Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the UMD professor: Do you give attendance points that will increase grades? (My friend’s son went to UMD and this was the case for him). Sounds like high school, to me.
My son’s SLAC:
-no extra credit
-most exams were essay form vs scan-tron
-no opting out of finals
-minimal grading on the curve
-no homework points
Ironically, top publics have far less extra-credit/opt-out exams/HW points than privates.
This is simply because the class sizes are so large that professors have no interest in grading extra-credit assignments, homework, keeping track of who's opted out of what exam, and keeping track of who is attending/participating in class.
Meanwhile privates tend to be much more coddling of their students due to small size and allowing plenty of extra credit/homework points/participation points/opting out of exams, etc.
Oftentimes public universities won't accept any late assignments at all for any reason, while professors at privates will be more willing (and instructed) to work with their students with flexible deadlines, often with no point deduction.
This is actually a positive of attending a top private vs. a top public. Much more leeway and less stress for students.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Professors are great, accessible, and hold high expectations for their students. Though “good” colleges may have great professors, they may be less accessible due to class size and be unable to hold students to the highest academic standards. The result is that the syllabus covers less material, less complex material, and the assignments are less complex and graded to lower expectations. All this impacts the quality of the learning, especially in a liberal arts program.
New Poster. OP - thank you for starting this thread! It's a good discussion to have.
But I must quibble with your takeaway above. The one thing I noticed from this conversation, some posters are comparing a T20 SLAC to a "good" state school. Those are not apt comparisons.
Can we compare T20 SLACs to "good" SLACS (the CTCL school, St. Mary's College of Maryland type of schools, etc.)
And then let's compare top state schools (Michigan, Berkeley, UVA) to "good" state schools (Penn St, Pitt, Ohio State, Towson, VA Tech, etc.)
It doesn't help to compare a top SLAC to a good state school.
Anonymous wrote:
Professors are great, accessible, and hold high expectations for their students. Though “good” colleges may have great professors, they may be less accessible due to class size and be unable to hold students to the highest academic standards. The result is that the syllabus covers less material, less complex material, and the assignments are less complex and graded to lower expectations. All this impacts the quality of the learning, especially in a liberal arts program.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the UMD professor: Do you give attendance points that will increase grades? (My friend’s son went to UMD and this was the case for him). Sounds like high school, to me.
My son’s SLAC:
-no extra credit
-most exams were essay form vs scan-tron
-no opting out of finals
-minimal grading on the curve
-no homework points
I’m sure your son walks 5 miles uphill in snow to class, too.
To frame PP’s point a different way, I think s/he is pointing out that, even if you assume the quality of professors is held constant, smaller classes (and better grad students) make more challenging assignments/evaluations possible.
FWIW, having taught/studied/had a kid at total of four different t20s, I think ambition/affluence/HS preparation rather than brains/academic orientation/mastery of material/effort is what differentiates a t20 cohort from cohorts at other good schools. But, as other posters have already suggested, you’ll find both that the top students at the good schools are just as smart/capable and that your kids’ college educations will largely be a function of what they make of them. Opportunities/challenges are everywhere but @ some places (t20s) they are obviously/readily available (but often highly competitive) and other places you have to seek them out.
I agree t30 coddle their students more.
One of my professors at a non-t30 school had previously taught at Harvard, and he said that the only difference between the two schools from his perspective was that it was easier to make an "A" at Harvard. He said that at Harvard it is assumed that everyone will deserve an A, so there is no pressure for grade deflation. In fact, the opposite was true.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the UMD professor: Do you give attendance points that will increase grades? (My friend’s son went to UMD and this was the case for him). Sounds like high school, to me.
My son’s SLAC:
-no extra credit
-most exams were essay form vs scan-tron
-no opting out of finals
-minimal grading on the curve
-no homework points
I’m sure your son walks 5 miles uphill in snow to class, too.
To frame PP’s point a different way, I think s/he is pointing out that, even if you assume the quality of professors is held constant, smaller classes (and better grad students) make more challenging assignments/evaluations possible.
FWIW, having taught/studied/had a kid at total of four different t20s, I think ambition/affluence/HS preparation rather than brains/academic orientation/mastery of material/effort is what differentiates a t20 cohort from cohorts at other good schools. But, as other posters have already suggested, you’ll find both that the top students at the good schools are just as smart/capable and that your kids’ college educations will largely be a function of what they make of them. Opportunities/challenges are everywhere but @ some places (t20s) they are obviously/readily available (but often highly competitive) and other places you have to seek them out.
I agree t30 coddle their students more.
Anonymous wrote:I went to a SLAC that was rated #70-80. I got into better SLACs but this one gave me an almost full scholarship and money was very tight in our family. I had a good experience. Too 10% of students were very competitive. I did not get all As. Made some close relationships with professors. Went to an ivy for grad school. Undergrads at the ivy were definitely way more intense and hardworking than at my college. I took an undergrad math class at the ivy and it was way harder than my college. I struggled my first year in grad school and was a bit intimidated by my fellow students who mostly came from big name schools including ivys and top state schools. They clearly had many more research and internship opportunities than me. I caught up though by my second year and graduated just fine with everyone. This was a PhD program. I’m still grateful to my slac for giving me a good education at a great price
Anonymous wrote:The bottom 2/3rds of non t30 schools should not be in college.
The German model is more efficient.
At t20s, the bottom 1/4 of kids are average state school level kids with some hook.
If you go to a shitty school, a 1/4 - 1/3 of your class is decent.
Anonymous wrote:I agree that the peer group is different but that’s not necessarily a good thing for everyone. I did undergrad at a very highly ranked SLAC and found the students bizarrely competitive, anxious, and self-absorbed. Lots of eating disorders, perfectionism, all-or-nothing thinking. In general a very negative vibe. I did my next two graduate degrees at less prestigious institutions and experienced a much better peer group.
Anonymous wrote:We’re struggling with this question ourselves. Our DD has the grades and scores to probably get into a Top 50, maybe even a Top 20 but doesn’t want to be around rich d-bags, frat bros, trust fund kids and jocks. She likes her diverse friend group which doesn’t always have to include the smartest kids in the class.
Two schools that are about equally distant from us that we’re considering are Gettysburg (#53 in the US News rankings) and St. Mary’s College of MD (#92), but the impression we get about Gettysburg is that it caters more toward the rich kid/frat bro and the SMCM has more “normal people” (my DD’s words) that tend to flourish there. She seems to much prefer the latter.
YMMV, but that’s our take.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For STEM, overall ranking is less important than the overall program. I have a friend who's son turned down Vanderbilt and Georgetown for Georgia Tech (Aerospace Engineering)
Although I understand your point, almost anyone in the know would consider Georgia Tech to be a more academically rigorous school than Vanderbilt/Georgetown.
Anonymous wrote:For STEM, overall ranking is less important than the overall program. I have a friend who's son turned down Vanderbilt and Georgetown for Georgia Tech (Aerospace Engineering)