Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a "high stats" kid who went to a non selective school. Why? Full ride.

I was self motivated in my large wealthy suburban high school. I'm self motivated at my large fortune 500 company. Cream will always rise to the top. If motivation is coming from mommy and daddy I can see your concern. You actually have held up a dud kid and they will eventually fail when you can no longer hold them up. My parents didn't expect much from me, never checked my grades, didn't know what I got my degrees in - I'm not sure they know now. The point is I was successful for me and I knew from a young age how to be. I have a very high IQ - I think my dad does too, but his abusive family was a bit of a hindrance to his success. He was only emotionally abusive to me, which actually was just the fuel I needed to get the he!! out of Dodge.

On a side note I have 2 kids - both gifted. I've tried to be the parent I needed and they went to selective private schools, preK-12. I'm actually advising them toward non selective colleges, because they will stand out there, just like I did. I don't worry about their peers dragging them down. They know the success if for themselves. They do stand out at their private school, but probably not as much as they would at a non-selective school. They don't really get their motivation from their friends, or from me. My older one is driven by the work - she really loves to do a good job and will continue to tweak projects after she gets an A. The younger one is literally motivated by the grade. I was motivated by the competition and winning, which is easy to do when the other kids are only average.

If you really believed cream rose to the top, you would send your kids to public and pocket the tuition money.

Anonymous wrote:I was a "high stats" kid who went to a non selective school. Why? Full ride.

I was self motivated in my large wealthy suburban high school. I'm self motivated at my large fortune 500 company. Cream will always rise to the top. If motivation is coming from mommy and daddy I can see your concern. You actually have held up a dud kid and they will eventually fail when you can no longer hold them up. My parents didn't expect much from me, never checked my grades, didn't know what I got my degrees in - I'm not sure they know now. The point is I was successful for me and I knew from a young age how to be. I have a very high IQ - I think my dad does too, but his abusive family was a bit of a hindrance to his success. He was only emotionally abusive to me, which actually was just the fuel I needed to get the he!! out of Dodge.

On a side note I have 2 kids - both gifted. I've tried to be the parent I needed and they went to selective private schools, preK-12. I'm actually advising them toward non selective colleges, because they will stand out there, just like I did. I don't worry about their peers dragging them down. They know the success if for themselves. They do stand out at their private school, but probably not as much as they would at a non-selective school. They don't really get their motivation from their friends, or from me. My older one is driven by the work - she really loves to do a good job and will continue to tweak projects after she gets an A. The younger one is literally motivated by the grade. I was motivated by the competition and winning, which is easy to do when the other kids are only average.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should choose based on fit, but there is a large difference between a school that is comprised of all top students and a large school with an honors program. It’s not just classes, it’s being challenged and growing by being in that environment everywhere in all you do.

But you still get that at most schools in the 20-65 range. I agree at the 70-100 range you see not as many "top students" but would argue that there are still plenty of really bright kids, the difference between a 1400 and 1500 is not that much (93% versus 97/98%). Those bright kids still go to the same med schools, do the same residencies, go to the same top Graduate programs, etc. Yes, there will be more kids who are just below that, but still very smart and your kid will likely end up working with them in the future, so it's good to know how to function outside a small box of just kids with 1550+ SAT scores Because that is the real world

Anonymous wrote:Look, if "workplace" is in your vocabulary, you don't need special Ivy benefits. Superstars don't go to the "workplace".

Anonymous wrote:This post frankly smacks a bit of elitism. You can learn something from almost anyone you interact with.

Anonymous wrote:My kids are really thriving at an Ivy, partly because of the amazing professors, but also because of the intellectual curiosity of their fellow students. I went to a no name LAC and also had a good learning experience, but I had to work to find other students really passionate about learning. I did have good relationships with my professors, some of whom were amazing, others who were 3rd rate. With large universities, teaching can be uneven and class sizes huge. Honors colleges help with this.

It bothers me when people snub lower tier schools thinking their "brilliant" kid would be bored. They can make something wonderful there, but I also think that the top tier schools have a unique means to offer an amazing learning environment.

Sorry for the choppy thoughts. On my phone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the rest of the student body is super smart, I care if they are motivated and enjoy having discussions on various levels. My teens go to a lower performing public school and get frustrated when there are kids who just don’t care, don’t participate, lag during group projects. How do we find a place for our kids that have people who care about learning?

Outside of highly competitive universities (and even there slackers can exist), I’d consider Honors Colleges or other programs that require special applicatIons &/or to maintain high GPA to be in.

The problem with those is that the honors kids do not take all classes separate from the rest, nor do they have dorms,clubs, ECs separate from regular students. The overall motivation and talent pool of the entire undergrad is what matters. In addition some honors programs are very easy to get accepted to. Some from our private who were the bottom third of the high school as far as course rigor got into "honors" at non-top-5 publics but known Top-30-publics. They were the ones who struggled a lot to keep up in high school. If your kid is near the top at such a high school they will not find their people in that kind of "honors" program.

Anonymous wrote:Kids should choose based on fit, but there is a large difference between a school that is comprised of all top students and a large school with an honors program. It’s not just classes, it’s being challenged and growing by being in that environment everywhere in all you do.

Anonymous wrote:I will tell you what happened to my kid.
He was at a Private t50, athlete. Good but not amazing stats. 1500 SAT, 3.7/4 UW GPA.
He transferred to Harvard (former coach).

At the Private t50, he was coming along, 3.4 GPA first year…..his first year at Harvard he picked up speed pretty quickly…..no matter what anybody says, iron sharpens iron. Kid is excelling in the classroom. He was pushed by his peers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pondering all of these things for my very high stats DD. If she feels an honors college at a “lesser” school would be a great fit …even if the overall peer composition is not nearly as good as at an ivy or T10…as long as the desired courses are offered, maybe it wouldn’t be all bad to be the big fish in a small pond? After all, bc tenured positions are so hard to come by, generally the pedigree of the professor is much much higher than the actual school s/he teaches at (so professor will be ivy-league/top school super smart person that will gravitate towards super smart students).

This is true if you wish to go to grad school, but I would temper your expectations a bit. A big way state schools attract and keep top researchers is by putting fewer teaching/mentoring obligations on them compared to top schools. Hence, there is often more of a culture of seeing anything to do with undergrads as a necessary evil, to be minimized wherever possible to save your energy for research and your PhD students (who are actually very good due to the difference in undergrad vs grad prestige of the institution). But these are just generalities - you can try looking at schools that make undergrad opportunities a priority, like UCSB CCS, OU HTC, Texas FRI, Alabama Randall Research Scholars, etc.

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

Anonymous wrote:Just look at median GPA, SAT and number of AP courses taken and aced with 5's of two sample colleges from T20 and T200, you'll find your answer. Yes there'll be smart kids at both schools but percentage is going to be several times higher at a T20.