Any Parents Privately Disappointed with College Placement?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
No one said that but to consider a public university which makes more sense costwise. |
Anonymous
Sports. Read the thread on athletic recruits at these schools. You have to have the academics too, but it's a definite edge. No scholarship money since its D3. |
Anonymous
Soccer? My dormmate in law school (top 14) was a soccer player at Williams but his dad went there too. Great school. |
Anonymous
New poster: Yes, Amherst, Wiliams and other SLACs recruit for many sports -- and, yes, some of those athletic recruits are "awesome future Comp Lit majors." In fact, at several of the NESCAC schools the percentage of students who play sports is quite high, including many talented athletes who didn't want the D1 experience, which can be all-consuming. With respect to legacy status, I don't think it can be said categorically that SLACs emphasize this more than Ivy League schools. In fact, Amherst has been a leader in recruiting low-SES students. To the poster who called SLACs other than those ranked at the top by US News "finishing schools", that's just plain silly. While these school may not be widely known, they have much to offer students, particularly strong academic advising and writing programs. |
BTW, most of the people who I know who attended Amherst and Williams had fathers and grandfathers who went. I always had the impression they gave more preferences to legacies than the Ivies.
Anonymous
Your analysis is fair enough for some of these schools, but take a look at Whitman and Churchill with <5% FARMS. Yes, special ed is 11-12%, but how is that defined? Does it include all kids with IEPs? If yes, how many of those are kids diagnosed with ADHD or executive disfunction? You'd see that at independent schools as well. |
Anonymous
I attended Macalester, so I'm biased. I chose it because it had an academic/political culture that I liked, and because the varied nature of the curriculum was interesting to me. I was from the midwest, so I was focussed on midwest schools - the ones I declined were Grinnell, Carleton, U of Chicago and Northwestern. I never spent a single minute during my four years thinking about how an employer would view it. It was just 4 years of pursuing interesting academic pursuits, and further building analytic, writing and speaking skills that I'd use in grad/law school. I subsequently attended a top 15/20 law school (after declining some top 5-10s for geographic reasons) and made law review, magna, order of the coif, etc. In fact, law school was really no challenge comparatively to be honest, and I talked to several counselors at highly ranked law schools who said their history with Mac grads was that they did very well in their respective law schools. For example, I graduated with no honors at Mac - basically middle of the class, but I was in the top one percentile in law school, missing summa by one slot. (In fairness, much of that is due to being disciplined academically in law school than in my first few years of college.) When I was a 2L, I received offers from all of the "white shoe" firms that I interviewed with, and my general sense was that people in the interviewing positions looked more favorably on my undergraduate experience than if I'd attended a large university setting. If you view the goal of college as purchasing a piece of paper with some inherent economic value when viewed by the average Joe, then I agree that a school like Macalester (which has a stronger regional reputation than it does nationally) is not worth the money. But if that's how you are choosing a college, I think that you're already going into the process with the wrong perspective. If you're looking for a setting where you can be challenged academically in a small class setting with individual attention (thereby further developing skills that are difficult to improve if you're at a large university in a lecture hall with 100 students), a school like that can be a great value if you make the most of it. As for costs, when I attended, they offered financial aid that essentially caused me to graduate with total accumulated debt of about $15k. That's now about what I save after tax in 3 months of working. If you are intelligent and hard working, college and grad school costs are not going to be a concern for you in the long run anyway, wherever you attend. |
Anonymous
NP here - I am an alum of a big 3 school and a parent at one of the schools above. My view is that the top 200-250 kids at our public school are equivalent to students at the top private schools. Obviously the whole class isn't, setting aside the special ed factor (which includes kids with severe disabilities), but because this is a general population school. No tests required for admission, no selection process. We also have a high ESOL group with world bank and other international families. Some of those are not applying to US colleges as they return to their home countries for university. Last year I think there were 25 NMSFs, and another 55 commended scholars, out of a class of about 450. Yes, we have kids go to Montgomery College, and many to UMD for financial reasons, but our school has a good track record with top colleges, and certainly comparable to what I've seen at the private schools. This year's class has about 20-25 going to ivy league schools, probably another 20 going to the top 3-4 SLACs (Williams and Middlebury are very popular), and many going to other great colleges. I'm sure others will dispute my assessment but we've been very pleased with the quality of the education and while we don't know for sure yet, I think my DC will have the same or better college options than would have been the case had she attended my alma mater (likely better GPA, many AP classes, etc.). |
Anonymous
I'm sorry to say this, but I'll go ahead since you were so rude to me before, in insisting on "facts" instead of what you called my "wrong assumptions." So here goes. You asked for "facts," and I gave you certifiable stats. If you want to cast doubt on what's above, you need to provide your own facts/stats about the questions you raise, like relative ADHD rates at public vs. private schools. (Although my guess is the elite privates take fewer LD kids than you see in the general population.) You can't poke holes in these publicly available stats by airing your own assumptions and raising open-ended questions. Also, many other differences have been pointed out between even these elite publics and the elite privates, beyond FARMS/special ed rates. Principally, that 5% FARMS means only that 5% of kids have incomes less than $21,000 -- which is very, very low. Many other kids will come from families with incomes of $21,000 to $50,000, and while the very top colleges may have endowments that can fund lots of merit aid, most aid actually comes in the form of subsidized loans, which isn't attractive to many kids. Another key difference is that schools like Sidwell select for high SSATs. Whitman and Churchill take the kids who are going to get 1900 on the SATs. |
Anonymous
|
NP here - I am an alum of a big 3 school and a parent at one of the schools above. My view is that the top 200-250 kids at our public school are equivalent to students at the top private schools. Obviously the whole class isn't, setting aside the special ed factor (which includes kids with severe disabilities), but because this is a general population school. No tests required for admission, no selection process. We also have a high ESOL group with world bank and other international families. Some of those are not applying to US colleges as they return to their home countries for university. Last year I think there were 25 NMSFs, and another 55 commended scholars, out of a class of about 450. Yes, we have kids go to Montgomery College, and many to UMD for financial reasons, but our school has a good track record with top colleges, and certainly comparable to what I've seen at the private schools. This year's class has about 20-25 going to ivy league schools, probably another 20 going to the top 3-4 SLACs (Williams and Middlebury are very popular), and many going to other great colleges. I'm sure others will dispute my assessment but we've been very pleased with the quality of the education and while we don't know for sure yet, I think my DC will have the same or better college options than would have been the case had she attended my alma mater (likely better GPA, many AP classes, etc.).[/quote Does no one here get it!?! Rigor, SAT scores, NMSFs, etc is totally beside the point. You send your DC to a "name" school to get to know the right people. Then, they hopefully are savvy enough to stay in the crowd (easier of course if they get into a "top ivy/SLAC" with the legacies) and then get the right job/campaign with the salary that takes them comfortably into the 1% or higher. No one cares whether anyone is well-educated. Just marketing. It's naive to suppose that dc folks angst over pre-school admissions because of the education! |
Anonymous
Good luck with that! As mentioned I went to a name school. My high school classmates are quite ordinary. Most can't afford to send their kids to private school. My DC at public school is definitely going to have better connections with the right people than I did. |
Anonymous
You have a good point. But your DC has to want this too. It also helps if they marry someone who went to a name school. You can then live in the right neighborhood and join the right club and send your kids to the name school. |
Anonymous
How old are your kids? I think you don't get it. This is a rose-colored view of the upper classes from about 1955. You're thinking back to when Biff enrolled in dad's old prep school, grew up with Tommy and they spent summers together at the Club, and fast forward 15 years to when Tommy or maybe Tommy's dad gets Biff a not-too-strenuous job at the investment bank. Today it's about meritocracy. That's why it's silly to talk about how education, NMSs and GPAs are besides the point -- these are the essential entry tickets for those Ivy League school's you're drooling over. |
Anonymous
| Meritocracy, hahahaha! In the immortal words of Michael Corlene, "Now, who is being Naive?" |
Anonymous
Come back in a few years and let us know how so-so SATs and a mushy GPA work out for your kid. Even though s/he's running with Biden's grandkids now, you're going to be crying for acceptance at Macalester. Joking aside, of course connections are important. But these connections are from your university, your friends and big-name profs there. The Old Boys at your prep school? Phhhhttt, they're going nowhere. |
Anonymous
“random definition” of US News rankings? Are you kidding? I get that many disappointed by the US News rankings try to diminish them – but the US News rankings are by far the most widely accepted rankings. Perhaps more importantly, universities and colleges understand the importance of the U.S. News rankings and work hard to improve their rankings. I personally don’t think the US News rankings are gospel, but they are the best rankings out there. |