Reply to For Fellow Asians: What are the Popular Schools You've Seen Kids Looking at?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "For Fellow Asians: What are the Popular Schools You've Seen Kids Looking at?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]East Asian parents here.

Yes there is a list of top schools that many Asian parents want to send their kids to.

But not all Asian kids are super smart. For those kids, I noticed that Asian parents prefer big in-state public schools (for Virginia, UVa, VT, GMU, VCU, etc) over smaller public schools (such as MWC and CNU).

[b]You will have a hard time finding Asian kids at less known private schools like Roanoke college or Randolph Macon. [/b][/quote]
yep, like the SLACs because the ROI is not there.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/legacy/posts/list/1160539.page[/quote]

Depends on who is doing the calculation and with what data. Princeton Review's list of top 50 ROI among privates is about 40% LAC.

https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=top-50-best-value-colleges-private-schools[/quote]

Depends on what they target to for studies.  Most Asian kids likely target STEM and SLACs are weak in that area.  By STEM, I mean the hard-core variety like CS and Engineering.  [/quote]

Not sure what you mean but the link for ROI would take available data from any major into account.

STEM major percentages at most high ranking liberal arts colleges are on par with most high ranking universities, per the other recent thread.  That’s not counting social sciences as STEM.  Most LACs don’t have engineering but I don’t know of any that don’t have CS, natural sciences, and math.  I don’t consider engineering more “hard-core” than natural sciences.

If a school without engineering has a higher ROI than one with, that would suggest the one without is outperforming the one with in the majors they do share. [/quote]

The generic ROI rankings use an average price as the denominator that most Asians don't get. Most pay full price so the ROI argument is just BS. Secondly, the list is a solid list of schools that offer Engr/CS for the most part anyways and the liberal arts schools don't even enter the raking until way towards the bottom. Why would I pay $80K to study CS at Haverford or Wabash?  Liberal arts schools are not highly ranked for CS. Period. They also have a difficult time finding/retaining CS faculty. Most of the CS faculty at WPI, ranked $45 on this list, are visiting professors and the school is not ranked that high anyways.  
[/quote]

According to NCES, about 2/3 of undergrad Asian students receive some kind of grant, less than 10% different from white students.  The average Asian grant was just over 20% more than for whites. So I think your theory that Princeton Review’s ROI methodology neglects the Asian market is simply wrong.

WPI is not an LAC, it’s a university, so you are actually sharing evidence that even universities can have a lot of visiting profs. At least the undergrad is the priority of the prof, visiting or not, at an LAC.  At a university, research and grad students will be.

USNWR only recently started with CS rankings. When evaluating at the level of a dept, survey respondents will naturally favor those schools they have heard about most, which means the ones with publishing the most cited research, which will naturally be  universities.  But when evaluating at the level of an individual student, they favor those who actually learned the material the best and have already done research at the undergrad level.  Some universities are great at both, but LACs disproportionately send alumni to grad programs for a reason.  The students are more likely to have meaningful roles in undergrad research since there’s no competition with grad students. The faculty also spend more time with undergrads when there are no grad students, so the letters of recommendation are also more meaningful.  There’s even evidence that grads of LACs finish PhD programs more rapidly because they enter better prepared.  So decide whether it’s more important that your child attends a school where others are doing great stuff but themselves are less likely to get into grad school or they themselves are doing what’s going to improve their odds of going to grad school. If grad school isn’t of interest, LACs lose some of their appeal. Yes of course good students can get into grad school from anywhere, but I am speaking of bumping the odds.

Haverford is a fantastic school by the way.  I think most reading this thread would be very fortunate to have their child study CS there.  They are generally among the top 10 for sending students to PhD programs.  Per Payscale, they also have higher mid career earnings than many universities with USNWR top 50 engineering and top 50 CS rank, even without offering engineering themselves.

Besides the above reasons to consider LACs a high quality learning environment, there’s also this reality: most people are incredibly unsophisticated shoppers of higher education. They erroneously conclude one ranking or low admit rates provides all the info they need to put together a college list. So they all apply to the same places with near perfect stats in a test optional, grade-inflated landscape, then are surprised to get rejected. There are more and sometimes better opportunities for those who dig deeper.  [/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