Your kid takes the top scholarship instead of the top school. What's next?

Parents Forum
181

<p>Let me attempt to provide executive summary of the conversation. When does it pay to go to a lower tier school when you are preferentially packaged. (aka top dollar vs top school).</p>

<p>The child has to exactly know what his/her ultimate career goal is. That makes it easy to use the first four years as a stepping stone. Also when you are preferentially packaged (whether it is Duke, Vanderbilt or Emory or Smith or Hamilton) you do carry a halo.</p>

<p>In case of cur’s daughter she knew she wants to be a physician. So in ’09 what would she need for medical school admission?</p>

<p>a. High MCAT score (MCAT test does not care whether she went to Yale or Rhodes).
b. High GPA – This would not be hard. Rhodes after all is less competitive than Yale.
c. Research work and possible a publication or two in a very reputable hospital (St. Jude), i.e. an impressive resume – Guaranteed Perk
d. Great recommendations – with a small size school she would definitely know few people.
e. People Skills – The other perks will help her in the medical school interview process.
f. Low or zero debt – guaranteed by the school.</p>

<p>And going to Rhodes meets all those objectives.</p>

<p>If your child has interest in areas that the first four years do not strengthen or make you suitable for advance career the choice may not be as good. For example if cur’s daughter wants to do Ph. D in mole bio or quantum physics or economics, the four years at Rhodes may not help her much. If she did not want to continue further and enter the job market, the four years at Rhodes may not help much either (due to lack of high number of employers visiting the campus). Also, as many posters have pointed out, if you change your mind, you may not have much choices to switch to.</p>

<p>I think the key is to extract something in addition to money that would enhance your future goals.</p>

182

<p>So many posters seem to have kids who are already committed to a field of study and a career. Having spent 20 years in higher education, I’ve found so many students who go in with plans to do one thing and then switch, often multiple times. My own daughter is smart but has multiple and diverse interests and is no way ready to commit to a major. Thus one decision rule we can’t use is to find a school with a top program in x field. She will have go somewhere with multiple strong programs and with a focus on developing core skills – analytical thinking, ethical reasoning, quantitative abilities, writing, speaking, and working with others. I tend to think LACs give strong, well-rounded educations, but we haven’t gotten admissions/financial aid decisions from those yet, and this information will have to play a role.</p>

<p>We’ve done relatively few college visits and were planning on visiting some after getting the acceptances and financial aid packages. But given some costs coming up in the next few months, I’m not sure we can put in thousands of dollars into such visits. And part of me thinks that she will do fine wherever she goes.</p>

183

<p>I have an “acting career”??? </p>

<p>What’s <em>that</em> comment about?</p>

<p>There are way too many of these to “name names.” You can do the research as well as I can. I can name 3 immediately, very local to me, but there’s no need to offend or inflame. There are a number in the East I can think of.</p>

184

<p>simba, very clear and very true. but don’t let it end this discussion. don’t make me hope for an ultimate frisbee scandal to enhance the longevity of this thread!</p>

<p>oh, epi,it was an oblique reference to McCarthy trials(happy st.patty day) during which actors were required to name names or else their careers suffered,…the blacklist. Hoping you might name the schools of dreary sameness.</p>

<p>Ok, i will google ‘mediocre sameness’</p>

185

<p>Thank you for post #161, tarhunt. Many excellent insights there, to my mind.

There may be some tendency here (and IRL) to stereotype high-SAT kids as one-dimensional. But it doesn’t begin to touch the stereotyping here in this thread of kids who test well (1250…1300ish), but not as well. To presume that they are less interesting, dynamic, talented, motivated, lively – based on that one number?! It boggles my mind.</p>

<p>And I think our varying views on that precise question explain the lion’s share of the varying viewpoints on this thread.</p>

<p>What the CEEB hath wrought!</p>

186

<p>OK.</p>

<p>Diving in. Happy Day after St. Patrick’s Day. momfromme, this post is kind of for you.</p>

<p>Background: 1 D at Princeton who turned down a Regent’s at Berkeley and was in the running for an Alumni scholarship. 1 S now a junior.</p>

<p>When I read through this thread there are many things I’d like to address but won’t, i.e. the relationship of SATs to recognizable traits of intelligence. But I do have a thought for the parents and kids making this choice now.</p>

<p>Let’s assume we are discussing kids who are in the SAT 1450 and greater, GPA and class rank top, plus sports, journalism, arts, community service etc. that place them square in the middle of admits to tippy top ranked schools. Here’s what I see.</p>

<p>The kids described in this thread who have a definable interest and perhaps even a career choice have done very well to choose the $$$ when they determine that their interest area is well-supported where they matriculate. i.e. I agree with simba.</p>

<p>The kids in this thread who have always self-selected to hang with the top students find the top students wherever they are and do very well and happily with their peers.</p>

<p>Kids who like small colleges do very well at LACs.</p>

<p>But here was our situation. D would have nothing to do with LACs - wanted somewhere larger. D is also omnivorous, favorite courses to date have been a religion class on the Gospels, an 18th century English literature class, Introduction to Neuroscience, and Mandarin 101. Two classes with fewer than 12 kids, one large lecture, and an intensive language class. At the UCs she would not have been able to find her way into this set of classes as a freshman and sophomore. Not these days. Not with the budget issues and crowding etc. A focused bio major? He/she would do great at Cal. A focused politics major? He/she would do great at Cal. D? Not so optimal.</p>

<p>Also, D never liked to hang out with the other top students. She likes the “regular” kids (her language). </p>

<p>So for her, a university with 5000 undergrads, top faculty in all departments, and a place where even the “regular” kids are her academic match has made this her perfect spot. </p>

<p>Rhodes wouldn’t have worked for D. Penn State wouldn’t have worked for D. So would Duke, or Rice or Wash U, had she applied, offered her $$$$, would that have been as good or better of a choice for her? Well, with any luck we will have a chance to find out with S.</p>

187

<p>Thank you, Alumother, very helpful. My d also likes the regular kids and has such an amazingly varied group of friends. In Maine you don’t have the same class differentiation in schools as you often find in urban/suburban areas, so her friends vary from kids with a single parent on welfare to kids whose parents are both doctors. One thing d does not like are loud drunks and people whose main interest in life is watching sports - so she does not want a place where partying goes on a lot. She should end up with some good choices and I’m hoping that the process itself will lead to some learning. </p>

<p>I’m not sure she will have the absolute best fit, but I also am wary about that idea altogether.</p>

188

<p>I also like Tarhunt’s post #161. </p>

<p>In addition, I do think big-time sports, weather, hot members of the opposite sex, can add a lot to a college experience.</p>

<p>I don’t agree with Simba’s summing up thread. Post #181.</p>

<p>There is no summing up. There are many different great choices for many different great people.</p>

<p>There isn’t going to be a summing up.</p>

189

<p>Way too oblique in this context, rorosen. When people are discussing colleges, they’re not thinking about blacklisting & the McCarthy trials, for heaven’s sake. I’m talking about quite a bit of past but ongoing investigation into profiles of admitted students & programs at the colleges, & visits by students, colleagues, friends; blogs; CC visit reports; and most importantly, the range/variety of high schools represented at those colleges. Actually visiting a number of classes at said colleges, noticing the class participation level & quality by students; additionally conversations of or with those students outside of class. Not that difficult to determine whether there’s a spark of intellect, curiosity, enthusiasm, creativity. Really not that difficult.</p>

190

<p>I think the last few pages demonstrate why it is fairly useless to try to have a rational discussion on these boards.</p>

<p>I wrote an angle on this discussion focusing on differentiation. It took a fair amount of time to write. I thought it raised some interesting issues or, at the very least, presented the issue from a new angle that could prove useful in the ongoing discussion. I did this deliberately because I assumed that post would receive no comment. It didn’t. </p>

<p>I then posted something that is quite true. ON AVERAGE, take a class with 1500 SATs and one with 1200 SATs and the probability that the class with higher SATs will be more interesting, smarter (and whatever else I said) is high. Very few (if any) noticed the words “average” or “probability.” </p>

<p>I am completely convinced that, if I were given NO OTHER DATA other than SAT scores, I would have a much higher PROBABILITY of assembling an interesting, intelligent, and learned class with high scores than with low ones.</p>

<p>Now, here’s what’s going to happen. I am about to be assailed with anecdotal data. The reasoning is going to be that because there are a few exceptions, the issue of “average” and “probability” are refuted. Next, I’m going to be told that the SATs have no relationship with college grades, a supposition that is prima facie wrong based on available evidence, not to mention that the methodology involved in deriving this relationship probably understates the relationship.</p>

<p>Trying to have substantive discussion on these boards is not, in my opinion, a useful objective.</p>

191

<p>Tarhunt, I think you missed posts #185 and posts #188. The reason I didn’t comment more on post #161 was because it was a well written, well thought out post. I didn’t really think I could improve or add too much to it.</p>

<p>People can have rational discussions and disagree with you.</p>

192

<p>epiph: re:engineering. That is exactly what Olin is trying to find and nuture, hence all the strong “arts” aspects of their students. Many other schools engineering programs are starting to move this way too.</p>

193

<p>Tarhunt, hence my avoidance of that discussion. I too, maybe six months ago, found myself typing in all caps, ON AVERAGE. ON AVERAGE. I know exactly what you mean and ON AVERAGE you are probably correct:).</p>

194

<p>Okay, tarhunt. I think that while you are posting, perhaps you are not reading. Happens to a lot of us on discussion boards because they move on while we think/write.</p>

<p>Because there were, in fact, comments - only appreciative ones that I saw, re your different angle post.</p>

<p>Re “average” and “probability” on your 1200 vs 1500 SAT post. Well, okay. I did <em>lose</em> that distinction. But I think it’s a meaningless one. A class of 12 kids with 6 at 900 and 6 at 1600 “averages” 1250 - not highly likely. I think you may have said, and meant, average. But I think the scenario only makes sense if we picture a class where the SAT score is a mode, not a mean.</p>

<p>And I stand by my shock and awe that anyone would use that number to guess at the probability of having- or for that matter attempt to hand select - a group that is “far more lively, talented, and interesting…”</p>

<p>You did not say, tarhunt, in that original post that the “on average” 1500 kids would be smarter. On that, it would be hard for me to disagree on most measures of “smartness.” You said that they would be more talented, lively and interesting. Is that what you really meant?</p>

195

<p>gee, epiphany, maybe you’re not such a big fan of quirky and colorful as you think. From now on, I’ll try to be more mediocre,…</p>

196

<p>

</p>

<p>I have a higher standard for “rational” that you do, I suspect. What I see on academic boards is often heated, but always rational. No one gets away with defying the rules of logic on those boards. On this one, what passes for “rationality” is “Tarhunt, are you serious?”</p>

<p>Useful comment, that. Right?</p>

197

<p>Tarhunt means, I believe, assuming the topic is an academic topic. Nobody would say that SAT scores would determine whether a lively, interesting, dynamic discussion is being held unless they mean that topic was derived from analyzing texts and studying problem solving modes and doing labs etc.</p>

<p>He just means that SAT scores probably, in general, will have an impact on say 25 people’s ability to have a complex academic discussion.</p>

<p>Oh, maybe it’s mode. I’m bad at math.</p>

<p>Anyway, I said I wouldn’t get into this particular discussion because I always get accused of nasty nasty character traits when I do… Sayonara…</p>

198

<p>Reflectivemom,</p>

<p>Your S sounds like mine in many, many ways. He has “the package” but no interest in Ivies. For him, college is about being with a group of people who lean towards the intellectual, not the ambitious. He is developing a nice list of top 50 schools (public and private) that meet his criteria and would offer a shot at decent merit $$.</p>

<p>He has known many kids who applied HPYSM because that’s what was expected of them, not because there was something intrinsic about that school that made it a perfect choice. He is SO not about that!</p>

<p>One of the schools on his list is known for “showing the love” to kids from our school, and he has interviewed for summer mentorships there. They tell him about kids who come in and take upper-level and graduate courses in the first year, and based on the school’s history, he would have a good shot at big merit $$. He had a 45-minute appointment with one prof last week that turned into two hours. The grin on my son’s face when he finally emerged from the building was priceless. But – what is the tradeoff for taking grad-level classes as a 17 yo at the lower end of a top 50 vs. the research possibilities and name value of a top 25?</p>

<p>It is seductive as all get out, and I find myself being affected by the love this school is showing. I don’t think of the place as a “safety”’ school any more. To a 16 year old, the pull of demonstrated interest must be irresistible.</p>

<p>Cur, thanks for starting this topic and putting yourself out there on this!</p>

199

<p>Tarhunt, you are so right. What took you so long. BTW, your other post is a very fine one.</p>

200

<p>I feel that I have an anecdote that would be useful in this topic. I know most of these posts are from parents about their college-age children, but here I am, a HS junior soon to face this exact problem, and the story is about my dad.</p>

<p>My dad was always a high achiever. Merit Scholarship, 1560 or something on the SAT, and all that. He had lived in California all his life, and he loved it. So he applied to college there. The way it turned out, he wound up with two choices: San Diego State, which offered him such a hefty scholarship that if he lived at home (about three blocks away) he would actually be making money by going there, and Caltech. </p>

<p>I asked him about this a few weeks ago, and he told me that he thought about it for a few days, and San Diego State won out easily. When asked about getting the better and more “brand-name” education at Caltech, he just shrugged and said that he didn’t really notice any problems with his classes. I really don’t think my dad was hurt by San Diego State. He still managed to get into USC medical school later and have a successful career. And after paying off med school loans for twenty years, he said that he was really happy he had gone to San Diego State and avoided all that extra debt. So I guess it’s really up to the individual case- quite often, a good scholarship can make a less-prestigious school worthwhile.</p>