Intellectual peers

[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.

It's only some people here who have that obsession. Plenty of posters tell them they are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, Williams was a really strange inclusion. Not even WASP, just Williams, as if it’s even the most intellectual of the bunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don’t want my kid to breeze through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don’t want my kid to breeze through.

Precisely.

[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.

This is a very small percentage of kids. DCUM thinks all of their snowflakes fit this profile, which statistics would tell you is not true. Also doesn’t account for different types of intelligence, that OP noted

[Anonymous]

Kids can also be pushed by their peers in honors programs at less selective schools. I don’t understand this intellectual snobbery. Look at the stats for incoming first years for UGA’s honors- average SAT above 1500. Higher than many SLAC’s (which are rest optional)

[Anonymous]

My spouse and I went to TT schools. Because the vast majority of others there were also top students, our lifelong friends who we both made in college are smart, curious, highly motivated. Most have done very well in their chosen careers. They are people for whom education is a top priority.

You will find plenty of people like this at a lower tier school. But they are not as common.

I am sure I will now get a flurry of responses telling me I am a pedigree snob. And perhaps I am. I have plenty of close friends who didn't go to these schools. I remain very close to childhood friends, all of whom went to good but not great state schools.

For me, college was a truly formative four years. I hope it is the same for my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I wouldn’t put much stock in a GPA bump at Harvard. It is known for grade inflation.

[Anonymous]

OP, people don't just want selective schools because they are an exclusive social club. Well, I'm guess for SOME people, this might be what selective schools are about, but I agree with you that people should mingle with others who are different from themselves. But the purpose of selective schools is intellectual training. It is much, much more effective to teach a bunch of students who are all approximately the same level, than to have an extremely broad range of abilities. There is no way to keep the MIT types stimulated and challenged and learning as much as they could if most other students are struggling with stuff that they find easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids can also be pushed by their peers in honors programs at less selective schools. I don’t understand this intellectual snobbery. Look at the stats for incoming first years for UGA’s honors- average SAT above 1500. Higher than many SLAC’s (which are rest optional)

I totally agree that honors programs at larger schools are good options for kids who want a challenge and want intellectual peers. However, these programs are selective places too. For example, Morehead at UGA only admits about 10% of the top students. Why is this not also intellectual snobbery?

[Anonymous]

A lot of this assumes people only learn from their peers but that's not true.

I might have been the only one who read the hundreds and hundreds of pages of articles on the Japanese economy that were assigned by my professor. And maybe the tests were graded in a way that was easier on my peers. But I learned what I was supposed to learn. A lot of my classes were lecture and then written tests. On subjects like literature. Everyone can read the same Shakespeare plays...and if other people didn't get as much out of them, it was no loss to me. I was more interested in hearing from professors than my classmates. Also true in grad school.

[Anonymous]

Kids should choose based on fit, but there is a large difference between a school that is comprised of all top students and a large school with an honors program. It’s not just classes, it’s being challenged and growing by being in that environment everywhere in all you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of this assumes people only learn from their peers but that's not true.

I might have been the only one who read the hundreds and hundreds of pages of articles on the Japanese economy that were assigned by my professor. And maybe the tests were graded in a way that was easier on my peers. But I learned what I was supposed to learn. A lot of my classes were lecture and then written tests. On subjects like literature. Everyone can read the same Shakespeare plays...and if other people didn't get as much out of them, it was no loss to me. I was more interested in hearing from professors than my classmates. Also true in grad school.

No offense but that is not a very meaningful college experience. I agree that you are paying to learn from the professors. But most of my best classes were seminars where students actively participated. Sure, I sometimes rolled my eyes at the idiot who was wasting our time with the dumb questions/comments, but I also learned a lot from my peers, and knowing that I would likely be participating led me to be better prepared for the classes. And if you are at a more rigorous, selective school, you will likely learn more from your peers than elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, people don't just want selective schools because they are an exclusive social club. Well, I'm guess for SOME people, this might be what selective schools are about, but I agree with you that people should mingle with others who are different from themselves. But the purpose of selective schools is intellectual training. It is much, much more effective to teach a bunch of students who are all approximately the same level, than to have an extremely broad range of abilities. There is no way to keep the MIT types stimulated and challenged and learning as much as they could if most other students are struggling with stuff that they find easy.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SLAC hater emerges. Your kid will get a better education at Williams than at any T10 for subjects outside of Engineering and CS. Actually, your kid will get a better undergraduate education at any of the 8 SLACs who have an median SAT score of 1500 or higher than at any of the T10, their model is better and the cohort quality is just as strong.