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!

Anonymous wrote:

I've seen the Less HS Stress website. It's basically says that lots of high scoring kids go to schools that may surprise you. He walks through how Michigan and other big schools have far more students scoring in the top echelons than you would have imagined. I'm wondering if anybody has done something similar for smaller schools further down the popularity ladder.

This has got to win the prize for the most stupefyingly provincial DCUM comment of the day (and as always there are lots of contenders). Michigan is by all ranking metrics (even the revered USNWR) one of the top universities in the country and the world. To be 'surprised' that it attracts a lot of top students is really beyond words. Except ... DCUM.

Yes but it’s still a state school student that must take a certain percentage of in state students

SAT scores are not the be-all end all of intelligence.

But is going to a school with ambitious, high-functioning students better than going to school with a bunch of low-functioning slackers that spend all their time drinking and doing drugs...yes, obviously it is.

Regardless, why would you be surprised that Michigan would be full of top scoring students? It tops in STEM and particularly engineering across all sub-disciplines and is well renowned both nationally and internationally, both factors that attract high scoring students.

I am not sure I even understand the question. Do you mean “smartness” solely based on gpa/standardized test scores? DC has a 4.0, lots of APs and a 35 ACT. DC’s best friend has more like a 3.5, very few APs, and applied test optional bc his ACT score was quite low. DC’s bff is very creative and smart, is well travelled (pre-covid!), has lots of thoughtful opinions on world events, and would make an excellent contributor to class discussions and group work. DC’s bff probably would fall into your definition of lesser relative “smartness,” but that would be a mistake and being surrounded by students like DCs bff would be a huge positive for anyone.

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.

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.

My DC applied to a lot of different SLACs across a lot of different selectivity rates, and I would definitely say that I saw this. The places that accepted big percentages of students but tended to attract pretty high-stat students tended to be not right in the NE, but a little further out. We were *very* impressed, for example, with Kalamazoo College, which has impressively high stats of admitted students notwithstanding a very high percentage of pell grant students, had extremely impressive outcomes, and just seemed like a great school (plus incredible merit aid). But you'd have to go to Michigan, so it's not on the radar screen of a lot of students from the NE, and they haven't figured out how to market themselves as a great safety as effectively as schools like College of Wooster or Muhlenberg (both of which we saw and were also impressed by).

I think there are many intellectually rigorous schools that are really amazing for the right student, but they simply aren't as popular with a really wide net of applicants. Their acceptance rates are much higher than "mainstream" popular schools like UCLA of Northeastern, but it doesn't mean those schools are "better." Relative to those mainstream schools, Brandeis, Bryn Mawr, Oberlin or Holy Cross appeal to niche audiences, but are all schools where your kid can find bright, engaged classmates and wonderful academic communities.

I've seen the Less HS Stress website. It's basically says that lots of high scoring kids go to schools that may surprise you. He walks through how Michigan and other big schools have far more students scoring in the top echelons than you would have imagined. I'm wondering if anybody has done something similar for smaller schools further down the popularity ladder.

This has got to win the prize for the most stupefyingly provincial DCUM comment of the day (and as always there are lots of contenders). Michigan is by all ranking metrics (even the revered USNWR) one of the top universities in the country and the world. To be 'surprised' that it attracts a lot of top students is really beyond words. Except ... DCUM.

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.

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.

Test scores do not equal intelligence.

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.

Yes, most kids at our school will choose a program and a financial package over perceived prestige. They are smart and sure of themselves. When they get to college they have plenty of academic peers. I don’t even understand how this is a question. Our college system in the US is not a rank based merit system.

I've seen the Less HS Stress website. It's basically says that lots of high scoring kids go to schools that may surprise you. He walks through how Michigan and other big schools have far more students scoring in the top echelons than you would have imagined. I'm wondering if anybody has done something similar for smaller schools further down the popularity ladder. It seems that he only looked at schools larger than 2,000 but there are SLACs that are smaller than that.

It seems to me that there are probably some schools that have high admit rates but also have a pretty solid composite SAT score. But common wisdom says that SAT score would drop with selectivity. (There's another thread I just saw about a parent who is worried that if her kid attends a "2nd Tier" SLAC, she won't be among her intellectual/academic equals.)

Has anybody seen an analysis that would shed some light on whether that mom's concerns are true? The Colleges That Change Lives book talks about how these schools tend to have a broad range of scores among their freshman class, and that this is a positive thing, not a bad one, with respect to the classroom experience. But the book doesn't provide data to support this view.