Reply to Overcrowding/Overenrollment Issues at top tier schools

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Overcrowding/Overenrollment Issues at top tier schools "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I went to a public R1, my wife to an LAC. We sent both our kids to an LAC.  We felt the in classroom experience is better when classes are small; at our LAC, classes are capped at 35. We also think the out of classroom student-faculty experiences are more meaningful when there aren’t grad students or post docs to compete with.  We felt research exposure was important but wanted it to prioritize undergrad involvement, which is the case at an LAC. Both our students have had far more interaction outside of class with profs than we think would’ve occurred at a university, even a private university, for academic   research and other career-building opportunities. We also think college represents an important social networking opportunity and appreciated the requirement to live on campus all four years. In both their cases their social experiences picked up significantly in later years, so we're glad they were not limited to one or two years of on-campus housing.

That said, there are obvious name recognition and breadth of offering advantages at universities. There are also of course financial advantages for in-state publics. We would not have hesitated to send our kids to one of any number of amazing public universities if attending the LAC meant incurring significant debt.

In the end, this is a decision that comes down to a student’s specific situation and interests. In some cases a large public will make more sense, other times a private university, and other times an LAC. I think it’s fine for people to want to learn more about the pros/cons of each category or specific school as they research colleges. One need not take personally the fact that in some situations what was best for their family won’t be best for others. [/quote]

I just don’t think anyone will get more mileage from a Pomona or Wellesley degree than they would have from a UCLA or Berkeley or University of Michigan degree (or one from USC or Notre Dame, etc.). The in-class education, sad to say, is an afterthought to the real purpose of 21st century higher education at the undergraduate level - extended social development and networking. For most kids, the most fertile environments are large public and private universities.

For those interested in graduate school and careers in academia beyond, those large schools with research budgets north of $1B provide a dizzying array of opportunities to get one’s foot in the door and start climbing the publication ladder. They will not find that at Macalester or Amherst College or Scripps College or whatever. And even if they do, the opportunities will be far fewer.

Careers are built AFTER college, not during it. For the vast majority of us, our livelihood is based on what we learned AFTER college. College is the big set-up to that critical phase in our lives. How we position ourselves exiting our undergraduate program is the key … at least in my experience, and the collective experience of most successful people in my orbit.[/quote]

You’re one of the barbarians destroying higher education for the students who want it gone more than DeVry with a quad.

For some students, a chance to learn and be around bright people has a high value in and of itself. But because people like you and the CS-or-bust parents here have pumped selective colleges full of soulless zombies who’ve pretended to be good students, the serious students have a hard time finding schools suitable for serious students. 
[/quote]

What makes you think those large schools are not brimming over with applicants and enrolled students who are at least as intellectually curious as their peers at the smaller schools? That’s bizarre thinking, frankly. The application process gauntlet enables kids to self-select the caliber of intellectual curiosity surrounding them during this critically important phase of life, as it should.

Not CS. Not pretending - DS24’s one-and-done 1600 wasn’t even considered by his eventual college choice, but I think his unbroken string of 5’s on 8 AP tests through junior year speak to his seriousness as a learner.

Combined, we have five degrees (two terminal) in my home, across two adults. We’re hardly ideal targets for your Devry with a quad sniping …[/quote]

Well, for one, the I s are the only schools remaining test blind and much has been written about grade inflation in CA high schools.[/quote]

The UCs also have decades of data about each HS in their state and probably can figure out what the GPAs mean in the context of the schools. My dc attends a UC and is a merit scholar several of his peers are either NMSF or commended. I too prefer making standardized tests mandatory but between historic school data, awards like National Merit (you have those for Hispanics and other races as well), AP awards, they have enough information to determine if a kid has the academic credentials.[/quote]

Our kids went to a high stat (mid 1400s avg SAT) rigorous CA private HS that still gives Bs to good students. The impression the college counseling dept gave us was that the UCs are just too inundated with applications to adjust GPAs based on school history info. Our national merit scholar with a 4.9 avg over 8 APs (not the easy ones based on score distributions) and an unweighted GPA over 3.8 didn’t even bother applying. A friend’s daughter is going to Yale after getting rejected from her preferred UCs. Test blind is very misguided, imo.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics