"Smartness" of fellow students and whether it matters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test scores do not equal intelligence.

equal to combination intelligence and hardwork.

Kids with high test scores are intelligent. To say a high test score does not show intelligence is silly.
Kids with low test scores may or may not be intelligent -- some clearly are, but lack the test taking skill; but others just don't know the material.

The same is true of GPAs. A high GPA means you are smart and follow the rules (or if you don't follow the rules and still get As, then it also means you are in a lenient grading environment).
A low GPA could mean you are not so smart or that you had better things to do with your particular genius and didn't really mind getting some Bs. Several of the most brilliant people I know had mediocre GPAs because they were not diligent students when they were teenagers. Many B students are B students because they are immature and don't turn in homework on time and are in schools where that counts against you for real. They are the ones who kick butt in college when the frontal lobes on their larger, but slower growing, brains finish developing. But some kids with low GPAs have low GPAs because they didn't grasp the material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid went to a CTCL, where she emerged as one of the best students in her science classes (TBH-she had not stood out at her W high school/Montgomery County). That resulted in her being noticed by her teachers. They wrote her recommendations that helped her secure prestigious internships. She won a scholarship selected by faculty that counted her as one of their most promising Bio majors.

Not sure how much of this was maturing/confidence, but I think the big fish/small pond phenomenon that Gladwell talks about benefitted her.

Just wanted to say Brava to your kid!

Thank you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Malcolm Gladwell gave a talk about this phenomenon, with respect to students majoring in STEM and the SAT scores at their schools. At least when it comes to majoring in and graduating with a STEM degree, students do benefit from being in the top quarter of their class.

He did a podcast on scores not mattering for law school either although it wasn’t really a scientific study or anything. But I think it is completely true.

My child is greatly enjoying being at CMU with a bunch of smart and intellectually curious kids after attending a W school where kids were maybe more motivated and competitive - but still lots of smart kids. He is a massive nerd, your child's mileage may vary.

what is CMU?
- grad of T10 university, so I guess " book smarts" aren't everything

What is google?

Per google: Central Michigan University

Not the first result. Not that confusing unless you just want to make a point on the thread by trying to put down a school. Makes you look pretty dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question mixes up a lot of things - tests scores, rankings, intelligence of fellow students, and whether that affects your experience. Especially in classes that are discussion based or have any competition, yes, the caliber of your students is a huge factor. A Harvard caliber student would probably still do great at a SLAC down in the 50s on the rankings - I don’t think intellectually there’s that much difference among those students. But that student going to San Diego State would get a way worse education just bc their peers are not as stimulating and challenging.

You're right that their classroom discussion would be worse, but wrong to assume that means their education would be worse. San Diego State's professors still mostly have PhDs, and the student with high test scores (assuming they also work hard) is going to attract a lot of interest from those professors, which will lead them to great opportunities that they might not have gotten if they'd gone to the T30 university.

DP. Sure, the instructors at SDSU have PhDs and the knowhow to guide the motivated student who seeks out deeper understanding, which can lead to unique opportunities, but day in, day out, the courses are taught at a lower level, the discussion is non-existent, the scores are lower and the curves more generous. Meanwhile Harvard runs a seminar that can get freshman to graduate level math in one year. No one can replicate that camping out in office hours. Someone who lacks confidence can benefit from being top dog for a bit, but most people learn from their peers, not just their professors.

If the discussion is non-existent it's only because the classes are too big to allow for it, not because the students aren't bright enough or motivated enough. There's plenty of good, intelligent conversation taking place in the classrooms at places like Catholic U, Washington College, Mary Washington, Elon, etc.

Not my experience. I had plenty of small, upper-division classes with tenured professors at a state school similar to SDSU and there was zero engagement. Yes, there were smart students getting a good education, but they kept to themselves.

Which school was this that we should be avoiding?

Sure, I could bash my state school again, or point out I hear the exact same thing from people who went to lower ranking state schools around the country. The median students set the culture. It’s true at mid ranked small schools, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question mixes up a lot of things - tests scores, rankings, intelligence of fellow students, and whether that affects your experience. Especially in classes that are discussion based or have any competition, yes, the caliber of your students is a huge factor. A Harvard caliber student would probably still do great at a SLAC down in the 50s on the rankings - I don’t think intellectually there’s that much difference among those students. But that student going to San Diego State would get a way worse education just bc their peers are not as stimulating and challenging.

You're right that their classroom discussion would be worse, but wrong to assume that means their education would be worse. San Diego State's professors still mostly have PhDs, and the student with high test scores (assuming they also work hard) is going to attract a lot of interest from those professors, which will lead them to great opportunities that they might not have gotten if they'd gone to the T30 university.

DP. Sure, the instructors at SDSU have PhDs and the knowhow to guide the motivated student who seeks out deeper understanding, which can lead to unique opportunities, but day in, day out, the courses are taught at a lower level, the discussion is non-existent, the scores are lower and the curves more generous. Meanwhile Harvard runs a seminar that can get freshman to graduate level math in one year. No one can replicate that camping out in office hours. Someone who lacks confidence can benefit from being top dog for a bit, but most people learn from their peers, not just their professors.

If the discussion is non-existent it's only because the classes are too big to allow for it, not because the students aren't bright enough or motivated enough. There's plenty of good, intelligent conversation taking place in the classrooms at places like Catholic U, Washington College, Mary Washington, Elon, etc.

Not my experience. I had plenty of small, upper-division classes with tenured professors at a state school similar to SDSU and there was zero engagement. Yes, there were smart students getting a good education, but they kept to themselves.

Which school was this that we should be avoiding?

Sure, I could bash my state school again, or point out I hear the exact same thing from people who went to lower ranking state schools around the country. The median students set the culture. It’s true at mid ranked small schools, too.

DP: As a NMSF who went to a mid-ranked SLAC on scholarship I disagree. When you have 1500 students, there really is more personalization--you might have 50-60 people in your major and 15-20 in your year in your major. And these schools usually have special research opportunities for advanced/interested students. And because it's small but you have to take a broad curriculum, there are no 'non-major' classes--so if you're a bio major taking your philosophy req, you're going to read primary core texts etc. I went to an ivy for grad school and I was very well-prepared. There are some downsides to small SLACs, but I wouldn't say a lower intellectual culture is one of them. As a student, you orient your sense of the content a lot more around your professor than fellow students just because the size and the level of feedback you get from the prof. I've since taught in state schools and I see the impact of the general level of students on the level of the course a lot more, just because of the number of people majoring etc. you start to form a mental model of what is average more and adjust the course to it.

[Anonymous]

Very few, if any, students are faced with the choices of either Frostburg or Harvard. If you are on the edge of admission for Harvard, you’re likely going to get a massive scholarship to a good flagship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question mixes up a lot of things - tests scores, rankings, intelligence of fellow students, and whether that affects your experience. Especially in classes that are discussion based or have any competition, yes, the caliber of your students is a huge factor. A Harvard caliber student would probably still do great at a SLAC down in the 50s on the rankings - I don’t think intellectually there’s that much difference among those students. But that student going to San Diego State would get a way worse education just bc their peers are not as stimulating and challenging.

You're right that their classroom discussion would be worse, but wrong to assume that means their education would be worse. San Diego State's professors still mostly have PhDs, and the student with high test scores (assuming they also work hard) is going to attract a lot of interest from those professors, which will lead them to great opportunities that they might not have gotten if they'd gone to the T30 university.

DP. Sure, the instructors at SDSU have PhDs and the knowhow to guide the motivated student who seeks out deeper understanding, which can lead to unique opportunities, but day in, day out, the courses are taught at a lower level, the discussion is non-existent, the scores are lower and the curves more generous. Meanwhile Harvard runs a seminar that can get freshman to graduate level math in one year. No one can replicate that camping out in office hours. Someone who lacks confidence can benefit from being top dog for a bit, but most people learn from their peers, not just their professors.

I went to a no name school, and you are just flat out wrong to think there aren't Harvard-smart kids everywhere. There are. There really are.

This. This. This. I worked at a factory and our production manager who graduated from the local high school was Harvard smart. He was a smart, smart guy. He could knock at excel spreadsheets of the same caliber as our University of Chicago MBA owner. The high school grad was an amazing negotiator. I remember talking to our owner about how I was in awe of our high school degreed production manager.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question mixes up a lot of things - tests scores, rankings, intelligence of fellow students, and whether that affects your experience. Especially in classes that are discussion based or have any competition, yes, the caliber of your students is a huge factor. A Harvard caliber student would probably still do great at a SLAC down in the 50s on the rankings - I don’t think intellectually there’s that much difference among those students. But that student going to San Diego State would get a way worse education just bc their peers are not as stimulating and challenging.

You're right that their classroom discussion would be worse, but wrong to assume that means their education would be worse. San Diego State's professors still mostly have PhDs, and the student with high test scores (assuming they also work hard) is going to attract a lot of interest from those professors, which will lead them to great opportunities that they might not have gotten if they'd gone to the T30 university.

DP. Sure, the instructors at SDSU have PhDs and the knowhow to guide the motivated student who seeks out deeper understanding, which can lead to unique opportunities, but day in, day out, the courses are taught at a lower level, the discussion is non-existent, the scores are lower and the curves more generous. Meanwhile Harvard runs a seminar that can get freshman to graduate level math in one year. No one can replicate that camping out in office hours. Someone who lacks confidence can benefit from being top dog for a bit, but most people learn from their peers, not just their professors.

If the discussion is non-existent it's only because the classes are too big to allow for it, not because the students aren't bright enough or motivated enough. There's plenty of good, intelligent conversation taking place in the classrooms at places like Catholic U, Washington College, Mary Washington, Elon, etc.

Not my experience. I had plenty of small, upper-division classes with tenured professors at a state school similar to SDSU and there was zero engagement. Yes, there were smart students getting a good education, but they kept to themselves.

Which school was this that we should be avoiding?

Sure, I could bash my state school again, or point out I hear the exact same thing from people who went to lower ranking state schools around the country. The median students set the culture. It’s true at mid ranked small schools, too.

DP: As a NMSF who went to a mid-ranked SLAC on scholarship I disagree. When you have 1500 students, there really is more personalization--you might have 50-60 people in your major and 15-20 in your year in your major. And these schools usually have special research opportunities for advanced/interested students. And because it's small but you have to take a broad curriculum, there are no 'non-major' classes--so if you're a bio major taking your philosophy req, you're going to read primary core texts etc. I went to an ivy for grad school and I was very well-prepared. There are some downsides to small SLACs, but I wouldn't say a lower intellectual culture is one of them. As a student, you orient your sense of the content a lot more around your professor than fellow students just because the size and the level of feedback you get from the prof. I've since taught in state schools and I see the impact of the general level of students on the level of the course a lot more, just because of the number of people majoring etc. you start to form a mental model of what is average more and adjust the course to it.

My DC is at a small school rather than UMD because of considerations like these and it is working out very well for her. She is taking Spanish for the first time, and enjoying intro language at the college level much more than high school. Still she said the freshman in the class are bringing things down. She put off filling her language requirement because she wanted to do it in person. She's not one to complain much, but the school isn't that selective, and there are some spoiled kids and anti-intellectualism. A PP above mentioned Washington College. My DC didn't strongly consider the school but did visit and apply. One vague concern we had was the visit to their writing center. It was a very nice space and across the street from the main campus, and was very much presented as a bit of a respite, and though not explicitly stated, the implication was the lax-bros don't like it over here. Well if creative writing and printmaking also aren't DD's thing, maybe that school isn't going to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very few, if any, students are faced with the choices of either Frostburg or Harvard. If you are on the edge of admission for Harvard, you’re likely going to get a massive scholarship to a good flagship.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question mixes up a lot of things - tests scores, rankings, intelligence of fellow students, and whether that affects your experience. Especially in classes that are discussion based or have any competition, yes, the caliber of your students is a huge factor. A Harvard caliber student would probably still do great at a SLAC down in the 50s on the rankings - I don’t think intellectually there’s that much difference among those students. But that student going to San Diego State would get a way worse education just bc their peers are not as stimulating and challenging.

You're right that their classroom discussion would be worse, but wrong to assume that means their education would be worse. San Diego State's professors still mostly have PhDs, and the student with high test scores (assuming they also work hard) is going to attract a lot of interest from those professors, which will lead them to great opportunities that they might not have gotten if they'd gone to the T30 university.

DP. Sure, the instructors at SDSU have PhDs and the knowhow to guide the motivated student who seeks out deeper understanding, which can lead to unique opportunities, but day in, day out, the courses are taught at a lower level, the discussion is non-existent, the scores are lower and the curves more generous. Meanwhile Harvard runs a seminar that can get freshman to graduate level math in one year. No one can replicate that camping out in office hours. Someone who lacks confidence can benefit from being top dog for a bit, but most people learn from their peers, not just their professors.

I went to a no name school, and you are just flat out wrong to think there aren't Harvard-smart kids everywhere. There are. There really are.

This. This. This. I worked at a factory and our production manager who graduated from the local high school was Harvard smart. He was a smart, smart guy. He could knock at excel spreadsheets of the same caliber as our University of Chicago MBA owner. The high school grad was an amazing negotiator. I remember talking to our owner about how I was in awe of our high school degreed production manager.

My dad was two years behind everyone in his K class - not because he wasn't bright, but his grandmother wouldn't let him walk 3 miles to school on his own, there was no other neighbor kid, they didn't own a car, and couldn't spare a horse as they need them to plow. But that's not how the teachers treated him once he did enroll in school - "you must be dumb if you are two years older than every kid." My dad never shook that. Had no aspiration or confidence (or money) for college. He ended up becoming an airplane mechanic after working on cars for years. He was incredibly skilled and really loved his job. The condolences we received when he passed included many former colleagues telling us that they used to joke about our dad being the engineer at work as he was so good at identifying problems and creating workarounds. We loved reading them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very few, if any, students are faced with the choices of either Frostburg or Harvard. If you are on the edge of admission for Harvard, you’re likely going to get a massive scholarship to a good flagship.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Smart classmates do matter, but as another list on the website mentioned points out, the differences in smartness aren't as great as people think.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/page/3/

[Anonymous]

I had plenty of small, upper-division classes with tenured professors at a state school similar to SDSU and there was zero engagement. Yes, there were smart students getting a good education, but they kept to themselves.

That was my experience at an Ivy League school as well. Or rather, the teachers were excellent and engaged, but at the undergraduate level the education came from them and not from one's classmates. I've always assumed it's a sort of myth common to those without personal experience of top schools that all the top schools are hotbeds of intellectualism where students learn at least as much from their sparkling classmates. At top schools the repartee over dinner might be a little more self-consciously witty (pass the barf bag...), but in the classrooms, you care less about listening to your classmates than to what the professor has to impart.

What's weird is to see all the status consciousness here on DCUM, since compared to other metropolises (like NY or Boston) DC attracts and rewards people from an incredibly diverse range of undergraduate backgrounds. Look at the many sources of undergraduate degrees of those who occupy top executive positions in the federal bureaucracy or in the Congressional committees or at NASA/Goddard - that's your best answer to the question in the subject line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I had plenty of small, upper-division classes with tenured professors at a state school similar to SDSU and there was zero engagement. Yes, there were smart students getting a good education, but they kept to themselves.

That was my experience at an Ivy League school as well. Or rather, the teachers were excellent and engaged, but at the undergraduate level the education came from them and not from one's classmates. I've always assumed it's a sort of myth common to those without personal experience of top schools that all the top schools are hotbeds of intellectualism where students learn at least as much from their sparkling classmates. At top schools the repartee over dinner might be a little more self-consciously witty (pass the barf bag...), but in the classrooms, you care less about listening to your classmates than to what the professor has to impart.

What's weird is to see all the status consciousness here on DCUM, since compared to other metropolises (like NY or Boston) DC attracts and rewards people from an incredibly diverse range of undergraduate backgrounds. Look at the many sources of undergraduate degrees of those who occupy top executive positions in the federal bureaucracy or in the Congressional committees or at NASA/Goddard - that's your best answer to the question in the subject line.

I went to a small state school (non-flagship) and had a couple of professors who got their PhDs from HYPS schools. Once I found out which professors those were, I noticed their frustration every time the kids in my 101 classes acted like duds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very few, if any, students are faced with the choices of either Frostburg or Harvard. If you are on the edge of admission for Harvard, you’re likely going to get a massive scholarship to a good flagship.

Unless you are a kid for whom a large state scoop is a poor choice. I know lots of kids who didn’t apply to any huge schools.