certainly, the Ivies don’t have a monopoly on great education. However, you have no grounds for calling them a “joke.”</p>
<p>To add to SBmom’s observation, the most brilliant folks I know did not go to elite undergrad schools, they often, however, went to elite grad programs. I remember in grad school I was amazed at how little difference there was between the students who went to lower tier state U’s and the students from the top schools. Actually, the top tier students never seemed quite as good as the others, perhaps it was because the students from the lower tiers had to be a little more ambitious, work a little harder, and perhaps appreciated were they were a little more…</p>
<p>A recent case in point, a friend’s kid who went to undergrad school at one of the lowest ranked schools in the country, (they accept students through August!) and who was admitted to one of the top ranked departments in the kid’s field at a private elite, just won two of the top national awards, one a FulbrightHayes and another for the top student in the discipline at the school. Not going to a top tier, or even a middle tier school didn’t seem to matter much.</p>
<p>SBmom, You wrote, “Unless you think that the admission “sort” for a mid-tier and an elite identifies an exactly-equivalent group of 18 year olds, then the fact that an elite name gives you a little bump in first impressions only reflects reality: on the whole, kids making that elite cut have jumped over some very high bars by age 18. If this was not largely true the name brand bump would simply erode over time”.</p>
<p>OK. SBmom, this thread is over 400 posts and you haven’t understood what I have been saying. I am not trashing the elite schools. How many times do I have to say this? I think I have said this about 5 times on this thread. Maybe more. I am not trashing kids that go to elite schools. </p>
<p>I am saying that smart kids that don’t go to elites should not be trashed. I have said this so many times in so many different ways.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Filler: It isn’t snobbery to think that Ivy League schools have a generally more motivated and brighter student body than State U. Just compare the academic standards required to get into elites to those required to get into most state schools. Unless we are going to dismiss all quantifiabale criteria as worthless, that has to indicate something. It becomes snobbery when you assume that every Ivy League student is smarter than every state school student, which is obviously not the case.</p>
<p>Viewpoint: I just want to confirm what apple green said. I don’t know what you are basing your statement on, but you are misinformed. My education is far from a joke, or a vacation. I also want to point out that some people major in what you consider the “easy” fields because they really love the subject, not because they are looking to skate by. </p>
<p>If it is unfair to assume that there aren’t exceptionally bright students at less impressive schools, than it is equally unfair to assume that all, or even most students at elite schools are either in it for the wrong reasons or are not benefitting at all by having gone to a top school over a lesser one.</p>
<p>I must admit to some unease when I read “top over lessor.” Whereas it may be accurate to say more selective, or schools with students who have a history of high performance, but I’m not sure that one can call state schools, for example “lessor.” Often, the faculty at a state university may actually be more accomplished. And further, individual programs may be much better. Also, when one considers the honors programs at many state schools, these programs often surpass many Ivies in student quality. For example the entire SAT range at the Univ. of Washington honors program is 1300 to 1600 (old SAT). The “average” unweighted GPA is about 3.9. One could hardly be around a better peer group.</p>
<p>
I’ll bet colleges with core curricula don’t include American history.</p>
<p><i must=“” admit=“” to=“” some=“” unease=“” when=“” i=“” read=“” “top=”" over=“” lessor.“=”" whereas=“” it=“” may=“” be=“” accurate=“” say=“” more=“” selective,=“” or=“” schools=“” with=“” students=“” who=“” have=“” a=“” history=“” of=“” high=“” performance,=“” but=“” i’m=“” not=“” sure=“” that=“” one=“” can=“” call=“” state=“” schools,=“” for=“” example=“” “lessor.”=“”></i></p><i must=“” admit=“” to=“” some=“” unease=“” when=“” i=“” read=“” “top=”" over=“” lessor.“=”" whereas=“” it=“” may=“” be=“” accurate=“” say=“” more=“” selective,=“” or=“” schools=“” with=“” students=“” who=“” have=“” a=“” history=“” of=“” high=“” performance,=“” but=“” i’m=“” not=“” sure=“” that=“” one=“” can=“” call=“” state=“” schools,=“” for=“” example=“” “lessor.”=“”>
<p>First, some state schools ARE top universities. William and Mary is another that comes to mind. </p>
<p>Second, the semantics of distinguishing the top ranked schools from the others is difficult. “Lesser” shows degrees rather than a complete split, something I like over the straight parallel structure of “top” v. “low.” Maybe someone can come up with a better word choice? Although I use “elite” occasionally to vary my word choice :-), I believe it sends the wrong message as well.</p>
</i>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm…let’s look at the typical minimum med school requirements for a second…</p>
<p>Biology: one year with laboratory experience.
Chemistry: two years with laboratory experience.
Physics: one year.
Mathematics: one year of calculus.
Expository Writing: one year</p>
<p>Wow, what a bunch of idiot classes. I bet you’d sail right through them viewpoint, since you’re obviously so smart. You do, by the way, have sources for your assertions, right?</p>
<p>“to get a well-rounded education at an Ivy League school requires some real proaction on the part of the student. It is very easily missed!!”</p>
<p>Frankly, with the number of AP courses most Ivy bound kids have taken, they already have a pretty well rounded education before they get there. I’d rather see kids who have already covered the basics in high school exploring areas that high school doesn’t usually teach - linguistics, anthropology, sociology, obscure languages, computer programming beyond basic Java…</p>
<p>soozievt: I enjoy reading your posts, but I usually have to go and put another pot of coffee on and then go back and read them (as I just did). 
Seriously, I appreciate the time you put into them, and they will help me when the time comes to look at schools for my second son (rising sophomore).</p>
<p>Dstark–talk about not getting what people are saying!!! 400 and something posts into this thread, and I defy you to show me where anyone, anyone, has trashed smart kids who go to non-elite colleges. You can find undersaanding of why, you can find sympathy for those who get stuck in classes where they feel like fish out of water (been there, done that myself), you can find loads of acknowledgement that they can be just as, or more successful, for those of you who think it’s all about success.</p>
<p>But please tell me where they have been trashed.</p>
<p>I initially responded to Northstarmom’s posts.</p>
<p>She discussed the less uniform commitment to academics at the lower level schools she worked at, but I can’t recall any “trashing” of smart students there.</p>
<p>Maybe I missed something. but then again, I consider my alma mater, and the one where, correct me if I’m mistaken, one of your kids goes, to be an “elite” school, too. Don’t you?</p>
<p>You know I do. You do realize that some people on this thread, don’t?</p>
<p>There are other posters that have been on CC for a long time that have responded to some of the posts in this thread in similar ways to me. (Not identically. :)) </p>
<p>We all can’t be crazy. Can we?</p>
<p>Have a great Mother’s Day.</p>
<p>No, not crazy…just, I don’t know, reading in a level of motive that i’m just not seeing. Because these folks who are being judged are also long time posters, too, and I feel I know them well enough to think they’re not saying what they (or me?) are being accused of. </p>
<p>Maybe it’s me who’s crazy!:)</p>
<p>Thanks for the good wishes.</p>
<p>Bigger school debt.</p>
<p>As far as I know, study of Western Civilization is still rather cursory in high school AP courses. Nothing like the core at Columbia, Chicago, Claremont McKenna or Grove City.</p>
<p>Taxguy, it is not a given that a more selective college equates with bigger school debt. Sometimes, that is the case but surely not always. So called “top colleges” sometimes have more money to give. I’m happy with the financial aid at Brown. </p>
<p>My other D applied to BFA programs in Musical theater…every single one was highly selective in terms of low admit rates (single digit admit rates). They all gave her both merit scholarships and need based aid. Guess which one of all those schools gave her the biggest scholarship? The school that many might have thought of as the most “top” school on her admit list, NYU/Tisch. She got awarded a $20,000 Trustees Scholarship for each year. Other schools gave very good scholarships too but this was the highest. The lowest merit scholarship she won was from Penn State’s BFA in MT program, $2500/year. So, that is but one of many examples I know of where the bigger debt is not necessarily at the more elite school. </p>
<p>In my work as a college counselor, I’ve been trained to encourage financially needy students to not discount more expensive colleges because sometimes, they may get a better FA package from them which makes the college cost less than the less selective schools on their list. This may not be common knowledge to all applicants but this is something that commonly happens.</p>
<p>^ ^ ^
This makes sense when you realize that very expensive, high-profile colleges tend to have more money floating around because of their large endowments. In fact, my family is paying LESS per year for my Ivy tuition than for my private high school tuition, even though I received generous merit and financial aid in high school. Of course, I’m also contributing to my tuition through work-study.</p>
<p>dstark, </p>
<p>First I do not see UMich as non elite. I cast a wider net than Ivy in my definition of elite; mine even includes all those great small schools like Haverford which nobody in my area has ever heard of. :)</p>
<p>But your position DOES perplex me. A bunch of posts ago I think you said something like ‘people should be seen as individuals and evaluated as such but others are too lazy to do this.’ Exactly. Groups are more easily classified and this is never completely fair to all memebrs of the group.</p>
<p>But would it feel more fair to you if you could wave a wand and suddenly EVERY kid at a mid tier and EVERY kid at Yale were viewed as having identically the same intellectual level? </p>
<p>If mid tier kids were seen to be just as accomplished as Yale kids, that would either over-inflate the lowest mid-tier kid to a ridiculous degree, or it would unfairly demote all the high-flying Yalies and nullify their accomplishments-- or both.</p>
<p>Isn’t it unfair to the most highly-accomplished Yalie to no longer be recognized as such? Or is it okay for the top Yalies to be underestimated, so long as we don’t underestimate a top mid tier kid?</p>
<p>Either way someone is not getting his due. </p>
<p>The point is there is no way to break down to individual specifics when we are talking about groups. </p>
<p>“Yale” is a group and “mid tier” is a group-- and as CautiousPessimism’s post eloquently explained, though the groups have some overlap, and though certain individuals could belong to either, they are actually different GROUPS.</p>