Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When considering an undergrad school, IMO the most important thing is to look at the percentage of full professors who teach. It’s better to be taught by a Ph.D than a T.A. Second, look at class size. You are more likely to find a mentor who will help you on your career path in a class of 25 vs a class of 100 or more. For those reasons, students shouldn’t overlook schools like Mary Washington or Christopher Newport. Yes, UVA and VT have broader name recognition and more prestige, but professors at the smaller schools can really help you get into top-notch grad schools. I truly believe in the benefits of being a big fish in a small pond.

It depends on what kind of grad school you're talking about. If you mean something like med school or law school then I agree. If you're aiming for a small grad program in a particular research field, then who your mentor is and how active their lab is really does matter. For a lot of scientific research that requires a well-funded lab, a research university is better.

In general, research universities are focused on graduate research and not undergrad. Lots of LACs provide students with lots of opportunities for undergraduate research and as part of that, close relationships with and mentoring by professors.

Multiple kids at multiple ivy/+. All did research as undergraduates, very easily, and had options for real mentoring, etc. LACs are great but it is false that they are better overall at undergrad research opportunities

There are lots of LACs on this list.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/best-colleges-for-undergraduate-research/

No one will believe it, but Liberal arts colleges make the most sense to me if you are looking at a STM degree.
You simply can't hide and BS your way out like you can at a university. Being in my third semester physics course and only having 8 people in my class with 10 in my lab section was instrumental in testing my abilities to think critically and actually understand science, not guess around and cram for exams.
My first year I got research, because I got a glowing recommendation from my professor for a research program. Then went on to NASA and then the SETI Institute. No, I didn't get to take Quantum Field Theory early, but it didn't matter. I had the research and could clearly learn, that's where I think Liberal arts colleges get that slight edge.

Ok, that is great but similar experiences have happened to relatives at William&Mary, MIT, Penn, Yale, Duke. Real research with professors in the first year (for those that want it) is not only possible it is encouraged. Even paid at the big endowment schools. Small classes happen at those schools too, as in 14 person honors chem class and 9 person multivariable calc classes , 15 person engineering modeling class….on and on. LACs are great , but there are many universities that provide very similar experiences.

Well those are all pretty small institutions. Massive research institutions with way more grad students do not give you this experience; examples: ASU, UVA, UT, UC Berkeley, USC, NYU, BU. You are a cog in these places, doesn't mean you aren't getting a decent education, but a lot of the ivy level colleges are basically LACs with a couple of research institutes-Dartmouth, Princeton, Brown, Rice. It's not that LACs are the only schools to have small classes, but, often, these bigger schools have small classes, because they failed half of their students along the journey...

When people at my LAC said they were premed freshman year, they graduated and went to med school. At most American universities, they wash out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:of course you. it's because you think going to a top school will make your child happy. and parents want happiness for their child.

but it doesn't necessarily bring happiness. it might. but it also might not. just like going to a school a few notches below might bring happiness or not.

my niece worked herself to death to get into an ivy (she got into multiple) and picked the one she thought would be least pressure cooker (brown) and ended up miserable. she graduated but now has moved to a small town and is doing a menial job not related to her degree because her mental health got so bad from being on a treadmill that she wants to fully opt out of life's rat race.

It's been an eye-opening shock to our family.

Tbh it probably was not Brown in particular, though we know one who transferred for similar reasons. The same situation happens to a very small subset of students at many schools , probably most of the T20. The majority have positive experiences. I think “happy” is a strange goal. Challenging experiences that lead to positive growth opportunities would be a better more realistic goal for these elite schools

I'm a recent (2017) Princeton alum, and I don't think most alumni consider Princeton something that lead to "positive growth." It lead to a lot of insecurity for all but the most well-connected kids. My friend group was all middle/UMC kids on financial aid. Most of us were seeing therapists/on SSRIs at Princeton.

Anonymous wrote:of course you. it's because you think going to a top school will make your child happy. and parents want happiness for their child.

but it doesn't necessarily bring happiness. it might. but it also might not. just like going to a school a few notches below might bring happiness or not.

my niece worked herself to death to get into an ivy (she got into multiple) and picked the one she thought would be least pressure cooker (brown) and ended up miserable. she graduated but now has moved to a small town and is doing a menial job not related to her degree because her mental health got so bad from being on a treadmill that she wants to fully opt out of life's rat race.

It's been an eye-opening shock to our family.

NP here. I am a therapist who specializes in "failure to launch" young adults, and a disproportionate number of my clients are recent grads of elite colleges. They are underemployed or unemployed in adulthood after graduating from Harvard/Stanford/Princeton/wherever, and the parents are furious about this.

Why is this the case? Well, it's usually because the child has a very weak sense of self because their entire high school experience was oriented around "winning" the college admissions process, and their entire college career was centered around "winning" an elite job in IB/Consulting/FAANG. So what happens when they get laid off from Mckinsey? Narcissistic collapse and intense depression -- these kids (yes, they might be 25 years old, but fundamentally, they are kids) don't know what's important to them or what they value most in life/career/relationships.

Let your kid have some autonomy. I know that this is antithetical to the whole tiger parenting schtick on DCUM, but it's way more important for their future success that they own their acceptance to JMU or Salisbury or wherever than let themselves get pushed into Princeton and then Morgan Stanley.

Anonymous wrote:of course you. it's because you think going to a top school will make your child happy. and parents want happiness for their child.

but it doesn't necessarily bring happiness. it might. but it also might not. just like going to a school a few notches below might bring happiness or not.

my niece worked herself to death to get into an ivy (she got into multiple) and picked the one she thought would be least pressure cooker (brown) and ended up miserable. she graduated but now has moved to a small town and is doing a menial job not related to her degree because her mental health got so bad from being on a treadmill that she wants to fully opt out of life's rat race.

It's been an eye-opening shock to our family.

Tbh it probably was not Brown in particular, though we know one who transferred for similar reasons. The same situation happens to a very small subset of students at many schools , probably most of the T20. The majority have positive experiences. I think “happy” is a strange goal. Challenging experiences that lead to positive growth opportunities would be a better more realistic goal for these elite schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When considering an undergrad school, IMO the most important thing is to look at the percentage of full professors who teach. It’s better to be taught by a Ph.D than a T.A. Second, look at class size. You are more likely to find a mentor who will help you on your career path in a class of 25 vs a class of 100 or more. For those reasons, students shouldn’t overlook schools like Mary Washington or Christopher Newport. Yes, UVA and VT have broader name recognition and more prestige, but professors at the smaller schools can really help you get into top-notch grad schools. I truly believe in the benefits of being a big fish in a small pond.

It depends on what kind of grad school you're talking about. If you mean something like med school or law school then I agree. If you're aiming for a small grad program in a particular research field, then who your mentor is and how active their lab is really does matter. For a lot of scientific research that requires a well-funded lab, a research university is better.

In general, research universities are focused on graduate research and not undergrad. Lots of LACs provide students with lots of opportunities for undergraduate research and as part of that, close relationships with and mentoring by professors.

Multiple kids at multiple ivy/+. All did research as undergraduates, very easily, and had options for real mentoring, etc. LACs are great but it is false that they are better overall at undergrad research opportunities

There are lots of LACs on this list.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/best-colleges-for-undergraduate-research/

And your point is?
There are also lots of universities on there, specifically ivies, CMU, william and mary , American…
LACs are not better at providing undergraduate research than Universities, as a blanket statement. The top ones are better than some top universities, just as there are top universities that provide better undergrad research opportunities over other top LACs. It is a silly debate. LAC vs Uni is not a battle. Mine applied to a mix of both; both concepts work well for many students, and for some students one is far better than the other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When considering an undergrad school, IMO the most important thing is to look at the percentage of full professors who teach. It’s better to be taught by a Ph.D than a T.A. Second, look at class size. You are more likely to find a mentor who will help you on your career path in a class of 25 vs a class of 100 or more. For those reasons, students shouldn’t overlook schools like Mary Washington or Christopher Newport. Yes, UVA and VT have broader name recognition and more prestige, but professors at the smaller schools can really help you get into top-notch grad schools. I truly believe in the benefits of being a big fish in a small pond.

It depends on what kind of grad school you're talking about. If you mean something like med school or law school then I agree. If you're aiming for a small grad program in a particular research field, then who your mentor is and how active their lab is really does matter. For a lot of scientific research that requires a well-funded lab, a research university is better.

In general, research universities are focused on graduate research and not undergrad. Lots of LACs provide students with lots of opportunities for undergraduate research and as part of that, close relationships with and mentoring by professors.

Multiple kids at multiple ivy/+. All did research as undergraduates, very easily, and had options for real mentoring, etc. LACs are great but it is false that they are better overall at undergrad research opportunities

There are lots of LACs on this list.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/best-colleges-for-undergraduate-research/

No one will believe it, but Liberal arts colleges make the most sense to me if you are looking at a STM degree.
You simply can't hide and BS your way out like you can at a university. Being in my third semester physics course and only having 8 people in my class with 10 in my lab section was instrumental in testing my abilities to think critically and actually understand science, not guess around and cram for exams.
My first year I got research, because I got a glowing recommendation from my professor for a research program. Then went on to NASA and then the SETI Institute. No, I didn't get to take Quantum Field Theory early, but it didn't matter. I had the research and could clearly learn, that's where I think Liberal arts colleges get that slight edge.

Ok, that is great but similar experiences have happened to relatives at William&Mary, MIT, Penn, Yale, Duke. Real research with professors in the first year (for those that want it) is not only possible it is encouraged. Even paid at the big endowment schools. Small classes happen at those schools too, as in 14 person honors chem class and 9 person multivariable calc classes , 15 person engineering modeling class….on and on. LACs are great , but there are many universities that provide very similar experiences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When considering an undergrad school, IMO the most important thing is to look at the percentage of full professors who teach. It’s better to be taught by a Ph.D than a T.A. Second, look at class size. You are more likely to find a mentor who will help you on your career path in a class of 25 vs a class of 100 or more. For those reasons, students shouldn’t overlook schools like Mary Washington or Christopher Newport. Yes, UVA and VT have broader name recognition and more prestige, but professors at the smaller schools can really help you get into top-notch grad schools. I truly believe in the benefits of being a big fish in a small pond.

It depends on what kind of grad school you're talking about. If you mean something like med school or law school then I agree. If you're aiming for a small grad program in a particular research field, then who your mentor is and how active their lab is really does matter. For a lot of scientific research that requires a well-funded lab, a research university is better.

In general, research universities are focused on graduate research and not undergrad. Lots of LACs provide students with lots of opportunities for undergraduate research and as part of that, close relationships with and mentoring by professors.

Multiple kids at multiple ivy/+. All did research as undergraduates, very easily, and had options for real mentoring, etc. LACs are great but it is false that they are better overall at undergrad research opportunities

There are lots of LACs on this list.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/best-colleges-for-undergraduate-research/

No one will believe it, but Liberal arts colleges make the most sense to me if you are looking at a STM degree.
You simply can't hide and BS your way out like you can at a university. Being in my third semester physics course and only having 8 people in my class with 10 in my lab section was instrumental in testing my abilities to think critically and actually understand science, not guess around and cram for exams.
My first year I got research, because I got a glowing recommendation from my professor for a research program. Then went on to NASA and then the SETI Institute. No, I didn't get to take Quantum Field Theory early, but it didn't matter. I had the research and could clearly learn, that's where I think Liberal arts colleges get that slight edge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When considering an undergrad school, IMO the most important thing is to look at the percentage of full professors who teach. It’s better to be taught by a Ph.D than a T.A. Second, look at class size. You are more likely to find a mentor who will help you on your career path in a class of 25 vs a class of 100 or more. For those reasons, students shouldn’t overlook schools like Mary Washington or Christopher Newport. Yes, UVA and VT have broader name recognition and more prestige, but professors at the smaller schools can really help you get into top-notch grad schools. I truly believe in the benefits of being a big fish in a small pond.

It depends on what kind of grad school you're talking about. If you mean something like med school or law school then I agree. If you're aiming for a small grad program in a particular research field, then who your mentor is and how active their lab is really does matter. For a lot of scientific research that requires a well-funded lab, a research university is better.

In general, research universities are focused on graduate research and not undergrad. Lots of LACs provide students with lots of opportunities for undergraduate research and as part of that, close relationships with and mentoring by professors.

Multiple kids at multiple ivy/+. All did research as undergraduates, very easily, and had options for real mentoring, etc. LACs are great but it is false that they are better overall at undergrad research opportunities

There are lots of LACs on this list.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/best-colleges-for-undergraduate-research/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When considering an undergrad school, IMO the most important thing is to look at the percentage of full professors who teach. It’s better to be taught by a Ph.D than a T.A. Second, look at class size. You are more likely to find a mentor who will help you on your career path in a class of 25 vs a class of 100 or more. For those reasons, students shouldn’t overlook schools like Mary Washington or Christopher Newport. Yes, UVA and VT have broader name recognition and more prestige, but professors at the smaller schools can really help you get into top-notch grad schools. I truly believe in the benefits of being a big fish in a small pond.

It depends on what kind of grad school you're talking about. If you mean something like med school or law school then I agree. If you're aiming for a small grad program in a particular research field, then who your mentor is and how active their lab is really does matter. For a lot of scientific research that requires a well-funded lab, a research university is better.

In general, research universities are focused on graduate research and not undergrad. Lots of LACs provide students with lots of opportunities for undergraduate research and as part of that, close relationships with and mentoring by professors.

Fortunately my son, a rising sophomore at UMD got a summer research/internship gig with the University. This is in addition to his four year project through the Honors College. Has an application in for ANOTHER opportunity this coming school year. UMD has been awesome and that's coming from Virginians!

Anonymous wrote:I went to HYP too. I'm secretly gunning to get my kid into my alma mater, but I try to be cool about it. I'd be thrilled with another T25 and happy with our state flagship. Below that, I don't know.

Do you only work with Ivy Leaguers? I grew out of this mindset when I entered corporate America and my boss went to UIowa and still makes 2x more than me, though the gap has significantly closed.

it's fine to want your kids to reach the their potential whatever that is. The issue with focusing on "top schools" is that it's actually pretty narrow and and often parents who want this just generically want "success" for their kids and don't think very expansively about what that could mean. And what this does is set kids up for failure because if they don't fit this fairly narrow definition of successful then they have lost.

I am someone who went to top schools and pursued a career in a prestigious field (law) and ultimately my "success" became like an albatross hanging around my neck. I was doing work that wasn't that interesting and I didn't enjoy that much for a lot of money and a lot of "oh wow you work there -- that's impressive." But it felt empty and just wasn't for me. I made two let turns and don't work in the law or even something law adjacent anymore. I make a lot less money but am more fulfilled and have much better work life balance (and mental health). I look of the years I spent pursuing my degrees and then working in that field as lost opportunities -- those degrees were expensive and time consuming and I could have done a lot with that money and time.

And that's why I think focusing on "top schools" is a mistake. For my own kid we talk about the kind of work they want to do and what is fulfilling to them (working outside and being in nature and also being able to be solitary) and what makes them happy (music and being at home and reading) and we will work from there. They might go to a prestigious college or something more niche. It might come down to the kind of place they want to be or the kind of people they want to be around. And success might mean a lot of things but they will have to define that for themselves.

And that's why wanting your kids to go to "top schools" doesn't make sense. It's too specific while also being to vague. It is not a way to build a life. A good life might travel through one of those schools but it's a means to an end.

Anonymous wrote:When considering an undergrad school, IMO the most important thing is to look at the percentage of full professors who teach. It’s better to be taught by a Ph.D than a T.A. Second, look at class size. You are more likely to find a mentor who will help you on your career path in a class of 25 vs a class of 100 or more. For those reasons, students shouldn’t overlook schools like Mary Washington or Christopher Newport. Yes, UVA and VT have broader name recognition and more prestige, but professors at the smaller schools can really help you get into top-notch grad schools. I truly believe in the benefits of being a big fish in a small pond.

What’s your view on a school like Cornell over school like Colgate?

Anonymous wrote:of course you. it's because you think going to a top school will make your child happy. and parents want happiness for their child.

but it doesn't necessarily bring happiness. it might. but it also might not. just like going to a school a few notches below might bring happiness or not.

my niece worked herself to death to get into an ivy (she got into multiple) and picked the one she thought would be least pressure cooker (brown) and ended up miserable. she graduated but now has moved to a small town and is doing a menial job not related to her degree because her mental health got so bad from being on a treadmill that she wants to fully opt out of life's rat race.

It's been an eye-opening shock to our family.

dp I think everyone says they want their kids to be "happy" but, what does that mean? If you are not unhappy than you don't know the meaning of happy. You don't appreciate it.

Interesting article:
https://www.epm.org/resources/2022/Aug/15/want-children-happy/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When considering an undergrad school, IMO the most important thing is to look at the percentage of full professors who teach. It’s better to be taught by a Ph.D than a T.A. Second, look at class size. You are more likely to find a mentor who will help you on your career path in a class of 25 vs a class of 100 or more. For those reasons, students shouldn’t overlook schools like Mary Washington or Christopher Newport. Yes, UVA and VT have broader name recognition and more prestige, but professors at the smaller schools can really help you get into top-notch grad schools. I truly believe in the benefits of being a big fish in a small pond.

It depends on what kind of grad school you're talking about. If you mean something like med school or law school then I agree. If you're aiming for a small grad program in a particular research field, then who your mentor is and how active their lab is really does matter. For a lot of scientific research that requires a well-funded lab, a research university is better.

In general, research universities are focused on graduate research and not undergrad. Lots of LACs provide students with lots of opportunities for undergraduate research and as part of that, close relationships with and mentoring by professors.

Multiple kids at multiple ivy/+. All did research as undergraduates, very easily, and had options for real mentoring, etc. LACs are great but it is false that they are better overall at undergrad research opportunities

I went to HYP too. I'm secretly gunning to get my kid into my alma mater, but I try to be cool about it. I'd be thrilled with another T25 and happy with our state flagship. Below that, I don't know.