What are the Lifetime Advantages of Attending Top Colleges

curmudgeon · May 19, 2006, 2:57pm

Gee, I knew viewpont couldn’t edit. Now I see that you can’t paraphrase, Dstark. It’s tough to get good help. Let’s see what’s wrong with what you said, shall we?

First, who is this “we” you are talking about that “should” go to a top school? I didn’t say anybody should go, and certainly not anybody that you can define as “we” (as in including you). I wouldn’t know whether “they” (the non-you part of your “we”) should or shouldn’t attend. It’s highly personal. OTOH, you’ve made your feelings pretty well known. They should know if they are pulled to attend. You know you are not pulled to attend. So don’t attend.

Second, I didn’t say that anybody should attend a top school to “contemplate life”. What I said was that the greater likelihood of having a “well-contemplated life” (and it’s attendant well-contemplated long explore) was the only lifetime advantage I could see coming from attendance at a top college. If to you that means that I suggested “we” attend a top college to “contemplate life”, well - I don’t think I’m going to be able to help you understand. Just so there is no confusion, I didn’t suggest anyone do a sprinkler dance or go to prison to contemplate life either.

If I was answering the Q: “What are the lifetime advantages to attending Texas State Technical College or Devry, or another top trade or vocational school?” I would say that there was a greater likelihood that the TSTC students would be better prepared to directly enter the technical workforce and immediately perform at an efficient level. I don’t know if many would argue that.

It seems that several want to argue about workplace performance, or job performance skills, as if that was the goal of a liberal arts education. Some of the folks that are taking the view contra don’t agree that those workplace skills are a worthwhile goal of undergraduate education . I think this is a large part of the miscommunication.

Some are saying "We don’t give a hoot about the college making the kid employable. We want them to be an educated person. To understand the world and their place in it. To figure out what they believe in. We believe an educated person is better able to think on their feet, respond to changing requirements and stimuli and to us that liberal arts and sciences education is a goal in and of itself. We are chosing to value that over an education with concrete material goals. " I know that some of you find this whole line of thinking “absurd”.

Hence, my discussion of “luxury” education. If you view this as a luxury education you are unlikely to matriculate.

Maybe this is one of those things where if you get it, you get it - if you don’t you just don’t.

dstark · May 19, 2006, 3:03pm

“What I said was that the greater likelihood of having a “well-contemplated life” (and it’s attendant well-contemplated long explore) was the only lifetime advantage I could see coming from attendance at a top college.”

Cur, so do you think there is a greater likelihood of having a "well-contemplated life if you go to a top school?

curmudgeon · May 19, 2006, 3:07pm

Yes, Dstark - I do.

I also made some edits to my post above. So , if you would, please re-read it. Thanks. I’m really trying to communicate. Heck, I thought I was good at it. I’m proving myself wrong-er by the post. :o)

dstark · May 19, 2006, 3:11pm

Then we disagree. That’s all. We disagree. I didn’t miss your intent then, did I? :)

I read stuff on this thread like “Can’t we all just agree”.

No we can’t. The object is to discuss, not to agree.

Northstarmom · May 19, 2006, 3:11pm

"
One professor explained to me that a classroom is better with students of varying abilities. You put the students in groups with strong students, weak students and middle students in each group.

The strong students learn by having to explain things to weaker students. It solidifies their thinking. They also learn that students of varying abilities can still come up with amazing and valid thoughts. The weaker students learn by listening to the stronger students. They learn how to express themselves from the stronger students. They learn how to push themselves."

If it’s true (and I do have big doubts), I do wonder whether the above is true for things like college, graduate school, professional schools, etc. Indeed if the above is true across the board, why bother to have think tanks or scientific institutes? Why not just mix brilliant scientists with people of low intelligence and let them learn together?

What i have read about groups is that the research indicates that if groups are trying to accomplish something that’s new, it helps to have all kinds of diversity. If the groups are, however, trying to accomplish something that’s already known, what helps the group do well is having highly experienced and knowledgeable people.

I’ve been in too many college classrooms and other places in which the duller people were holding back the smarter people. If a person really gets a concept, they don’t need to sit and wait days and days for the concept to be explained again and again and for more and more simplistic discussion and practice. The person who gets it needs the opportunity to learn even more difficult concepts, not spend their time explaining things to those who are duller.

dstark · May 19, 2006, 3:12pm

Well, the way I read CC, it’s below. :)

Care to tell me which part you edited?

Edit: I reread your post so you don’t have to tell me.

soozievt · May 19, 2006, 3:25pm

Dstark, I completely agree with what Marite was describing about the math course at Harvard. It is not for all people. Everyone has different learning needs. The six students she was referring to are not at the same level of learning need as a student ready to start calculus. The six students want to explore harder material, will likely struggle far less with the homework than the latter students. If class time is spent explaining what the latter students do not understand, it pulls the classtime down for those operating at a different learning level of need.

This is not the same as in a sociology class, and I agree with her. However, even there the level of discussion or papers will vary but I think it is easier to have a mix of levels in a subject like that because it is more open ended and each person relates to the discussion, homework, and papers at their own level. It is different in math. It is different in many other areas as well.

I know in my D’s studio training in musical theater and I would say this also of music studies, her experience and what she’s getting out of it would differ greatly if the courses were easier and if the level of talent in the studio classes was much lower. Acting of scenes requires others of a certain talent level to work with if you are going to be challenged by the exercise. Working with a partner who is not in the ballpark of talent level diminishes what you can do in that exercise/assignment. In dance class, if the level of the class is too easy, you do not learn enough to stretch your skills. If in a singing class, if they must go over basic theory, how to read music, basic concepts, etc., and you are beyond that, you are not going to progress as much.

There is a reason there are all kinds of schools and options out there for every type of learner. There must be reasons that state U’s have Honors colleges, right? Otherwise, put all those learners in the same classroom. When a class is too easy because the level of the work and the level of the others in the class are quite a bit lower than your own, often you are not challenged and thus, do not learn as much. You might get all A’s but you have learned less than if you had been pushed by the material, the level of the others in the class and their skills and talents, etc. A person can go to CC and be a genius and get something out of it because a motivated learner will succeed anywhere, but that person will likely be not as happy with the educational experience and will be craving the challenge that he/she seeks. Likewise, a student who has lower level of skills, when put in a classroom operating at a much higher level, will have to sink or swim and has a good chance of sinking. I have taught at five colleges and they were not too selective. I can think of some papers I got from students where my then young children of my own wrote FAR better papers than they did. I don’t see how some of those college students could have SURVIVED at either of my D’s current colleges where the level of papers I see them having to write are many many many times over the level of papers I was receiving as a college instructor by many of my students at less selective schools. i may have had some real gems in those college classes but the ones who could not write, would never survive in my kids’ current college classes. I see what is required. Those students could not handle it. These may be extremes at different ends of a continuim, and those in the middle may do fine at either end, but the needs of learners on one end are very different than those at the other. Thus different classrooms and schools are more suited to different levels of learners.

I’m not sure I really get your point. For instance, in HS, my D danced on pointe in ballet. She’d be most unhappy in Ballet I class where basics are taught and certainly they are not on pointe. She’d learn nothing new. Her learning NEEDS would not be the same as those in that class. Further, the students in Ballet I would never be allowed on pointe because they did not have the requisite skills and in fact, it would be dangerous to allow them to take Pointe class.

I used to be an elementary school teacher. I never taught every child in the class the same level of work. Their academic skill work was individualized to their learning level and needs. If I had 18 kids in the class, that didn’t necessarily mean 18 different math assignments, for instance, but each child’s assignments were tailored to his/her level. Conceivably five kids could be doing the same math assignment. NEVER was everyone doing the same assignment. In some subjects, like writing, many levels of kids had similar assignments because the subject was open ended and so they could take the assignment to different levels and my expectations varied for each child’s level. One kid might write a half page and have edit work needed on a simple level. Another might be expected to write an in depth piece with major edit work at another level. Open ended subjects allow for that. Subjects like math or some other skill areas, require being placed into appropriate levels of work in order to learn something new.

curmudgeon · May 19, 2006, 3:27pm

dstark, I am the world’s worst typist. Because I think so much faster than I type (doesn’t take much speed) , I continue to edit my posts till they time me out. Bear with me, please. I’m not trying to slip anything by you.

Momwaitingfornew · May 19, 2006, 3:29pm

If there are, say, two weak students in a class of 20, then no, they don’t hold the class back, although they may get lost. If, however, there are only 2 first-rate students, the class can get frustrating for those students very quickly because the professor then has to move more slowly and explain things more than once to make sure that most of the class learns the material. Since the last thing a professor wants is to lose the interest of the best students in the class, such a situation discourages the professor as well.

Of course, the difference in ability is usually not that dramatic in any given class, primarily because the students are screened by the admissions process and because prereqs often must be met. Still, all students at Harvard are not equally capable, just as not all State U. students are equally capable. There will be a range in any class; however, when the differences between the top students and the bottom one is significant, it becomes problematic.

soozievt · May 19, 2006, 3:33pm

Mwfn…
" Still, all students at Harvard are not equally capable, just as not all State U. students are equally capable. There will be a range in any class; however, when the differences between the top students and the bottom one is significant, it becomes problematic."

That’s it in a nutshell.

dstark · May 19, 2006, 3:37pm

Curmudgeon, just write another post. There isn’t a penalty. :)

Momwaitingfornew · May 19, 2006, 3:40pm

"I can think of some papers I got from students where my then young children of my own wrote FAR better papers than they did. "

Ooooh, yes. Although I am biased in this regard, I think writing skills, or lack thereof, are the most telling indicators of how well-prepared a student is for college. Now that I think of it, writing skills are also a lifetime advantage of a top college since, although students arrive with decent skills, they leave with even better ones. I remember breezing through my first paper as a freshman the way I did in high school and being told by my professor that it simply was not up to the college’s standards. I learned how to improve in ways that my high school teachers never thought to point out because I was already one of the best writers in the hs. When I see the writing ability of juniors and seniors at lower tier schools, I cringe since obviously they either were not required or did not care about a high standard of expression. No one graduates from an Ivy not knowing how to write.

dstark · May 19, 2006, 3:42pm

Susan, I can see those 6 math geniuses at Harvard wanting to take classes together and doing their own thing.

Now if I go to Harvard, and I’m not one of those math geniuses, how does this help me?

eng_dude · May 19, 2006, 3:45pm

LOL. Inquiring minds would like to know at which schools you taught.
Sure, it’s off topic, but then again, most of the threads in this discussion are.

SBmom · May 19, 2006, 3:47pm

dstark, don’t you think a really smart kid might prefer to be the ‘slow’ one in his class at Harvard, and might learn better and be happier in that environment?

Why is articulating your position to less able kids so they can learn a better learning experience than articulating your position to extremely able kids who may disagree, and challenge you?

ICargirl · May 19, 2006, 3:53pm

I don’t see how it is more beneficial for a top student to teach weaker students than it is for the top student to be surrounded by other top students.

I went to a good suburban public, and still felt that I was the one making the majority of insightful comments in my English classes. While my teachers were good, I just wasn’t being encouraged to stretch myself - I got to the point that I knew that my worst paper would get the same grade as my best, just because it might still be the best in the class. This year, one of the things I’ve loved most is being in discussions where my classmates routinely come up with analyses I haven’t thought of or are superior to my own readings. It isn’t enough to write a competently written paper that gets the main idea - I need to work harder, now. While some of my papers are more succesful than others, as a whole they are much more interesting than my high school papers, because I’ve had to stretch myself

Yes, there might be more economic diversity in a state school, which translates into more diverse experiences. However, my education is not a social experiment. I am getting exposure to many different kinds of people at my school, and if it isn’t exactly the same type I would get at state U, well then, they probably haven’t met someone who made an ex-President squirm during an interview for a high school paper or who is traveling to Belgium this summer to work on a complex theorem with renowned mathematicians, or a hard partying, conservative, varsity athlete who also happens to be a male ballet dancer, or a son of organic farmers who spent most of his childhood living in Costa Rica while his parents tried to set up a commune there.

And it isn’t as if the Ivies are completely homogenous. We have a significant minority presence and representives of all states and many countries. And yes, we do have economically disadvantaged students. Is it really such a negative that we have fewer than at other schools, or that we have more wealthy students? What about the contributions that they make?

All of us draw the line at different places. How many people who can afford to live in towns with good school districts move over to the more diverse town next door so their kids can help the less priveleged students learn?

dstark · May 19, 2006, 3:54pm

“don’t you think a really smart kid might prefer to be the ‘slow’ one in his class at Harvard, and might learn better and be happier in that environment?”

I see.

And do the 6 geniuses benefit?

marite · May 19, 2006, 3:59pm

The prof may have researched this for 30+ years but probably has not experienced being the outlier. My S has.

You put together a group of 4: a strong student (way beyond the rest) two average students, and one weak student. What happens? What happened is my S did 3/4 of the work. The weak student did none; on one memorable occasion, he interfered so much by clowning around that my S was nearly reduced to tears because the group project was not going to be finished by the time the parents came to view the class’ projects in the evening despite the fact that he stayed in school and went without dinner. That was the only time my S complained about doing 3/4 of the group’s work.
My S also experienced homogeneous classes. I’ll bet the prof did not. The only redeeming feature of these classes is that they required so little homework (there were students reading at 5th grade level) that he was able to devote his time to his college classes. The teachers were none too happy about the incredibly wide range of abilities of the kids either; but then, the prof you cite probably was not a k-12 teacher, either.

S is now part of study groups. The range of abilities in the groups is much narrower, and no single individual is carrying the rest of the group the way my S used to do in k-8. They are genuinely interactive, cooperative learning experiences.

dmd77 · May 19, 2006, 4:01pm

DStark: you ask “And do the 6 geniuses benefit?”

Well, based on the geniuses I’ve known (and yes, I’m using the plural advisedly), most geniuses are kind of one-sided. So the math genius might be the “slow kid” in his philosophy class and the language wiz might have a rough time with math. So yes, the 6 geniuses benefit.

(At MIT, I had the luxury of being in the middle of the pack for the first time in my life. It was a joy NOT to be bored witless and to experience intellectual arguments that were challenging to follow, much less engage in. But there were geniuses, they stood out among us–but none of them was a standout in everything.)

dstark · May 19, 2006, 4:07pm

DStark: you ask “And do the 6 geniuses benefit?”

Well, based on the geniuses I’ve known (and yes, I’m using the plural advisedly), most geniuses are kind of one-sided. So the math genius might be the “slow kid” in his philosophy class and the language wiz might have a rough time with math. So yes, the 6 geniuses benefit.

I agree that this may happen.

So here we have an example when 6 geniuses can benefit and the lower students can benefit.

Interesting.

I wonder if this can happen in state schools?

dmd77, I love this paragraph you wrote. (At MIT, I had the luxury of being in the middle of the pack for the first time in my life. It was a joy NOT to be bored witless and to experience intellectual arguments that were challenging to follow, much less engage in. But there were geniuses, they stood out among us–but none of them was a standout in everything.)

What are the Lifetime Advantages of Attending Top Colleges

CONNECT WITH US