<p>Allmusic said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree wholeheartedly. This is a perfect endorsement for an open curriculum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tsdad, my father is an accomplished Woodworker (as some here know) I hope that brightens your day.:)</p>
<p>Well, I don’t have a dog in this race, since I neither went to an Ivy nor was able to persuade my daughter to apply, but in the Midwest where I grew up, the Univ. of Chicago was the gold standard. </p>
<p>So, it is regional in some respects. Now, even in the Midwest, a Harvard degree will get you a lot of respect, and as someone else said, very few applicants turn down an offer, regardless of the fit.</p>
<p>I will point out, and I apologize if this topic has already been discussed, that when I evaluate an applicant (lawyers, in my case) and I see a prestigious undergrad degree and a nonprestigious law degree with no explanation, it’s not a good sign. I ask searching questions. If the explanation is financial, that’s okay. It often isn’t financial. Law schools care much more about actual intelligence, and slightly less about grades, although this varies widely, I believe. In fact, a really impressive combination is a nonprestigious undergrad and a great law school. I take this to mean that the person jumped lots of hurdles, chief among which is demonstrating sheer intelligence. As someone (Marite?) said, some firms and lots of federal judges ask for SAT and LSAT scores, which helps really smart kids from mediocre law schools get clerkships.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Dross, I think I understood what you meant and framed it as a dangerous idea in that it is usually forbidden to consider good(gold) to come from the superficial appeal(false idol) of elitism, which is a charge that makes most people in this thread cower. I didn’t mean that your notion would lead to dangerous results. </p>
<p>Your thoughts: “”""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…And after giving it some thought, Im not so sure if all this is really that bad.</p>
<p>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,“”“”</p>
<p>Not easy for most of us to embrace such realism, prof.
But that marmite will remain as edible as it ever was,…</p>
<p>Drossel, here’s how I view the prestige part. If it comes with the college package, it’s a nice benefit but it isn’t the reason to pick it. Marite gave some good examples of posts I have seen here where kids or parents pick a school that really doesn’t interest them in any specific way BUT the fact that it is an Ivy or prestigious. In fact, prestige is a big factor in the choice. Some apply to all 8 Ivies for example, because they are prestigious, not because each one matches their list of college criteria. If one feels they MUST have this or that top name school or nothing else will do (like the example Marite gave of a girl who was disappointed to have to choose between Rice, UChicago, and Wellesley…three truly top schools), then it is truly about prestige. </p>
<p>If someone picks for the reasons that there are specifics about the school that match up with specific criteria the student has, and the school happens to also have a “name”, that is not a bad thing. Obviously, my kids didn’t say, no, I won’t go there because it also is considered prestigious. It is like some other purchases. My kids, nor I wear designer clothes. However, like others, we like nice things. We don’t go for the name but if we own something that is of quality, it is nice to own but the quality matters but not the name. One of my kids insisted on cutting off any outside labels on clothing when she was growing up, as she hated labels THAT much! So, like anyone, I like to own or do nice things of quality but the name or label is not my driving force. First, I look for something that I like or fits a need. If it also is of quality, that is a nice benefit too. But I don’t HAVE to have any certain names or brands, as long as I like the item. Some items I like are no name but I like them, so that is all that matters. If I own or do or go somewhere that is known in some way, it’s OK too. </p>
<p>One of my kid’s order of preference of the colleges on her list from favorite to least favorite (though she truly liked them all enough to attend), was not in order of prestige. She prefered some schools on her list over some others that were considered more prestigious and ranked higher (though she has never viewed or been aware of or discussed the USNews Rankings). Did she have some very well known schools on her list? Yes, indeed. But she picked them by her personal criteria and like I said, preferred some over others and her faves were not always the ones considered more prestigious. Some might apply to Harvard because it is, well, Harvard. While my D liked some things about Harvard, it did not meet all of her criteria as well as other schools and she chose not to apply. My other D who applied to well regarded BFA in musical theater programs, chose NOT to apply to one of the top ones in the country because it also did not meet her personal college criteria. The “best” only mattered if it was the “best for them.” If the “best for them” happened to be well known as well, that was OK. but the driving criteria was “best fit for them”. But they certainly would not DISMISS a school because it also had a “name”. They also would not PICK a school because it had a “name” if it didn’t also “fit them best.”</p>
<p>Drossel, I do recognize why some pick schools around prestige but that just was not my kids’ way of doing it and as I mentioned somewhere, we live where the issue of prestige with respect to colleges is almost nil. This is not a topic around our community.</p>
<p>Marmite-you get used to it. I guess you might call it an acquired taste. I lived in London for a few years, and it kind of grows on you, though I remember being revolted by it initially…salty meatish paste?</p>
<p>I might have gone to Kenyon. Great rep, they were paying. If I had wanted to do just about anything but math, that would have been the place.
Here’s something to consider:
Does anyone do any research about the quality of teaching at the schools?
I’m sure you’ve all heard zillions of horror stories of people stuck with a TA whose brilliance was inaccessible because of a language barrier. Or the prof who is too busy helping his graduate students or working on his next book to meet with you (blame the system?). This happens at most “top schools”, sorry to say.
My sister went to Skidmore. I went to visit her. I thought “Yeah, it’s an above average school.” I talked to many students, who all seemed thrilled to be there. Complete strangers are so friendly to each other, greeting each other as they pass on campus. They don’t want to come home for summers. It’s very beautiful. Certainly, they’ve got their quotient of Nobel laureates. But we were allowed to attend some classes, and I was more struck by the profs raw teaching ability. Not just their passion for a subject, which of course is infectious, but their classroom dynamic. Having trained thousands of teachers and those who train teachers, I’m not easily persuaded that someone is any good. Since then, I’ve suggested Skidmore as a place for students who are good academically (but perhaps not highly adrenalized and grade-motivated) and who are rather comfortable with themselves, and no one has reported anything but a fantastic experience there. It also seems that everyone has a friend or relative with the same story.
This message was paid for by a grant from Skidmore. (just kidding:).</p>
<p>Since arguably, much of what you learn at college could be learned on your own (the bookish stuff), isn’t the quality of the teaching a big part of what you are paying for? Wouldn’t that be a real distinction to look into, since much of your tuition is going to pay for professors and/or TA’s salaries? How many of you have not been impassioned by a subject until you had a great teacher? How many of you have been forever turned off by a subject because you had a teacher that was burned out from politics/the tenure system/low appreciation, and no longer had any empathy for the students?
Anyone aware of schools that are tops because of the instruction?</p>
<p>Xmere, good point.
Much as we can say the LSAT isn’t good at predicting one’s aptitude at the law, the current model has a rather steep curve which is very good at discriminating among students at the high end. I’ve tutored lots of Ivy undergrads, and you would not believe the massive range of scores on the test, even among kids that we would all class as smart upon meeting them, and who attend highly selective colleges. It does measure a certain set of abilities (and speed), and a few types of reasoning, some of which seem relevant to law school. People’s brains are wired very differently, and the LSAT just measures a few very specific parameters.</p>
<p>Montrose, good post. By the way, I am also someone who has trained teachers!</p>
<p>I know some excellent students who have chosen Skidmore. I also know a thing or two about the place. My husband grew up in Saratoga Springs. In HS, he took courses at Skidmore. My in laws still live there. In fact, for many years, my in laws have been auditing courses every semester along with the regular college aged students. Recently, on a visit, I went to class with my mother in law (father in law was in a different course at the same time). As it turns out, though my mother in law knew this, the professor for the course, was my colleague/peer back in graduate school when we both went to the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She went on for a PHD at UMichigan. So, here I was sitting in class, one with discussion, being taught by someone I went to school with. She was indeed passionate about her subject. </p>
<p>For my D who goes to Brown, because of the Open Curriculum, she can pick and choose her classes and so has some control over getting professors she would like to study with. They also have a shopping period so you can try out the class/professors and then decide. She has liked them all so far. I think the one she has liked the least was the one course she took this semester that she felt she needed for grad school. That was the one course she was taking because she “had” to, whereas her other courses have been ones she has WANTED to take and that really makes a difference in how the students react to the course and also how much they like the professor. My other D has been in all required courses her first year but has truly liked her teachers very much. I don’t know how much we checked out the teaching at each school but we did talk to current students and got a sense of things. We met with professors or dept. heads at most schools, though one can’t generalize about them all from those encounters. So far, so good, with regard to teachers since they got to college. </p>
<p>I do believe that some in academia might know their subject well but it does not mean that they teach well. There’s a difference. However, I know at Brown, they really do value the teaching and all professors teach undergraduates and so that sort of thing was a factor that we looked into. I know my kids have been able to meet one on one with any of their college teachers. I imagine at any educational institution at any level, there are very good teachers, mediocre teachers, and not so good teachers.</p>
<p>For one brief shining year, US News tried to take quality of teaching into account in ranking schools. I forget the methodology, but it seemed to be reasonable…not perfect, but reasonable.</p>
<p>The top two schools on the “national universities” list for quality of teaching were Dartmouth and Brown.</p>
<p>Like NSM has mentioned, Ivy degrees usually close doors outside the Northeast. Even if you’re hell-bent on attending name-brand colleges, you should consider the region where you plan to pursue your career when selecting your college.</p>
<p>For example, if you want to work in the Midwest, attending Northwestern, Notre Dame, Michigan, or Purdue, would be better than attending HYP: most of your professional colleagues including your supervisors would be alumni of regional schools. Similarly, for a career with a top Atlanta law firm, an undergraduate degree from UVA, Vandy, Duke, WashLee, etc. would be much more valuable than one from Harvard.</p>
<p>It seems that an overwhelming majority of Ivy grads live in the East/West Coasts, perhaps because they are most valued in the bicoastal areas.</p>
<p>SBMom, I’m not tsdad. Leave him alone.</p>
<p>Calmom:</p>
<p>I completely agree that your UC network opens a lot of doors. I have a wider view of “elite” than just Ivies! A UC degree is not a Podunk Community College degree.</p>
<p>"Also - I think you sell yourself sort with your anecdote about the volunteeer experience. My college dropout-out son has similar experiences - no sooner does he show up than they put him in charge. "</p>
<p>I agree with this too up to a point, but I am not talking about being in charge of a project or something, but such things as being put on the Board of Directors with the CEO’s etc. Of course my income is more likely the reason!!</p>
<p>All in all, though, hard work, intelligence, motivation, creativity and integrity will open the most doors, no matter what the school. The school just made it easier and faster, I think.</p>
<p>It is true about the regional value of a college. We’re in Florida, and a law degree from Harvard doesn’t mean much compared to one from UF. that being said, I’d prefer that my kids have the OPTION open to them to not stay down here with a regional degree. Who as a teenager knows where they’ll end up living and working.</p>
<p>With few exceptions, it seems that once you’re several years out of college, where your degree is from is immaterial. What matters is how competent you are. Period. (Unless you’re in academic medicine or law.)</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://college.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/view/?id=20&app=college]Nash[/url”>http://college.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/view/?id=20&app=college]Nash[/url</a>]</p>
<p>I have three kids and my youngest, a daughter, is currently the only one left in college; son # 2 just graduated from state U with a degree in music! Son #1 is a HS English teacher (and I could not be more proud of that). </p>
<p>My D just complete her first year at Barnard College in NYC. She chose that school after a rather agonizing college search period because of her combination of interests (kind of similar to Soozievts ds): dance/musical theater combined with a desire for a broad liberal arts education. She was accepted into the same state U that her brothers attended (which has become increasingly selective as we have the Hope grant which has made it essentially free for good students),as well as U Mich. and Barnard. Barnard has been absolutely perfect for her and, I must say, well worth the added expense.</p>
<p>The point is this: Any ultimately successful college search must of course include not only careful consideration of the schools in question but of the students needs/desires/motivations. Neither of my sons would have wanted to attend college in NYC (Columbia), but my daughter would have been absolutely miserable (I believe) had she stayed in state.</p>
<p>“This happens at most “top schools”, sorry to say.”</p>
<p>No - it happens at some top schools. I know for a fact that Princeton and Dartmouth emphasize undergraduate instruction; professors teach their own classes. At Brown, grad students do teach lower level courses. At the LACs, it rarely happens. At Amherst or Williams, you get the professor. I’m sure you get grad students at a large universities like Duke and MIT, although the percentage of classes taught by them probably varies by discipline.</p>
<p>You can tell which colleges emphasize undergraduate education because those schools will make a point of saying something like, “All classes are taught by our professors, not by graduate students” at some point during a tour or information session. Those that don’t mention it will probably rely on grad students for many of the lower level classes. Note that at all schools, professors teach upper level courses. The grad students simply don’t have the knowledge to do it. No professor, at any university, can get away without teaching at all. (The science professors tend to have much lighter teaching loads because their salaries are subsidized by research grants.)</p>
<p>BTW, you will get grad students teaching classes at the large public universities as well.</p>
<p>I didn’t have too many grad students - one in first year German, a few TAs in lecture courses. I can only think of one TA I didn’t think was excellent. I don’t think TAs are always a bad thing. They are closer to the material, they aren’t yet bored with teaching. I think the danger comes when students are forced to take too many lecture courses - especially early on.</p>
<p>At Brown, all faculty teach and advise undergraduates. </p>
<p>I also believe all courses are taught by professors. I have not heard of grad students teaching lower level courses at Brown. I have only heard of grad students being TAs for sections.</p>
<p>"At Brown, all faculty teach and advise undergraduates. "</p>
<p>That’s wrong. When my husband taught there, I took undergraduate courses in creative writing. My first class was taught by a grad student.</p>