<p>hey guys - I don’t think abilities are always revealed in high school and college. Let’s look at examples(just trying to lighten this up a bit - don’t take me too seriously!)
B. Obama - average student. No one seems to remember anything exceptional about him.
Colin Powell - average student. Mostly Cs.
Anthony Hopkins - teachers thought he was a “dunce” ’
G W Bush - uh-oh - in this case - perhaps his average abilities and “animal house behavior” in college should have been a red flag.</p>
<p>Dstark:
You asked for an opinion-- MY opinion, no less. And I’m giving you an informed opinion. You don’t like it? Too bad. Judgmental? Hah. What do you think admission committees do?<br>
DONE.</p>
<p>dstark. Yes I did get riled up. That old thread on Lifetime Benefits of whatever whatever got me truly upset. Maybe silly, but true. My emotions are set off in these discussions when you argue the way you argue. I admit that. You have a way of using the particular to refute the general that drives me absolutely nuts. Well, in this case, I own the general. I did get riled up trying to argue with you. Now I am the one with the anecdote. The adrenaline coursed through me as I tried to make your arguments fit a logical structure. But now I know you don’t want them to. So that’s great. Much better, really.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have spent the last week steadfastly refusing to wade into this minefield, but I read the above quote and I just couldn’t resist. Actually, some of us do know what would happen if we chose different options, and that would be those of us, or children of us, who transfered.</p>
<p>First of all, though, I do not want my remarks to in any way seem like a refutation of Curm’s or others’ kids’ choices. I think that, especially for the goal oriented and/or research opportunity oriented kids, those choices make a ton of sense. For those who are more into the experience for itself without having a clue where it could lead (possibly more like Alum’s kid) the experiences might tend differently.</p>
<p>Which brings me to me and my D. Both of us started out in “lower tier” merit money situations, and both of us were, frankly, miserable. BAck in my day, there was little offered to this big fish in a tiny pond except pressure from profs to carry the discussion since no one else seemed likely to. My D, more recently, had the same experience–no sparkling classroom discussion, little intellectual curiosity. In her case, if she had been looking for it, I think her U would have offered the same kind of research, get-ahead possibilities as Curm discussed, but this is not what she was looking for. She had (has) no career goal, so this was not helpful for her. </p>
<p>What she, and I, were both looking for was that give and take of classrooms stocked with kids excited about ideas, and professors who cared about that. The profs were okay at my first school, and very good at my D’s school, but the classroom atmosphere was deadening at both.</p>
<p>We both transfered, giving up merit money in both cases (though after the first year at my new school, they did start awarding it to me, which was a hugely pleasant surprise!). But we both found the classroom experience we had not found in the first place. </p>
<p>Again, perhaps if we had had specific long term goals, like med school or other scientific research, the different needs this would engender would have changed our decisions (esp D–she knew some very bright kids who were clenching their teeth at her first school to put up with the nonsense in order to keep the academic perks). But D (and S)'s only long term goal starting college was “anything-but-med-school” LOL. (Yep, dad’s influence.)</p>
<p>So, I think that both D and I were lucky to be able to get a do-over, but I do think that with different goals, what we didn’t like at our first schools would have seemed different. Curm’s kids (and others) are getting specific things out of their schools that not every merit award student gets or is looking for, so I think the worths of the choices vary with the situations.</p>
<p>(Please understand, everyone, that I am not generalizing that a merit award school means a weaker intellectual atmosphere–I am only describing what we experienced!)</p>
<p>Marite, I appreciate the opinion. I was wondering what admission committees do.</p>
<p>I guess the 2.75 gpa will not be looked at in context. It’s just too low.</p>
<p>Alumother, I’m pretty logical. :)</p>
<p>You didn’t ask me if I think Princeton students are smart.</p>
<p>I do.</p>
<p>You want me to judge Princeton based on a criteria you find useful, but I don’t.</p>
<p>Logically, what is the answer to Simba’s post #429?</p>
<p>The average SAT scores at Princeton are one of the highest of any school in the US. If the above reflects the average Princeton student as being smarter than, then the average Princeton student is smarter than the average student at all the other schools where the average SAT score is lower.</p>
<p>Actually at this point I just wanted you to understand that in fact I was all riled up.</p>
<p>Alumother, I read your you know what when you didn’t understand my post in the other thread you started. ;)</p>
<p>TR good attempt</p>
<p>Garland…Maybe it is easier for a math/science student to go through undergrad with kids of various abilities. Math/science courses have facts and formulas to teach. There is not much room for discussion in the early courses; everyone is just trying to learn the material. The kids who don’t “get it” fall behind/get help or fail out. Profs. don’t have time to go over and over the same problems as they have a set amount of info. to get through.
In other degrees ( english, philosophy, history and a host of others) the classroom is built around discussion. I can see where that would leave some kids very frustrated if others were not able to grasp their concepts or contribute. Some colleges might have more of these kids than others but I am not sure there is one sure fire way to find those schools. It is great that you and d were able to find that at school #2 instead of settling for the first choice.</p>
<p>Heck, I’ll try.;)</p>
<p>Folks on one side of the crevasse argue that students at elite schools are on average smarter than students at less elite schools. They use sometimes as their measuring stick SAT scores. Given this measurement of “smartness” they are correct. Undeniably. It’s written down. It’s a given that they take that test and on average have higher scores. To argue against that is ignorant. </p>
<p>I know that definition of smartness sucks but that’s what some folks have used so I’ll use it because it has a score written down that I can find. </p>
<p>I’ll use two schools to make my point and hopefully show where our cart keeps going off the track in this one instance (there are several others).
Sat Scores
25%/75%</p>
<p>Cornell U
620/730 CR
660/770 Math</p>
<p>Vandy
630/720 CR
650/760 Math</p>
<p>Everyone agrees that Cornell U is in the elite category and Vandy U is not. Right? Oops!! Sorry, it slipped! Don’t mean to offend. Better use …uhhh. Penn. I’ll use Penn. </p>
<p>UPenn
650/740
680/770</p>
<p>Now, some think that the difference between the two schools (based solely on their SATs) means that the educations cannot be compared and that the student should, if it is theoretically possible, attend Penn. Some think that’s too close to call. “Let other factors make your call” they say, including money and specific opps or just fit. </p>
<p>Let’s see what else we can say by the numbers.</p>
<p>What we “know” from just these numbers using our SAT yardstick. </p>
<p>We “know” that the top 25% at Penn are smarter than the top 25% at Vandy “on average”. </p>
<p>We also should accept that there could be a kid at Vandy smarter than anybody at Cornell including Ben himself. Averages wouldn’t show that.</p>
<p>We know that the bottom 25% of Vandy is less smart (as defined by our yardstick) than the bottom 25% at Penn.</p>
<p>We should also accept that there could be a kid at Penn less smart than any kid at Vandy. Averages wouldn’t show that.</p>
<p>We know that the middle 50% of Penn is smarter than the middle 50% at Vandy. So by our chosen yardstick, the students are smarter on average at Penn than Vanderbilt if you accept the yadstick. </p>
<p>But, and here’s what I think several posters have done their best to get across… the numbers tell us more than that.</p>
<p>For the purposes of this discussion please allow me to find a midpoint between the 75th and 25th percentiles and call it the 50th , which I know is not accurate but should be ballpark . (I don’t have time to chase the actual right now.) That yields 675 CR/695 M for Vandy, 695 CR/725 M for Penn.</p>
<p>Using CR for speed,
Vandy, 1st quartile 720-800, 2nd-675-720, 3rd-630-675. 4th- below 630</p>
<p>Penn-1st 740-800, 2nd quartile 695-740, 3rd- 650-695, 4th 650- below. </p>
<p>So, the top 1/2 of Vandy is smarter than the bottom 1/2 of Penn, correct? (675-800 to lowest to 695.) A good bit smarter? would you say? And the first quartile at Vandy is smarter than the 2nd quartile at Penn right? And the 2nd quartile at Vandy is smarter than the 3rd quartile at Penn , right? And the 3rd quartile at Vandy? Well, yeah. They are “smarter” than the 4th quartile at Penn.</p>
<p>Is this really enough difference for folks to be taking the positions padad, and reflectivemom, and several others have been heaping on kids and parents. Should it be enough for everybody like they say? When the top 3/4th at Vandy is smarter than the bottom 3/4 at Penn? Then the top quartile is that close? Is that really what this whole “elite schools are better categorically and worth the money if it is at all possible” thing is about? </p>
<p>I don’t think I’d want to argue that side in court if I were y’all.</p>
<p>Edit: IMPORTANT. What if a dispoportional bunch of Penn’s smart kids are in Wharton or Engineering ( or so I’ve heard) and your kid is in Physics or English?</p>
<p>Do you still say “elite at any cost that you can possibly handle”?</p>
<p>I’ve stayed out of this one too.
These are the threads that always distinigrate into arguments.
Just wanted to throw an anecdote your way.
D is a TA in a Humanities Dept at a CC/USNWR Top 25 University.Now onto TA’ing her third course. Had done 2 survey classes and a required of the major class,all with less than 30 enrollment,all for differeent profs (the philosophy of the dept is to have the Grad students TA for all the profs to get used to different teaching styles).
Her assessment of the undergrad kids…mostly very bright…1/3 grade grubbers (as in obsessing over what exactly will be on the test) 1/3 intellectually engaged,stimulating class discussions,etc 1/3 just passing through,just don’t care types.
Yet all these kids had to “sparkle” on their apps and interviews to be admitted.
This has just been her experience,YMMV
But I thought it was interresting considering the debates about whether those highly ranked schools with outstanding faculty and small classes make any difference or do the kids just fall along a Bell Curve of caring regardless.</p>
<p>I’m not that up on Barack Obama’s biography, but didn’t he go to Columbia? Wasn’t he President of the Harvard Law Review? Not long after college? And graduate magna from Harvard Law School (i.e., within top 5% of his class). The chances of his having been an “average student” are about nil.</p>
<p>Believe me, the President of the Law Review is not necessarily the most impressive student at Harvard Law School, but I have known a bunch of them, and none of them has been remotely an “average student”. The process by which people become members of the Law Review and the cage-match nature of its presidential election essentially precludes that. Furthermore, no one, URM or otherwise, is admitted to Harvard Law School with an “average student” transcript.</p>
<p>He may not have looked like a young Einstein in college, but I’ve never seen anyone who went from “average” to “superstar” in the space of a few years like that, especially at an institution (HLS) where “superstar” is determined on the basis of across-the-board strength rather than depth in one topic.</p>
<p>Um, if you’re arguing whether or not Vandy is an elite school, you’re counting angels on a head of a pin. No idea what it’s “ranking” is, but I’m guessing it’s up there. Has anyone ever argued otherwise?</p>
<p>Most merit money is not at schools like Vanderbilt. Believe me, I’ve been there and done that. So again, generalizations like “merit aid school” and “elite” are meaningless. Which merit aid school, and what do you consider elite? </p>
<p>I went to Mich, and I’d call it elite (though it’s been argued otherwise). But believe me, it was night and day different from the school I started at.</p>
<p>There are real differences, not Vanderbilt/Penn differences, in many, many cases.</p>
<p>"I’m not that up on Barack Obama’s biography, but didn’t he go to Columbia? Wasn’t he President of the Harvard Law Review? "
Yes, he transferred to Columbia. The article I just read focused on his high school and very early college years ( I also read his biography). Aimless B student. Got into drugs too. Nothing special in those early years. Obviously, this changed…and fairly quickly.</p>
<p>Hundreds of posts did when ER was choosing. I could have used many other schools. Would you prefer I use another? I don’t believe all on this thread believe Vandy to be elite. Others have mentioned Emory, Tulane, others in less than elite terms. Should I pick another Ivy and another school, like Cornell and Wake Forest. It’ll work there, too. Or Cornell and Trinity U in Texas maybe?</p>
<p>I just want to send a cautionary note to all the newbie parents here who are trying to handicap their kids undergrad choice based on the perceived post-grad plans.</p>
<p>Ain’t happening. Our son chose MIT expecting to end up in a physics PhD program. He graduated with a double major… neither in physics, and is now working (financially self-sufficient) with vague plans for some form of post-grad education “out there”. Most of his close friends also assumed they’d be doing PhD’s… only one is actually doing one now (i.e. the year after graduating) and everyone else is either working, fulfilling their ROTC obligation, or in professional school.</p>
<p>Kids in HS just don’t know enough about what grownups do for a living to be rational… so if they like school, getting a doctorate sounds like the right fit. However, getting a doctorate isn’t like more college… and unless a kid is driven by a burning passion, the idea of making money, buying a TV, getting to go to a movie at night after work instead of plugging away in a lab is a bit appealing, especially after four years of an intense college experience.</p>
<p>On CC of course all the kids are above average (sorry Lake Wobegon) so I’m sure all of your kids will end up going directly to grad school. But I don’t think that’s the norm nationally. So- to pick the undergrad with a mind towards “fixing” their entry into a top lab or grad program… what’s the point? Pick a place which will stretch your kid regardless of which path they choose… that’s got better odds of a payout than this imaginary lotto game you guys are playing about how Doctorate admissions comittees views imaginary applications from your kids.</p>
<p>And the absolute top student in S’s department at MIT? Was heading to a PhD program… until an elite government agency came knocking, begged the kid to reconsider, and go directly into the workforce. Kid is now quickly paying off undergrad loans and has decided to defer decisions about a PhD for a couple of years. You just don’t know.</p>
<p>Garland: You said Michigan is elite. Did you mean by your “night and day” comment that your experience there supported you view?</p>
<p>But Garland, Rhodes has the same 75% CR stats as Michigan (same as Chapel Hill and is within 20 pins of Berkeley) , so for an English or History major is it elite by that standard?</p>
<p>OOD-yes
Curm-yes</p>
<p>Curmudgeon–I said a lot more stuff that I thought was subtle enough to be interesting. </p>
<p>I shouldn’t have replied to your vanderbilt post. That (my response) was a meaningless sidebar to what I was trying to say.</p>
<p>See, i was right the first time. Should not have gotten involved here. My mistake.</p>