when your child likes a college that you don’t think much of

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that there are kids applying early to Princeton who will end up at, say, Brandeis. It’s not all that different a pool. There is something to be said for circumventing months of stress and waiting. The outcome might be no different.

I sympathize, kind of, as my kid’s favorite right now is a regional school, not well known, and I think he’d be a competitive candidate at much more “name” schools. But in the end it’s his decision. I went to HYP and it was not a great experience overall. It really is about what you do in college, not where you go.

This. Also consider that a lot of strong students can't consider the top 30ish universities or SLACs because they can't afford them so they are looking a tier down to fit their budget.

I want my kid to attend a top 30 university or SLAC where students don't have to have a budget for their decision to matriculate. College is the best time to find your spouse. You want your kid to make himself or herself as attractive as possible, scout out possibilities, and hitch to the strongest wagon. It's easier for girls and gays to accomplish this of course because straight guys have to worry about the girls becoming SAHMs only bringing along family money. But you want to get your hooks into someone early who is destined to succeed, and it's hard to do that at Podunk College.

Wow, I can in NO way relate to this mindset. I certainly was not worrying about who my kid would marry when she was choosing where to pursue her higher education. Nor was I counselling her to "make herself as attractive as possible." Not everything is a market and people are not commodities.

I am most put off by the lament that "straight guys have to worry about girls (NOT WOMEN YOU WILL NOTE) becoming SAHM's", hence reducing their return on investment.
Ycch!

IF one parent chooses to "stay home," that is presumably based upon a decision the couple has made, not some misfortune that has befallen the person who impregnated the woman.

Here are some CLUES to living in 2022 (since you appear to be clueless): NOT ALL SAH parents are women. NOT ALL parents are straight.

I worry if you are, indeed, raising children.

I took the PP you replied to to be satire. If it’s indeed sincere, wow, what a retrograde attitude.

Probably meant to be satire but truth here. My husband and I got a boob job, nose job, personal trainer, and fashion makeover with an image consultant for her 18th birthday. She took a gap year to catch her breath, get a fun job while she could, and really put her all into bettering herself. It really paid off as she arrived at her university and could not believe the attention she got. She took her time and actually targeted a geeky boy who was intimidated but has tremendous earning potential. So far they're going strong and it's paying off. You get a good prospect early, one who still thinks of himself as a high school dork, and he'll be so scared to blow it that he'll remain devoted no matter who eventually looks at him.

If this is true, it is shockingly misogynistic. The parents in question spent lots of money to "improve" their daughter (basically telling her she would not appeal to a potential spouse as is). But the money they spent was not for her brains or mental health it was spent on outward appearances, suggesting that looks are what females have to offer the world. Then they describe her as "targeting" her mark, to make money.

If this is serious, we are talking about damaging the human that was entrusted to them, big time. Why don't people understand that kids need values and self esteem more than a T20 alma mater....

(I know it reads like satire, but they specifically said it was not...)

Damaging TWO humans: their daughter and the poor kid she "targeted." So cruel and gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP with no issues about my kid going to Dickinson, but that’s not true - the difference between a 1500 and 1550 is a few questions, the difference between a 1380 and 1550 is not. Also most students at Dickinson did not get 1380s, just the “top” group.

The 25% is 1383 at Dickinson--taken from their Common Data Set. NOT the 75%. So this means 75% of the students got ABOVE 1383. So your "top group" is 75% of the school. All still very smart/motivated kids, and even those who get a 1550 can learn with and from someone who got a 1383

The 75% at Dickinson College is about 1380--but most do not submit standardized test scores to Dickinson as it is test optional. My best guess is that the top 25% SAT score at Dickinson College for ALL matriculated students is closer to 1200 than to 1300.

OP: Garbage in, garbage out. Just name the school.

Regardless, for a student with a 1550+ SAT score to apply ED to such a school is tantamount to parental neglect. Finding a desired career position during & after school will be significantly hampered by attending an LAC in the #40 to #50 range for one who is a serious contender for a top 10 school.

Again, garbage in, garbage out OP. Need more specifics in order to give meaningful information.

Dale and Krueger (2014) say otherwise, except for URMs.

Schools like Dickenson which have names that are acceptable enough for kids from UMC families who couldn't do better really owe Dale and Krueger an enormous debt. I think Dickenson is fine if the kids needs aid and they are giving them a ton, but full pay Dickenson is for kids and parents who don't want to buy a Radford bumper sticker