Intellectual peers

[Anonymous]

Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

[Anonymous]

Iron sharpens iron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

So your kid doesn’t have the stats to get into a selective college. OK, we get it. It’s OK.

[Anonymous]

The professors usually like the brightest, hardworking kids. It's fun to be one of those kids.

[Anonymous]

The average caltech or Harvey mudd student would be a poor personality fit or not be challenged enough at lower level colleges. These colleges also tend to be more autistic friendly than mainstream schools, which frankly, many STEM kids need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The professors usually like the brightest, hardworking kids. It's fun to be one of those kids.

Agree. This can happen anywhere. At selective U not all kids will be this (probably most won’t). Agree with PP that chasing the prestige isn’t worth it if your kid fits somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

OP is correct.

[Anonymous]

The right choice is the "best fit" school that offers the degree that DC seeks.

DCUM can't be cured of its obsession with perceived prestige, however.

[Anonymous]

I will tell you what happened to my kid.
He was at a Private t50, athlete. Good but not amazing stats. 1500 SAT, 3.7/4 UW GPA.
He transferred to Harvard (former coach).

At the Private t50, he was coming along, 3.4 GPA first year…..his first year at Harvard he picked up speed pretty quickly…..no matter what anybody says, iron sharpens iron. Kid is excelling in the classroom. He was pushed by his peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

Agreed. I have a super high stats kid that is more than qualified for the ivy lottery (1570, NMSF, 4.0, 21 DE/AP credits at graduation including math through differential equations, linear algebra and beyond, national EC, varsity/travel sport, prestigious fellowship, volunteer awards, etc). She would rather stand out in a less competitive pool and help her classmate rise to the opportunity. I am 100% supportive of her approach.

I went to a no name undergrad. When I continued on to grad school at top 10 graduate program I discovered that I was just as smart as my classmates who went to the most selective schools. It was eye opening to say the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The professors usually like the brightest, hardworking kids. It's fun to be one of those kids.

Ugh, no thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

For some, they were not challenged much by their high school, even great privates with median SAT of 1400 do not challenge the very top kids as much as a college that has a median SAT (pre-TO) of 1500. Super-bright always >99%ile their whole lives type kids often need a larger cohort of similar peers to reach their full potential. T15/ivy types/williams/et al have challenging coursework above and beyond what T75 type schools can offer because they have a large cohort of students who can move at a faster pace rather than less than 5% who can. Ask professors who have worked at various levels of college: they will tell you there are significant differences. We have asked our family:
One studied through phD at a T10, then taught post doc at T20, saw no significant difference. Then taught at various T60-100 places and it was stark: lack of motivation, even the smart kids were bored, they had to have a certain % pass so they watered it down. The other ran an engineering lab as a professor at a T50 public then moved it all to an HYPSM. They have the same descriptions: had to slow the pace at the lesser school, were surprised at the high volume of intensely academic students at the top place they moved to.
Both professors have noted the pressure among undergrads is much higher at the top, warning us to consider whether ours would be ok emotionally not being the top kid in almost everything as they had been for all of their schooling. Intellectual stimulation from the brightest peers comes with increased motivation and growth, but also increased pressure. You have to take the good with the bad if you choose an ivy/elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

For some, they were not challenged much by their high school, even great privates with median SAT of 1400 do not challenge the very top kids as much as a college that has a median SAT (pre-TO) of 1500. Super-bright always >99%ile their whole lives type kids often need a larger cohort of similar peers to reach their full potential. T15/ivy types/williams/et al have challenging coursework above and beyond what T75 type schools can offer because they have a large cohort of students who can move at a faster pace rather than less than 5% who can. Ask professors who have worked at various levels of college: they will tell you there are significant differences. We have asked our family:
One studied through phD at a T10, then taught post doc at T20, saw no significant difference. Then taught at various T60-100 places and it was stark: lack of motivation, even the smart kids were bored, they had to have a certain % pass so they watered it down. The other ran an engineering lab as a professor at a T50 public then moved it all to an HYPSM. They have the same descriptions: had to slow the pace at the lesser school, were surprised at the high volume of intensely academic students at the top place they moved to.
Both professors have noted the pressure among undergrads is much higher at the top, warning us to consider whether ours would be ok emotionally not being the top kid in almost everything as they had been for all of their schooling. Intellectual stimulation from the brightest peers comes with increased motivation and growth, but also increased pressure. You have to take the good with the bad if you choose an ivy/elite.

I wouldn’t put Williams at this level. A lot of mediocre athletes and some DEI kids are not the type of intellectual that needs MIT, CMU, etc. Williams is no different academically than Amherst, Swarthmore, or Pomona.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The right choice is the "best fit" school that offers the degree that DC seeks.

DCUM can't be cured of its obsession with perceived prestige, however.

Surely, Fit at an ivy type is not for everyone who has 1500+. The key is knowing your kid if they do not know themselves and encouraging fit.
Great if the fit is the ivy, great if it is not.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s overrated. A lot of the insanely intelligent types of students go to public university, breeze through at the beginning and then challenge themselves in grad courses.