Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Honestly, he really sounds like someone who would thrive at a flagship public. And SLACs sound like a bad idea. Flagship gives him access to a wide range of courses (eg languages) and profs. Large/diverse group of students (many of whom aren’t grade-obsessed or coming from pressure cooker academic environments) will give him a different perspective on college. Not sure what state he lives in, but flagship in state capital (Madison, Austin) could be a plus for a kid interested in politics.
Basically, flagships can be a real feast for smart, curious kids with wide-ranging interests (both academic and extra-curricular).
I say this as someone who has studied and taught at both public flagships and Ivy+ privates. And as the parent of a kid who went from a pressure cooker HS to a pressure cooker college and chose a flagship for PhD work.
Why?
Strong UMC vibe at most (which is probably the class fragment whose attitude toward school turned him off)
Few profs in each field
Fewer extracurriculars (which is where arts/politics might end up fitting in his college life).
Basically, scale matters in terms of the range of attitudes/activities and the culture of a university. There’s no one right way to be a college student at a public flagship (less true of SLACs which often attract/cultivate a certain type of student). There are kids who flourish at SLACs and would be less happy at a larger school, but this kid (intrinsically motivated, turned off by environmental/social pressure, ASKING to go to a flagship) does not seem to be one of them. Flagships are great for choose-your-own-adventure types. More pieces to play with and lots of different ways to assemble them.