Everyone on DCUM should read Frank Bruni's recent book on colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you know that he's a good journalist on education specifically?

Because. I. Read. The. Book.

It is well-researched and well-argued. I'm university professor and part of my job is evaluating research and scholarship by other people, and this struck me as a very solid and persuasive book, overall. FWIW, it also received numerous excellent reviews. Did I agree with every single statement in it? No, of course not. There were a few bits where I thought he needed more, or didn't ask questions he should have asked or discuss issues he should have discussed, etc. But as a product, myself, of several super-duper elite institutions (fancy prep school, fancy college, fancy scholarship to fancy foreign country, fancy professional school, and succession of fancy jobs at elite institutions and universities), and with kids at an expensive elite private school, I found the book thought-provoking and useful. It made me think somewhat differently about how to steer my own children when college frenzy begins.

Read it and judge for yourself. Maybe it will not change your views, but maybe it will.

or they can just stay in academia forever.

Right, because academics are completely unqualified to comment on education. Seriously, PP, you are so resistant to acknowledging even the possibility of new information that I suspect you’d reject new ideas handed down directly from a divine power. In your view, is there anyone in the world qualified to provide you with valid new insights? If you are this hostile to hearing new perspectives at work, maybe you really are Donald Trump. Otherwise, what’s so hard about saying something polite? “Thanks, I haven’t read that book, and I’m not sure I will agree with it, but I’m always happy to get new recommendations.”

Or, better still, if you have nothing helpful to say, you could just refrain from commenting.

You must be new here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't think there are incremental benefits of spending four years studying, socializing, networking etc. at a school with greater proportions of "highly qualified applicants" than at a school with fewer?

A couple points from Bruni's book on this. First, many colleges have honors level programs. Students in these programs access more enrichment opportunities and can take more rigorous courses. Second, there are many schools with unique specializations that address kids with specific interests. Participation in either of these initiatives is a compelling reason to look beyond the classic brand-name schools.

Wait a second -- you and Mr. Bruni would have us believe that name-brand schools don't also have honors level programs and unique specializations?

[Anonymous]

What a lot of back and forth, and by several combative people! I was a C student and went to a VA public college - and not one of the top ones but the one that accepted me. I’m an executive now for a prominent Silicon Valley tech company and have several Ivy grads who work for me. The truth is, in my realm of work experience, they think they are very special. Because they have been told as much their whole lives. And yet, my neighbor is now a 3rd year at Harvard and she is one of the hardest working, smart-but-humble kids I know. It’s a mixed bag, like everywhere, but the danger of “special” is very real in my experience.

That said...If you know what you want to do with your life at a young age, and some kids do, going to the best colllege for that field is helpful, obviously. But most kids haven’t a clue who they are or what they want to do in life. And grit and determination can factor in as heavily or more so than fancy degrees and connections. Parents these days are so competitive. If your kid is like my neighbor, who was a passionate student from the beginning, then maybe she is meant for an Ivy. But if your kid isn’t like that...why would you push them to the brink? Just last week an 8th grader in northern VA committed suicide due to school grades pressure. These kids are only being taught that outcomes matter. They can’t handle, or enjoy, journeys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a lot of back and forth, and by several combative people! I was a C student and went to a VA public college - and not one of the top ones but the one that accepted me. I’m an executive now for a prominent Silicon Valley tech company and have several Ivy grads who work for me. The truth is, in my realm of work experience, they think they are very special. Because they have been told as much their whole lives. And yet, my neighbor is now a 3rd year at Harvard and she is one of the hardest working, smart-but-humble kids I know. It’s a mixed bag, like everywhere, but the danger of “special” is very real in my experience.

That said...If you know what you want to do with your life at a young age, and some kids do, going to the best colllege for that field is helpful, obviously. But most kids haven’t a clue who they are or what they want to do in life. And grit and determination can factor in as heavily or more so than fancy degrees and connections. Parents these days are so competitive. If your kid is like my neighbor, who was a passionate student from the beginning, then maybe she is meant for an Ivy. But if your kid isn’t like that...why would you push them to the brink? Just last week an 8th grader in northern VA committed suicide due to school grades pressure. These kids are only being taught that outcomes matter. They can’t handle, or enjoy, journeys.

Agree 100 percent. This balances the two sides nicely, I think, and is true to my experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"A student with a 1,400 SAT score who went to Penn State but applied to Penn earned as much, on average, as a student with a 1,400 who went to Penn." This was the finding of a couple researchers, Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger. One was, ironically, a Harvard grad and a current Princeton professor. So there's that.

This was a key finding: "He points out that the average SAT score at the most selective college students apply to turns out to be a better predictor of their earnings than the average SAT score at the college they attended."

This matches the point Bruni makes in his excellent book. Perhaps the fixation with prestige is actually a positive marker in its own way. But the disparaging of schools outside the most prestigious is unfortunate. Because it ultimately doesn't matter nearly so much as many think. Sure, shoot for the elite schools. Just don't make it the be-all and end-all. There really is life outside the elite schools.

Now when you read the summary of the study, it does find that selective schools make a difference for these groups: black students, Latino students, low-income students and students whose parents did not graduate from college. Note: these represent some of what are called URMs and/or hooks when it comes to college admissions.

Link to story about the study:
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/

The benefit of selective schools for URMs seems to be a huge asterisk that really weakens the study's conclusions, especially given that now they're nearly half of the under age 18 population in this country. Once you add in students whose parents did not graduate from college, that may take the percentage of students for whom selective schools making a difference to over 50 percent. What you seem to be portraying as the exception is actually swallowing the rule.

Also, this study covered a cohort that attended undergrad 40 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The benefit of selective schools for URMs seems to be a huge asterisk that really weakens the study's conclusions, especially given that now they're nearly half of the under age 18 population in this country. Once you add in students whose parents did not graduate from college, that may take the percentage of students for whom selective schools making a difference to over 50 percent. What you seem to be portraying as the exception is actually swallowing the rule.

Also, this study covered a cohort that attended undergrad 40 years ago.

I'm not following your logic here. When the researchers analyzed white and Asian families with some means, they found that there was no difference in incomes for the schools they attended. Yet you run to "swallowing the rule" quickly due to the benefits of the URM/hooked kids. Can you connect the dots more fully? I'm not seeing the conflict as clearly as you.

Yes, the latest results are based on 1993 graduates: "The new paper also looks at students who had been freshmen in 1989 and follows their earnings through the middle part of the last decade." What are your thoughts on how that affects the relevance of the study?

[Anonymous]

What kind of study is useful when the thesis claimed is true for only for half of the population?

That's like saying, studies show people benefit from eating more X or regularly doing Y exercise...unless you're female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What kind of study is useful when the thesis claimed is true for only for half of the population?

That's like saying, studies show people benefit from eating more X or regularly doing Y exercise...unless you're female.

Gotcha. Your point would be strengthened if there was an implausible basis for the difference. Say, they found that kids with blue eyes actually benefited more from going to selective colleges. Or kids from a specific sliver of family income (e.g. $100,000-$150,000). Or kids only from the Northeast.

But the differences they found are for groups that often show up with different results than whites and Asians. Here's an example study showing that income differences hold for whites and Asians vs. blacks and Latinos after accounting for where they live:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/29/the-asian-american-advantage-that-is-actually-an-illusion/

Finally, you can turn your point around to this: How can we believe that selective schools matter that much when it only applies to half the population?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a lot of back and forth, and by several combative people! I was a C student and went to a VA public college - and not one of the top ones but the one that accepted me. I’m an executive now for a prominent Silicon Valley tech company and have several Ivy grads who work for me. The truth is, in my realm of work experience, they think they are very special. Because they have been told as much their whole lives. And yet, my neighbor is now a 3rd year at Harvard and she is one of the hardest working, smart-but-humble kids I know. It’s a mixed bag, like everywhere, but the danger of “special” is very real in my experience.

That said...If you know what you want to do with your life at a young age, and some kids do, going to the best colllege for that field is helpful, obviously. But most kids haven’t a clue who they are or what they want to do in life. And grit and determination can factor in as heavily or more so than fancy degrees and connections. Parents these days are so competitive. If your kid is like my neighbor, who was a passionate student from the beginning, then maybe she is meant for an Ivy. But if your kid isn’t like that...why would you push them to the brink? Just last week an 8th grader in northern VA committed suicide due to school grades pressure. These kids are only being taught that outcomes matter. They can’t handle, or enjoy, journeys.

I get what you're saying...at the same time some people are actually special ivy or not...and if Ivy, I'm worried will have to apologize or overcompensate for being from ivies or what not, which they shouldn't! Upper education in America has gotten so complicated. Millenials are generally annoying wherever they went. I'm more worried about the group think at any college and especially Ivies. for that reason alone I'd avoid them. Chart your own course young sirs and misses!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of study is useful when the thesis claimed is true for only for half of the population?

That's like saying, studies show people benefit from eating more X or regularly doing Y exercise...unless you're female.

Gotcha. Your point would be strengthened if there was an implausible basis for the difference. Say, they found that kids with blue eyes actually benefited more from going to selective colleges. Or kids from a specific sliver of family income (e.g. $100,000-$150,000). Or kids only from the Northeast.

But the differences they found are for groups that often show up with different results than whites and Asians. Here's an example study showing that income differences hold for whites and Asians vs. blacks and Latinos after accounting for where they live:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/29/the-asian-american-advantage-that-is-actually-an-illusion/

How does citing this strengthen your point in any way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
How does citing this strengthen your point in any way?

Tell you what, at this point your questions feel less like earnest inquiry and more like trolling to blast the Bruni book. I wish your kid(s) well in their pursuit of the most elite institutions. I too think the elite institutions are wonderful and would be happy if my kid went to one, assuming it's the right fit. However, I hope you recognize that your kid(s) will in all likelihood have a good life should they not get into either an elite private high school or college. I'm comfortable that my kid will.

[Anonymous]

So your post at 10:30 asked for clarification, but when I do the same, it's "trolling"?

And I agree with you that my kids will in all likelihood have a good life if they don't go to an elite private high school or college. But their margin for error will certainly be lower than if they did go to an elite private high school or college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:who's frank bruni? did he used to work at JPMorgan? or was that frank bruno?

Frank Bruno was an underrated fullback for UCLA back in the early eighties. Played with QB Tom Ramsey and for Coach Terry Donahue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frank Bruni went to boarding school in Connecticut and Columbia University (one of the world's best schools for journalists). So who would he be if his choices were more low-key?

Agree with this! Would he be writing for the New York Times and authoring a book if he were not himself a product of an elite education (CT boarding school, Morehead Scholar at UNC, Columbia for graduate school)? Although he makes some valid points, by definition, there is far more money to be made is marketing a book to the masses than the elite.