<p>
</p>
<p>No, we all don’t “know” that. You just made that up, honestly.</p>
<p>
SecondToGo, who transferred, claims multiple reasons the educational experience is better at the more selective school.<br>
- The amount of work is greater (a lot more reading expected)
- The expectations of the professors are higher (they expect better papers and give harder tests).
- Overall the students are more engaged in their education
- Overall the level of discussion is higher</p>
<p>I believe students can receive a fine education at lots of colleges (hundreds at least) however I don’t for a minute buy the argument that history is history or calculus is calculus wherever it is taught. The belief that Calculus I at UMass Boston and at MIT will be the same (or equivalent) experience is a belief I have a real hard time trying to get my head around.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is any need to try to argue that Directional U offers everything that Yale does, academically. Even if the professors were just as good, they almost certainly aren’t going to be teaching exactly the same materials. I teach at a great school. I also tutor in a program in the community designed to give support to non-traditional students, many of whom are enrolled in directional schools. I think I could teach a fantastic literature class for these students, but I wouldn’t include the most difficult novels you see on the elite school syllabi, and the assignments would probably have to be modified somewhat. If money were no object, I would always advise going to the top school.</p>
<p>But money is an object for many people, so the question becomes, not “which school is better,” but “how great are the advantages offered by the better school and do they outweigh the cost differential” ? That answer depends on a variety of factors. In my case, for instance, I think that, had I not gotten financial aid to go to my Ivy, the answer to the second question would have been “yes” if the other option had been a directional, and “no” if the other option had been my state’s (non Michigan or UVA or Berkeley) flagship. That isn’t to say I didn’t greatly appreciate the education I got, but frankly, once we’re talking about respectable schools with some fine students and great professors, the “added bonus” is, to me, in the realm of luxury. Great if you can afford it, probably even worth some non-oppressive debt burden, but not something worth delaying retirement until 75 or never taking another vacation in your life. And of course, for some people, even doing those things wouldn’t be enough, as the money simply was never there in the first place.</p>
<p>By the way, out of curiosity I recently looked up three people who had been assistant profs when I was an undergrad. Since assistant professors at Ivies rarely get tenure at those institutions, I was unsurprised to see that none of them were still there. All now have tenure elsewhere - one at another elite, one at a directional, and one, ironically, at the state school I would have gone to had the aid not worked out.</p>
<p>Ultraguy, you’re right. It’s exactly the same. You win. I feel sorry for the dupes who go to Yale when they could be having just as rich an intellectual experience at Southern CT State or U Conn Stamford. Boy those people in CT are dumb dumb dumb.</p>
<p>3togo remarks that Calculus I at UMass Boston and at MIT are probably different. I would certainly agree with this. I would guess, however, that the majority of students taking Calc I at MIT have already had some calculus in high school, and I would guess/hope that there is a Calc I-ish course at MIT designed with that in mind. Quite a few of the Calc I students at UMass Boston are probably encountering calculus for the first time.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I suspect that the differential between the courses changes somewhat as the level increases. I took a look at the UMass Boston math courses listed on the web, since I am not familiar with their department. My guess would be that Math 450, An Introduction to Real Analysis, is easier than real analysis at MIT. This is a required course for B.S. math majors at UMass Boston. On the other hand, Math 454, Analysis on Manifolds, is probably coming closer to the corresponding MIT course.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if a student goes to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the math course offerings are somewhat different. Honors calculus is offered, for example. I doubt that it is quite at the MIT level, but it’s probably much closer. There is a Putnam-prep seminar. If a student takes Math 623 Real Analysis I at UMass Amherst, I would guess that it is pretty close to the MIT course. Math 623 is a beginning graduate course, intended to prepare grad students for qualifiers, but can (I presume) be taken by an undergrad who is ready for it. Topics in Geometry, Partial Differential Equations (700 level) and Knot Theory look to me as though they would be quite comparable to the courses on offer at MIT.</p>
<p>I do think that a very few students–maybe 100 in the country–need to have the option of challenging courses that are designated as undergrad courses, such as the advanced MIT undergrad courses. A student who should logically start as a freshman in a 700-level (advanced graduate) math course at UMass Amherst probably should not go there. However, even this relatively moderate opinion about college choice has some strong opponents on CC.</p>
<p>Re: calculus at different schools</p>
<p>MIT is a special case, since it compresses what is typically three semesters of calculus into two semesters. An honors version with more theory is offered. Note that MIT does allow AP calculus scores for subject credit for the non-honors first semester.</p>
<p>Harvard may be more interesting to look at. It offers the following math courses that frosh might take:</p>
<p>Ma-Mb: slow paced calculus, like high school AP calculus AB (Ma-Mb = 1a)
1a-1b: regular frosh calculus (AP calculus AB = 1a, AP calculus BC = 1a-1b)
21a-21b: regular sophomore math
23a-23b: honors sophomore math
25a-25b: next level honors sophomore math
55a-55b: highest level honors sophomore/junior math</p>
<p>So we see offerings ranging from almost-remedial level (Ma-Mb) to one of the hardest frosh math courses around (55a-55b).</p>
<p>Quant Mech- U Mass Amherst is not a directional State U. It is the flagship public university in Massachusetts.</p>
<p>The claim is that a directional offers the same academic/intellectual experience as a top U. So we’re talking Framingham State (which was a former teacher’s college in Massachusetts before it became part of the university system.) You’re not seriously claiming that a kid interested in math (who will take it at Framingham state either in order to satisfy a distribution requirement, or in order to become a 7th grade math teacher) is going to have the same intellectual orientation and quantitative/problem-solving as a kid taking the U Mass Amherst Putnam sequence?</p>
<p>That’s a preposterous claim to me, and I’ve known a lot of very capable students at Framingham State who indeed, became middle school math teachers. And very good ones at that. But none of them are winning Putnam’s. And studying math with them is NOT the same classroom experience, however fine the math professor may be, as studying math at a large research U.</p>
<p>Ultra, I know, it’s the same. But other than you, nobody else who knows the world of global mathematical problem-solving thinks it’s the same.</p>
<p>this has been really interesting, and civil. thanks.</p>
<p>blossom, I am not sure that we disagree on the over-arching topic of the thread. I agree that a “directional state university” is not going to offer much like the courses on offer at MIT or other “top” schools. I am not trying to equate UMass Amherst with UMass Boston or other public universities in Massachusetts (perhaps between those two?). On the other hand, I am not sure that we have a clear-cut definition of “mediocre public school” from the OP–although since we are now on post #874, it might have been delineated, and I might have forgotten that. </p>
<p>The OP might consider UMass Amherst to be a “mediocre public school.” It isn’t Berkeley, Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill, UIUC or a few other places. At a guess, it isn’t close to Wisconsin. However, I think that the majority of strong math students would find it challenging and academic enough, particularly if they took grad courses as undergrads. (For a few students, this would not apply.)</p>
<p>
If you run Net Price Calculators with typical US income/assets, you’ll come to a different conclusion. For example, the median household income in the US was $51k last year. With $50k income, $50k assets, 4 in family, and 1 in college; the NPCs return the following costs (assuming in state for Florida):</p>
<p>Yale – $4400 ($1600 cost to parents + $2800 student earnings)
Florida – $9444 ($156 cost to parents + $3000 student earnings + $6288 student loan)</p>
<p>In this example, Yale is less than half the net price of Florida.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone with critical thinking skills would realize that whatever that number is, is meaningless unless you know what % of Yale’s APPLICANT pool comes from households where the net worth is only 50K, AND whether that applicant pool was as competitive as the applicant pool of those with higher net worth. </p>
<p>And of course there’s the little matter of Questbridge, which shows that top schools do care about attracting those who cannot necessarily pay.</p>
<p>But, go ahead and believe what you want to believe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s extremely relevant.<br>
If you were to find that (for example) 30% of Yale students were wealthy (however you are defining wealthy), you would conclude two different things if:</p>
<p>A) Only 15% of Yale applicants were wealthy. That would tell you that they “over-accept” wealthy students.
B) A full 60% of Yale applicants were wealthy, That would tell you that they “under-accept” wealthy students relative to their presence in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>This isn’t rocket science. Make the numbers 40, 20 and 80 if you like. The point is, knowing the applicant pool composition is the baseline.</p>
<p>Look, if I said that 10% of Yale students were from California and 9% were from Rhode Island, would you say that Yale clearly prefers Californians? Or would you intuitively think - gosh, that’s a lot of Rhode Islanders. Either Yale loves Rhode Islanders, or a heck of a lot of them apply because it’s so close. This is the same principle here. You need to understand acceptance RELATIVE TO AN APPLICANT POOL to be meaningful. have a nice day.</p>
<p>
I don’t think a $50k net worth is unreasonably low for a $50k income, considering the median household net worth in the US was $67k in 2010. However, if you increase assets to $100k, then Yale drops to well under half the price of Florida.</p>
<p>Yale – $4,600 ($1600 parents + $2800 job)
Florida – $10,764 ($1476 parents + $3000 job + $6288 loan)</p>
<p>Harvard mentions ~20% of families have a low enough income and assets to pay nothing. I’d expect a similar range for Yale. Obviously median income for Yale parents is quite different from the overall median in the US, but there are a still a notable portion of families who are not wealthy. The majority of students at both Harvard and Yale receive financial aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no doubt that GU is need-blind in its admissions process, once an application is submitted.</p>
<p>However, GU’s strong reliance on test scores inhibits the low income app pool; in addition, its focus on test scores (does any other college “strongly recommend” three subject test scores?) also hinders the acceptances of low income kids (since test scores are positively related to income).</p>
<p>In essence, GU’s interest in high test scores (and rankings??) works to the detriment of its Jesuit philosophy.</p>
<p>Need-blind also means wealth-blind. Like it or not. You can look at the app and see a kid’s parent is a neurosurgeon, but they can also check the FA box. I keep saying that, ime, the percentage of discretionary admits (that mongo donor’s kid) is quite small. All candidates enter the same admissions fray. The distinctions between top achiever in some hs and a kid who presents a compelling case for, say, an Ivy- is huge.</p>
<p>OP never said why his relative needed a top school- just that she’s a soph who seems val quality, is dreaming of Harvard. Likely, she’s barely started the more rigorous courses in her hs. I don’t think he said STEM, though this young girl also has an idea of getting a PhD (again, field not specified.)</p>
<p>Just because it’s not rocket science doesn’t mean assumptions have wings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t hinder the acceptance of SMART low-income kids, though. Any individual smart low-income kid is not at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Agree. Low income doesn’t automatically equate to lower scores. Surprisingly, it doesn’t mean they haven’t taken rigorous courses or scored well on AP exams, either. Even in my own community, where I know which hs have lower reps, more issues, a larger % of financially challenged families, I see how strong their top kids can be.</p>
<p>GU and GWU are really not the best examples to use.</p>
<p>What article came out a week ago or so about Georgetown? Were you perhaps referring to the recent news on George Washington instead? I feel the reference could be George Washington and as a side note, it was discovered by the independent student newspaper, The Hatchet.</p>
<p>percentage of full-time, first-time undergrads 2011-12 in various income categories at 100 top schools. From IPEDS database. I sure hope I calculated these correctly…it was a little complicated.</p>
<p>$0-30K, $30-48K, $48-75K, $75-110K, $110K+, school</p>
<p>14% 8% 9% 16% 53% California Institute of Technology
15% 13% 15% 16% 41% Harvey Mudd College
15% 13% 17% 14% 42% Massachusetts Institute of Technology
9% 6% 13% 21% 52% Washington University in St Louis
17% 24% 24% 12% 23% Harvard University
34% 28% 22% 10% 7% Princeton University
18% 15% 19% 15% 34% Vanderbilt University
14% 13% 15% 17% 41% Columbia University in the City of New York
15% 10% 17% 20% 40% Northwestern University
22% 16% 16% 16% 30% Rice University
18% 21% 18% 13% 30% Stanford University
17% 10% 14% 21% 39% University of Chicago
25% 17% 20% 6% 32% Yale University
15% 11% 15% 19% 40% Carnegie Mellon University
9% 12% 15% 17% 47% Duke University
11% 13% 18% 18% 40% University of Pennsylvania
7% 14% 16% 21% 42% Dartmouth College
20% 26% 16% 14% 25% Pomona College
14% 11% 14% 19% 43% Tufts University
20% 14% 16% 20% 29% University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
9% 10% 12% 17% 52% University of Notre Dame
14% 10% 14% 22% 40% Bowdoin College
11% 12% 12% 18% 48% Carleton College
13% 13% 17% 19% 39% Cornell University
15% 19% 23% 12% 31% Swarthmore College
23% 12% 16% 7% 42% Amherst College
9% 12% 16% 18% 44% Brown University
12% 9% 18% 18% 43% Case Western Reserve University
14% 14% 10% 25% 36% Claremont McKenna College
22% 15% 19% 16% 28% Emory University
23% 16% 19% 19% 23% Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus
16% 16% 16% 14% 38% Haverford College
11% 11% 13% 19% 45% Johns Hopkins University
11% 7% 15% 20% 47% Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
14% 12% 20% 16% 38% Wesleyan University
25% 29% 23% 15% 8% Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
20% 11% 16% 15% 39% Georgetown University
21% 13% 21% 21% 25% Grinnell College
14% 6% 15% 25% 40% Hamilton College
7% 7% 18% 22% 47% Middlebury College
13% 8% 11% 18% 51% Northeastern University
38% 19% 17% 9% 16% University of California-Berkeley
16% 12% 18% 21% 32% University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
16% 12% 13% 14% 44% University of Southern California
12% 18% 20% 18% 32% Vassar College
12% 10% 14% 18% 46% Washington and Lee University
23% 13% 17% 16% 31% Williams College
15% 8% 14% 18% 46% Boston College
15% 14% 23% 25% 23% Colgate University
15% 13% 20% 18% 35% Davidson College
12% 11% 18% 22% 37% Macalester College
43% 15% 12% 16% 14% Polytechnic Institute of New York University
14% 9% 11% 24% 43% Stevens Institute of Technology
15% 12% 15% 21% 37% University of Rochester
18% 11% 15% 20% 35% University of Virginia-Main Campus
21% 13% 17% 12% 37% Wellesley College
6% 9% 20% 27% 38% Colby College
15% 12% 20% 23% 31% Colorado School of Mines
11% 9% 15% 22% 42% Lehigh University
23% 12% 14% 17% 35% New York University
23% 13% 18% 17% 30% Reed College
22% 11% 15% 18% 35% University of Miami
15% 17% 18% 19% 31% Barnard College
17% 15% 16% 20% 32% Brandeis University
12% 11% 14% 19% 44% Bucknell University
12% 12% 15% 22% 39% College of William and Mary
8% 9% 11% 24% 48% Oberlin College
19% 11% 16% 18% 37% Scripps College
28% 13% 14% 17% 28% SUNY at Binghamton
15% 10% 15% 17% 44% Tulane University of Louisiana
18% 14% 18% 24% 27% University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
16% 11% 22% 19% 32% University of Richmond
9% 13% 22% 25% 32% University of Wisconsin-Madison
15% 7% 13% 20% 45% Boston University
15% 10% 21% 20% 35% Colorado College
11% 11% 15% 20% 43% George Washington University
11% 8% 15% 25% 42% Gettysburg College
29% 22% 17% 16% 16% Illinois Institute of Technology
7% 6% 11% 14% 63% Kenyon College
10% 9% 14% 23% 45% Lafayette College
19% 16% 20% 23% 22% Missouri University of Science and Technology
18% 12% 21% 23% 26% Ohio State University-Main Campus
35% 18% 17% 13% 17% University of California-Los Angeles
17% 13% 19% 19% 32% University of Maryland-College Park
23% 17% 17% 18% 24% University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
10% 9% 13% 18% 51% Villanova University
7% 10% 23% 21% 38% Wheaton College
8% 11% 13% 18% 51% Whitman College
73% 13% 7% 7% 0% Denison University
10% 7% 11% 21% 51% Dickinson College
18% 13% 19% 26% 24% Kettering University
19% 11% 22% 13% 34% Occidental College
15% 8% 14% 25% 39% Pitzer College
14% 9% 14% 12% 52% Santa Clara University
19% 12% 21% 16% 32% Southern Methodist University
41% 14% 14% 13% 18% Stony Brook University
22% 8% 14% 23% 34% SUNY College at Geneseo
35% 20% 18% 13% 14% The University of Texas at Dallas
8% 15% 11% 18% 49% Trinity College
11% 10% 18% 24% 38% University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus</p>
<p>Note that the income brackets listed are not equal size.</p>
<p>If the distribution matched the household income distribution in the US exactly, it would be something like:</p>
<p>30% 18% 20% 15% 17%</p>
<p>However, the household income distribution is shifted upward for households headed by someone 45-54, which is a more likely origin for traditional college students attending college right after high school. But detailed income distribution for that subset of households is not as readily available.</p>