Intellectual peers

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.


What's a "DEI kid?"
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I was on faculty at one of those “non-selective “ schools. I can confirm that there was nothing intellectually stimulating about its undergraduate students. It was just sad.


sigh that is the concern for sure


I went to a non selective school and some of the classes were awful.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.


What's a "DEI kid?"

It’s this sub’s way of saying black or Hispanic student that they don’t believe could ever get into a top school without stealing their child’s seat. Basically, avoid contact.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Some high stats kids end up at lower ranked schools because they need merit aid. They don't qualify as truly needy but parents can't pay full freight.


Or parents can pay full freight but don't see the ROI on $400k for an undergrad degree/aren't sucked in by the "name brand"/bragging rights.

Our super high stats kid got in everywhere, including T15. Currently attends #182 ranked school -- on a full ride.
It was a choice between $400k for undergrad (full freight) or $0.

Easy choice.

College fund will pay for T10 law school. Zero debt, and kid will still have money in the bank to start life after law school.



You are betting on future success in law school admissions which is fine. Your kid will get a solid education at their current school. For others the $100k per year is easily financed via cash flow and the cost is negligible. It isn’t surprising that they would make a different choice. Both are fine given circumstance.


I love how this parent just assumes their kid will get into a T10 law school. Most of my classmates at a T10 law school were from top undergrad programs. Yes, you can certainly get to one from a lower ranked school, but the odds are not in your favor.


+1
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The professors usually like the brightest, hardworking kids. It's fun to be one of those kids.


And easier to get all the good opps when you are a big fish in a little sea.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Both my sons are 99% but with ADHD. Going to a middling school worked for oldest so he could focus on executive functioning while breezing through classes. Now excelling and working w Ivy grads. Rinse repeat for younger kid.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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?


There are honors programs even at middling schools. Check them out.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I was on faculty at one of those “non-selective “ schools. I can confirm that there was nothing intellectually stimulating about its undergraduate students. It was just sad.


The faculty’s not so great at some of these schools either.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: