Well, he was probably a closet homosexual who did a lot of cocaine. That whole Yale thing.
May 16, 2007 5:22 PM Subscribe
Second-tier colleges become first-tier colleges. First-tier colleges become fairy tales that New York Times contributors tell their kids about.
My friend sent me a long e-mail (he went to a top three) bemoaning that the only people benefiting from this were the admission officers, who like boasting that they reject so many great applicants. He believed it bred a certain self-satisfaction among undergrads and another level of entitlement. Furthermore, he worked in admission office, and claimed that after the top 5 or so boarding schools, and after alumni, and after athletics the real admission rate is much lower for those without great parental connections. And that admission rate goes to, what he termed, "new class identifiers", that is people with parents wealthy enough to get them into amazing high school programs and charitable mission trips on different continents.
He claimed, and I am paraphrasing here, that unless things change drastically, people will begin to recognize the talent coming out of non-traditionally top schools and the admission process will revert to regionalism and be better for everyone.
I wish I could have copied the entire message, but he did not want me to.
posted by geoff. at 5:37 PM on May 16, 2007
He claimed, and I am paraphrasing here, that unless things change drastically, people will begin to recognize the talent coming out of non-traditionally top schools and the admission process will revert to regionalism and be better for everyone.
I wish I could have copied the entire message, but he did not want me to.
posted by geoff. at 5:37 PM on May 16, 2007
As a tufts grad i think the only thing people are losing in going to a non ivy is the ability to say they went to an ivy and being able to watch sports teams (as far as i'm aware, the ivy league is for sports). I think one of the things that's going unsaid is the difference in education versus research. I found the undergrad education at a school where you don't have a fleet of grad students to be more interesting as the profs end up getting the undergrads involved (and you're always taught by profs). Admittedly the school is moving towards more research, but it's not something that comes overnight.
In the end the field is going to get flatter and the question will not be as much where you went to school, but what you make of it (i.e., are you going for camp or to get an education). I think too many people get locked into ratings and forget what college is about (no, not drinking). Who knows, maybe someday we won't have the stygma of being #3 in the city and elaine can finally get over going to her "safety school". But really, what's a safety school without the social stygma.
posted by NGnerd at 5:49 PM on May 16, 2007
In the end the field is going to get flatter and the question will not be as much where you went to school, but what you make of it (i.e., are you going for camp or to get an education). I think too many people get locked into ratings and forget what college is about (no, not drinking). Who knows, maybe someday we won't have the stygma of being #3 in the city and elaine can finally get over going to her "safety school". But really, what's a safety school without the social stygma.
posted by NGnerd at 5:49 PM on May 16, 2007
Oh, also, there should be an argument here about too much college prep in high school and not enough vocational schooling, kids studying for specific tests instead of just taking them, and how the ratings are full of shit anyway...
posted by NGnerd at 5:51 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by NGnerd at 5:51 PM on May 16, 2007
I'm astonished that Harvard and others still practise 'legacy preference' for children of alumni. Surely this should be anathema to a modern, meritocratic university? I don't say that out of any reflexive class hatred, nor do I have anything against Harvard: I suspect even with a level playing field, alumni children would apply to, and be accepted by, Harvard in disproportionate numbers, due to the (in this case literal) 'success breeds success' effect. But as this Economist article argues, it's 'a helping hand for those who least need it'.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 5:51 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by Aloysius Bear at 5:51 PM on May 16, 2007
I was a tour guide at College X, and it always bothered me that I had to compare my perfectly-fine, top-100-public school, which was full of great researchers, great programs, great students, and just all around greatness, to some pie-in-the-sky imagined-perfect tower of higher ed.
"No," I told parents and applicants, "here at College X, we don't have all-night bus service, or a world-class range of artists, or the benefits of a huge, multi-generation alumni network since we opened in 1965. But we DO have more research for undergraduates than most universities, beaches and redwood forests, and a huge range of other things anyone would be happy to have access to once in their lives, let alone four years, And really, should anyone really care what university you go to as long as you got out with a degree and a decent GPA? Why not embrace the one you like, rather than the one you think you should want?" I mean, I had parents walking around with Excel charts writing my comments in College X's column next to those they'd heard at College Y over the hill. It was nuts.
This problem, I hope, will cease when top-tier employers and graduate schools actually start to look for candidates from all kinds of universities, not just those with some Nobel laureates on the staff and a $12 billion endowment.
posted by mdonley at 5:53 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
"No," I told parents and applicants, "here at College X, we don't have all-night bus service, or a world-class range of artists, or the benefits of a huge, multi-generation alumni network since we opened in 1965. But we DO have more research for undergraduates than most universities, beaches and redwood forests, and a huge range of other things anyone would be happy to have access to once in their lives, let alone four years, And really, should anyone really care what university you go to as long as you got out with a degree and a decent GPA? Why not embrace the one you like, rather than the one you think you should want?" I mean, I had parents walking around with Excel charts writing my comments in College X's column next to those they'd heard at College Y over the hill. It was nuts.
This problem, I hope, will cease when top-tier employers and graduate schools actually start to look for candidates from all kinds of universities, not just those with some Nobel laureates on the staff and a $12 billion endowment.
posted by mdonley at 5:53 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Maybe if they had come up with a better name than College X.
posted by found missing at 5:55 PM on May 16, 2007 [6 favorites]
posted by found missing at 5:55 PM on May 16, 2007 [6 favorites]
Isn't the Ivy League about how much money your parents have anyway?
posted by j-urb at 5:55 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by j-urb at 5:55 PM on May 16, 2007
Surely this should be anathema to a modern, meritocratic university?
You surely must be joking? More so than just grades and success, places like Harvard in paticular want to breed a "Harvard Man." The difference between the top 5% of test takers and the top 2% of test takers is non existent in reality. I was told that Exeter and Andover have their own dedicated admission officers at these schools. Meritocracy is completely lost when you place a few boarding schools heads and shoulders above whole sections of the country.
posted by geoff. at 5:58 PM on May 16, 2007
You surely must be joking? More so than just grades and success, places like Harvard in paticular want to breed a "Harvard Man." The difference between the top 5% of test takers and the top 2% of test takers is non existent in reality. I was told that Exeter and Andover have their own dedicated admission officers at these schools. Meritocracy is completely lost when you place a few boarding schools heads and shoulders above whole sections of the country.
posted by geoff. at 5:58 PM on May 16, 2007
Speaking of Harvard, what I've always wondered is when you see Harvard pictures or do an image search, it's always heavy on pictures with non-white students. I'm wondering if Harvard is actually on a campaign to make itself look non-white-bread-elitist or if there is a very high percentage of exchange/international students.
posted by hodyoaten at 6:06 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by hodyoaten at 6:06 PM on May 16, 2007
1. College X is a great name.
2. The parties by College Y are lame anyway.
posted by Hicksu at 6:07 PM on May 16, 2007
2. The parties by College Y are lame anyway.
posted by Hicksu at 6:07 PM on May 16, 2007
Interesting. I taught high school for a few years, and as a grad. instructor at a top-tier public university before that. Frankly, parents tend to be overly crazy when it comes to this stuff. There are tons of great regional universities and colleges, and they tend to be a hell of a lot cheaper than your Ivies and "new Ivies" (ugh).
It's all about real-life experience anyways these days, which is a good thing. Education should provide you with the tools and open-mindedness you need to achieve success, but it seems like employers really want to hire people who know what the hell they're doing, generally. I guess the connections you make at a more prestigious institution do matter though.
Then again, I was lucky to have parents who cared more about whether or not I was learning things rather than my academic pedigree. (Well, they did care about that as well, but it wasn't the primary issue.)
And btw, I had a great experience at Kenyon. Loved it. And am coming to realize that if I ever have kids, I really don't understand how I could afford to send them there.
And Oberlin sucks.
posted by bardic at 6:12 PM on May 16, 2007
It's all about real-life experience anyways these days, which is a good thing. Education should provide you with the tools and open-mindedness you need to achieve success, but it seems like employers really want to hire people who know what the hell they're doing, generally. I guess the connections you make at a more prestigious institution do matter though.
Then again, I was lucky to have parents who cared more about whether or not I was learning things rather than my academic pedigree. (Well, they did care about that as well, but it wasn't the primary issue.)
And btw, I had a great experience at Kenyon. Loved it. And am coming to realize that if I ever have kids, I really don't understand how I could afford to send them there.
And Oberlin sucks.
posted by bardic at 6:12 PM on May 16, 2007
Admission to the Ivies will always be based on (a) talent and (b) economic and social class. There is no such thing as a true "meritocracy." We have the best that you can possibly hope for: a blend of meritocracy, and aristocracy. It is simply unrealistic to think that people in power will not use it to help their family and acquaintances, and most of all, themselves.
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to push toward a true meritocracy, I'm just saying that you should temper your idealism with a dose of reality.
Also, competition has just gotten a lot stiffer since minorities, women, and the poor were allowed access to these institutions. I always chuckle when some old white guy tells me how competitive Harvard was "in the day." As the author of the NYT article points out, it was relatively easy to get into Harvard back then . . . if you were a white boy with money. Attending any of the "feeder schools" such as Phillips Exeter and Andover virtually guaranteed admission to your Ivy of choice until around the mid-70s. (Of course, you didn't go to those schools unless you were a rich white boy.)
George Bush is good example (Andover, Yale), and I don't need a pie chart to feel certain that it's a general trend; there is anecdotal evidence all around us. If anything, bloodlines that have been commingled with great wealth over many generations are likely to produce more idiots, because there is no natural selection at work, whereas your average working poor Joe and Mary Beer Can end up in jail, dead, financially unable to raise children unless they have some minimal level of raw intelligence and tenacity.
posted by zekinskia at 6:14 PM on May 16, 2007
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to push toward a true meritocracy, I'm just saying that you should temper your idealism with a dose of reality.
Also, competition has just gotten a lot stiffer since minorities, women, and the poor were allowed access to these institutions. I always chuckle when some old white guy tells me how competitive Harvard was "in the day." As the author of the NYT article points out, it was relatively easy to get into Harvard back then . . . if you were a white boy with money. Attending any of the "feeder schools" such as Phillips Exeter and Andover virtually guaranteed admission to your Ivy of choice until around the mid-70s. (Of course, you didn't go to those schools unless you were a rich white boy.)
George Bush is good example (Andover, Yale), and I don't need a pie chart to feel certain that it's a general trend; there is anecdotal evidence all around us. If anything, bloodlines that have been commingled with great wealth over many generations are likely to produce more idiots, because there is no natural selection at work, whereas your average working poor Joe and Mary Beer Can end up in jail, dead, financially unable to raise children unless they have some minimal level of raw intelligence and tenacity.
posted by zekinskia at 6:14 PM on May 16, 2007
Y'know, it's weird. Here in NYC, ivy grads are a dime a dozen. For some reason, I've found people to be more impressed when I tell them about the midwestern land grant megaversity that I attended. Out here, it's like, exotic or something.
Go Tigers!
posted by Afroblanco at 6:15 PM on May 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
Go Tigers!
posted by Afroblanco at 6:15 PM on May 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
Welcome to Tufts Night at MeFi, as auld Tuftonians can now begin to shed the their lifelong inferiority complexes about not being graduates of That School over in Cambridge.
In the mid-60s, then-President Burton Hallowell described Tufts in a speech as "a small school of high quality on the verge of greatness." Campus wags--who didn't get into Harvard, of course-- snarked that TU was actually "a high school of small quality situated five miles from greatness." Back in the day, when John Sununu (Sr.) was Dean of Engineering, when you told someone you went to Tufts, they asked you if you were studying to be a dentist.
Tufts has broadened and bolstered its academic presence and reputation far beyond the institution of Pres. Hallowell, but he was certainly prescient about the "verge of greatness."
posted by rdone at 6:19 PM on May 16, 2007
In the mid-60s, then-President Burton Hallowell described Tufts in a speech as "a small school of high quality on the verge of greatness." Campus wags--who didn't get into Harvard, of course-- snarked that TU was actually "a high school of small quality situated five miles from greatness." Back in the day, when John Sununu (Sr.) was Dean of Engineering, when you told someone you went to Tufts, they asked you if you were studying to be a dentist.
Tufts has broadened and bolstered its academic presence and reputation far beyond the institution of Pres. Hallowell, but he was certainly prescient about the "verge of greatness."
posted by rdone at 6:19 PM on May 16, 2007
I've also found graduates of Ivies to be pretty forthright about their experiences at such places. A lot of times, they're the first to tell you that getting into Harvard or Yale is really all about being the type of high school kid who works hard to get into Harvard or Yale. Being "smart" is secondary to that.
Then again, they busted their asses to do it, a lot of the time. So good for them.
posted by bardic at 6:20 PM on May 16, 2007
Then again, they busted their asses to do it, a lot of the time. So good for them.
posted by bardic at 6:20 PM on May 16, 2007
Parents are crazy. Till you become one. Legacy works! You let in W to Yale and don't you think the Bush family is going to give generously to Yale? That is the point of legacy: get the family to feel connected and giving.
What do you want from a college? Real teachers rather than grad students? then go to a school without graduate programs. Bu that will be both private, elite, and expensive. Colleges but mirror the larger society and thus more and more they hire more and more part timers, use grad instructors, etc and keep just a few tenured people for show.
I note this morning "college is a sleep away with grades."
posted by Postroad at 6:24 PM on May 16, 2007
What do you want from a college? Real teachers rather than grad students? then go to a school without graduate programs. Bu that will be both private, elite, and expensive. Colleges but mirror the larger society and thus more and more they hire more and more part timers, use grad instructors, etc and keep just a few tenured people for show.
I note this morning "college is a sleep away with grades."
posted by Postroad at 6:24 PM on May 16, 2007
This shouldn't be surprising: it's the echo baby boom. Applications are way up nationwide. It's definitely going to be a great thing for smaller schools, though it's a real challenge for state schools that are already cash-strapped and are facing demands to increase enrollment.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:28 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by mr_roboto at 6:28 PM on May 16, 2007
Well, let me be more specific -- I taught at a private high school that had delusions of grandeur. We did have kids who could (and did) make it into Ivies. But for the most part, parents drove themselves and their kids insane by expecting a B-student, decent athlete or musician or painter, to be Yale material.
So yeah, you should want the best for your kids. But at some point, deluding yourself is really, really going to bite you and them in the ass.
Especially when there are plenty of good, affordable 2nd and 3rd tier and/or "regional" choices. I dunno. I just saw some crazy (and quite painful) things going on.
And legacies don't bother me that much -- colleges are businesses. They need positive cash flow. What does amuse me, however, are the anti-affirmative action jihadists. What is a Yale legacy but the very definition of AA for the rich?
posted by bardic at 6:31 PM on May 16, 2007
So yeah, you should want the best for your kids. But at some point, deluding yourself is really, really going to bite you and them in the ass.
Especially when there are plenty of good, affordable 2nd and 3rd tier and/or "regional" choices. I dunno. I just saw some crazy (and quite painful) things going on.
And legacies don't bother me that much -- colleges are businesses. They need positive cash flow. What does amuse me, however, are the anti-affirmative action jihadists. What is a Yale legacy but the very definition of AA for the rich?
posted by bardic at 6:31 PM on May 16, 2007
Geez people, just leave the country. It could hardly be any more expensive than even a "second-tier" US school and it's probably a heck of a lot better. Plus, you get the bonus of being the foreign student from America! Women will want you! Men will want to be you! (results may vary for women). And you might learn about, I dunno, someone else's culture.
expected annual expenses, Lehigh: $46,960
expected annual expenses, McGill: < $20,000 cdn/a>
tuition, Oxford: ~12,000 GBP or ~$22,000 USD
I'm sure Lehigh is nice and all, but it ain't McGill. Lather, rinse and repeat for all the major Canadian universities. And I'm really, really sure it's not Oxford.
Just leave people. Get out.
posted by GuyZero at 6:33 PM on May 16, 2007 [4 favorites]
expected annual expenses, Lehigh: $46,960
expected annual expenses, McGill: < $20,000 cdn/a>
tuition, Oxford: ~12,000 GBP or ~$22,000 USD
I'm sure Lehigh is nice and all, but it ain't McGill. Lather, rinse and repeat for all the major Canadian universities. And I'm really, really sure it's not Oxford.
Just leave people. Get out.
posted by GuyZero at 6:33 PM on May 16, 2007 [4 favorites]
13 years after I was admitted to my own alma mater, I have to recognize that there's no way I would've gotten into that or (probably) any other small New England liberal arts college today. I knew things were starting to go off the tracks when they it started officially calling itself the "Independent Ivy" (ugh) in my senior year. And I agree with the author of the second article: I don't envy the kids today. I used to teach SAT classes, and for high achievers I saw kids with no lives and no time for relaxation. I goofed off for most of high school and still got in to the school of my choice. I have no idea what my kids are going to do.
posted by 1adam12 at 6:33 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by 1adam12 at 6:33 PM on May 16, 2007
I hope a lot of kids will do what I did: Go to a community college for a a couple of years, take lots of different kinds of classes (among mine were architectural and engineering drafting, naval history, and creative writing) while figuring out what they'd like to do -- and then see about transferring somewhere appropriate (and this is where I screwed the pooch, but I did the best I could having been dealt some fairly $hitty cards). Considering where I got accepted to transfer even though I couldn't afford to go, it sorta worked.
posted by pax digita at 6:43 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by pax digita at 6:43 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
The Int'l Herald Trib article makes much of the fact that applications are way up at a lot of colleges, and of course admissions are not, so they have become more "selective".
But today's high school senior applies to 8 or 10 colleges, while 30 or 40 years back you applied to 3, maybe 4. Electronic applications make this possible. The colleges are not more selective -- the applicants are less selective.
This article, also from the NYTimes, makes this clear, along with several other factors: the demographic "echo boom", and a higher proportion of high-schoolers seeking college admission.
However, this glut of applications is hitting only a small fraction of the colleges. Only a hundred or so colleges and universities out of 2500 accept less than 50 percent of all applicants. The rest accept an average of 70 percent, which is the same rate they accepted a generation ago. In fact, 90 percent of college admit more than 90 percent of new student applicants. (Source)
And there is no reason a kid can't get a perfectly good education at an other-than-top-tier school. Jack Welch (UMass) is the usual example trotted out at this point.
Winerip's column highlights the essentially manufactured background many of these kids bring to the application. He mentions: "These kids who don’t get into Harvard spend summers on schooners in Chesapeake Bay studying marine biology, building homes for the poor in Central America, touring Europe with all-star orchestras."
While, "Summers, I dug trenches for my local sewer department during the day, and sold hot dogs at Fenway Park at night."
My kids, in the 90s, mowed lawns, babysat, scooped ice cream, went door to door for the census bureau, did camp counseling, and the like. They got great educations at schools that are not household names, and now they have great jobs.
Those fairy tale colleges have gone too far. When I went to college, at a first-tier university, if you wanted to lift weights you went to a dank room in the basement of the armory. Now, at this and other "top" schools, the shining athletic center with every imaginable fitness contrivance is de rigeur, no building is erected unless designed by a top architect at stupendous cost. All this is necessary in order to maintain competition within the top tier for the few top students with their admissions-coach-constructed resume.
Send your kids to College X. You won't regret it. They won't regret it, once they get over it.
posted by beagle at 6:43 PM on May 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
But today's high school senior applies to 8 or 10 colleges, while 30 or 40 years back you applied to 3, maybe 4. Electronic applications make this possible. The colleges are not more selective -- the applicants are less selective.
This article, also from the NYTimes, makes this clear, along with several other factors: the demographic "echo boom", and a higher proportion of high-schoolers seeking college admission.
However, this glut of applications is hitting only a small fraction of the colleges. Only a hundred or so colleges and universities out of 2500 accept less than 50 percent of all applicants. The rest accept an average of 70 percent, which is the same rate they accepted a generation ago. In fact, 90 percent of college admit more than 90 percent of new student applicants. (Source)
And there is no reason a kid can't get a perfectly good education at an other-than-top-tier school. Jack Welch (UMass) is the usual example trotted out at this point.
Winerip's column highlights the essentially manufactured background many of these kids bring to the application. He mentions: "These kids who don’t get into Harvard spend summers on schooners in Chesapeake Bay studying marine biology, building homes for the poor in Central America, touring Europe with all-star orchestras."
While, "Summers, I dug trenches for my local sewer department during the day, and sold hot dogs at Fenway Park at night."
My kids, in the 90s, mowed lawns, babysat, scooped ice cream, went door to door for the census bureau, did camp counseling, and the like. They got great educations at schools that are not household names, and now they have great jobs.
Those fairy tale colleges have gone too far. When I went to college, at a first-tier university, if you wanted to lift weights you went to a dank room in the basement of the armory. Now, at this and other "top" schools, the shining athletic center with every imaginable fitness contrivance is de rigeur, no building is erected unless designed by a top architect at stupendous cost. All this is necessary in order to maintain competition within the top tier for the few top students with their admissions-coach-constructed resume.
Send your kids to College X. You won't regret it. They won't regret it, once they get over it.
posted by beagle at 6:43 PM on May 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
I goofed off for most of high school and still got in to the school of my choice. I have no idea what my kids are going to do.
More than likely, they won't hate you forever and ever.
And my god, 50K for Lehigh, or Kenyon, or Bowdoin. Per year.
Send them to State, then give them a credit card and a plane ticket to Europe for a six-month tour.
(I knew someone who's parents did this. She was grateful, learned a lot, and her parents didn't have to sell their house. Win-win.)
posted by bardic at 6:43 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
More than likely, they won't hate you forever and ever.
And my god, 50K for Lehigh, or Kenyon, or Bowdoin. Per year.
Send them to State, then give them a credit card and a plane ticket to Europe for a six-month tour.
(I knew someone who's parents did this. She was grateful, learned a lot, and her parents didn't have to sell their house. Win-win.)
posted by bardic at 6:43 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
You surely must be joking?
Well, I didn't necessarily say that Harvard is a modern, meritocratic university... On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that Harvard is just "about how much money your parents have" as j-urb says. Removing absurdities like legacy preference and athletics (!) preference would go a long way toward improving the perception of Harvard in the world beyond Cambridge.
places like Harvard in paticular want to breed a "Harvard Man."
Perhaps some current Harvard Mefites could provide a more informed view than I can, but I suspect this sort of attitude has vastly diminished (but not necessarily disappeared) over time, at least since 1926 when the Crimson felt able to publish this magnificent line: "The function of the University is to produce gentlemen—in the best sense of the term, but the University needs a leaven of students who are not gentlemen". Of course, that Crimson quote is nothing compared to Gladstone's famous hyperbole about a certain English university: "To call a man an Oxford man is to pay him the highest compliment that can be paid to a human being".
posted by Aloysius Bear at 6:48 PM on May 16, 2007
Well, I didn't necessarily say that Harvard is a modern, meritocratic university... On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that Harvard is just "about how much money your parents have" as j-urb says. Removing absurdities like legacy preference and athletics (!) preference would go a long way toward improving the perception of Harvard in the world beyond Cambridge.
places like Harvard in paticular want to breed a "Harvard Man."
Perhaps some current Harvard Mefites could provide a more informed view than I can, but I suspect this sort of attitude has vastly diminished (but not necessarily disappeared) over time, at least since 1926 when the Crimson felt able to publish this magnificent line: "The function of the University is to produce gentlemen—in the best sense of the term, but the University needs a leaven of students who are not gentlemen". Of course, that Crimson quote is nothing compared to Gladstone's famous hyperbole about a certain English university: "To call a man an Oxford man is to pay him the highest compliment that can be paid to a human being".
posted by Aloysius Bear at 6:48 PM on May 16, 2007
Geez people, just leave the country.
When I was applying to colleges (and believe me, it wasn't long ago) I tried to do this. I applied to McGill and got in. I would have been overjoyed had they not given me this news a month after I was supposed to have accepted their offer. I ended up going with the school that had actually got back to me in time and gave me a scholarship, which was peachy keen with me
I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though we live in a global age, some of these colleges haven't fully grasped how to deal with foreign applicants.
posted by piratebowling at 6:50 PM on May 16, 2007
When I was applying to colleges (and believe me, it wasn't long ago) I tried to do this. I applied to McGill and got in. I would have been overjoyed had they not given me this news a month after I was supposed to have accepted their offer. I ended up going with the school that had actually got back to me in time and gave me a scholarship, which was peachy keen with me
I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though we live in a global age, some of these colleges haven't fully grasped how to deal with foreign applicants.
posted by piratebowling at 6:50 PM on May 16, 2007
I read articles like this, and it's like I went to school in a different generation, or in a different country.
Well, the country part is at least true.
I mean, reading about the parents who have excel spreadsheets to keep track of exactly what College X said, and who push and push for their kids to get into these top schools? My parents, while they encouraged myself and my siblings to go to university, had absolutely no say in where I went. I spent my own money, I made my own decisions. The more I read things like this the better I see (in case I already hadn't) that this really is the best way to go about it.
posted by vernondalhart at 6:54 PM on May 16, 2007
Well, the country part is at least true.
I mean, reading about the parents who have excel spreadsheets to keep track of exactly what College X said, and who push and push for their kids to get into these top schools? My parents, while they encouraged myself and my siblings to go to university, had absolutely no say in where I went. I spent my own money, I made my own decisions. The more I read things like this the better I see (in case I already hadn't) that this really is the best way to go about it.
posted by vernondalhart at 6:54 PM on May 16, 2007
mdonley -- I think I know where College X is...
But you're right. The lack of a name just matters to those who deduce quality of a school from the US News rankings.
posted by spiderskull at 6:56 PM on May 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
But you're right. The lack of a name just matters to those who deduce quality of a school from the US News rankings.
posted by spiderskull at 6:56 PM on May 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
When I read all this talk about legacy-this and seed school-that, I am reminded of the stories my best friend would tell me during his first year at Harvard. Because I, too, shared the same thoughts that, sure, those folks are smart, but they're nothing special.
My friend was a math major. He lived downstairs from another guy who was majoring in math, who also happened to be one of the six incoming freshmen that were part of the famous 1994 USA math team that each wrote perfect papers at the International Mathematical Olympiad (a feat that has never been topped to this day).
His roommate was working on developing a vaccine for something... I forget what. He made his discovery when studying native tribes in Costa Rica. He gave lectures at medical conferences.
Point is: yes, Virginia, there are some really, really talented fucking geniuses going to these places, and the assumption that all it takes is money to get into an Ivy not only denigrates the hard work these kids have put into getting there, but also reaks of sour grapes.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:56 PM on May 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
My friend was a math major. He lived downstairs from another guy who was majoring in math, who also happened to be one of the six incoming freshmen that were part of the famous 1994 USA math team that each wrote perfect papers at the International Mathematical Olympiad (a feat that has never been topped to this day).
His roommate was working on developing a vaccine for something... I forget what. He made his discovery when studying native tribes in Costa Rica. He gave lectures at medical conferences.
Point is: yes, Virginia, there are some really, really talented fucking geniuses going to these places, and the assumption that all it takes is money to get into an Ivy not only denigrates the hard work these kids have put into getting there, but also reaks of sour grapes.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:56 PM on May 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
Speaking of Harvard, what I've always wondered is when you see Harvard pictures or do an image search, it's always heavy on pictures with non-white students. I'm wondering if Harvard is actually on a campaign to make itself look non-white-bread-elitist or if there is a very high percentage of exchange/international students.
Ivy league schools can be quite image conscious. The University of Pennsylvania was criticized for photoshopping out a rainbow tassel from a Middle Eastern student's graduation garb in 2003. His picture was left in to suggest campus multiculturalism, but oddly enough the gayness was removed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:56 PM on May 16, 2007
Ivy league schools can be quite image conscious. The University of Pennsylvania was criticized for photoshopping out a rainbow tassel from a Middle Eastern student's graduation garb in 2003. His picture was left in to suggest campus multiculturalism, but oddly enough the gayness was removed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:56 PM on May 16, 2007
I'd also like to point out that you'll get a great education at a second-tier school, but if you want to become a faculty member at the university level, you'd better have a big-name school on your resume (at least for your Ph.D).
posted by spiderskull at 7:04 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by spiderskull at 7:04 PM on May 16, 2007
I would have been overjoyed had they not given me this news a month after I was supposed to have accepted their offer.
Huh. Yeah. That stinks.
posted by GuyZero at 7:10 PM on May 16, 2007
Huh. Yeah. That stinks.
posted by GuyZero at 7:10 PM on May 16, 2007
Hodyoten, I believe that Harvard does have a fairly high minority representation; they value diversity (racial, if not economic), and have the endowment to be very generous in financial aid etc. to the nation's most talented minority students.
Guyzero, you're right that there are great educational bargains, and Colgate likely isn't one of them. Another example: many land grant schools have honors colleges within them that are comparable to far more selective institutions, and if you're instate they practically pay you to attend.
My two cents: I went to a tiny unranked liberal arts college in the midwest and am now a grad student at Harvard. I wouldn't trade my undergraduate education, which featured travel, wide independent reading, several hogsheads of Miller High Life, and an off-campus house with a jerry-built BB-gun range in the basement, for the Red Bull-fuelled 24-hour library culture the undergrads here live in, even if I could get it for the same low low price. Especially since they're getting much of their teaching from the likes of me, not their celebrity profs.
Do I see privilege and nepotism operating around me, at both grad and undergrad levels? Sure. Do I think the 6,000 kids here are any better than say the first 6,000 who didn't get in over the last four years? No. At the same time, there are some cases where superior preparation just makes you a better candidate. If you got into a top college because you went to a prep school that offered fencing, well, you're part of the problem. If you got in because your prep school offered Greek, thus making you a stronger classicist than someone whose school just offered Spanish and French, like my high school, well, I can't blame the top school for taking you.
And, though I'm sorry to end this post by being a total douche, I should point out that almost everybody here knows how to spell "stigma".
posted by sy at 7:12 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Guyzero, you're right that there are great educational bargains, and Colgate likely isn't one of them. Another example: many land grant schools have honors colleges within them that are comparable to far more selective institutions, and if you're instate they practically pay you to attend.
My two cents: I went to a tiny unranked liberal arts college in the midwest and am now a grad student at Harvard. I wouldn't trade my undergraduate education, which featured travel, wide independent reading, several hogsheads of Miller High Life, and an off-campus house with a jerry-built BB-gun range in the basement, for the Red Bull-fuelled 24-hour library culture the undergrads here live in, even if I could get it for the same low low price. Especially since they're getting much of their teaching from the likes of me, not their celebrity profs.
Do I see privilege and nepotism operating around me, at both grad and undergrad levels? Sure. Do I think the 6,000 kids here are any better than say the first 6,000 who didn't get in over the last four years? No. At the same time, there are some cases where superior preparation just makes you a better candidate. If you got into a top college because you went to a prep school that offered fencing, well, you're part of the problem. If you got in because your prep school offered Greek, thus making you a stronger classicist than someone whose school just offered Spanish and French, like my high school, well, I can't blame the top school for taking you.
And, though I'm sorry to end this post by being a total douche, I should point out that almost everybody here knows how to spell "stigma".
posted by sy at 7:12 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Fuck Ivy League. Dartmouth burnt down our library! (Once upon a time.)
posted by absalom at 7:28 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by absalom at 7:28 PM on May 16, 2007
spiderskull: It's nice to have a mascot without limbs - it sort of makes all that loafing about when you should be studying seem appropriate.
posted by mdonley at 7:36 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by mdonley at 7:36 PM on May 16, 2007
My fiance went to two of those expensive, semi-ivys (the midwestern one that turns out all the modern nazis and the NYC-area one where your student job is nannying for our nation's super-rich), after spending 13 years at a tony (for Minnesota) private school. I have a CSCI degree from one of those midwestern land-grant universities and 13 years of public school.
Which means that I have the math skills to know that had she invested the tuition and gone to public schools, we'd both be on easy street right now. You can learn a lot of great things from an expensive, private institution. But something makes me think they don't emphasize FV=PMT((1+i)^n-1)/i.
posted by bonecrusher at 7:37 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Which means that I have the math skills to know that had she invested the tuition and gone to public schools, we'd both be on easy street right now. You can learn a lot of great things from an expensive, private institution. But something makes me think they don't emphasize FV=PMT((1+i)^n-1)/i.
posted by bonecrusher at 7:37 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Point is: yes, Virginia, there are some really, really talented fucking geniuses going to these places, and the assumption that all it takes is money to get into an Ivy not only denigrates the hard work these kids have put into getting there, but also reaks of sour grapes.
Civil, in all due respect, I think you miss the point of a lot of these articles (and perhaps the comments). Yes, these schools really due recruits top students from around the globe, no one is debating that. Was your entire undergrad class full of math geniuses and vaccine producing prodigies? Of course not, they made up a minority. The problem is that a lot of these schools compose a large minority with truly talented geniuses, a large minority with alumni/well-connected students, and a large minority filling whatever quota they are trying to fill that year. I am sure you had as many math geniuses as so-and-so down the hall who happened to be Baroness of a small European nation? No? Mix meritocracy with aristocracy and sell it to America and you have the college system.
I remember a while back, when Neiderhoffer, himself a Harvard/UofC grad did a study on the actual success rate on some grads and found that Fortune 100 companies with Harvard grads actually did worse over a time frame. That does not speak bad for Harvard, as much as it says that the individual matters more than the school they went to. This is not what such schools promote. I have all respect for the top three, I think they are amazing institutions. I also think that a Porsche is a wonderful automobile. Is a Porsche exponentially better than a Lexus? I do no think so.
posted by geoff. at 7:41 PM on May 16, 2007
Civil, in all due respect, I think you miss the point of a lot of these articles (and perhaps the comments). Yes, these schools really due recruits top students from around the globe, no one is debating that. Was your entire undergrad class full of math geniuses and vaccine producing prodigies? Of course not, they made up a minority. The problem is that a lot of these schools compose a large minority with truly talented geniuses, a large minority with alumni/well-connected students, and a large minority filling whatever quota they are trying to fill that year. I am sure you had as many math geniuses as so-and-so down the hall who happened to be Baroness of a small European nation? No? Mix meritocracy with aristocracy and sell it to America and you have the college system.
I remember a while back, when Neiderhoffer, himself a Harvard/UofC grad did a study on the actual success rate on some grads and found that Fortune 100 companies with Harvard grads actually did worse over a time frame. That does not speak bad for Harvard, as much as it says that the individual matters more than the school they went to. This is not what such schools promote. I have all respect for the top three, I think they are amazing institutions. I also think that a Porsche is a wonderful automobile. Is a Porsche exponentially better than a Lexus? I do no think so.
posted by geoff. at 7:41 PM on May 16, 2007
due=do, and other mistakes that I am sure is a class identifier.
posted by geoff. at 7:42 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by geoff. at 7:42 PM on May 16, 2007
Things may be different now, but when I got into college, I ended up at an Ivy in part because I couldn't afford the state university. The school I went to has a need-blind admissions policy, so I got nearly everything covered by grants, scholarships, and loans. I did graduate with debt, but it was hardly the end of the world. My school is small, and while it does have a couple of graduate programs, it is in essence a college. Friends of mine from high school who went to That School in Cambridge almost never saw an actual professor in their classes; I was taught by full professors from day one.
(That said, I'd never get in today.)
posted by rtha at 7:59 PM on May 16, 2007
(That said, I'd never get in today.)
posted by rtha at 7:59 PM on May 16, 2007
Eh. I went to the University of Chicago, whose acceptance rate is probably the highest among the elite US universities (2007 acceptance rate: 35%), mostly because its academic reputation (and commensurate "worst party school in the US" reputation) scares the holy living crap out of most high school students.
This suits us just fine.
posted by jscalzi at 8:07 PM on May 16, 2007
This suits us just fine.
posted by jscalzi at 8:07 PM on May 16, 2007
From my alma mater, sadly: Are Our Students Better Now?
ABSTRACT. The author gave his fall 2006 Calculus I class the final exam from his fall 1989 Calculus I class. The scores were significantly lower in 2006. Although the University has changed dramatically in those 17 years, much is the same. The SAT mathematics test does not detect this decline. The conjectured culprits are the general decline in K-12 mathematics education and the use of calculators on the SAT mathematics test.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:08 PM on May 16, 2007
ABSTRACT. The author gave his fall 2006 Calculus I class the final exam from his fall 1989 Calculus I class. The scores were significantly lower in 2006. Although the University has changed dramatically in those 17 years, much is the same. The SAT mathematics test does not detect this decline. The conjectured culprits are the general decline in K-12 mathematics education and the use of calculators on the SAT mathematics test.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:08 PM on May 16, 2007
I grew up in Dartmouth's extended backyard and my observation of the Ivy League is that most of its students could use a few more red blood cells. (I now live in the shadow of Brown, and I feel the same way. When the blood's running blue, you know that's a Brown student.)
My own alma mater is having its own issues with the applicant crisis. Rather than narrow down its acceptance rate, it's still accepting the same freshman class that it did three years ago... only, oddly enough, more students are actually attending. This has lead to a housing crisis of epic proportions. The school has a fairly high attrition rate, and I believe the large freshman class is meant to compensate for this, but it totally backfires when you've got kids living in lounges as triples - last year, there were even fifty students housed in a hotel - and you wonder why they start dropping out after the first semester! There's no common space available with all of the lounges being used for housing, everyone's crammed in on top of each other, and classes are overbooked. It's madness.
Haven't they realized that being more selective is the wave of the future?
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:15 PM on May 16, 2007
My own alma mater is having its own issues with the applicant crisis. Rather than narrow down its acceptance rate, it's still accepting the same freshman class that it did three years ago... only, oddly enough, more students are actually attending. This has lead to a housing crisis of epic proportions. The school has a fairly high attrition rate, and I believe the large freshman class is meant to compensate for this, but it totally backfires when you've got kids living in lounges as triples - last year, there were even fifty students housed in a hotel - and you wonder why they start dropping out after the first semester! There's no common space available with all of the lounges being used for housing, everyone's crammed in on top of each other, and classes are overbooked. It's madness.
Haven't they realized that being more selective is the wave of the future?
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:15 PM on May 16, 2007
It's interesting to consider the reasons for these changes in selectivity. I wonder for example if some of this is somewhat illusory, a result of students applying to more schools (*everyone's* more selective).
But (to point out the obvious, perhaps?) I suppose that the driving reason behind the push by so many to squeeze into the small number of available slots at top-tier institutions is a kind of creeping panic about the state of the economy, and the fate that awaits the less prestigiously schooled. I mean, the comfortable middle-management jobs that once awaited the grads from Eastern State U. are evaporating fast. And in the "knowledge economy," when everyone's supposed to be an entrepreneur, knowing and going to school with the right folks is perhaps more important than ever.
Anyway, I'm not too naive to hope that we'll eventually see a return to a less brutally stratified economy, and that the scramble into the ivy-league lifeboats will become somewhat less panicked.
posted by washburn at 8:19 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
But (to point out the obvious, perhaps?) I suppose that the driving reason behind the push by so many to squeeze into the small number of available slots at top-tier institutions is a kind of creeping panic about the state of the economy, and the fate that awaits the less prestigiously schooled. I mean, the comfortable middle-management jobs that once awaited the grads from Eastern State U. are evaporating fast. And in the "knowledge economy," when everyone's supposed to be an entrepreneur, knowing and going to school with the right folks is perhaps more important than ever.
Anyway, I'm not too naive to hope that we'll eventually see a return to a less brutally stratified economy, and that the scramble into the ivy-league lifeboats will become somewhat less panicked.
posted by washburn at 8:19 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
As a tufts grad ... maybe someday we won't have the stygma of being #3 in the city
I didn't even know there were two other schools in Medford.
(I kid! I kid!)
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:23 PM on May 16, 2007
I didn't even know there were two other schools in Medford.
(I kid! I kid!)
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:23 PM on May 16, 2007
Eh. I went to the University of Chicago, whose acceptance rate is probably the highest among the elite US universities (2007 acceptance rate: 35%), mostly because its academic reputation (and commensurate "worst party school in the US" reputation) scares the holy living crap out of most high school students.
This suits us just fine.
Us really pensive, grandiose, miserable bitches had to go somewhere.
posted by The Straightener at 8:25 PM on May 16, 2007
This suits us just fine.
Us really pensive, grandiose, miserable bitches had to go somewhere.
posted by The Straightener at 8:25 PM on May 16, 2007
George Bush went to Yale. If someone going to a "good school" impresses you -- just remember that fact.
(I know, I know, smart people go to the Ivy Leagues too, but a whore who sometimes fucks worthy men is still a whore).
Oh, and these articles appear in the Times all the fucking time. I swear, some editor's kid didn't get into Harvard this year or something.
posted by Bookhouse at 8:30 PM on May 16, 2007
(I know, I know, smart people go to the Ivy Leagues too, but a whore who sometimes fucks worthy men is still a whore).
Oh, and these articles appear in the Times all the fucking time. I swear, some editor's kid didn't get into Harvard this year or something.
posted by Bookhouse at 8:30 PM on May 16, 2007
And he certainly didn't go to the University of Missouri. Damn fine school, that one is.
posted by Bookhouse at 8:36 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by Bookhouse at 8:36 PM on May 16, 2007
I write: Anyway, I'm not too naive to hope that . . .
Guess who didn't go to an ivy.
Oh well.
posted by washburn at 8:38 PM on May 16, 2007
Guess who didn't go to an ivy.
Oh well.
posted by washburn at 8:38 PM on May 16, 2007
Point is: yes, Virginia, there are some really, really talented fucking geniuses going to these places, and the assumption that all it takes is money to get into an Ivy not only denigrates the hard work these kids have put into getting there, but also reaks of sour grapes.
Agreed. I met a girl from Harvard once on the Fung-Wah bus (she had just been accepted; hadn't even started classes yet). She gave my friend and I a passionate monologue about her dream to translate Russian literature into the vernacular. We were awestruck.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:44 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Agreed. I met a girl from Harvard once on the Fung-Wah bus (she had just been accepted; hadn't even started classes yet). She gave my friend and I a passionate monologue about her dream to translate Russian literature into the vernacular. We were awestruck.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:44 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
to translate Russian literature into the vernacular
Into English? I don't get it.
posted by bardic at 8:50 PM on May 16, 2007
Into English? I don't get it.
posted by bardic at 8:50 PM on May 16, 2007
I'm absolutely convinced that if I applied to my alma mater (hint: it was founded by a beer brewer) today with the same credentials that got me in there sixteen years ago, they wouldn't have even bothered to send me a rejection letter.
Well, maybe a postcard. But it'd be all bent and sticky and have like $3.50 postage due or something.
posted by Lucinda at 8:50 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
Well, maybe a postcard. But it'd be all bent and sticky and have like $3.50 postage due or something.
posted by Lucinda at 8:50 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'd also like to point out that you'll get a great education at a second-tier school, but if you want to become a faculty member at the university level, you'd better have a big-name school on your resume (at least for your Ph.D).
Not true in my field. Is getting your degree from a well-known school helpful? Sure. Is it essential? Absolutely not. Your publications, teaching experience, letters of recommendation, and the rest of the package are what's essential.
For an undergraduate, it's what you do in college that matters the most. A large proportion of the ranking and tiering is elitist bullshit. Attending a highly ranked school is not a guarantee of success. The very idea of ranking feeds into a dangerous sense of entitlement. If you want to prepare students for the "real world," this is not the way to do it.
I'm not saying names don't matter at all, but I don't understand the obsessiveness with it. It's counter-productive. And surprise! Everyone then applies to the same schools just because everyone else is.
posted by Tehanu at 9:09 PM on May 16, 2007
Not true in my field. Is getting your degree from a well-known school helpful? Sure. Is it essential? Absolutely not. Your publications, teaching experience, letters of recommendation, and the rest of the package are what's essential.
For an undergraduate, it's what you do in college that matters the most. A large proportion of the ranking and tiering is elitist bullshit. Attending a highly ranked school is not a guarantee of success. The very idea of ranking feeds into a dangerous sense of entitlement. If you want to prepare students for the "real world," this is not the way to do it.
I'm not saying names don't matter at all, but I don't understand the obsessiveness with it. It's counter-productive. And surprise! Everyone then applies to the same schools just because everyone else is.
posted by Tehanu at 9:09 PM on May 16, 2007
We kinda got sucked into the whole college vortex. My son graduated high school in 05, got accepted and offered a handsome scholarship to a USNews almost top-100 school (they were on the list, but were something like 103 oro 105) in Iowa. Come to find out it was nothing but a small party school. Because they were small, he could never get the classes he wanted, and honestly, he's not much of a partier, so all that meant was he didn't get much sleep.
He checked out of college after the first year, now is going to the local CC and after that probably the state school where my wife got her degree.
A degree is a degree.
posted by Doohickie at 9:22 PM on May 16, 2007
He checked out of college after the first year, now is going to the local CC and after that probably the state school where my wife got her degree.
A degree is a degree.
posted by Doohickie at 9:22 PM on May 16, 2007
USAF, Community college and finally UMass Amherst. Umass was great party school and as intellectuality challenging as you wanted to make it. The spectrum was vast with many different avenues to explore. There were tons of graduate student who unlike old tenured profs: were on the cutting edge of there field and all to willing to share. In a chemistry class of 500 it took a lot of hard work to geta B and to score an A meant you were really cooking with gas. A diversified student body, which IMHO was is crucial in forming you into as person with character. You could take courses at Amherst, Hampshire, Smith, and Mount Holyoke. In the latter two gave you the opportunity to be one of a very few males in the class. All for $2000.00 a semester, a steal! I went to a junior Ivy for grad work, and found the students to be homogeneous were everyone pulled a B or better no matter what they did. Digging ditches and selling hot dog is real world work, you acquire a work ethic. As a bonus giveing you the grace to appreciate more fulfilling work.
posted by Rancid Badger at 9:26 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by Rancid Badger at 9:26 PM on May 16, 2007
I'm not saying names don't matter at all, but I don't understand the obsessiveness with it. It's counter-productive. And surprise! Everyone then applies to the same schools just because everyone else is.
And yet, the very same academics who spout this line are more likely to want to interview a Harvard PhD before a Montana State PhD.
I don't think the elitism is a good thing myself, but it's there. Always. Even when people claim it isn't.
posted by bardic at 9:39 PM on May 16, 2007
And yet, the very same academics who spout this line are more likely to want to interview a Harvard PhD before a Montana State PhD.
I don't think the elitism is a good thing myself, but it's there. Always. Even when people claim it isn't.
posted by bardic at 9:39 PM on May 16, 2007
I really feel for those students under so much pressure to get into a good school. I was probably amongst the last of the students who had a good choice with decent, though not stellar, grades and didn't need to show that I spent all my off-hours on volunteer work in order to get in.
I'm really glad people are starting to see that a good education can be found in a wide variety of places. I'd never get into my alma mater now, especially not since I had to spend my evenings and weekends working just so I could cover my first year tuition.
posted by Salmonberry at 9:48 PM on May 16, 2007
I'm really glad people are starting to see that a good education can be found in a wide variety of places. I'd never get into my alma mater now, especially not since I had to spend my evenings and weekends working just so I could cover my first year tuition.
posted by Salmonberry at 9:48 PM on May 16, 2007
Students are certainly picking up on the idea that colleges are getting more selective and that incoming students are perhaps more serious than the upperclassmen and -women were in their day (all of 3 or 4 years ago).
I work at a small liberal arts college where the president of the college has made a lot of noise about how much more competitive things are now than they were only a few years ago.
The unofficial motto of the class of 2007 is "The Last Dumb Class."
posted by bevedog at 9:55 PM on May 16, 2007
I work at a small liberal arts college where the president of the college has made a lot of noise about how much more competitive things are now than they were only a few years ago.
The unofficial motto of the class of 2007 is "The Last Dumb Class."
posted by bevedog at 9:55 PM on May 16, 2007
I guess the boys at the TIMES can't find anything to write about and some are probably P-d off their kid couldn't get into Yale or Princeton. Not sure if the "ranking" system is fair for colleges really. I'm not sure dedication and real knowledge can be adequately adjudged, but then I'm no really smart guy.
posted by Roger Davis at 9:55 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by Roger Davis at 9:55 PM on May 16, 2007
Bardic, I think Kenyon's a great example of a school that was once considered sort of 2nd or 3rd rate, somewhere where a kid who couldn't get into the Ivies but still wanted something Ivy-like would go. (And I say that as someone who grew up next to it, whose mother works there, etc...)
Now, kids are practically beating down the door.
posted by Liosliath at 10:04 PM on May 16, 2007
Now, kids are practically beating down the door.
posted by Liosliath at 10:04 PM on May 16, 2007
Well, I went to Harvard. I also conduct admissions interviews for the College here in San Francisco.
Actually, I've been interviewing high school kids now for a few years. Their energy, intelligence and motivation has at times intimidated me even though I do my best to conceal this during the interviews. And they're busy. One girl I had to reschedule with several times: she was a soloist with a local symphony orchestra and her rehearsal schedules were grueling. Another boy had put his own record album out and had started a "Peace corps" type organization shuttling people between the U.S. and a South American country.
We have a lot of interviewers and so I only do 2-3 interviews each season. So, I've interviewed a total of 10 or so kids. Each of them has been incredible and much more talented than I feel I was at that age. I think of myself as a fairly intelligent guy with ok grades and really good test scores who luckily managed to do "a-very-interesting-thing" when I was in high school which drew the attention of Harvard, MIT, Princeton etc. (I got in at all of them...) even though I spent most of my evenings doing what most high-schoolers were doing then - hanging out with friends.
So, among these 10 kids I've interviewed, each one precocious and impossibly energetic or brilliant or both, Harvard has admitted exactly: 1.
posted by vacapinta at 10:05 PM on May 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
Actually, I've been interviewing high school kids now for a few years. Their energy, intelligence and motivation has at times intimidated me even though I do my best to conceal this during the interviews. And they're busy. One girl I had to reschedule with several times: she was a soloist with a local symphony orchestra and her rehearsal schedules were grueling. Another boy had put his own record album out and had started a "Peace corps" type organization shuttling people between the U.S. and a South American country.
We have a lot of interviewers and so I only do 2-3 interviews each season. So, I've interviewed a total of 10 or so kids. Each of them has been incredible and much more talented than I feel I was at that age. I think of myself as a fairly intelligent guy with ok grades and really good test scores who luckily managed to do "a-very-interesting-thing" when I was in high school which drew the attention of Harvard, MIT, Princeton etc. (I got in at all of them...) even though I spent most of my evenings doing what most high-schoolers were doing then - hanging out with friends.
So, among these 10 kids I've interviewed, each one precocious and impossibly energetic or brilliant or both, Harvard has admitted exactly: 1.
posted by vacapinta at 10:05 PM on May 16, 2007 [3 favorites]
To expand up on Tehanu's response -- To get a faculty appointment at a top-tier school in a competitive field, the reputation of your PhD program is key (as is that of your PhD adviser), although often secondary to whether or not your own work stands on its own. Your undergrad school might help you get into the doctoral program, but won't control whether or not your get a post-grad job.
I'm with many people here in feeling some discomfort in the knowledge that I would likely not be admitted to my undergraduate school if I were applying today. A lot of admissions officers are feeling pretty good, but I'll bet development offices are going to have more trouble raising money from alums like myself who feel that the "more competitive" direction doesn't speak to them.
posted by Forktine at 10:06 PM on May 16, 2007
I'm with many people here in feeling some discomfort in the knowledge that I would likely not be admitted to my undergraduate school if I were applying today. A lot of admissions officers are feeling pretty good, but I'll bet development offices are going to have more trouble raising money from alums like myself who feel that the "more competitive" direction doesn't speak to them.
posted by Forktine at 10:06 PM on May 16, 2007
spiderskull: if you want to become a faculty member at the university level, you'd better have a big-name school on your resume (at least for your Ph.D).
During the 50s, when my dad got his faculty position, I believe it was a job seekers market. He had a nice, not too stressful job.
When I was in grad school in Computer Science in the 90s, the career path was very different - definitely not a job-seekers market. I knew top-tier PhDs from who were getting faculty positions at nth tier state schools. I believe the same holds today. There are a lot of PhDs chasing after relatively few positions.
I also know a lot of academic biologists. In that field, it's now common to do two 1 - 2 year postdocs before applying for faculty positions.
posted by zippy at 10:14 PM on May 16, 2007
During the 50s, when my dad got his faculty position, I believe it was a job seekers market. He had a nice, not too stressful job.
When I was in grad school in Computer Science in the 90s, the career path was very different - definitely not a job-seekers market. I knew top-tier PhDs from who were getting faculty positions at nth tier state schools. I believe the same holds today. There are a lot of PhDs chasing after relatively few positions.
I also know a lot of academic biologists. In that field, it's now common to do two 1 - 2 year postdocs before applying for faculty positions.
posted by zippy at 10:14 PM on May 16, 2007
From Fall 2002 to Spring 2005 I was the Director, Graduate Admissions at an expensive specialist graduate only school with a pedigree attached to a not as great/wellknown private university in the city of Chicago, head of the dept of admissions, student services, registrations, nose wiping etc To give some context, annual tuition ranged from 28K to 33K, and total annual expenses were in the range of 60K -80K for this fulltime program.
Reading through the comments I thought I'd risk the brickbats to just add some few cents from the other side of the table -
1. "yield" and "selectivity" are but two of the key metrics of performance, both for a school and for the person whose neck is on the line [yrs truly]
2. When you compete with the likes of Stanford and CMU for your best students, [other schools would give away the program] BRAND matters. Particularly when you're attached to a school with lower endowments and isn't as flush with student aid and funds to attract the stars.
3. Why? Well when you're going to shell out the equivalent of a mortgage for your education [be it undergrad or grad] you have to look at hte ROI - return on your investment and the returns for this type of investment, are a) alumni base, i.e. the network that you are forever a part of b) the first job pay out of school [guess who gets paid more? A Stanford grad or a XYZ grad?] and c) the quality and breadth and depth of experience of your classmates and colleagues, from whom you will end up learning for the most part or working together in teams
4. Therefore, a significant part of any brand, and particularly at the price ranges of these schools under discussion, premium brands, is the market perception of "Exclusivity" or "Selective" - creme de la creme or whatever. I mean, would you join any club that would have you? You too wish to percieve your self to have been selected, to feel extraordinary or unique or different right? This is where the data points of statistics [and YES, they can be gamed, as is true of any statistical data] on "We admitted only 35% of all applicants" etc comes into play - data that US News & World Report uses for its annual college rankings etc.
5. What isn't articulated with this data point is a) how do they count "applications received" ? For example, some schools start the file as soon as one piece of paper from an applicant is received, usually a SAT score, TOEFL or GRE score. Often the applicant NEVER follows up and applies, is this a valid count of applications vs admits? Similarly, and more importantly is the question of Yield - Admit offers made vs Numbers enrolled. I'm guessing the same pattern applies in the Ivy undergrads that does with the stars to my former employer - there is a significant amount of overlap between the applicants. I can usually tell that the applicant who I've shortlisted as a "star" [an applicant who outshines everyone else and often can be used as an exemplar to others on the fence about the school, i.e. You know that the 2004 Gold award winner is joining us this fall? its all marketing] will be accepted by CMU and STanford and Yale to this program.
6. Now you ask, why go through all of this? Why do this?
* prestige - Harvard et al must continue to maintain their brand, and all of these factors, selectivity, exclusivity, quality and snob value of new admits are to be honest, all factors that go towards this. Its a vicious cycle now, as you are all vociferously commenting on, I myself went to a "2nd tier" MBA program [one of the most competitive professional admissions areas, witness the fight to be ranked #1 by the FT, the WSJ, BusinessWeek et al] but the fact remains that a Wharton, Harvard or Northwestern MBA commands upto double the starting salary of a "down the street, state college MBA"
* a diverse class of students that bring value to their classmates and add something to the school. Harvard is wellknown for admitting what they perceive to be star quality leaders, because they know that these are the kids that will get the best jobs, have the best connections and thus 40 years down the line will be in the "old boy network" of the movers and shakers. All of this makes Harvard [for eg] look good, makes the people shelling out the 150K tuition feel good and in hard numbers, adds a demonstrable percentage to their lifetime earnings.
* Imho, when you're faced with reams of application essays how do you manage to select people? You fall back on "something that catches your eye" - the stuff that is being discussed in the comments - foreign travel, unusual experiences, stories that stand out etc. Now I only had to select a class of 40 each fall out of over 200 applications globally, not much at all, but imagine a Wharton [at UPenn] who have 8000 applications for 850 seats in their MBA program.
There's more.... heh... but I'll shut up now. I can however offer to answer questions to the best of my ability.
posted by infini at 10:21 PM on May 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
Reading through the comments I thought I'd risk the brickbats to just add some few cents from the other side of the table -
1. "yield" and "selectivity" are but two of the key metrics of performance, both for a school and for the person whose neck is on the line [yrs truly]
2. When you compete with the likes of Stanford and CMU for your best students, [other schools would give away the program] BRAND matters. Particularly when you're attached to a school with lower endowments and isn't as flush with student aid and funds to attract the stars.
3. Why? Well when you're going to shell out the equivalent of a mortgage for your education [be it undergrad or grad] you have to look at hte ROI - return on your investment and the returns for this type of investment, are a) alumni base, i.e. the network that you are forever a part of b) the first job pay out of school [guess who gets paid more? A Stanford grad or a XYZ grad?] and c) the quality and breadth and depth of experience of your classmates and colleagues, from whom you will end up learning for the most part or working together in teams
4. Therefore, a significant part of any brand, and particularly at the price ranges of these schools under discussion, premium brands, is the market perception of "Exclusivity" or "Selective" - creme de la creme or whatever. I mean, would you join any club that would have you? You too wish to percieve your self to have been selected, to feel extraordinary or unique or different right? This is where the data points of statistics [and YES, they can be gamed, as is true of any statistical data] on "We admitted only 35% of all applicants" etc comes into play - data that US News & World Report uses for its annual college rankings etc.
5. What isn't articulated with this data point is a) how do they count "applications received" ? For example, some schools start the file as soon as one piece of paper from an applicant is received, usually a SAT score, TOEFL or GRE score. Often the applicant NEVER follows up and applies, is this a valid count of applications vs admits? Similarly, and more importantly is the question of Yield - Admit offers made vs Numbers enrolled. I'm guessing the same pattern applies in the Ivy undergrads that does with the stars to my former employer - there is a significant amount of overlap between the applicants. I can usually tell that the applicant who I've shortlisted as a "star" [an applicant who outshines everyone else and often can be used as an exemplar to others on the fence about the school, i.e. You know that the 2004 Gold award winner is joining us this fall? its all marketing] will be accepted by CMU and STanford and Yale to this program.
6. Now you ask, why go through all of this? Why do this?
* prestige - Harvard et al must continue to maintain their brand, and all of these factors, selectivity, exclusivity, quality and snob value of new admits are to be honest, all factors that go towards this. Its a vicious cycle now, as you are all vociferously commenting on, I myself went to a "2nd tier" MBA program [one of the most competitive professional admissions areas, witness the fight to be ranked #1 by the FT, the WSJ, BusinessWeek et al] but the fact remains that a Wharton, Harvard or Northwestern MBA commands upto double the starting salary of a "down the street, state college MBA"
* a diverse class of students that bring value to their classmates and add something to the school. Harvard is wellknown for admitting what they perceive to be star quality leaders, because they know that these are the kids that will get the best jobs, have the best connections and thus 40 years down the line will be in the "old boy network" of the movers and shakers. All of this makes Harvard [for eg] look good, makes the people shelling out the 150K tuition feel good and in hard numbers, adds a demonstrable percentage to their lifetime earnings.
* Imho, when you're faced with reams of application essays how do you manage to select people? You fall back on "something that catches your eye" - the stuff that is being discussed in the comments - foreign travel, unusual experiences, stories that stand out etc. Now I only had to select a class of 40 each fall out of over 200 applications globally, not much at all, but imagine a Wharton [at UPenn] who have 8000 applications for 850 seats in their MBA program.
There's more.... heh... but I'll shut up now. I can however offer to answer questions to the best of my ability.
posted by infini at 10:21 PM on May 16, 2007 [2 favorites]
In high tech, if you don't have an established track record or personal connections, a degree from MIT, Stanford, CMU, or Caltech will get you interviews when a degree from UMass might not.
Since going to a name school increases one's chances of getting in the door, and thus getting hired, being from a name school means you're more likely to have school friends who themselves have been hired. So now you have personal ins at companies, and are almost guaranteed to get an interview.
So yes, going to a respected school helps your job prospects.
posted by zippy at 10:24 PM on May 16, 2007
Since going to a name school increases one's chances of getting in the door, and thus getting hired, being from a name school means you're more likely to have school friends who themselves have been hired. So now you have personal ins at companies, and are almost guaranteed to get an interview.
So yes, going to a respected school helps your job prospects.
posted by zippy at 10:24 PM on May 16, 2007
So, among these 10 kids I've interviewed, each one precocious and impossibly energetic or brilliant or both, Harvard has admitted exactly: 1.
posted by vacapinta at 10:05 PM on May 16 [1 favorite +]
[!]
Vacapinta: I'd ask a question, would all 10 have fallen in the same "category" [admissions building a class diversity wise] i.e. were they all Indian s/w engineers? were they all yuppie valley kids? were they all of hte same demographic? In which case, all things being equal, I can see how only one would have gotten in if the admissions people were trying to build some diverse backgrounds to the mix of the incoming class.
posted by infini at 10:24 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by vacapinta at 10:05 PM on May 16 [1 favorite +]
[!]
Vacapinta: I'd ask a question, would all 10 have fallen in the same "category" [admissions building a class diversity wise] i.e. were they all Indian s/w engineers? were they all yuppie valley kids? were they all of hte same demographic? In which case, all things being equal, I can see how only one would have gotten in if the admissions people were trying to build some diverse backgrounds to the mix of the incoming class.
posted by infini at 10:24 PM on May 16, 2007
Perceptive that you ask that, infini. I won't go into details but the one that was admitted was, although equally accomplished, still "different" from all the others in exactly the way you mention. I could almost sense the mind of the admissions office saying about the others "Yeah...talented kid no doubt but also looks a lot like X over here" whereas this one admitted definitely stood out.
posted by vacapinta at 10:43 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by vacapinta at 10:43 PM on May 16, 2007
There was an interesting piece by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker a few years ago about 1) What the Ivies do to maintain their luxury brand, and 2) some new research about what that brand actually gets you (not much that the same sort of student couldn't get from another good non-ivy school).
posted by Good Brain at 10:58 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by Good Brain at 10:58 PM on May 16, 2007
vacapinta: thank you! and most humbly, not perceptive, just a former 'mind of the admissions office' :p
posted by infini at 10:59 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by infini at 10:59 PM on May 16, 2007
I go to Kenyon. It's a great school, I feel like I've been getting a great education. I love my professors, my friends, the sense of place that the school has. The administration, however, will not shut up about this whole "New Ivy" thing. Yes, we get it. Save it for recruiting new students, stop pestering us about how great "we" (read as the administration, including the generally-absent president, patting themselves on the back) are, and let us get an education in piece. I know that the vast majority of faculty and staff is not letting this go to their heads, but good grief, the "New Ivy" label is getting thrown around way too much. Oh well. Go Kenyon.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:03 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:03 PM on May 16, 2007
UMass is always in the top 25 in CS. As an employer, schools are just part of the indices. Primarily, how the prospective person will fit into our corp. structure and experiences that are in line with what we are doing are the deciding factors. I am more interested in if he can do the job while working with others than what school he went to. That he went to Harvard by being able to play the violin with his feet would get him quickly shown the door.
posted by Rancid Badger at 11:09 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by Rancid Badger at 11:09 PM on May 16, 2007
Err, that should be "in peace." Even "New Ivy" students make stupid typos.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:10 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by OverlappingElvis at 11:10 PM on May 16, 2007
The college premium. Apparently going to college boosts your income much more than it used to, so there's more demand.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:19 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:19 PM on May 16, 2007
This interview with Yale's President Levin makes no apologies for the legacy system, and, among other things, says that the legacy pool is stronger.
Yale is also talking about making the university bigger.
posted by Adamchik at 11:21 PM on May 16, 2007
Yale is also talking about making the university bigger.
posted by Adamchik at 11:21 PM on May 16, 2007
I'm not saying names don't matter at all
- posted by Tehanu
Eponysterical.
I enjoyed my college years at Harvard. I met a bunch of brilliant, diverse, eccentric people, many of whom are still my friends today. It was a nice four-year idyll, which cost my parents plenty; after which I returned to my quotidian existence of nearly always being the smartest person in the room.
Sigh. I guess it's a burden I'll just have to bear; none of you will ever know what it's like!
Except vacapinta!
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:28 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
- posted by Tehanu
Eponysterical.
I enjoyed my college years at Harvard. I met a bunch of brilliant, diverse, eccentric people, many of whom are still my friends today. It was a nice four-year idyll, which cost my parents plenty; after which I returned to my quotidian existence of nearly always being the smartest person in the room.
Sigh. I guess it's a burden I'll just have to bear; none of you will ever know what it's like!
Except vacapinta!
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:28 PM on May 16, 2007 [1 favorite]
And he certainly didn't go to the University of Missouri. Damn fine school, that one is.
Damn straight he didn't. He would have never made it through. Mizzou was very much a "you get out of it what you put into it" kind of place. Nobody stands there to hold your hand and make you succeed. I had friends who flunked out because they didn't do their work. I graduated with good grades because I stayed in on some nights to do calculus and other "uncool" things.
When I graduated, I got a good job, and I've succeeded at that job. And I owe at least some of that success to the fact the that when I was in school, I actually took the time to learn a thing or two.
So yeah. Fuck the ivies. Go Tigers!
posted by Afroblanco at 11:33 PM on May 16, 2007
Damn straight he didn't. He would have never made it through. Mizzou was very much a "you get out of it what you put into it" kind of place. Nobody stands there to hold your hand and make you succeed. I had friends who flunked out because they didn't do their work. I graduated with good grades because I stayed in on some nights to do calculus and other "uncool" things.
When I graduated, I got a good job, and I've succeeded at that job. And I owe at least some of that success to the fact the that when I was in school, I actually took the time to learn a thing or two.
So yeah. Fuck the ivies. Go Tigers!
posted by Afroblanco at 11:33 PM on May 16, 2007
One question- I'm a Cultural Studies undergrad student at McGill, originally at Parsons and Columbia. Is anyone EVER going to hire me to do ANYTHING?
posted by 235w103 at 11:43 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by 235w103 at 11:43 PM on May 16, 2007
One question- I'm a Cultural Studies undergrad student at McGill, originally at Parsons and Columbia. Is anyone EVER going to hire me to do ANYTHING?
posted by 235w103 at 11:43 PM on May 16 [+]
[!]
If you took design at Parsons, or have some aesthetic sensibility, you could leverage your cultural studies undergrad into design research or understanding current trends kind of thing. just rambling.
posted by infini at 11:50 PM on May 16, 2007
posted by 235w103 at 11:43 PM on May 16 [+]
[!]
If you took design at Parsons, or have some aesthetic sensibility, you could leverage your cultural studies undergrad into design research or understanding current trends kind of thing. just rambling.
posted by infini at 11:50 PM on May 16, 2007
I go to Kenyon. It's a great school, I feel like I've been getting a great education. I love my professors, my friends, the sense of place that the school has. The administration, however, will not shut up about this whole "New Ivy" thing. Yes, we get it.
Hehe. Just wait until you're an alum.
Say hello to Middle Path for me.
posted by bardic at 11:57 PM on May 16, 2007
Hehe. Just wait until you're an alum.
Say hello to Middle Path for me.
posted by bardic at 11:57 PM on May 16, 2007
I've never really understood the US College Admissions process, and probably never will. However, reading all this makes me appreciate how lucky I am to live somewhere that getting into university is based entirely on Academic Merit. There are generally no interview processes (unless it's a performance/creative arts course), and the universities really only control how many students are in the course, a separate body does all the rest, based entirely on school marks.
There is no way that I (or most of my friends) would be able to attend the university that we attend otherwise.
posted by cholly at 12:11 AM on May 17, 2007
There is no way that I (or most of my friends) would be able to attend the university that we attend otherwise.
posted by cholly at 12:11 AM on May 17, 2007
vacapinta: Do all applicants to your alma mater receive an interview, or are applicants randomly selected for interviews, or only applicants who've passed some sort of initial overview?
If this is, like, totally super secret I understand. :)
posted by mdonley at 12:12 AM on May 17, 2007
If this is, like, totally super secret I understand. :)
posted by mdonley at 12:12 AM on May 17, 2007
For some historical perspective, Malcolm Gladwell on the evolution of the Ivy League admissions process.
posted by goingonit at 12:19 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by goingonit at 12:19 AM on May 17, 2007
Kenyon. Pssh.
Oberlin all the way.
I'm not sure what to make of this, nor am I sure I buy it. Perhaps it's happening for the very top tier schools, but I'm certainly not seeing much of a trickle down effect. I'm a grad student at a mid-size public university, (who TA's way more than I'd like) and am usually appalled by the work my students submit. It's pretty shoddy. I'm frightened that these kids are going to be out in the world with a degree. It's particularly rare for me to get more than a few students per lab/section whose writing isn't abominable.
posted by HighTechUnderpants at 12:44 AM on May 17, 2007
Oberlin all the way.
I'm not sure what to make of this, nor am I sure I buy it. Perhaps it's happening for the very top tier schools, but I'm certainly not seeing much of a trickle down effect. I'm a grad student at a mid-size public university, (who TA's way more than I'd like) and am usually appalled by the work my students submit. It's pretty shoddy. I'm frightened that these kids are going to be out in the world with a degree. It's particularly rare for me to get more than a few students per lab/section whose writing isn't abominable.
posted by HighTechUnderpants at 12:44 AM on May 17, 2007
vacapinta: Do all applicants to your alma mater receive an interview, or are applicants randomly selected for interviews, or only applicants who've passed some sort of initial overview?
Although not absolutely required, an interview is "strongly recommended" which means basically that every applicant gets one. Thats a lot of interviews but as I hinted at above, Harvard relies on its alum network to do this, organized by the local Harvard clubs.
posted by vacapinta at 12:53 AM on May 17, 2007
Although not absolutely required, an interview is "strongly recommended" which means basically that every applicant gets one. Thats a lot of interviews but as I hinted at above, Harvard relies on its alum network to do this, organized by the local Harvard clubs.
posted by vacapinta at 12:53 AM on May 17, 2007
Some random thoughts and numbers ...
I went to a state university that is currently ranked within the top 25 national universities (not sure if it's Tier 1 or Tier 2 or whatever.) When I applied in the early 90's, the admission rate was around 70%. That has since dropped to 50%, although that seems to still be a pretty high acceptance rate for a well-ranked school these days.
It was very expensive as public schools go, but I was an in-state resident (which dropped the price by over 60%), and on a decent scholarship (which seems to be very rare these days.) The tuition costs have now more than doubled, and tuition there seems to have increased at a higher rate than most public schools.
Going to a more (or for that matter, less) prestigious school would not have affected my rather odd career path even slightly. I liked the school and was glad I went.
My girlfriend is currently pursuing a PhD, with the probably intent of an eventual career in academia. As an undergraduate in the late 90's, she went to a very highly ranked liberal arts college (within the top 5 LAC's), hated it and wished she had gone somewhere else. Not sure what the admission rate was then, but it has just reported a "record low" admission rate of around 17%.
For grad school, she is currently at a state school which is ranked well but not astonishingly high (just barely within the top 100 national schools), but which has a very well-regarded grad program in her particular field (I'm having trouble finding comparative rankings, but I believe it's in the top 10 or so.) The grad program looks to have about a 7% acceptance rate, but it doesn't exactly work the same at that level, so it doesn't really mean the same thing. That school has done very well by her.
I lived in Boston for a long time in the late 90's, incidentally, right around Tufts, which was as far as I could tell regarded as quite a good school. My then-girlfriend worked at the Coop for a while, and reported that, while there were a good number of brilliant students at Harvard, there were also a lot of not notably brilliant rich-kid assholes.
Not sure what all this means.
posted by kyrademon at 1:18 AM on May 17, 2007
I went to a state university that is currently ranked within the top 25 national universities (not sure if it's Tier 1 or Tier 2 or whatever.) When I applied in the early 90's, the admission rate was around 70%. That has since dropped to 50%, although that seems to still be a pretty high acceptance rate for a well-ranked school these days.
It was very expensive as public schools go, but I was an in-state resident (which dropped the price by over 60%), and on a decent scholarship (which seems to be very rare these days.) The tuition costs have now more than doubled, and tuition there seems to have increased at a higher rate than most public schools.
Going to a more (or for that matter, less) prestigious school would not have affected my rather odd career path even slightly. I liked the school and was glad I went.
My girlfriend is currently pursuing a PhD, with the probably intent of an eventual career in academia. As an undergraduate in the late 90's, she went to a very highly ranked liberal arts college (within the top 5 LAC's), hated it and wished she had gone somewhere else. Not sure what the admission rate was then, but it has just reported a "record low" admission rate of around 17%.
For grad school, she is currently at a state school which is ranked well but not astonishingly high (just barely within the top 100 national schools), but which has a very well-regarded grad program in her particular field (I'm having trouble finding comparative rankings, but I believe it's in the top 10 or so.) The grad program looks to have about a 7% acceptance rate, but it doesn't exactly work the same at that level, so it doesn't really mean the same thing. That school has done very well by her.
I lived in Boston for a long time in the late 90's, incidentally, right around Tufts, which was as far as I could tell regarded as quite a good school. My then-girlfriend worked at the Coop for a while, and reported that, while there were a good number of brilliant students at Harvard, there were also a lot of not notably brilliant rich-kid assholes.
Not sure what all this means.
posted by kyrademon at 1:18 AM on May 17, 2007
Your favourite college sucks. None of these places will ever be Oxford or Cambridge, no matter how hard they try.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:21 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:21 AM on May 17, 2007
Also - my mother happens to teach English at a fourth-tier university. Currently has a 75% acceptance rate. It is possible to get a perfectly good education there, but you have to really want to.
posted by kyrademon at 1:24 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by kyrademon at 1:24 AM on May 17, 2007
Hmmmm, I belong to the United States Naval Academy . . . which puts me in a very weird upside-down college besides the obvious.
1) First, it's a federal college, so it goes a lot with the stuff mandated with state colleges.
2) However, since there is no instate or out of state, the body is very diverse geographically.
3) It along with West Point were almost part of the original Ivy League organization, and though they aren't private, have the long history many of the them have.
4) With that comes very strong Alumni Associations. The NAAA exerts incredible influence here as many very senior naval officers, government officials, and CEOs consider the Naval Academy as the force that started them out in life. As such, they pay quite a bit of attention to it and much of the school is funded via gifts from these guys.
5) It's free. Well. . . we pay in flesh and time. But because of this, guys like me (family once of food stamps) can go here and afford it.
6) However, it does use legacy admissions, though they have this 'whole person concept'. This also means academic merit is just one factor in a wide range of variables considering physical performance, sports, activities, leadership positions previous, prior military service (moi), tests, grades, and just somewhat who you know. You also have to go through an interview process with a grad and receive a nomination from a Congressman, Senator, or a few others. As such, admissions is a strange beast. . . we let in a very strange variety of people from geniuses, football players, marines, sailors, volunteer what-have-yous, and just above average people with potential. This admissions process has been criticized in the past (See Bruce Fleming).
7) We have no graduate program here. The teachers have one primary point: to teach. We also have a one of the highest lowest student-faculty ratios of a college, which is great. I love the English department hear and I love even more that they are here for our education and edification.
8) My favorite unrelated fact is that everyone (for good or ill) is employed upon graduation (for good or ill) and therefore I can study English and really just enjoy it as opposed to worrying about it's immediate viability in the corporate sector. However, someday, I might wanna figure out what I wanna do post-Navy.
Due to all of these considerations, I really am going to be confused when I go to graduate school someday, somewhere.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:47 AM on May 17, 2007
1) First, it's a federal college, so it goes a lot with the stuff mandated with state colleges.
2) However, since there is no instate or out of state, the body is very diverse geographically.
3) It along with West Point were almost part of the original Ivy League organization, and though they aren't private, have the long history many of the them have.
4) With that comes very strong Alumni Associations. The NAAA exerts incredible influence here as many very senior naval officers, government officials, and CEOs consider the Naval Academy as the force that started them out in life. As such, they pay quite a bit of attention to it and much of the school is funded via gifts from these guys.
5) It's free. Well. . . we pay in flesh and time. But because of this, guys like me (family once of food stamps) can go here and afford it.
6) However, it does use legacy admissions, though they have this 'whole person concept'. This also means academic merit is just one factor in a wide range of variables considering physical performance, sports, activities, leadership positions previous, prior military service (moi), tests, grades, and just somewhat who you know. You also have to go through an interview process with a grad and receive a nomination from a Congressman, Senator, or a few others. As such, admissions is a strange beast. . . we let in a very strange variety of people from geniuses, football players, marines, sailors, volunteer what-have-yous, and just above average people with potential. This admissions process has been criticized in the past (See Bruce Fleming).
7) We have no graduate program here. The teachers have one primary point: to teach. We also have a one of the highest lowest student-faculty ratios of a college, which is great. I love the English department hear and I love even more that they are here for our education and edification.
8) My favorite unrelated fact is that everyone (for good or ill) is employed upon graduation (for good or ill) and therefore I can study English and really just enjoy it as opposed to worrying about it's immediate viability in the corporate sector. However, someday, I might wanna figure out what I wanna do post-Navy.
Due to all of these considerations, I really am going to be confused when I go to graduate school someday, somewhere.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:47 AM on May 17, 2007
Man, I suck as an English student. In point 7, that should be lowest, and the hear should be here. Ah, well, I have a parade in a few hours so sue me.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:50 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:50 AM on May 17, 2007
A man with degrees from MIT and Harvard, one of the world's great design teachers(department head for 30+ years), and a retired entomology professor are all coming to my house tomorrow afternoon for our weekly Thursday afternoon grill and swill. I have some community college, and have worked for myself since I was 23. The Yalie who usually mooches a ride is out of town at a conference.
All of them have nice things to say about the schools they have attended, but mostly they like to talk about grilled rack of lamb, which blue cheese goes better with ribeyes, and how to generate enogh heat to make a proper pizza. And beer and wine.
Our butcher attends our lunches once in a while, and is a most honored guest.
posted by dglynn at 3:45 AM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
All of them have nice things to say about the schools they have attended, but mostly they like to talk about grilled rack of lamb, which blue cheese goes better with ribeyes, and how to generate enogh heat to make a proper pizza. And beer and wine.
Our butcher attends our lunches once in a while, and is a most honored guest.
posted by dglynn at 3:45 AM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oh, and if you want a position in the upper tiers of management early in a high tech company with lots of VC funding, go to a Big Ten school. Those West Coast VC's just love those solid midwestern values supervising their money.
posted by dglynn at 3:47 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by dglynn at 3:47 AM on May 17, 2007
dglynn: would you share a clue wrt "one of the world's greatest design teachers" ... even if you can't share his name..
posted by infini at 4:19 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by infini at 4:19 AM on May 17, 2007
The academies offezr nice educations but then you payback, if this is ok with you. I dislike the need for congressmen to get you in! a touch of lobby group with that...and of course if you have physical disabilities you are not for them!
posted by Postroad at 4:24 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by Postroad at 4:24 AM on May 17, 2007
I belong to the United States Naval Academy
Lord Chancellor, is that something they say at Annapolis? I've never heard a student describe his relationship to a college that way before.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:54 AM on May 17, 2007
Lord Chancellor, is that something they say at Annapolis? I've never heard a student describe his relationship to a college that way before.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:54 AM on May 17, 2007
More proof, if more proof were needed, that upper middle class Americans, for all their talk of being rational, sensible and mature, are really just status whores who want nothing more than to be able to put on airs around their peers. The particular American idiom of status-prostitution revolves around the supposed meritocracy of college admissions. Your worth = your school. In 18th-century France it was your worth = how close you were to the king. In 19th-century England it was your worth = your family's place in "society."
So much for our "rugged independence." I would love to hear what Ayn Rand would say about this disgustingly slavish regard for the empty opinions of herd-following others. (Not that I'm a big fan of Rand, but she'd be good on the topic).
posted by MarshallPoe at 5:07 AM on May 17, 2007 [3 favorites]
So much for our "rugged independence." I would love to hear what Ayn Rand would say about this disgustingly slavish regard for the empty opinions of herd-following others. (Not that I'm a big fan of Rand, but she'd be good on the topic).
posted by MarshallPoe at 5:07 AM on May 17, 2007 [3 favorites]
infini: Compliments on an insightful comment. If I can surmise your point, you're essentially saying that while absolute _statistics_ might not amount to much (heh, I am one of those nameless souls who have sent SAT scores to some universities without bothering to follow it up), there is, nevertheless, some basis for all this branding?
I suppose it's all a bit like saying, "Coke Light has 10% less fat than Pepsi Regular!" or something, then.
I don't mean this as a snark - being extremely genuine here, just sharing my immediate reaction - but I suppose I find it unsettling to see marketing analysis when it comes to thinking about universities; it's a tad difficult to think of myself as an educational-consumer, and not just a student. And there is clearly a difference; while as a student, I think of ways in which I would _contribute_ to an educational enterprise, as an education-consumer, I would be thinking of ways in which an educational enterprise will enrich me. As a student, I would simply learn, while as an educational consumer, I'd 'consume' classes with an eye on eventual saleability.
The competition, per se, doesn't trouble me - heck, am a proud survivor of the Indian public school system, and god knows how competitive that is - that you seem to imply that students should be discerning as well is a tad unsettling.
Can't help but reflect that when I entered college (only seven years ago!), I had exactly three goals in mind:- a) spend sometime learning something interesting, b) stay away from home for a while, c) meet other folk and d) do so comfortably. When I read terms such as ROI and premium brands and such applied to universities, I find myself asking if I missed anything out of _my_ university experience. Should have I been a more discerning educational-consumer?
Guess the answer is inevitably yes.
posted by the cydonian at 5:33 AM on May 17, 2007
I suppose it's all a bit like saying, "Coke Light has 10% less fat than Pepsi Regular!" or something, then.
I don't mean this as a snark - being extremely genuine here, just sharing my immediate reaction - but I suppose I find it unsettling to see marketing analysis when it comes to thinking about universities; it's a tad difficult to think of myself as an educational-consumer, and not just a student. And there is clearly a difference; while as a student, I think of ways in which I would _contribute_ to an educational enterprise, as an education-consumer, I would be thinking of ways in which an educational enterprise will enrich me. As a student, I would simply learn, while as an educational consumer, I'd 'consume' classes with an eye on eventual saleability.
The competition, per se, doesn't trouble me - heck, am a proud survivor of the Indian public school system, and god knows how competitive that is - that you seem to imply that students should be discerning as well is a tad unsettling.
Can't help but reflect that when I entered college (only seven years ago!), I had exactly three goals in mind:- a) spend sometime learning something interesting, b) stay away from home for a while, c) meet other folk and d) do so comfortably. When I read terms such as ROI and premium brands and such applied to universities, I find myself asking if I missed anything out of _my_ university experience. Should have I been a more discerning educational-consumer?
Guess the answer is inevitably yes.
posted by the cydonian at 5:33 AM on May 17, 2007
I'm curious how admissions would look at someone working towards a college education who is an adult, compared to the view they would have towards a fresh from high school applicant.
Right now I'm taking classes at a CC, not really sure which university I'm going to end up at once I've run the course here though.
posted by Talanvor at 5:33 AM on May 17, 2007
Right now I'm taking classes at a CC, not really sure which university I'm going to end up at once I've run the course here though.
posted by Talanvor at 5:33 AM on May 17, 2007
So much for our "rugged independence." I would love to hear what Ayn Rand would say about this disgustingly slavish regard for the empty opinions of herd-following others. (Not that I'm a big fan of Rand, but she'd be good on the topic).
posted by MarshallPoe at 5:07 AM on May 17 [+]
She'd look down her nose and sneer "Meh, second handers, the lot of them" ;p
Cydonian: Private universities particularly are a business, and larger schools have entire Marketing, branding and communication departments with seperate heads. My employer was stuck with moi ;p but yes, each semester enrollment reports were prepared with all the metrics and presented to the Board of Trustees. If you google the right way you can find a large number of "5 Year plans" and "Strategic plans" for any number of universities, both state and private. Philip Kotler wrote the book [obviously] which is the bible of admissions officers. While I struggled with the administrations insistence on meeting numbers and referring to real life students, such as you would have been, as FTE's - full time equivalents, i.e. $$ figures, this was a business, as I discovered in my three year sojourn, as competitive as any other.
Its different in India, I paid Rupees 200 or some such ridiculous sum each term for my engineering degree, the entire four years plus room and board and petrol for the TVS couldn't have been one lakh [ USD 2300 or Rupees 100,000] and don't forget we worship Saraswati. The entire system is predicated on a different concept altogether, hence the concepts of brand building, marketing, reach, yield, selectivity etc. Unlike India where hte basis is how to reject the thousands applying, here it is how to attract the best talent pool - at least for those schools which are focused on their brand and their heritage etc If you completed your college in India keep in mind you have little or no choice of electives, a fixed program of study and extreme competition anyway. The cost structures would have also been entirely different.
However, compare wiht the mushrooming private schools like APJ, Sriram, Goenka and all the rest who tout their facilities, their pools and their swank campuses because they charge high fees and must then compete to build a brand in order to attract their "customers" yes? Unlike Modern or Doon or Loreto, which are already existing brands - imagine if those were suddenly operating in a free market system - yes even for education - would then not all these very factors apply?
posted by infini at 5:46 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by MarshallPoe at 5:07 AM on May 17 [+]
She'd look down her nose and sneer "Meh, second handers, the lot of them" ;p
Cydonian: Private universities particularly are a business, and larger schools have entire Marketing, branding and communication departments with seperate heads. My employer was stuck with moi ;p but yes, each semester enrollment reports were prepared with all the metrics and presented to the Board of Trustees. If you google the right way you can find a large number of "5 Year plans" and "Strategic plans" for any number of universities, both state and private. Philip Kotler wrote the book [obviously] which is the bible of admissions officers. While I struggled with the administrations insistence on meeting numbers and referring to real life students, such as you would have been, as FTE's - full time equivalents, i.e. $$ figures, this was a business, as I discovered in my three year sojourn, as competitive as any other.
Its different in India, I paid Rupees 200 or some such ridiculous sum each term for my engineering degree, the entire four years plus room and board and petrol for the TVS couldn't have been one lakh [ USD 2300 or Rupees 100,000] and don't forget we worship Saraswati. The entire system is predicated on a different concept altogether, hence the concepts of brand building, marketing, reach, yield, selectivity etc. Unlike India where hte basis is how to reject the thousands applying, here it is how to attract the best talent pool - at least for those schools which are focused on their brand and their heritage etc If you completed your college in India keep in mind you have little or no choice of electives, a fixed program of study and extreme competition anyway. The cost structures would have also been entirely different.
However, compare wiht the mushrooming private schools like APJ, Sriram, Goenka and all the rest who tout their facilities, their pools and their swank campuses because they charge high fees and must then compete to build a brand in order to attract their "customers" yes? Unlike Modern or Doon or Loreto, which are already existing brands - imagine if those were suddenly operating in a free market system - yes even for education - would then not all these very factors apply?
posted by infini at 5:46 AM on May 17, 2007
I'm curious how admissions would look at someone working towards a college education who is an adult, compared to the view they would have towards a fresh from high school applicant.
Right now I'm taking classes at a CC, not really sure which university I'm going to end up at once I've run the course here though.
posted by Talanvor at 5:33 AM on May 17 [+]
Imho only, usually with a greater degree of respect, since you've demonstrated a commitment to getting an education as you're working and going to classes already than say a 17 y.o. whose parents send them off to school to party. Though it does depend on the school and particular admissions person, overall the consensus is the answer to the question "Does this person WANT an education?" I mean would I admit someone who may not complete the program or dropout [heck, it would hurt my numbers ;p but seriously retention and graduation rates are a serious concern and a valid metric as well]
posted by infini at 5:51 AM on May 17, 2007
Right now I'm taking classes at a CC, not really sure which university I'm going to end up at once I've run the course here though.
posted by Talanvor at 5:33 AM on May 17 [+]
Imho only, usually with a greater degree of respect, since you've demonstrated a commitment to getting an education as you're working and going to classes already than say a 17 y.o. whose parents send them off to school to party. Though it does depend on the school and particular admissions person, overall the consensus is the answer to the question "Does this person WANT an education?" I mean would I admit someone who may not complete the program or dropout [heck, it would hurt my numbers ;p but seriously retention and graduation rates are a serious concern and a valid metric as well]
posted by infini at 5:51 AM on May 17, 2007
Lord Chancellor, is that something they say at Annapolis? I've never heard a student describe his relationship to a college that way before.
Nah, I was just putting it in a odd way, I guess. I do say I belong to the Navy though in the sense that they are responsible for my well-being and all that and I can't just leave in a drop of a hat.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:07 AM on May 17, 2007
Nah, I was just putting it in a odd way, I guess. I do say I belong to the Navy though in the sense that they are responsible for my well-being and all that and I can't just leave in a drop of a hat.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:07 AM on May 17, 2007
Mix meritocracy with aristocracy and sell it to America and you have the college system.
If it can be expressed in one phrase - that is it!! geoff.
However, reading all this makes me appreciate how lucky I am to live somewhere that getting into university is based entirely on Academic Merit.
Cholly,
You seem to be Australian?
I wasn't aware academic merit could be the sole admissions test for higher education.
Aren't there furious complaints by people who lagged in their grades because they weren't in the correct (elitist)pre-university schools?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 7:32 AM on May 17, 2007
If it can be expressed in one phrase - that is it!! geoff.
However, reading all this makes me appreciate how lucky I am to live somewhere that getting into university is based entirely on Academic Merit.
Cholly,
You seem to be Australian?
I wasn't aware academic merit could be the sole admissions test for higher education.
Aren't there furious complaints by people who lagged in their grades because they weren't in the correct (elitist)pre-university schools?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 7:32 AM on May 17, 2007
You can make the same arguments about finding a good living space in NYC (if not most other old megacities).
Though, what seems to be missing is how the shift in the U.S. economy toward service industries and away from production is amping up the need for a college degree as a baseline for a decent living.
I'd also be interested to see if the socio-economic makeup of the top-tier schools is reacting to a larger applicant pool by becoming more like the pool's makeup or by becoming more insular (legacy, wealth, etc.).
posted by mkultra at 7:58 AM on May 17, 2007
Though, what seems to be missing is how the shift in the U.S. economy toward service industries and away from production is amping up the need for a college degree as a baseline for a decent living.
I'd also be interested to see if the socio-economic makeup of the top-tier schools is reacting to a larger applicant pool by becoming more like the pool's makeup or by becoming more insular (legacy, wealth, etc.).
posted by mkultra at 7:58 AM on May 17, 2007
Thank you infini, that's good to know. It's not that I think I should be given special treatment over younger students, simply that I'd like to be viewed fairly when it comes to admissions.
posted by Talanvor at 8:00 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by Talanvor at 8:00 AM on May 17, 2007
Our family just finished the whole college selection process ... just sent off the first check this week for my daughter to go off the American U in DC. Some observations:
1. We never targeted Ivies but certainly felt the shock waves as admission pressures dwindled down to all schools. We faced numbers like 40,000 applications for 6,000 slots at Penn State; 23,000 some applications for 800 out-of state slots at University of North Carolina. Good solid state schools that now demand exemplary credentials.
2. High school kids are indeed more accomplished and impressive than ever. It wasn't like that when I was in high school. I think we're, in part, seeing the first results of an educational system that, on some levels, is increasing its demands on students to raise the profile of American students vis a vis the rest of the world.
3. The whole process is rife with pressures and, frankly, just no fun. My wife and I consistently tried to dial down the pressure on our daughter – even discussed taking time off. But the pressure comes from a number of vectors: teachers, colleges and yes, the students themselves. It even seeps into the lives of younger high schoolers. I saw freshmen and sophomores galore on tours. Because to get into many an average state school, you better have a few AP courses under your belt. And your marks at the end of Junior year are what count. So you have to get into certain course tracks earlier than ever kjust so you can be average in the eyes of admissions offices.
4. Don't underestimate the demographics. This year's high schools senior class is one of the largest in decades. Colleges had us by the you-know-whats. Every tour we took was populated by dozens and dozens of prospective students. I applied to two schools when I looked for college. We applied to five just to be certain we could get in somewhere. All her friends did the same.
5. One of the big desirables is finding schools with practical internship placement. If you're spending so much on school, getting practical experience that leads to an actual job in your field is almost a must. The Ivies and big state schools have impressive alumni networks that make that happen. Students who would certainly get great educations at smaller "less known" schools have rto take into account how much help they can get from those schools when it comes time to transition to the real world.
6. The life-changing benefits of college –monetarily and otherwise – make the effort worthwhile. I just wish the whole thing could've been more fun. For her. For us. Fo everyone.
Luckily, for a student who wants to study communications and politics, Washington is the place to be and AU has an amaizng internship program as well. And I'm happy to see the excitement start to build ... even if it's just over how she plans to decorate her dorm room.
I apologize for the long post. Just thought one view from the trenches might help.
posted by lpsguy at 8:24 AM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
1. We never targeted Ivies but certainly felt the shock waves as admission pressures dwindled down to all schools. We faced numbers like 40,000 applications for 6,000 slots at Penn State; 23,000 some applications for 800 out-of state slots at University of North Carolina. Good solid state schools that now demand exemplary credentials.
2. High school kids are indeed more accomplished and impressive than ever. It wasn't like that when I was in high school. I think we're, in part, seeing the first results of an educational system that, on some levels, is increasing its demands on students to raise the profile of American students vis a vis the rest of the world.
3. The whole process is rife with pressures and, frankly, just no fun. My wife and I consistently tried to dial down the pressure on our daughter – even discussed taking time off. But the pressure comes from a number of vectors: teachers, colleges and yes, the students themselves. It even seeps into the lives of younger high schoolers. I saw freshmen and sophomores galore on tours. Because to get into many an average state school, you better have a few AP courses under your belt. And your marks at the end of Junior year are what count. So you have to get into certain course tracks earlier than ever kjust so you can be average in the eyes of admissions offices.
4. Don't underestimate the demographics. This year's high schools senior class is one of the largest in decades. Colleges had us by the you-know-whats. Every tour we took was populated by dozens and dozens of prospective students. I applied to two schools when I looked for college. We applied to five just to be certain we could get in somewhere. All her friends did the same.
5. One of the big desirables is finding schools with practical internship placement. If you're spending so much on school, getting practical experience that leads to an actual job in your field is almost a must. The Ivies and big state schools have impressive alumni networks that make that happen. Students who would certainly get great educations at smaller "less known" schools have rto take into account how much help they can get from those schools when it comes time to transition to the real world.
6. The life-changing benefits of college –monetarily and otherwise – make the effort worthwhile. I just wish the whole thing could've been more fun. For her. For us. Fo everyone.
Luckily, for a student who wants to study communications and politics, Washington is the place to be and AU has an amaizng internship program as well. And I'm happy to see the excitement start to build ... even if it's just over how she plans to decorate her dorm room.
I apologize for the long post. Just thought one view from the trenches might help.
posted by lpsguy at 8:24 AM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
I went to a mostly unknown state university (though we did make it to the Sweet 16 once) and had some great teachers (most with years of experience in their field and amazing connections) in a field I no longer pursue.
My state is somewhat luck though, our biggest state university has produced as many Fortune 500 CEOs as any other university (ivies included) in the country, and can boast (if one can boast about it) that the current Vice President met his wife while attending school there. The downside of the prestige has been that the university sucks money from the state's other schools and has become too expensive for many of the state's residents.
Also, red and white are an ugly color combination.
posted by drezdn at 8:24 AM on May 17, 2007
My state is somewhat luck though, our biggest state university has produced as many Fortune 500 CEOs as any other university (ivies included) in the country, and can boast (if one can boast about it) that the current Vice President met his wife while attending school there. The downside of the prestige has been that the university sucks money from the state's other schools and has become too expensive for many of the state's residents.
Also, red and white are an ugly color combination.
posted by drezdn at 8:24 AM on May 17, 2007
infini: Oh, absolutely. I'm not trying to put it as a black-or-white thing, really. I do realize it is inevitable, and indeed, you could easily argue that even established schools perhaps think in terms of branding, although sub-consciously. You could easily argue that when a Loreto or a La Martinere shows off its logo, or plays its school song, it is, in reality, perpetuating its brand.
So it isnt the branding for the educational institutions that I find it uncomfortable to digest, as much as the fact that it suddenly converts students into consumers, and consumers who think about branding themselves. You don't, for instance, pick up the digiridoo because you want to enjoy music; you want to pick it up because you can give that world-music performance at your local opera hall and thus prove to a future admissions committee that you're talented, creative and multicultural.
I suppose a real part of the problem here is that university education of the kind mentioned here isnt a _light_ decision; you are sinking a significant part of your, or your parents', savings into acquiring something for yourself. Obviously, you'd want to analyze the whole process at a much more finer detail than previous batches of students did.
I'm actually karmaic about it, really; if casting my interests into certificate-worthy accomplishments might help push me subtly towards a more rewarding (glamorous?) grad school (and thus, presumably a career), so be it. It might be unsettling, but it certainly isn't abhorrent.
(This actually might complicate positions :-D, but have to admit something here:- I only did my schooling in India. Didn't quite live the hostel lifestyle in India for more than six months; couldn't really handle the Entrance Exam rat-race. My university education was elsewhere; yup, a recruiter from an international university made an offer I couldn't refuse.)
(Also, I'm rambling. Late at night here, should get off the soapbox now.)
posted by the cydonian at 8:41 AM on May 17, 2007
So it isnt the branding for the educational institutions that I find it uncomfortable to digest, as much as the fact that it suddenly converts students into consumers, and consumers who think about branding themselves. You don't, for instance, pick up the digiridoo because you want to enjoy music; you want to pick it up because you can give that world-music performance at your local opera hall and thus prove to a future admissions committee that you're talented, creative and multicultural.
I suppose a real part of the problem here is that university education of the kind mentioned here isnt a _light_ decision; you are sinking a significant part of your, or your parents', savings into acquiring something for yourself. Obviously, you'd want to analyze the whole process at a much more finer detail than previous batches of students did.
I'm actually karmaic about it, really; if casting my interests into certificate-worthy accomplishments might help push me subtly towards a more rewarding (glamorous?) grad school (and thus, presumably a career), so be it. It might be unsettling, but it certainly isn't abhorrent.
(This actually might complicate positions :-D, but have to admit something here:- I only did my schooling in India. Didn't quite live the hostel lifestyle in India for more than six months; couldn't really handle the Entrance Exam rat-race. My university education was elsewhere; yup, a recruiter from an international university made an offer I couldn't refuse.)
(Also, I'm rambling. Late at night here, should get off the soapbox now.)
posted by the cydonian at 8:41 AM on May 17, 2007
What do you want from a college? Real teachers rather than grad students? then go to a school without graduate programs. Bu that will be both private, elite, and expensive.
Just for the record, I got my degree from a a state college that had no graduate program, Postroad.
It was public, open-enrollment, and cheap. Yes, this makes make a dirty fucking peasant to many people, but it sort of disproves what you said.
And I had great professors, whom I know on a first name basis. One even came to the graduation party at my house. Any research help a prof wanted involved undergraduates, which was rather cool.
posted by teece at 9:16 AM on May 17, 2007
Just for the record, I got my degree from a a state college that had no graduate program, Postroad.
It was public, open-enrollment, and cheap. Yes, this makes make a dirty fucking peasant to many people, but it sort of disproves what you said.
And I had great professors, whom I know on a first name basis. One even came to the graduation party at my house. Any research help a prof wanted involved undergraduates, which was rather cool.
posted by teece at 9:16 AM on May 17, 2007
BTW -- the myth that only the wealthy attend Harvard (and the Ivies)...
"Harvard today (March 30, 2006) announced a significant expansion of its 2004 financial aid initiative for low- and middle-income families. Beginning with the class admitted this week, parents in families with incomes of less than $60,000 will no longer be expected to contribute to the cost of their children attending Harvard. In addition, Harvard will reduce the contributions of families with incomes between $60,000 and $80,000.
The new income thresholds build on the program announced two years ago, which provided that families with incomes below $40,000 would not be expected to contribute to the cost of education, with a reduced contribution for families with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000.
...Two-thirds of Harvard students receive financial aid, and the average grant award for next year is expected to be more than $33,000, or 70 percent of the total cost of attendance. In the past decade, Harvard has reduced the median four-year debt for graduating seniors from more than $16,000 to $6,400 - less than one-third of the national average of $20,000."
posted by ericb at 9:27 AM on May 17, 2007
"Harvard today (March 30, 2006) announced a significant expansion of its 2004 financial aid initiative for low- and middle-income families. Beginning with the class admitted this week, parents in families with incomes of less than $60,000 will no longer be expected to contribute to the cost of their children attending Harvard. In addition, Harvard will reduce the contributions of families with incomes between $60,000 and $80,000.
The new income thresholds build on the program announced two years ago, which provided that families with incomes below $40,000 would not be expected to contribute to the cost of education, with a reduced contribution for families with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000.
...Two-thirds of Harvard students receive financial aid, and the average grant award for next year is expected to be more than $33,000, or 70 percent of the total cost of attendance. In the past decade, Harvard has reduced the median four-year debt for graduating seniors from more than $16,000 to $6,400 - less than one-third of the national average of $20,000."
posted by ericb at 9:27 AM on May 17, 2007
The Gatekeepers: Inside the Admissions Process of a Premier College is an interesting read. Written by New York Times educational reporter Jacques Steinberg it "examines the inner workings of admissions committees at prestigious colleges and universities in the United States....Steinberg follows the life of a Wesleyan University admissions officer Ralph Figueroa and various college applicants for almost an entire year as they undergo the stressful and tiring college admissions process."*
posted by ericb at 9:40 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by ericb at 9:40 AM on May 17, 2007
BTW -- the myth that only the wealthy attend Harvard (and the Ivies)...
From my limited sample size of friends and extended social network while I was at Harvard, I'd say the middle-class was underrepresented.
It seemed that everyone there was either dirt-poor (one friend was the son of farmers in the Midwest, another came from immigrants and his mother was a maid) or insanely rich and powerful (one friend's parents literally owned a Fortune 500 company, anothers father was a foreign head of State)
I think its because Harvard likes the already wealthy and powerful because most likely they will continue to be so, even if only by inheritance. Also it likes the ones who worked their way out of hardship - presumably because they've done more than the equivalent middle-class kids to "prove" themselves.
So...I'd amend the statement to be: If you're middle class its much tougher to get into Harvard. That still seems to be true from my experience both as former student and as interviewer.
posted by vacapinta at 9:47 AM on May 17, 2007
From my limited sample size of friends and extended social network while I was at Harvard, I'd say the middle-class was underrepresented.
It seemed that everyone there was either dirt-poor (one friend was the son of farmers in the Midwest, another came from immigrants and his mother was a maid) or insanely rich and powerful (one friend's parents literally owned a Fortune 500 company, anothers father was a foreign head of State)
I think its because Harvard likes the already wealthy and powerful because most likely they will continue to be so, even if only by inheritance. Also it likes the ones who worked their way out of hardship - presumably because they've done more than the equivalent middle-class kids to "prove" themselves.
So...I'd amend the statement to be: If you're middle class its much tougher to get into Harvard. That still seems to be true from my experience both as former student and as interviewer.
posted by vacapinta at 9:47 AM on May 17, 2007
I went to an SEC school.
So I know a lot about football.
posted by BobFrapples at 10:17 AM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
So I know a lot about football.
posted by BobFrapples at 10:17 AM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
Vacapinta, I don't agree with you so much. Harvard likes extremes. There were certainly kids there whose families were extremely wealthy and/or powerful. There were also kids there who were 7th generation Harvard. That's another kind of extreme. Then there were the 1550+ SAT kids. Few of these had hyperwealthy parents or were 7th generation Harvard; most of them were middle class white and Asian kids raised in U.S. suburbs.
I think one of the reasons Harvard exists is to get all these extreme people together and talking and collaborating.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:44 AM on May 17, 2007
I think one of the reasons Harvard exists is to get all these extreme people together and talking and collaborating.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:44 AM on May 17, 2007
Vacapinta, could I ask what your "very interesting thing" is? Just for curiosity's sake.
posted by duende at 10:56 AM on May 17, 2007
posted by duende at 10:56 AM on May 17, 2007
Vacapinta, I don't agree with you so much. Harvard likes extremes.
I think we do agree. I was pointing out the case of economic extremes as a response to the "wealthy" comment. Its not that there weren't any middle-class kids but that it was an inversion of the population curve in that regard. Likewise, yes, perfect SATS are still "average" One of my physics lab partners had won the WestingHouse competition.
For pretty much anyone at Harvard, no matter how they seemed at first, there was something "interesting" about them. Given two kids with the same test scores, grades, activities etc - Harvard will choose the kid who was raised by anthropologists in Africa (one of my classmates, not a random example) than the kid from Suburbia, USA. Thats a bit unfair, I suppose, in that one cannot choose whether one was born and raised in Suburbia, USA. But it does point out that advantage of birth doesn't just apply to being born the son of a major CEO but also to any other circumstance which falls under the category of distinctive or extreme.
posted by vacapinta at 11:01 AM on May 17, 2007
I think we do agree. I was pointing out the case of economic extremes as a response to the "wealthy" comment. Its not that there weren't any middle-class kids but that it was an inversion of the population curve in that regard. Likewise, yes, perfect SATS are still "average" One of my physics lab partners had won the WestingHouse competition.
For pretty much anyone at Harvard, no matter how they seemed at first, there was something "interesting" about them. Given two kids with the same test scores, grades, activities etc - Harvard will choose the kid who was raised by anthropologists in Africa (one of my classmates, not a random example) than the kid from Suburbia, USA. Thats a bit unfair, I suppose, in that one cannot choose whether one was born and raised in Suburbia, USA. But it does point out that advantage of birth doesn't just apply to being born the son of a major CEO but also to any other circumstance which falls under the category of distinctive or extreme.
posted by vacapinta at 11:01 AM on May 17, 2007
"High school kids are indeed more accomplished and impressive than ever."
I must object.
Maybe the top layer are. But a vast number are being underserved by a high school culture that sees itself as supporting college applications as much as actually ensuring kids learn.
Half of the kids who walk into my classroom at Big State U. have appalling language skills and work habits. And they're signing up for an elective high-level writing course.
For the most part, they are not from struggling urban high schools. I am no longer surprised when 19-year-olds educated in some of the richest districts in the state cannot describe the difference between "its" and "it's" - and are taken aback when you demand they learn.
I'm not sure about all the factors. But I have been doing this for eight years, and from my vantage point, the average high school kid had gotten worse.
/derail
posted by sacre_bleu at 11:13 AM on May 17, 2007
I must object.
Maybe the top layer are. But a vast number are being underserved by a high school culture that sees itself as supporting college applications as much as actually ensuring kids learn.
Half of the kids who walk into my classroom at Big State U. have appalling language skills and work habits. And they're signing up for an elective high-level writing course.
For the most part, they are not from struggling urban high schools. I am no longer surprised when 19-year-olds educated in some of the richest districts in the state cannot describe the difference between "its" and "it's" - and are taken aback when you demand they learn.
I'm not sure about all the factors. But I have been doing this for eight years, and from my vantage point, the average high school kid had gotten worse.
/derail
posted by sacre_bleu at 11:13 AM on May 17, 2007
None of these places will ever be Oxford or Cambridge, no matter how hard they try.
The amusing implication, without denying that a high number of American colleges are doing everything in their power to be Oxbridge Lite, is that the Oxbridge experience is one worth striving to emulate.
posted by blucevalo at 11:15 AM on May 17, 2007
The amusing implication, without denying that a high number of American colleges are doing everything in their power to be Oxbridge Lite, is that the Oxbridge experience is one worth striving to emulate.
posted by blucevalo at 11:15 AM on May 17, 2007
sacre,
I stand corrected. I was, of course, speaking anecdotally and defer to your experience. You say the top layer of students are more impressive. Do you see that layer getting thicker? Are the strata becoming more pronounced with a small but growing layer of top students and a growing layer of unprepared students with very little inbetween?
posted by lpsguy at 11:24 AM on May 17, 2007
I stand corrected. I was, of course, speaking anecdotally and defer to your experience. You say the top layer of students are more impressive. Do you see that layer getting thicker? Are the strata becoming more pronounced with a small but growing layer of top students and a growing layer of unprepared students with very little inbetween?
posted by lpsguy at 11:24 AM on May 17, 2007
I am no longer surprised when 19-year-olds educated in some of the richest districts in the state cannot describe the difference between "its" and "it's" - and are taken aback when you demand they learn.
I also was unaware of that distinction, almost two decades ago when I went off to college. I think college prep is as uneven now as it was then -- I have friends who describe writing big, substantive essays in high school, doing independent research, etc. I'm pretty sure that I wrote one essay in four years of high school, and sort of did one "research" project ('research' in quotes because I sure didn't know what I was doing). The kids I teach now remind me of myself then; much better prepared in some ways, but just as inept at writing a coherent sentence, and just as unfocused and clueless.
The real difference is in their very real need to arrange internships, work experiences, etc -- just a short while ago, summers in college could be spent lazing by the pool or traveling around Europe (if you were rich) or working some crappy manual labor or office monkey job (if you weren't so well off) and either way you were on track for employment or grad school post-college. Now, all the undergrads I meet are frantically trying to line up special summer internships and the like, and they have a real sense (correct or not) that lazing by the pool or taking that menial job will really count against them after graduation.
posted by Forktine at 11:30 AM on May 17, 2007
I also was unaware of that distinction, almost two decades ago when I went off to college. I think college prep is as uneven now as it was then -- I have friends who describe writing big, substantive essays in high school, doing independent research, etc. I'm pretty sure that I wrote one essay in four years of high school, and sort of did one "research" project ('research' in quotes because I sure didn't know what I was doing). The kids I teach now remind me of myself then; much better prepared in some ways, but just as inept at writing a coherent sentence, and just as unfocused and clueless.
The real difference is in their very real need to arrange internships, work experiences, etc -- just a short while ago, summers in college could be spent lazing by the pool or traveling around Europe (if you were rich) or working some crappy manual labor or office monkey job (if you weren't so well off) and either way you were on track for employment or grad school post-college. Now, all the undergrads I meet are frantically trying to line up special summer internships and the like, and they have a real sense (correct or not) that lazing by the pool or taking that menial job will really count against them after graduation.
posted by Forktine at 11:30 AM on May 17, 2007
I'd also like to point out that you'll get a great education at a second-tier school, but if you want to become a faculty member at the university level, you'd better have a big-name school on your resume (at least for your Ph.D).
This is not at all true in my field. The quality of the PhD program is much more important than the name (though in some cases the two coincide). A PhD in linguistics from Brown or Harvard is much less useful than one from UMass Amherst, for instance.
posted by advil at 11:33 AM on May 17, 2007
This is not at all true in my field. The quality of the PhD program is much more important than the name (though in some cases the two coincide). A PhD in linguistics from Brown or Harvard is much less useful than one from UMass Amherst, for instance.
posted by advil at 11:33 AM on May 17, 2007
Overlapping Elvis: including the generally-absent president
Has the Nuge fallen out of favor? We used to think she was cool...
Anyway, I am happy to see Lords and Ladies here on MeFi.
(transferred out but have a soft spot for Kenyon anyway)
posted by naoko at 12:19 PM on May 17, 2007
Has the Nuge fallen out of favor? We used to think she was cool...
Anyway, I am happy to see Lords and Ladies here on MeFi.
(transferred out but have a soft spot for Kenyon anyway)
posted by naoko at 12:19 PM on May 17, 2007
I see two fabulous points made by the cydonian and sacre bleu that are true in my experience as well. And I think these problems are the real heart of the matter.
If you do mold yourself in high school to get into a competitive college, and then you go to a competitive college to get a competitive job in a competitive field... what are you really learning, exactly? How to compete. I'm sure you learn other things too, but if the focus is on competition throughout each stage of the process, the real education suffers.
Thus you get high school students who look great in applications but have really bad study and writing skills.
All this makes me want to reread Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
posted by Tehanu at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
If you do mold yourself in high school to get into a competitive college, and then you go to a competitive college to get a competitive job in a competitive field... what are you really learning, exactly? How to compete. I'm sure you learn other things too, but if the focus is on competition throughout each stage of the process, the real education suffers.
Thus you get high school students who look great in applications but have really bad study and writing skills.
All this makes me want to reread Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
posted by Tehanu at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
If you do mold yourself in high school to get into a competitive college, and then you go to a competitive college to get a competitive job in a competitive field... what are you really learning, exactly?
Well, Tehanu...
Maybe you retire when you're forty and build a beautiful library on an island and give loads to charity and have a gorgeous life?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 2:15 PM on May 17, 2007
Well, Tehanu...
Maybe you retire when you're forty and build a beautiful library on an island and give loads to charity and have a gorgeous life?
posted by Jody Tresidder at 2:15 PM on May 17, 2007
Somewhat minor nitpick -- 1550+ SAT's really aren't that impressive, in a relative sense (granted, that's higher than mine were). Harvard, Yale, Stanford, et al. are happy to tell people that if they wanted to, they could carpet an incoming frosh class with perfect SAT scores.
I mean, you could write your ticket to lots of great schools with that score (schools would probably come to you, actually), but 1550+ is a necessity, not a qualification for the best schools.
And with the addition of the written essay, the scale is now out of 2400. Not sure what the l33t scores are now.
posted by bardic at 2:57 PM on May 17, 2007
I mean, you could write your ticket to lots of great schools with that score (schools would probably come to you, actually), but 1550+ is a necessity, not a qualification for the best schools.
And with the addition of the written essay, the scale is now out of 2400. Not sure what the l33t scores are now.
posted by bardic at 2:57 PM on May 17, 2007
Maybe you retire when you're forty and build a beautiful library on an island and give loads to charity and have a gorgeous life?
There's a secret menu in the Harvard pamphlets? Dammit.
posted by Tehanu at 3:22 PM on May 17, 2007
There's a secret menu in the Harvard pamphlets? Dammit.
posted by Tehanu at 3:22 PM on May 17, 2007
From my limited sample size of friends and extended social network while I was at Harvard, I'd say the middle-class was underrepresented.
Completely, absolutely, utterly, totally and in all respects agreed. This was my experience as well.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:54 PM on May 17, 2007
Completely, absolutely, utterly, totally and in all respects agreed. This was my experience as well.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:54 PM on May 17, 2007
If you do mold yourself in high school to get into a competitive college, and then you go to a competitive college to get a competitive job in a competitive field... what are you really learning, exactly? How to compete. I'm sure you learn other things too, but if the focus is on competition throughout each stage of the process, the real education suffers.
Tehanu: I most whole heartedly agree! In fact it is this very problem that is being discussed in India today wrt to the elite IIT's [Indian Institute of Technologies] the schools that supply all those 'top level' indian engineers to silicon valley etc.
these are the kids that spend every day from age 12 or 14 doing nothing but preparing for one single entrance exam in order to compete with hundreds of thousands for 6000 places in 6 institutions.
now they're finding that the output is incapable of any independent creative or innovative thought, have poor to non existent social skills and very little life experience - they're rote learning machines who spent their entire adolescence preparing for this entry.
Similarly the tuition classes that japanese elementary school kids go through - there was a big hoo haa in the eighties about the pressures to get into a good U like Tokyo which ensured you a job with a good firm for life, and the attendent numbers of young suicides
posted by infini at 5:11 PM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
Tehanu: I most whole heartedly agree! In fact it is this very problem that is being discussed in India today wrt to the elite IIT's [Indian Institute of Technologies] the schools that supply all those 'top level' indian engineers to silicon valley etc.
these are the kids that spend every day from age 12 or 14 doing nothing but preparing for one single entrance exam in order to compete with hundreds of thousands for 6000 places in 6 institutions.
now they're finding that the output is incapable of any independent creative or innovative thought, have poor to non existent social skills and very little life experience - they're rote learning machines who spent their entire adolescence preparing for this entry.
Similarly the tuition classes that japanese elementary school kids go through - there was a big hoo haa in the eighties about the pressures to get into a good U like Tokyo which ensured you a job with a good firm for life, and the attendent numbers of young suicides
posted by infini at 5:11 PM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
cydonian: Yes its a cynical view that education is a product to be consumed in order to create a more employable you and that's the part about the education system that hit me the hardest. I was neither a career university administrator nor wished to be, i'd applied to a unique program there and was instead offered the job due to my resume and thus was able to study for free. but the lessons learnt have turned my approach to my work around totally... that'll be a story for another day.
however you should be aware far more than myself [I didn't study K-12 in India, in fact am even more confusing since I have my O Levels and an american High School Diploma wiht AP calc et al] just how competitive getting the right school is and just how much tuition, extra curriculars and other activities students undertake in India, just for that future job.
so where is your shock coming from?
posted by infini at 5:18 PM on May 17, 2007
however you should be aware far more than myself [I didn't study K-12 in India, in fact am even more confusing since I have my O Levels and an american High School Diploma wiht AP calc et al] just how competitive getting the right school is and just how much tuition, extra curriculars and other activities students undertake in India, just for that future job.
so where is your shock coming from?
posted by infini at 5:18 PM on May 17, 2007
What infini said. For all of the many problems with the American educational system, public and private, kindergarten through grad. school, it's still envied by much of the world.
Because my little pet theory about education (speaking as a former teacher) is that it really comes down to giving students the freedom to succeed or fail on their own. To take Harvard again, they've got unlimited cash resources to recruit a class of geniuses and achievers. The middling legacy kids who get in are probably good enough to not be drags on the rest of them.
And in the worst case scenario, someone drops out. And they found the most important technology company ever.
Of course, take a worst-case public school scenario and give a roomful of 40 kids that kind of freedom, and your results won't always be so good.
posted by bardic at 5:18 PM on May 17, 2007
Because my little pet theory about education (speaking as a former teacher) is that it really comes down to giving students the freedom to succeed or fail on their own. To take Harvard again, they've got unlimited cash resources to recruit a class of geniuses and achievers. The middling legacy kids who get in are probably good enough to not be drags on the rest of them.
And in the worst case scenario, someone drops out. And they found the most important technology company ever.
Of course, take a worst-case public school scenario and give a roomful of 40 kids that kind of freedom, and your results won't always be so good.
posted by bardic at 5:18 PM on May 17, 2007
bardic: In the ideal sense of what it could be, yes, I must agree that the american educational system is probably one of the best for teaching the young critical reasoning, independent thought and curiosity about the world. having experienced both the annual exam oriented british system followed by the freedom [as it seemed to me] of the american where one could take electives, actually choose one's classes and where one was not focused on that big exam at the end of the year, it was a revelation!
however, like many others on this thread, the quality of students is certainly appalling - while I was exposed to older students applying for graduate programs rather than fresh out of school kids, there seems to be an almost helpless sense of entitlement that I observed across the board in this age demographic - many applied to graduate school ! with their parents! one's mother argued on his behalf because his GRE's were abysmal, most had little or no clue about world geography or general knowledge of current events - this is where I begin to feel that perhaps the fixed set of core classes taught in other ed systems might not be a good thing if only that it ensures the kid studies some subjects and doesn't get under the radar by taking basket weaving 101
just rambling
posted by infini at 5:39 PM on May 17, 2007
however, like many others on this thread, the quality of students is certainly appalling - while I was exposed to older students applying for graduate programs rather than fresh out of school kids, there seems to be an almost helpless sense of entitlement that I observed across the board in this age demographic - many applied to graduate school ! with their parents! one's mother argued on his behalf because his GRE's were abysmal, most had little or no clue about world geography or general knowledge of current events - this is where I begin to feel that perhaps the fixed set of core classes taught in other ed systems might not be a good thing if only that it ensures the kid studies some subjects and doesn't get under the radar by taking basket weaving 101
just rambling
posted by infini at 5:39 PM on May 17, 2007
I don't think you're rambling. I think you're onto an essential paradox of American education. So the question becomes, how do we maintain the freedom for a Bill Gates but instill a base-line standard for the knuckleheads (this being the technical teacher's term for the average and below-average student, used only with love).
posted by bardic at 5:47 PM on May 17, 2007
posted by bardic at 5:47 PM on May 17, 2007
bardic: without getting into the basic discussion on the pros and cons of the american high schooling, far better touched upon by experts, imho there are countries exploring this very paradox. Singapore comes to mind, as part of their national design policy, they realize that the rote learning 'confucian' system of following teacher's every word and taking copious notes for some exam is in fact harming their ability to compete effective in the increasingly competitive global knowledge economy. so they have a two pronged attack - one at the post high school level where the design schools are working on 'unlearning' and 'reteaching' to some extent, and attempts to reach the tamped down or suppressed natural curiosity and questioning after 12 years of rote learning and the other, an investment in a new generation from a younger elementary school age where they've attempted to add art and creative expression classes to their standard programs, hoping for a generation that a decade later would be more open to questioning and curiosity. I'm curious to see how this planned program works out.
which leads me to some heresy ;p which is that the biggest issue with the US today wrt to global competitiveness of hte populace in the context of education is the lack of any national level policies or planning. imho adam smiths invisible hand doesn't really come to the fore in the context of education, the free market system may not then be a viable approach, similar in fact to the issues being discussed regarding healthcare today.
posted by infini at 6:21 PM on May 17, 2007
which leads me to some heresy ;p which is that the biggest issue with the US today wrt to global competitiveness of hte populace in the context of education is the lack of any national level policies or planning. imho adam smiths invisible hand doesn't really come to the fore in the context of education, the free market system may not then be a viable approach, similar in fact to the issues being discussed regarding healthcare today.
posted by infini at 6:21 PM on May 17, 2007
to translate Russian literature into the vernacular
Into English? I don't get it.
No, not just into English- she gave example after example of things that had been translated poorly, and she wanted to revolutionize the way translations were done so the beauty of the original work was maintained. I rarely meet people with that kind of passion about anything.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:32 PM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
Into English? I don't get it.
No, not just into English- she gave example after example of things that had been translated poorly, and she wanted to revolutionize the way translations were done so the beauty of the original work was maintained. I rarely meet people with that kind of passion about anything.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:32 PM on May 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure about all the factors. But I have been doing this for eight years, and from my vantage point, the average high school kid had gotten worse.
sacre_blue, please see my comment above, which describes the same experience of a mathematics professor at Johns Hopkins University.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:13 PM on May 17, 2007
sacre_blue, please see my comment above, which describes the same experience of a mathematics professor at Johns Hopkins University.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:13 PM on May 17, 2007
From my limited sample size of friends and extended social network while I was at Harvard, I'd say the middle-class was underrepresented.
Completely, absolutely, utterly, totally and in all respects agreed. This was my experience as well.
I think this may be a particularity unique to Harvard, possibly Yale as well. I went to Columbia and it was pretty diverse- admissions were still need-blind then (I'm not totally sure if they are now). My current company, though, is an arm of a Boston shop run by a Harvard grad who hires almost exclusively from there.
posted by mkultra at 7:03 AM on May 18, 2007
Completely, absolutely, utterly, totally and in all respects agreed. This was my experience as well.
I think this may be a particularity unique to Harvard, possibly Yale as well. I went to Columbia and it was pretty diverse- admissions were still need-blind then (I'm not totally sure if they are now). My current company, though, is an arm of a Boston shop run by a Harvard grad who hires almost exclusively from there.
posted by mkultra at 7:03 AM on May 18, 2007
Thank goodness for this post. In Malaysia, there is this OBSESSION with "top universities" - if you're applying overseas, go to the Ivies (or rather, Harvard/Yale/MIT) or Oxbridge, otherwise don't bother.
I'm a big advocate of the "college is a match not a trophy" mindset (phrasing comes from Stanford lecturer Denise Clark Pope, who wrote and researched Doing School about this very issue), and I've had top-uni proponents flaming me out because I didn't think Harvard wasn't the be-all and end-all of education. Apparently only Harvard and MIT have good facilities and faculty, everywhere cannot hope to hold a good education. Or something.
Bullocks.
Heck, college itself isn't a great choice for some people! Some people just function better outside of tertiary education! Does that somehow make them lesser beings, just because they don't have a degree? Does it make you less of a human if you got your degree from Small School Somewhere instead of Impressive Ivy Institution?
I think not.
posted by divabat at 12:03 AM on May 27, 2007
I'm a big advocate of the "college is a match not a trophy" mindset (phrasing comes from Stanford lecturer Denise Clark Pope, who wrote and researched Doing School about this very issue), and I've had top-uni proponents flaming me out because I didn't think Harvard wasn't the be-all and end-all of education. Apparently only Harvard and MIT have good facilities and faculty, everywhere cannot hope to hold a good education. Or something.
Bullocks.
Heck, college itself isn't a great choice for some people! Some people just function better outside of tertiary education! Does that somehow make them lesser beings, just because they don't have a degree? Does it make you less of a human if you got your degree from Small School Somewhere instead of Impressive Ivy Institution?
I think not.
posted by divabat at 12:03 AM on May 27, 2007
« Older the iGod chatterbot | Baer's Odyssey Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Which is interesting, since there seem to be a billion and one colleges. The whole ranking/tier system idea in itself sucks, too, though. They really ought to all be first tier colleges.
posted by teece at 5:34 PM on May 16, 2007