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

busyparent · March 18, 2007, 3:57pm

Isn’t college supposed to prepare our children for the “real” world?

I went from a well regarded white, affluent public high school to a top 50 white,affluent LAC. I had a good experience, made friends, learned etc. I then took a minimum wage job at the bottom of the health care world working second shift before going on to grad school. With the exception of one other employee I was the only white employee and the only college educated employee on my shift in the whole building.

I learned about race relations, black on black prejudice (“I only date light skinned black people because they are better than dark skinned black people”), making ends meet with minimum wage salaries, and the strong work ethic of many low wage earners.

I still work in the medical field. I use what I learned in college/ grad school but I also use what I learned from my minimum wage, bottom of the rung job. I am not always surrounded by the bightest and whitest at work or in the grocery store or the target.

My kids went to an affluent,white public high school. The first one went to a white, affluent LAC and struggled academically and is a bit of a snob when it comes to entry level jobs. My next one went to a lower tier school and is exposed to bright kids and not as bright kids. That child is home for break this week and I asked them if they felt challenged at a school that was not the top school they could have attended and the answer was yes. She went on to say that there are discussions that are not always stimulating and kids who are not always prepared however.

When these kids enter the work force they will work with people who are not always stimulating or prepared. I think my second one will be better prepared to listen to and appreciate what everyone brings to the table. I know I am a more understanding employer/coworker of minimum wage earners because I used to be one.

EMM1 · March 18, 2007, 3:58pm

To go back to the original issue:

S1 will be attending an elite LAC, paying full price. We allowed him to make that choice because of implied commitments over a number of years. If I had it to do over again, I would not have made those commitments.

First, the idea that a kid or his parents “knows” what school would make him happy in even the short run is fatuous. Certainly, one can make judgments about what schools would probably not be good choices–Vassar for football-loving engineering students, RPI for arty-hippie types. But beyond that, its basically a crapshoot.

Second, the correlation between selectivity and educational quality is tenuous at best. Admittedly, one probably learns more from smart peers, but professors at more selective schools are not chosen for their teaching ability.

Thus, we are left with an investment decision, made more complicated by the fact that one person (the parent) is paying while another (the child) is benefiting. The reality is that (athletics aside) any person who could be admitted to an elite or semi-elite school can go tuition free to Richmond, SMU , or some similar school. Moreover, if the person is an NMF, he can get a full, athletic-style ride to an honors program at a state flagship school such as Arizona, Arizona State, or Oklahoma. Leaving the possiblity of need-based aid aside, we’re talking about a difference of 150K-200K after taxes. When the foregone income from the additional investment is figured in, we’re talking at least an addition 25K-30K per year in salary to pay off that investment over 10 years.

Now, one might say that it is easier to get into a top professional school from an elite college or university. But I don’t think that that is so, once you adjust for the likely difference in academic performance (that is, a person is much likely to excel academically at a less selective school). Just look at the figures for admittance to Harvard Law School, published (somewhere) on their website. Except for Havard and Yale specifically, once one adjusts for initial selectivity (the students at more selective schools would project to be better testers), there appears to be no great advantage in having gone to a more selective school.

Verdict: Not worth the extra money

higherlead · March 18, 2007, 4:04pm

The SAT measures mathematical ability most any 8th grader should be able to master and reading comprehension and vocabularly. Not sure that those things correllate in any discernable way with interesting and lively. If I want interesting and lively classes I’d try to get kids who are well read in a variety of subjects, come from varying regions and backgrounds and with different political and religious beliefs.

In any event what curr and Tarhunt are arguing about is a testable hypothesis and I’d be willing to bet Tarhunt couldn’t pick the 1500’s from the 1300’s in a given class without their SAT scores to look at. The computer doesn’t get curiouser just because it cycles faster.

reflectivemom · March 18, 2007, 4:04pm

Well, I’ll try to better explain what my son is looking for - if it helps further the discussion.

My son has definitely decided he wants to be with other “high ability” kids - not necessarily the same as “high achieving” kids. He’d rather be with B students who scored 1500+ on SAT’s than A students who scored 1350. The perfect 1600 means nothing to him - in fact, it usually means “drilled” to perfection. But, those that don’t make 220 or so on the PSAT are below his target level.

And, it’s not just about academics. He’s found the same preference in musicians, athletes, etc.

He’d rather be in a class with the brilliant math kids who don’t turn in boring homework and get zeros. Or the science kids who “nailed” the conclusions in the lab but didn’t neccesarily type up the 10 page lab report to perfection.

He’d rather be with musicians who absolutely “get” music theory and can jam and improvise with a musicality totally absent in the more practiced technically perfect but boring violinist.

He’d rather play golf with a bogey golfer that keeps the game moving than a par golfer that lines up every shot from two different directions and takes 3 practice swings before hitting the ball.

He’s rather be cast in the musical/play with other gifted actors who may not perfectly memorize their lines but improvise and interact with a synergy that makes everyone in the audience feel engaged and involved in the action.

And, no, he absolutely has no interest in attending a college where he would be the top student in a college/program/class. He wants to find a place where he’s one of the “crowd” - however exclusive this crowd may “appear” to be. Where there are kids he can learn from as well as teach.

At, least in high school - he has found the best predictor of such to be aptitude tests - especially the PSAT - because no one studies for it. Now, the situation gets a bit complicated in comparing colleges because so many students regard the “aptitude” tests as "achievement tests. He has found the kids taking SAT prep classes the antithesis of the kids he wants to be with in college. And, these top “aptitude” students are not narrowly focused - they are found across all disciplines and in many “non-academic” fields. So much for diversity.

Now, I do know that personality type plays a huge role in this. My son is an extravert and “perceiver” - he likes to learn and explore and definitely needs other engaged bright students to be involved in the brainstorming, idea generation, discussions and debates. The kids that are introverts or judgers have very different goals.

My son is interested in the process more than the product.

And, my apologies to anyone here whose kid fits the following, but he is adament that he is not interested in four years of college with a large pre-med population. Based upon his highschool experience, he wants no part of universities who make this group of students their focus. He certainly respects their focus, their perfectionism, their achievements. But he doesn’t want to be in class with them. The are the antithesis of what he is looking for in a peer group.

He is much more fascinated by the “undecideds” the theoretical physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, historians, musicians, etc.

So, to the extent that the SAT or other aptitude tests really measure aptitude - that is exactly the focus of our search - rather than the percentage of valedictorians.

marite · March 18, 2007, 4:10pm

I get your drift, but your S should remember that the brilliant math kids who don’t turn in boring homework will get zeros in college, too. Ditto the science kids who don’t turn in lab reports according to the specs. And in many classes, forget about turning problem sets late. That’ll get another zero.

dstark · March 18, 2007, 4:12pm

So reflectivemom, which schools meet your son’s criteria?

momfromme · March 18, 2007, 4:21pm

busyparent: I think there’s a lot to what you say. While my d is at a high school with a great deal of class diversity, I know plenty of kids – in NY and Boston suburbs – where nearly every family is upper-middle class and college educated. Getting out of a bubble makes one better prepared to deal with the broader world.

reflectivemom · March 18, 2007, 4:22pm

He’s a junior - so he’s just developing his list now. Parents on CC have continually recommend U of Chicago - so he’ll be sure to look there. Unfortunately money will play a role in his decision - as it did with most of those kids who graduated from his highschool before him.

dstark · March 18, 2007, 4:23pm

You’re going to be too late for me. :)

I don’t think Chicago is it.

padad · March 18, 2007, 4:24pm

Back to the point of the original post.

My D had the chance last year to go the Penn State Shryer College for free or a highly respected LAC with a Leadership Scholarship that covers half of her tuition for four years. She was not aware of the existence of such scholarships until she received her letter of admission. She decided to forego both to attain a LAC that “I” have to pay full cost minus the $2,500 National Merit Scholarship that she can bring to any schools.

She has small classes at her current LAC and wonderful professors. Two months into her first semester, her English professor approached her to persuade her to switch her intended chemistry major to English. Clearly at her place, the professors get to know their students well. She is taking a political science class this semester with a well known ultraconservative professor just for the sake of finding out the “opposition view”. She commented that she is making a fool of herself in class since she is not winning many arguments with the prof.

I don’t know whether she could be as satisfied in the two schools that we will have to pay less. She is there not because it is more prestigeous since the locals around here more often than not will comment that if she does well at her LAC she may be able to transfer to Penn State later on. She nonetheless takes pride in that she is at what knowledgeable people would consider an elite school. Besides, they just won the NCAA men’s basketball final yesterday, division III of course. I have seen a tremendous growth in her self confidence. She has discovered that she is still at the top of the heap in academics but with no resentments from her classmates that was problematic in her HS. She enjoys her Student Senate work and in her debate team.

There are certain things money can’t buy.

rorosen · March 18, 2007, 4:25pm

yeah, rich kids and smart kids, they’re all the same.

reflectivemom · March 18, 2007, 4:33pm

“I get your drift, but your S should remember that the brilliant math kids who don’t turn in boring homework will get zeros in college, too. Ditto the science kids who don’t turn in lab reports according to the specs. And in many classes, forget about turning problem sets late. That’ll get another zero.”

Oh, luckily, my son is not one who accumulates zeros - at least, thus far.

I was just stating that he would prefer being with the kids who understand it immediately and get zeros rather than those who don’t initially understand it but then study for hours to memorize or master what the rest “got” instantaneously.

Same with teachers. He’d rather be with a brilliant professor but poor teacher than brilliant teacher but poor professor. He has not yet experienced a need for a “teacher” - but definitely needs a professor who knows his stuff

padad · March 18, 2007, 4:38pm

Reflectivemon and others, I can’t understand why so many of you here speak so negatively about kids with high SAT scores. “Drills” or private tutors/courses are used so often here. Some kids, and perhaps most, attain these scores simply becuase they can do well at these tests.

cheers · March 18, 2007, 4:43pm

To the OP dude: your D wanted to take top $$$ and she gets to make that choice. Whether she’ll be as thrilled in Memphis in junior year is a quesiton but as I remember, she has a ton of travelling thrown into the mix.

Her path is hardly started. I don’t think you can judge the decision from the perspective of 2007. 2015 maybe.

In my advice to CC kids, I always err on the side of daring but that’s me. I think big money and big debt are continuing issues for business owners, grant writers and high achievers. Might as well get used to it as a youngun’.

EvilRobot declined but Tlaktan took up the challenge.

My kids will graduate debt free however and I’d like to earn enough to give that gift to my grandchildren.

Alumother · March 18, 2007, 4:44pm

Seems like everyone is willing to concede at least that a kid with ability of any sort can be successful and fulfilled with an education from any one of a large number of schools where n>/= 100 at least.

Seems like it makes everyone nuts to say that some people are smarter than other people. And that there is some way of knowing that from SATs.

So let’s leave the SATs out of this.

How many people think that some people are smarter than others? how many people think that there is no such thing as “smarter than”? And how many people think in order to have that discussion it’s necessary to define the term?

I for one am clear. I do believe that some people are smarter than others. Not that that means they are more valuable or more productive at all times. But smarter than. I do believe in smarter than.

Note that I am not making any statements about colleges and unversities there. Just I want to know. Who thinks there is no such thing as smarter than?

Flame away.

oldolddad · March 18, 2007, 4:49pm

Tarhunt: I actually kind of agree with you. Having taught a class that had an average SAT of 1500 with a low of maybe 1420 and then having taught classes of wider spread SAT and ones with lower lower I would say that the discourse and work in general was pretty amazing in the high SAT class. Now it may be chicken and egg but in the high SAT classes there was quite a diversity of thought and interest and generally more motiviation (of course that could have been because of the excellent instructor-Ha!), several left and right brain kids, some very linear thinkers, some who loved science and math, some humanties freaks etc.

Although a remedial math class or an entry level course class at a community college can have a lively and exciting discussion it is a bit different. I do understand though where the others are coming from. All you have to do is be involved with the kids in drama class. They may not have as high an average SAT as say AP Calculus but boy their discussiona can be quite interesting, unique, insightful (and inciteful).(Just to pass on a little more info though, I have talked to kids who attended RSI at MIT. These are extremely bright kids. If you ask them what they liked they will often speak about the high level discussions on any topic that they have with their peers there. That might support Tarhunts point).
As to whether it is 1250 or some magic cutoof, it kind of depends because one can have 700 verbal and above average math and be pretty smart and engaging, high achieving.
As to the 1250, isn’t that about what Al Gore achieved? I would guess depending on one’s politics or point of view he could be a data point to either support or refute Tarhunts statements!

mootmom · March 18, 2007, 4:49pm

Alumother, I completely agree that there is “smarter than”. I also know that, above some threshhold of smart, for some kids (like my S2) it’s irrelevant. And for others (like my S1) it makes all the difference in the world.

So S2’s consideration of the “top scholarship” instead of the “more top school” makes sense, for what’s important to him. S1 did not make that same choice.

FootballPlayer · March 18, 2007, 4:50pm

You have to be stupid to not take a free ride.

ThoughtProvoking · March 18, 2007, 4:50pm

SAT scores show how good students are at answering questions – not at asking them. It is very possible for someone to have a knack for answering questions, and for pleasing others and for figuring out how to “work the system,” and have no deep sense of inquiry. They might know so well how things are supposed to be done that they are unable to question them, in the same way that someone who has taken dozens of courses of novel writing will be less likely to push the boundaries of the format.

Highly selective colleges will have more dynamic discussions than less selective ones because they have admitted students whose teacher recommendations glowed about their classroom citizenship, who have excelled in their extracurricular activities, etc. If selective colleges used SAT scores as the sole criterion for admission, their student bodies would be less interesting.

dstark · March 18, 2007, 4:51pm

“Who thinks there is no such thing as smarter than?”

Nobody.

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

CONNECT WITH US