<p>I am a bit dubious about students being more fully engaged in life of the mind at some schools than others.
Item1, which I’ve just read today: “nothing clears a room faster than talking math or physics.” Mathematicians and physicists, however, are as engaged in the life of the mind as students of literature or philosophy. But they don’t want everybody’s eyes to glaze over every time they open their mouths. </p>
<p>Item2: a student overnighted at Caltech, arguably one of the most intense schools in the country. What did he see? Students engaged in food fight. Perhaps, he should have considered that students who are very intensely engaged in their studies for most of the time can take the pressure off by acting very silly. No, he just thought they were not sufficiently engaged in the life of the mind and Caltech got struck off his list. So visit colleges, but remember that first impressions can be deceiving. </p>
<p>OT, I was riding the subway recently and overheard a conversation between a young man and an acquaintance. He was explaining that he’d named his dog after a character in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment and launched into a discussion of the novel. Incidents like that remind me how much I enjoy living in a college town.</p>
<p>padad, I never said YOU were equating SAT with smarts. I was just repeating for everyone that it was an artifice I had adopted for the sake of this discussion because it was an easily findable number for all schools and it had been used in this discussion prior. I was also reminding people that I was finding a midpoint between the 25th and 75th percentile and calling that point the 50th even though I knew mathematically that I was incorrect as it was easier than trying to find the real number.</p>
<p>Hmmm… on this “smarter” student debate, I’ve noticed something.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon has a daughter who knew, in high school, what research was being done at the bio and chem labs of her targeted school, and who the profs were. She went in with an idea of where she could work; she is involved in research her first year and has a paid research position lined up for the summer. </p>
<p>All of the elites are compared on the basis of reported SAT score ranges of incoming students, with a couple of pages of debate about comparing the number ranges… Cornell this, Vandy that, Penn something else, yadda yadda. Rather superficial way of evaluating a college – but we can assume that there are a lot of students choosing their college on that basis, at least since the parents who post here seem to think it’s very important.</p>
<p>So which student had the “smarter” approach to college selection? The SAT thing looks kind of superficial to me – not the way a deep thinker would evaluate the relative merits of a college. Not very much different from deciding that the more expensive bottle of wine is better precisely because it is so expensive. </p>
<p>So which college is going to end up with “smarter” students? Admittedly, Curmudgeon’s daughter has been acknowledged by her college to be one of the very top students admitted this year … but then again, there are probably some Rhodes pre-med students with mid-range SAT scores who have the good fortune to have Curmudgeon’s daughter in their class. So maybe their experiences at the school with the lower SAT averages won’t be do desolate after all…</p>
<p>Still can’t figure out quoting: “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>That seems to speak to the benefit of surrounding students with other smart, high achieving students. Perhaps he was a B student until motivated by his intellectually stimulating Columbia classmates? I know that for my kids, they always do better when among other smart, curious students (and, relatedly, I’ve been told by teachers that my kids bring out those characteristics in their peers).</p>
<p>Okay, Curmudgeon - Care to share just what position have I been “heaping on kids and parents”? </p>
<p>I simply said that my son prefers “process to product”. I delineated his preferences and concluded that he has found that what he is looking for in fellow students is more closely correlated to high SAT scores rather than GPA - this is somehow “heaping something” on kids and parents???</p>
<p>I never argued for one type of school over another. In fact, I’m trying to decide that as we speak. I distinctly recall mentioning that most of the kids in his position from his high school have chosen schools offering merit scholarships and state schools over HYPS and MIT, Caltech, etc. </p>
<p>BTW, Emory, Vanderbilt, UVa, Georgia Tech all have comparable SAT scores, with Michigan, Berkeley and UNC a tad lower. I for one, am not yet convinced that paying $200,000 to move the mid-50% up a hundred to hundred and fifty points is worth it. That’s what I am here trying to learn. What do differentials at that level do for the student in finding “like-minded” classmates and friends?</p>
<p>But, while were on the topic - what’s wrong with SAT scores being my son’s preferred starting point? It’s much more objective than trying to equate grading preferences between teachers, schools, etc. </p>
<p>I really can’t understand how people can believe that a student who scores low on math tests designed to cover basic algebra and geometry belong at “elite colleges”. Likewise, a student who fails to score well on basic high school level reading and writing. The “don’t test well” or “having a bad day” excuse is rather disingenuous - don’t you think.</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with using ridiculous rankings or just SAT score averages to narrow a visit list (or “look at” list if you don’t like vists) from 3400 schools to whatever, a very rough initial screen as it were but after that - they should never be looked at again in deciding between schools. There are much better measures that require much more in depth work, granted. But much better measures. Much more personal measures. </p>
<p>I really can’t understand that people can believe that a student would think that a kid who choses schools based on SAT score belongs at a elite school. JK. Just having a little fun with your words to make a point that I find your statement about math testing skills as shown on the SAT being an elite school litmus test …not that well thought out for a Russian Lit major. That’s still pretty unbelievable , to tell the truth.</p>
<p>“But much better measures. Much more personal measures.” </p>
<p>Like class rank - especially when one’s daughter has the rank, but not SAT scores. Funny how every parent favors the rubric that gives their child the edge.</p>
<p>reflectivemom, my kid had top 1% scores on all testing modalities, or didn’t you know? Remember, she got into Yale . Try something else. She was val, but she also had the highest test score. I bet that makes you crazy, huh? Thought you had me and then …oops…where’d he go? .</p>
<p>Anyway I wasn’t talking about researching the kid. LOL. They should know if they can do the work. I was talking about researching the schools. I thought that would be clear.</p>
<p>The only reason this question is at all interesting is because there are kids like curmudgeon’s D who were clearly outstanding in a variety of measures, accepted at several elite colleges, yet chose to attend one which ranks lower on the USNWR lists. I don’t remember all of the details, but I think she had a 35 or 36 on the ACT, was valedictorian, athlete, volunteer, and a goat-raising wunderkind. If she hadn’t been, there’d be no point to this conversation.</p>
<p>By the way, I do think that objective, standardized tests DO measure something, but not that they are the ONLY measure that counts. If reflectivmom’s son uses that as a starting point, there is some logic to that. I’d just warn you that even really high-scoring, super high achieving kids are dopey at times, and don’t spend all of their time having “deep” conversations about anything other than World of Warcraft. If you want proof of that, check out the school newspaper at schools you are interested in. It never fails to amaze me that really smart kids do some amazingly stupid things at times.</p>
Point it out to me. I’ll be waiting. Her stats are all over this board. Go search 'em. LOL. She scored a 35 ACT, scored a perfect 36 math, SAT concordance 1580 by collegeboard. One of less than 2,000 out of 1.2 million. And she had a 740M/730CR SAT first time no prep. 99th percentile for females. No prep course and a high school average of maybe a grand on the SAT. Is that elite enough for you? Good grief.</p>
<p>reflectivemom, You and your son should also bear in mind that although YOU may want to use SAT scores as the primary – or even sole – criterion for selecting a college, the college isn’t doing the same when selecting its admittees. Scores, grades, rank, talent, recommendation, essays, hooks – they are all factors in admissions. Anyone who’s coasting on high, or even perfect, scores without a solid representation in most of the other categories is not likely to get admitted to a super-selective or to get offered substantial merit at a less selective.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, we can’t pay full fare either. But there’s still a big difference between paying your full EFC at a higher-ranked school vs. attending the fourth-tier public where the cost is zero and the school even puts money into your pocket each semester.</p>
<p>I’ve understood some of the posters in this thread to say they’d pay the difference for HYPS versus Vandy, Rhodes, etc., even though statistically the students are not all that different. So what if the choice is Vandy, Rhodes, etc., versus the fourth-tier public? You might be:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Less willing to pay the difference, because if you aren’t getting the HYPS cachet, why spend all that money? Take the free ride … or …</p></li>
<li><p>More willing to pay the difference, because there’s probably more real difference in the students and the caliber of education. Dig deep into the pockets and go to the best school that accepts you.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>It always comes back to that question, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>Still waiting reflectivemom. You still there? I find this very funny. Last year it was this board and Dave Berry’s advice for my daughter to seek Yale and Amherst (and Harvard and Princeton and all other elires) precisely because of her stats, scores, and ec’s. She wouldn’t have but for the advice here. In fact she applied at the very last minute. Almost literally.</p>
<p>Well, the 740/730 is not top 1%. Good, certainly, but not top 1%.</p>
<p>And 35 ACT (using score choice) and saying it is equivalent to a 1580 isn’t quite the same is it? If it is - why not send all the scores to colleges and let them decide.</p>
<p>But, the entire point is - I explained my son’s decision criteria in my initial post. My son’s evaluative criteria can be just that - his criteria. It’s not mine, it’s not yours - but it doesn’t have to be. </p>
<p>So why do you feel the need to compete every time someone uses a different set of criteria than that you used?</p>
JK. Just having a little fun with your words to make a point that I find your statement about math testing skills as shown on the SAT being an elite school litmus test …not that well thought out for a Russian Lit major. That’s still pretty unbelievable , to tell the truth.</p>