<p>dstark,</p>
<p>when viewpoint was accused of being a ■■■■■, way back about 50 pages ago, tsdad replied to the accusation-- logged in as tsdad.</p>
<p>I don’t know why anone would bother playing this kind of game. It is disappointing.</p>
<p>TheGFG:</p>
<p>
We know intellectually that it isnt, but across the whole world people still act as if it is because in some way (perhaps it is a superficial way) it actually is. Consider the guy who enjoys who he is, who generally tries to make everywhere he exists a better place, but who has little in the form of worldly goods. Will he generally be considered as good as some rich guy who drives a fancy car, who looks like a model (or not), and who lives in a mansion? The rich guy will be generally perceived as fundamentally more worthy of attention because he has acquired the things to which most of us aspire. He doesn’t even have to share his stuff. He only needs to show an ability to get it.</p>
<p>I am talking power and prestige, and I think that when everything is stripped away, it is what causes so many people to scrape and scratch to get into top schools. Certainly the kids who frequent these forums arent doing everything they can to get into top schools because they are chasing the lofty ideal of a well-examined life.</p>
<p>And after giving it some thought, Im not so sure if all this is really that bad. The things we chase are generally held in high esteem for a reason, and while the market for these things can take time to shift in its assessment of them, it is not wrong in assessing them and then selecting them on this basis, even if the actual item has lost its factual superiority. I know prestige can get really confused with pride and haughtiness, and a lot of us probably recoil from it especially when we see it being confused by haughty wet-behind-the-ears college kids. But Im still thinking (kind of) that maybe we should openly allow ourselves to be “prestige whores” because prestige in itself, apart from pride and haughtiness, may encapsulate some genuinely meaningful stuff that folks who chase it can use. In other words, say you chase a school almost purely on its prestige and you end up with a well-examined life, which transaction you later report and which adds to the school’s prestige, which some foolish starstruck kid becomes enamored with, causing him to choose the school, only later to acquire a well-examined life, which he reports and which adds to the school’s prestige…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup. Two of S’s friends attended. It’s for 2 years and students generally transfer to top schools afterward (and they were admitted to these schools originally). One of the two is now at H, the other is still there.</p>
<p>MWFN:</p>
<p>Of course, it’s great that the carpenter can talk about St Augustine or Nietszche. But the point is that his Harvard education, wonderful though it was, was not “useful” in the way people have been talking about utility in this thread. In that sense, he probably would have been better off going to North Bennett Street school,; he would have saved quite a bit of time and money. </p>
<p>But I have never ever advocated that the worth of a college education lies in how many important folks you get to rub shoulders with or how much you end up making when you graduate. So to me, his Harvard education was wonderful and valuable.</p>
<p>I was/am paying full fare for two kids, one at an Ivy and one who graduated from a non-Ivy. Neither is likely to make lots of money; but to me, it has been money well spent because each got or is getting an excellent education. Beyond that, I have no idea what the future may hold.</p>
<p>I received an email recently from an SAT student whom I tutored for 4 hours in math the week before the test. She emailed to let me know that she got an 800, and also noted “Turned down Harvard and MIT today.” She wants to be a doctor, and was admitted to the program at Brown that admits you as an undergrad AND to their medical school, so that you don’t need to take the MCAT or dally as much with studies. It’s really hard to get into, obviously, and is great for those who are really sure of what they want to do with their lives. Admittedly, she was turning down an Ivy for another, but again, she didn’t seem to be concerned with the HYP (M?) mystique, and did not base her decision on the perceived status of a school.</p>
<p>Thank you Dstark. </p>
<p>I thought I was being accused of being a ■■■■■ and was being cute. Alas as I should know “cuteness,” like humor doesn’t always work on the Internet.</p>
<p>I am being perfectly honest on the screw Harvard thing. My to be wife and I began collecting crafts back in the 1970s when we were in grad school at Chapel Hill. We used to go over to the Asheboro area and buy pottery from the potters whose families had been there for decades or longer. We have a collection of Cole Brothers dinnerware, which is supposed to be quite valuable. We have our house filled with hand made things. I would have loved to have a child that could have made pottery or furniture for me. I would have found that very satisfying as long as that was what he wanted to do.</p>
<p>I suppose I’ll have to settle for an Oscar instead of a hand made dresser. It will be tough.</p>
<p>Just stating my personal opinion:</p>
<p>I am 54 years old and my Yale degree STILL opens doors in every possible venue of my life, from volunteer work (where I am willing to lick stamps in a back room, but they drag me out to work with the bigwigs) to getting contracts for my business. It’s sort of amazing.</p>
<p>“But the point is that his Harvard education, wonderful though it was, was not “useful” in the way people have been talking about utility in this thread.”</p>
<p>You’re right that Harvard wasn’t practical for his eventual career, but who knows, maybe Harvard gave him the courage to follow his true calling.</p>
<p>Because I have never looked at an Ivy League or similar-type education as having monetary value (despite the cost). I see it as having a personal value, something much more intimate and intellectual than perhaps most people consider. I don’t see it as “elite” or “better”, but instead as a wonderful intellectual opportunity. </p>
<p>I would have like my d. to go to an Ivy simply because of her interests and the professors who teach those subjects, but I’m not at all disappointed that she is going to Smith because I have a feeling that she’ll get a comparable, though maybe not quite as rigorous, education. I suspect she will find “lifetime advantages” of attending Smith, even though it’s not an Ivy. </p>
<p>While there may be “lifetime advantages of attending top colleges,” there are also lifetime advantages to attending other colleges, depending on the student and what s/he does with the opportunity. When it comes down to it, education is invaluable. My personal belief is that a student should seek out the best, most challenging college he can get into and likes - and go from there.</p>
<p>“Admittedly, she was turning down an Ivy for another, but again, she didn’t seem to be concerned with the HYP (M?) mystique, and did not base her decision on the perceived status of a school.”</p>
<p>But would she have chosen the Drexel/Drexel med school option over Harvard and MIT?</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew:</p>
<p>
haha. Hmmm. Dont think Id have a heart attack. Perhaps an attack of something a lot less vital, like maybe an attack of the hair. Yeah. You make a great point. My gripes with Harvard are very narrow, applying only to its undergraduate offerings and even here only when I compare the school with the very highest undergrad schools in the world. In most other cases, given the choice between Harvard and some other school, Im going Harvard and I suspect that is the way it generally is. You cant just say screw Harvard without a lot of thought. Shoot, the schools library alone requires more than that.</p>
<p>
It seem to me schools like Smith and Wellesley, and Amherst, etc. all are in the same ivylike league. They all seem to have the same general style. But maybe its just me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally agree about the value of an Ivy League or similar-type education–with emphasis on similar-type rather than Ivy.<br>
What I very much deplore in this thread is the Ivy-or bust, or Ivy or “dull mediocrity” mentality of some. An excellent college education can be had at many many schools in this country. Even if we took the top 15 mid-sized universities and the 20 top LACs, we would not exhaust the list of wonderful schools where a student can get as good an education as at one of the 8 Ivies (different though they are from one another).</p>
<p>As for the carpenter, I’m sure that had he attended a “lower-ranked” school, he would also have had the courage to branch out and he would still have been to discuss St. Augustine and Nietszche. The first is a matter of personality, the second depends on a curriculum that is widely available at many schools.</p>
<p>Marmot posted this link, but I think it is appropriate here.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/051010crat_atlarge[/url]”>http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/051010crat_atlarge</a></p>
<p>There is much to think about after reading that article. I thought I would highlight this.</p>
<p>"In the wake of the Jewish crisis, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton chose to adopt what might be called the best graduates approach to admissions. Frances École Normale Supérieure, Japans University of Tokyo, and most of the worlds other élite schools define their task as looking for the best studentsthat is, the applicants who will have the greatest academic success during their time in college. The Ivy League schools justified their emphasis on character and personality, however, by arguing that they were searching for the students who would have the greatest success after college. They were looking for leaders, and leadership, the officials of the Ivy League believed, was not a simple matter of academic brilliance. Should our goal be to select a student body with the highest possible proportions of high-ranking students, or should it be to select, within a reasonably high range of academic ability, a student body with a certain variety of talents, qualities, attitudes, and backgrounds? Wilbur Bender asked. To him, the answer was obvious. If you let in only the brilliant, then you produced bookworms and bench scientists: you ended up as socially irrelevant as the University of Chicago (an institution Harvard officials looked upon and shuddered). Above a reasonably good level of mental ability, above that indicated by a 550-600 level of S.A.T. score, Bender went on, the only thing that matters in terms of future impact on, or contribution to, society is the degree of personal inner force an individual has.</p>
<p>So a 550-600 SAT score will do it.</p>
<p>The Ivy league schools mentioned above aren’t just about academics. They weren’t meant to be about academics alone. </p>
<p>The paragraph I highlighted tells me there must be strong students all over the place.</p>
<p>The University of Chicago looked down on. It’s amazing what human beings do to elevate themselves.</p>
<p>“The University of Chicago looked down on. It’s amazing what human beings do to elevate themselves.”</p>
<p>I think that the H admissions “shuddering” reaction was because of differences in how U Chicago and Harvard view their learning environments. It’s not because H admissions officers think that U Chicago students are stupid or anything like that.</p>
<p>U Chicago proudly proclaims that it’s the place “where fun goes to die.” That perspective that indicates that a high value is placed upon having students who study all the time is antithetical to Harvard’s wanting a student body that is passionate about ECs as well as passionate about learning. H is so interested in giving its students time to pursue ECs that classes end 2-3 weeks before finals exams. This “reading period” allows students to catch up with their academics after spending lots of time pursuing their ECs earlier in the semester. </p>
<p>I would imagine that U Chicago wouldn’t institute that kind of “reading period” because they probably expect students to consistently study throughout the semester, not just put nose to the grindstone in the weeks before exam period. I also imagine that U Chicago administrators would shudder at the idea of instituting a “reading period.”</p>
<p>Dstark:</p>
<p>The work referenced in this link is The Chosen. To be fair, things have progressed far beyond the situation Karabel describes. Furthermore, the SAT scores need to be adjusted for recentering. I doubt that the scores mentioned are out of a possible 1600. So, let’s add 100 to the total (the math SAT did not rise as much as the V-Sat and hardly at all at the upper range). So a 1100-1200 score becomes a 1210-1300 score. Not great, but many of the students benefitting from the willingness to admit low-scorers are low-income students.</p>
<p>As well, I value the diversity of students to be found at an American university. If I were in France, I could not care less, as there is no campus life, and practically no interaction among students. But in an American university, diversity of experiences, viewpoints and interests is valuable. And that cannot be achieved by looking at SAT scores and AP scores and GPAs alone. </p>
<p>That said, I agree completely that looking down at Chicago is the height of silliness. But I doubt that it’s the Ivy-degree holders here who are doing the looking down.</p>
<p>“But the point is that his Harvard education, wonderful though it was, was not “useful” in the way people have been talking about utility in this thread.”</p>
<p>"You’re right that Harvard wasn’t practical for his eventual career, but who knows, maybe Harvard gave him the courage to follow his true calling.
"</p>
<p>The Harvard education also presumably would have allowed him to follow his carpentry interest while also being more cognizant than most carpenters probably are about literature, history, ecology, art history, philosophy, etc.</p>
<p>If his goal was to make the most money possible as a carpenter, he’d probably have done better by going to some kind of tech school and possibly by getting a business degree. If his goal was, however, to become a broadly educated person who is comfortable following his inner drummer and being around a variety of types of people, then Harvard suited his needs.</p>
<p>I do not recall a single post on this entire thread where ANYONE ever advocated an Ivy or bust mentality. On the contrary, posters have again and again stressed that a good education may be had at many schools (in fact at ANY school, if you recall the Univ. of Phoenix online posts), that the “top” schools do not by any means have monopoly on the brightest students, that a “top” school will not be the best match for every exceptional student, and so on ad nauseaum. By continuing these arguments you are beating a dead horse which was killed pages and pages ago before it ever truly took a breath. The closest thing to this idea posted was that there may be a larger percentage of high-achieving students at a top school than at a state university. But even then, there was a qualification of the fact that this would depend upon the specific state college. </p>
<p>As I already explained, “the mediocrity of the masses” comment was a devil’s advocate-style remark intended, by virtue of its extremity, to parallel viewpoint’s style of argument and thus highlight its absurdity. And if looking down upon the Univ. of Chicago is the height of arrogance, then I’d like to see you also call a spade a spade with regard to viewpoint’s comments which disparage Yale students.</p>
<p>Another thread that has outlived its usefulness…</p>
<p>Of course, Harvard suited his needs to learn. Did I say anything else?<br>
An education is an end in itself; it is not a means towards a better paying job or friends in high places.<br>
And that has been the whole point of my contributions to this thread. I do not seem to be in the majority, however.</p>
<p>"Be honest. How many of us would have a heart attack if our excellent, college prep track students came home and said, “Screw that acceptance to Harvard. I’m going to carpentry school!” "</p>
<p>I wouldn’t worry as long as I knew my kid were following his heart. I’d know that with a Harvard education and chutzpah and connects that my kid got there, he’d be fine in his career as a carpenter. And, if things didn’t work out, he could always go back to school and pursue a different career.</p>
<p>Northstarmom, your arrogance re:Harvard is astonishing.</p>
<p>Chicago is on a quarter system, and in fact, has a reading period.</p>
<p>Are students or graduates at top colleges more likely to embrace progressive secular beliefs than students at lower-ranked colleges? I’m specifically thinking of concepts such as affirmative action, feminism, environmental concerns, and the belief that government is the primary agent for positive social change. It seems to me that these beliefs would be an advantage in some segments of American society, particularly in government.</p>