Jump to content

Menu

Ivy League Miseducation


umsami
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting article on the BBC site…sorry if somebody already posted it. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28492894

 

"The author of Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to Meaningful Life, writes:

"Our system of elite education manufactures young people who are smart and talented and driven, yes, but also anxious, timid and lost, with little intellectual curiosity and a stunted sense of purpose: trapped in a bubble of privilege, heading meekly in the same direction, great at what they're doing but with no idea why they're doing it."

 
"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this part

 

"Experience itself has been reduced to instrumental function, via the college essay. From learning to commodify your experiences for the application, the next step has been to seek out experiences in order to have them to commodify."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this part

 

"Experience itself has been reduced to instrumental function, via the college essay. From learning to commodify your experiences for the application, the next step has been to seek out experiences in order to have them to commodify."

 

I don't think that's just students. I've been told I should join a local non profit board because it would be good for my resume. - insert eyeroll -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of my kids went to Harvard and two are currently at Princeton.  I've met many of their friends and have had them in our home.  I have been so impressed with them.  They are bright, articulate, talented, but also down-to-earth and friendly.  They are confident, creative, and obviously gifted. I've seen lots of intellectual curiosity and no one who could be described as "anxious, timid and lost." I'm sure those kids are out there, but they're not the norm.  Maybe there are kids there that just did what they needed to do to check the boxes, but I haven't met them.  I've also been impressed by the really rigorous, challenging coursework my kids have encountered and the amazing interactions they've had with the top researchers in their fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is... there are sheep - and shepherds - at all levels of ability academically.  You could pick pretty much any college out there and find examples of both on campus and having graduated.

 

Our world is filled with both sheep and shepherds - any town, state, country, or continent (maybe not Antarctica).

 

We also need both to keep the world running.  What's "bad" is when we start labeling one or the other good/bad.  They each have their pros and cons given differing situations.  I suspect that's why both exist.  Humans are humans with equal value and do best when they end up in their niche - regardless of where they got their education.

 

Different colleges offer different opportunities too, so one shouldn't "lump" any group together.  The Ivy League is a sports group... not an educational/academic label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walk around the Brown campus someday. I lived next door to it for years.  Of all the Americans that are mindless sheep, I would not put those kids high on the list.

I agree. My classmates at Penn (and Wharton to boot) were not sheep. And if any group of kids was going to be box checking, primping and packaging themselves for success, that would be it. Instead, there were lots of very unique characters that weren't all marching off to Wall Street or consulting.

 

 

Here's a link to the original article. I haven't read it yet, off to do it now:

 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118747/ivy-league-schools-are-overrated-send-your-kids-elsewhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in an Ivy League feeder school, and know many in the Asian Muslim and Hindu communities which put high emphasis on academics…and I do have to agree with the fear of failure that can exist.  I also know many physicians today who are physicians solely because that was told what they were going to do.  They went to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, an Interflex program, whatever….became a doctor…made Mommy and Daddy happy….and hate their lives.

 

I have no idea if that is part of the high rate of suicides among physicians, but it might be.

 

Are all like that? Nope…but I can't deny that I knew and know many. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in an Ivy League feeder school, and know many in the Asian Muslim and Hindu communities which put high emphasis on academics…and I do have to agree with the fear of failure that can exist.  I also know many physicians today who are physicians solely because that was told what they were going to do.  They went to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, an Interflex program, whatever….became a doctor…made Mommy and Daddy happy….and hate their lives.

 

I have no idea if that is part of the high rate of suicides among physicians, but it might be.

 

Are all like that? Nope…but I can't deny that I knew and know many. 

 

But my point is that they are in all schools to a large extent.  We had a Chinese student in my high school who got to stay for college.  When I asked him what he planned to major in, he told me his parents wanted him to be an engineer, so that's what he was going to study.  When I asked him if HE liked engineering he looked at me with a blank look.  He went to a state school.  I've no doubt he did well.  I have no idea if it was his niche or passion.

 

Many from my high school went to Ivy schools (or MIT, etc).  All chose those schools because they wanted to and I wouldn't call any of them different from others in our "advanced" classes.

 

Few around here do (where I live now) due to perceived elitism.  I get more of that sense from the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in an Ivy League feeder school, and know many in the Asian Muslim and Hindu communities which put high emphasis on academics…and I do have to agree with the fear of failure that can exist.  I also know many physicians today who are physicians solely because that was told what they were going to do.  They went to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, an Interflex program, whatever….became a doctor…made Mommy and Daddy happy….and hate their lives.

 

I have no idea if that is part of the high rate of suicides among physicians, but it might be.

 

Are all like that? Nope…but I can't deny that I knew and know many. 

 

The joke here is Australian Muslim men all get law degrees to please their parents, marry, then change careers.

 

Women, it seems, do social science degrees. Not sure why, but I have been informed that almost the entire faculty at my alma mater is populated by Egyptians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also know many physicians today who are physicians solely because that was told what they were going to do. They went to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, an Interflex program, whatever….became a doctor…made Mommy and Daddy happy….and hate their lives.

I know many people my age that parents has map out their entire academic/career path for them. Some switch paths after their first degree, some stayed and make the best of it.

That has nothing to do with where they went to college and everything to do with their family culture and their own personality.

 

I don't even know which colleges make up the Ivy League. However elite schools anywhere in the world are not churning out people who can't think for themselves because of the school environment. That's kind of like the undergrads at Ivy League schools were spoon fed their first/basic degree.

 

I read the BBC article and I agree with the last paragraph which is a tongue in cheek retort.

 

"This don't-send-your-kids-to-Ivies plan only works if everyone buys into it, writes the Washington Post's Alexandra Petri. In a tongue-in-cheek column, she notes the conundrum facing well-meaning parents:

 

"If some people don't get the memo about Massive Structural Shifts in How We Are Educated, their kids will get into Ivy League schools in your kids' place, and all the employers who did not read the article will keep assuming that going to an Ivy League school is a mark of quality and hire them instead.""

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know many people my age that parents has map out their entire academic/career path for them. Some switch paths after their first degree, some stayed and make the best of it.

That has nothing to do with where they went to college and everything to do with their family culture and their own personality.

 

 

 

No…but there is an intense fear of failure among many… that's what I'm getting at.   There is a lack of intellectual curiosity, when people only take classes that are required of their major…and don't venture out, especially if they might not get a good mark.  There is such high pressure on college admissions today….pressure to be perfect to get in, or the perception that one needs to be…and that limits intellectual curiosity, trying new things, etc.   

There is also a different attitude of parents pressuring teachers for grades which didn't exist when I was a kid.  If you got a bad grade, tough luck…it's your fault.  I know many teachers and college professors who say that parents call them up…or students come to their office…demanding a better grade.

 

There has been a documented issue with regards to both cheating at Harvard as well as grade inflation.  That, IMHO, is all part of the fear of failure.

 

2012 Harvard Cheating Scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Harvard_cheating_scandal

 

Grade inflation http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/20/why-grade-inflation-even-at-harvard-is-a-big-problem/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I know many teachers and college professors who say that parents call them up…or students come to their office…demanding a better grade.

 

There has been a documented issue with regards to both cheating at Harvard as well as grade inflation.  That, IMHO, is all part of the fear of failure.

 

 

I think the point many of us are trying to make is that this goes on in essentially ALL colleges with some of the students.  It doesn't matter if it's an Ivy school or Directional State U.

 

And there are students at all of these schools who do not fit this pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of my kids went to Harvard and two are currently at Princeton.  I've met many of their friends and have had them in our home.  I have been so impressed with them.  They are bright, articulate, talented, but also down-to-earth and friendly.  They are confident, creative, and obviously gifted. I've seen lots of intellectual curiosity and no one who could be described as "anxious, timid and lost." I'm sure those kids are out there, but they're not the norm.  Maybe there are kids there that just did what they needed to do to check the boxes, but I haven't met them.  I've also been impressed by the really rigorous, challenging coursework my kids have encountered and the amazing interactions they've had with the top researchers in their fields.

 

I suspect that the author wouldn't disagree much with you here (I look forward to reading the book when it is released to see if he fleshes out this idea a bit more). It is pretty clear that Harvard et al do an excellent job of refining the "soft skills" that allow students to appear confident, engaging, articulate etc. Indeed most of these students have been taught and excelled at these soft skills throughout their lives. I am a bit of an outside observer to this phenomenon. We live at an elite boarding school, although neither my dh nor I grew up in this world. Parents are very explicit about cultivating these soft skills in their students, and private schools are explicit in continuing that cultivation. So that fact that the students you encounter come across in such a positive way is not at all surprising.

 

When the author speaks of "anxious, timid and lost," I expect he is talking about something deeper. (This was probably a poor choice of words because it evokes images of nervous, shy children which are definitely not the norm at the Ivy League). I expect he is talking of a sincere, deeply held intellectual curiosity, a willingness to explore unconventional ideas, a willingness to try and fail, a passion for doing things that is not driven by a sense of competition, or status. These are traits that are hard to ascertain by an initial impression. And, when they are evident they often make a student seem weird or single minded, or scatter-brained, or dreamy or impractical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willingness to try and fail isn't necessarily a good mix with a University degree. in a University you are a student whose job it is to synthesize knowledge from professors using good questioning skills etc. If I hire a recent grad, I want someone who spend 4 years challenging himself to learn incredibly complicated material from brilliant professors. And that is not a horrible thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect he is talking of a sincere, deeply held intellectual curiosity, a willingness to explore unconventional ideas, a willingness to try and fail, a passion for doing things that is not driven by a sense of competition, or status. These are traits that are hard to ascertain by an initial impression. And, when they are evident they often make a student seem weird or single minded, or scatter-brained, or dreamy or impractical.

Those traits aren't the main purpose of an undergrad degree of any caliber. You have to learn the conventional wisdom before you can make serious progress on the unconventional kind. You also don't have a whole bunch of spare time between your course load and your job to do much else. I think those traits emerge as a person matures and has more practical experience.

 

 

Most people are conventional, that doesn't make them sheep. It's just that the conventional path tends to work well, so most people choose it. It's not rational not to unless you're quite an outlier. By definition, most people aren't.

 

I wonder where the professor's kids will go to university? Is he really willing to send them to a 4th tier religious school in the Midwest so that they learn to think? Are they on board with that plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Middle son has had multiple tests where they are given scenarios and need to solve them (Bio, Orgo, Chem, etc).  To date his professors are just as happy with an outside the box solution that they can understand and feel would work as they are with what they expected students to answer.  There has been at least once where he had to explain his reasoning more in the office afterward, but he got credit.

 

Perhaps that's unique to his college (or type of college - it's a research U), but I sort of doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point many of us are trying to make is that this goes on in essentially ALL colleges with some of the students.  It doesn't matter if it's an Ivy school or Directional State U.

 

And there are students at all of these schools who do not fit this pattern.

 

Of course, it's not unique to Ivy League colleges nor does it encompass 100% of the students.  But, in general, when you've gotten into an Ivy…there's an additional level of pressure not to fail.  It's one thing to not do well or flunk out of State U., it's far another thing to flunk out of Columbia… not only regarding what many would see as lost opportunity, but also tuition.  Remember, this article is talking about Upper Middle Class kids…so it's not like they're receiving a lot of aid or anything, unless they have a large family.  It could easily run $75k or more per year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it's not unique to Ivy League colleges nor does it encompass 100% of the students.  But, in general, when you've gotten into an Ivy…there's an additional level of pressure not to fail.  It's one thing to not do well or flunk out of State U., it's far another thing to flunk out of Columbia… not only regarding what many would see as lost opportunity, but also tuition.  Remember, this article is talking about Upper Middle Class kids…so it's not like they're receiving a lot of aid or anything, unless they have a large family.  It could easily run $75k or more per year.

 

Maybe I don't hang around the right crowds to see it, but I see no difference in the fear of failure among higher level academic kids.  There are many expectations put on them and no matter where they go, people expect them to succeed.  When they don't (from anywhere) it's a BIG hit to their self-esteem.  When they get their first "non-A" it's a BIG hit to their self esteem.

 

Many appear to others to have it "made" on the outside, but when you get to know them (esp if you're unrelated as I am) they will share their inner thoughts and fears and they really are just like any other teen going through the teen+ years.

 

It is NOT unique to Ivy + similar schools and it's NOT unique to upper middle class kids.

 

Since it mainly affects higher level academic kids, one might see more of it at the higher level schools where the percentage of students meeting that category are, but to the individual, it's still the same feelings/attributes/whatever regardless of where they are going to school.

 

I've yet to hear any student (or parent) tell me that (high academic) Susie dropped out today due to poor grades, but all is just fine - it was only a state school or even that Susie just got her first B, but it's ok as it's just a state school.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I take all of this with a grain of salt.  It is one man's perspective.

 

I probably would have looked anxious, timid, and lost in college.  I was overwhelmed, a bit frightened, and just had no idea what to do with my life.  My dad basically told me to "just keep swimming" and finish with pretty much any degree and focus on my real goals in grad school.  That is exactly what I did and it was excellent advice FOR ME.

 

I did not attend an Ivy League, but I think the idea still holds.......many 18-22 year olds don't have the maturity or the independent thinkling to not be anxious, timid, and lost.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I do think the school name may make a difference IF the school ends up being less than an ideal fit. I can think of a couple of people I know who went to schools where their parents had attended, and in some cases, family had attended for multiple generations, not for the school or the programs, but to make their parents happy. Some settled in, but a lot ended up going through a lot more struggle and emotional angst and being a lot more lost than I suspect they would have been had they attended a school that was a better fit for them from the start. I don't think this is reserved for the Ivies, but I do think it may play more a part for schools with more prestige associated with them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents are very explicit about cultivating these soft skills in their students, and private schools are explicit in continuing that cultivation.

 

Can you elaborate on this? My parents social skills are somewhat lacking, which means that mine were below average, too. I've made progress, but I still often feel a bit lost about how to turn a friendly aquaintance into a bonafide friend. My five year old however, seems to have been born with a personality that is like a magnet to people. It must be inborn because neither of us and none of his grandparents or uncles have a high emotional intelligence like he seems to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I  don't want to conflate two very different ideas. One is that it is the job/purpose of the university to create independent thinkers and virtuous, ethical human beings. We can debate that (I think some universities and colleges do this very well), but I don't think the actual academic education at Harvard is really much different than other similarly sized universities. The joke among Ivy bound high schoolers is that the hard work is getting into Harvard. There was such a glut of PhDs, especially in the humanities and social sciences, in the last few decades that you can find amazing teachers at community colleges and small teaching colleges.  What is different at Harvard are the connections and opportunities afforded by their extraordinary financial resources.

 

But, thinking about what colleges should do is different than thinking about what kinds of traits these elite institutions favor. The Ivies select for specific qualities. Few students apply to Harvard on a whim and just magically get in. Most of these students have had Harvard admission as their goal (or parents' goal) since they were toddlers. They are driven to compete and succeed whatever the cost. Why else would you jump through all the necessary hoops. They are driven by the very reasonable fear that they may not make it. That fear motivates and cripples them, and it is not something that just goes away once they are there. They have been taught that it is important not just to succeed but to succeed at the very highest levels. Name matters, status matters, prestige matters. Anything less is a failure. 

 

I have seen this sad process first hand. A few years ago a top student here was denied admission to Harvard. She ended up at Wellsley (hardly a bad place to land). To this day, her parents are still bitter. It is clear that anything less than Harvard was just not good enough. This student used to regularly spend afternoons in my dh's classroom in tears from the pressure. She couldn't see past the one goal. I expect the Ivies are filled with these students. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I don't think the actual academic education at Harvard is really much different than other similarly sized universities.  

 

I totally disagree with this.  There IS a huge difference in the academic education at higher tier schools (not meaning just Harvard or just the Ivies) and lower tier schools in the same way that there is (usually) a difference between Honors and Regular classes in a typical high school.

 

My youngest has had the opportunity to sit in on many Bio classes at places we've visited.  Lower tiers, cc, and similar he terms "Bio Lite" compared to those at higher tier schools.

 

In general, kids go IN to higher tier schools with a deeper level of Bio already covered and profs expect that.  They go deeper in their content.  If kids haven't had the same foundational level, they'll need to do extra studying to catch up.

 

Lower/mid and cc assumes kids have not had the deeper foundation and mainly cover that.

 

For an example youngest gave me... if they were discussing a biological process, the Bio-Lite classes would say, "There's an enzyme that assists with this process."  Higher tier classes would say, "There are nine different enzymes that work in this process.  Here are what they are and what they specifically do."

 

"Success" getting into grad schools or prof schools (like med school) can come from any college, but the foundation in the classes are NOT the same.  Success comes because most people don't actually need to know that there are nine enzymes and what they do.  If they do need that in grad school, it's reviewed.

 

I'm a science/math person, so I've only compared science and math classes via my guys and other students who return from school, but I've yet to see an exception.  The Bio DE teacher at our school used to tell his kids that his cc class was the same they'd get anywhere (and he's a GREAT teacher).  It took him less than 20 seconds of looking at my middle son's first Bio test to change his mind.  "Why do they cover that?  How do they have time to cover that???"  ;)

 

When you have higher caliber (foundation and ability for academics) coming in, you can - and often do - so much more with them.  When you don't have that, you have to build the foundation first.  The quality of the actual prof doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate on this? My parents social skills are somewhat lacking, which means that mine were below average, too. I've made progress, but I still often feel a bit lost about how to turn a friendly aquaintance into a bonafide friend. My five year old however, seems to have been born with a personality that is like a magnet to people. It must be inborn because neither of us and none of his grandparents or uncles have a high emotional intelligence like he seems to have.

 

My dh laughed when I mentioned explicit cultivation of these soft skills. "I teach calculus," he replied, "but, that's really what I get paid to do." He wasn't really joking. It involves everything from social skills like teaching students to shake hands, look someone in the eye, speak with confidence even when you don't know what you are talking about, and debate and argumentation, to the sorts of skills Hilary Levy Friedman calls "competitive kid capital," in her book Playing to Win. These include things like internalizing the importance of winning, learning how to perform within time limits, learning how to succeed in stressful situations, and being able to perform under the gaze of others. 

 

According to Friedman's interviews with parents, that's really what all the chess clubs, and soccer tournaments are about.

 

I do think some social skills come more naturally to some than to others, but it has become almost dogma among elite parents that these skills can be taught and mastered. I also think there is a certain attitude that comes from constantly being told you are the best, you are special. David McCoullough's famous commencement speech at Wellesley High School touches on this (you can see it on youtube). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I  don't want to conflate two very different ideas. One is that it is the job/purpose of the university to create independent thinkers and virtuous, ethical human beings. We can debate that (I think some universities and colleges do this very well), but I don't think the actual academic education at Harvard is really much different than other similarly sized universities. The joke among Ivy bound high schoolers is that the hard work is getting into Harvard. There was such a glut of PhDs, especially in the humanities and social sciences, in the last few decades that you can find amazing teachers at community colleges and small teaching colleges.  What is different at Harvard are the connections and opportunities afforded by their extraordinary financial resources.

 

But, thinking about what colleges should do is different than thinking about what kinds of traits these elite institutions favor. The Ivies select for specific qualities. Few students apply to Harvard on a whim and just magically get in. Most of these students have had Harvard admission as their goal (or parents' goal) since they were toddlers. They are driven to compete and succeed whatever the cost. Why else would you jump through all the necessary hoops. They are driven by the very reasonable fear that they may not make it. That fear motivates and cripples them, and it is not something that just goes away once they are there. They have been taught that it is important not just to succeed but to succeed at the very highest levels. Name matters, status matters, prestige matters. Anything less is a failure. 

 

I have seen this sad process first hand. A few years ago a top student here was denied admission to Harvard. She ended up at Wellsley (hardly a bad place to land). To this day, her parents are still bitter. It is clear that anything less than Harvard was just not good enough. This student used to regularly spend afternoons in my dh's classroom in tears from the pressure. She couldn't see past the one goal. I expect the Ivies are filled with these students. 

My kids heard the "the hard work is getting into Harvard" and found that it is not true at all.  They worked their butts off in college.  

Also, my kids' friends are mainly from the Christian fellowship, so maybe they aren't typical, but I haven't met any who are like students you describe in your second paragraph.  I know a boy who grew up on a farm in Kenya and wrote his essay about a summer he spent growing and selling cabbages for his dad. His dad required each of his kids to take some aspect of the farm and run it themselves for a year in high school.  He also had excellent grades and scores, but I think it's his unique experience that made him stand out. I know a girl whose dad works at Olive Garden.  She always dreamed of going to Harvard and becoming a doctor, but it's not something her parents had on their radar.  I could go on and on.  And I'm not  just talking about surface interactions.  These kids have spent holidays in my home.  I know them.  It could be that my kids aren't drawn to the kids who just go to Harvard for name and prestige, but I think the kind of students you are describing are the exception not the rule.  They are not the kind of kids Harvard is looking for.

 

I also know students who had their hearts set on Harvard or Princeton, didn't apply to many other schools and ended up miserable.  That doesn't mean that the Ivies are filled with miserable kids who are just pushed by their parents to succeed.  Go there.  Go on a tour.  Talk to kids.  You'll see that the atmosphere and the opportunities offered are not the same as a state school at all.  Of course the name and connections have value, but there is so much more.

 

Just one example -- my oldest dd was a history major.  Her first semester, she did a freshman seminar with Laurel Ulrich, a Pulitzer-prize winning historian.  There were six kids in the class.  They went to museums and looked at old quilts and helped her with research for her new book.  She had them over for hot cocoa and cookies and ate in the dining hall with them a couple of times.  Dr. Ulrich went on to become my daughter's thesis advisor.  Sure, something like this could happen at a state school, but at Harvard, it's the norm.  These kind of interactions are a part of every student's experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When you have higher caliber (foundation and ability for academics) coming in, you can - and often do - so much more with them.  When you don't have that, you have to build the foundation first.  The quality of the actual prof doesn't matter.

 

That's a good point. Perhaps my perspective is different coming from the social sciences and humanities. Is this true only of introductory courses? I also think the category of elite schools is different for science majors (including large state universities and state tech schools), so in some ways you are looking at a different category of schools. I don't know, not coming from a science field myself, but it is interesting to think about. Clearly, Harvard is not the be all and end all if you want to be an engineer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids heard the "the hard work is getting into Harvard" and found that it is not true at all.  They worked their butts off in college.  

Also, my kids' friends are mainly from the Christian fellowship, so maybe they aren't typical, but I haven't met any who are like students you describe in your second paragraph.  I know a boy who grew up on a farm in Kenya and wrote his essay about a summer he spent growing and selling cabbages for his dad. His dad required each of his kids to take some aspect of the farm and run it themselves for a year in high school.  He also had excellent grades and scores, but I think it's his unique experience that made him stand out. I know a girl whose dad works at Olive Garden.  She always dreamed of going to Harvard and becoming a doctor, but it's not something her parents had on their radar.  I could go on and on.  And I'm not  just talking about surface interactions.  These kids have spent holidays in my home.  I know them.  It could be that my kids aren't drawn to the kids who just go to Harvard for name and prestige, but I think the kind of students you are describing are the exception not the rule.  They are not the kind of kids Harvard is looking for.

 

I also know students who had their hearts set on Harvard or Princeton, didn't apply to many other schools and ended up miserable.  That doesn't mean that the Ivies are filled with miserable kids who are just pushed by their parents to succeed.  Go there.  Go on a tour.  Talk to kids.  You'll see that the atmosphere and the opportunities offered are not the same as a state school at all.  Of course the name and connections have value, but there is so much more.

 

Just one example -- my oldest dd was a history major.  Her first semester, she did a freshman seminar with Laurel Ulrich, a Pulitzer-prize winning historian.  There were six kids in the class.  They went to museums and looked at old quilts and helped her with research for her new book.  She had them over for hot cocoa and cookies and ate in the dining hall with them a couple of times.  Dr. Ulrich went on to become my daughter's thesis advisor.  Sure, something like this could happen at a state school, but at Harvard, it's the norm.  These kind of interactions are a part of every student's experience.

 

This is awesome. Your kids seem to have a knack for finding quality friends. 

 

But, it is still true that almost half of Harvard students come from families making more than 200K. And, less than 20% come from families making median income or less. I think the characteristics I see are from the wealthier crowd (that's who sends their kid to a boarding school that costs almost 50K a year).  

 

I agree that the opportunities are greater at Harvard - no question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really isn't the end all be all period!

 

The truth is, 90% of the jobs out there do NOT require one to have gone to a top tier school.   They just don't.

 

My husband went to a great school for his line of work, in fact, the top on the West Coast for what he does.  It DID matter and it has helped tremendously in job hunting/searching/etc....  But for MY work, any old college that offered the program was fine.  I did attend a decent undergrad and grad school, but by no means top.  

 

Dawn

 

 

That's a good point. Perhaps my perspective is different coming from the social sciences and humanities. Is this true only of introductory courses? I also think the category of elite schools is different for science majors (including large state universities and state tech schools), so in some ways you are looking at a different category of schools. I don't know, not coming from a science field myself, but it is interesting to think about. Clearly, Harvard is not the be all and end all if you want to be an engineer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point. Perhaps my perspective is different coming from the social sciences and humanities. Is this true only of introductory courses? I also think the category of elite schools is different for science majors (including large state universities and state tech schools), so in some ways you are looking at a different category of schools. I don't know, not coming from a science field myself, but it is interesting to think about. Clearly, Harvard is not the be all and end all if you want to be an engineer.

 

I've only checked intro courses, so I've no idea if later courses also go into more depth.

 

What I've found is that if a college allows AP credit for majors, then their course is essentially the same as an AP or CC class.  If they do not allow it for majors, then their course will go into a bit more depth.  They don't necessarily care if non-majors have credit for "Bio-Lite."  This can also affect transfer students wishing to major as some colleges won't accept Bio 101 classes for those wishing to get Bio credit for it (vs general credit).

 

And of all the engineers I know IRL, I seriously doubt any would put Harvard on a Top 100 list (for Engineering).  State schools and some other privates known more for engineering would be on there.

 

It's very important that students consider how good a school is in their major IMO.  Even if my youngest had top of the top stats and we had unlimited funds, my youngest would still be attending Eckerd because in our research they appear to be at the top for what he wants to do (Tropical Marine Bio/Science).  Going to Harvard instead, for him, would be heading down the wrong path.  One could say he'd make up for it in grad school, but why miss the four years of undergrad being on the water and doing what he likes?

 

All three of mine have gotten their top choice schools - and that's what matters - not someone else's Top 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, it is still true that almost half of Harvard students come from families making more than 200K. And, less than 20% come from families making median income or less. I think the characteristics I see are from the wealthier crowd (that's who sends their kid to a boarding school that costs almost 50K a year).

I am curious to hear observations on the differences between the students at this boarding school who *did* get into a tippy-top school (say, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT) and the students who were "only" admitted to, say, a Wellesley-admissions-level school ( not considering the continuum in between). In some cases, there is a bit of randomness involved, but I would be willing to bet that typically the tippy-top admissions go to students who are more passion-driven as an "interestingness" angle.

 

I can easily imagine that family expectations might be higher among significantly wealthy families (perhaps especially among families who may not understand the reduction in admissions rates in the decades since the parents may have attended such schools), creating the pressure that you are seeing, though personally I might guess that the students struggling under that pressure are less likely to be the ones actually admitted to tippy top schools.

 

Eta, when I think of the grads of tippy-top schools among my friends (both under grad and for grad school), the majority came from middle-class backgrounds. However, all these people are old like me, i.e., not among the recent crop of admittees...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really isn't the end all be all period!

 

The truth is, 90% of the jobs out there do NOT require one to have gone to a top tier school.   They just don't.

 

Dawn

 

:iagree:  For most students, it's 100% a fit thing.  Many who choose those top schools literally thrive on the greater depth (as does middle son).  Others prefer the more basic class wanting "Just the relevant facts."  Both types can end up doing well in their profession later - esp when the profession isn't super dependent upon the undergrad degree (like doctors...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious to hear observations on the differences between the students at this boarding school who *did* get into a tippy-top school (say, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT) and the students who were "only" admitted to, say, a Wellesley-admissions-level school ( not considering the continuum in between). In some cases, there is a bit of randomness involved, but I would be willing to bet that typically the tippy-top admissions go to students who are more passion-driven as an "interestingness" angle.

 

I can easily imagine that family expectations might be higher among significantly wealthy families (perhaps especially among families who may not understand the reduction in admissions rates in the decades since the parents may have attended such schools), creating the pressure that you are seeing, though personally I might guess that the students struggling under that pressure are less likely to be the ones actually admitted to tippy top schools.

 

 I asked my dh, and he says, after 13 years he still cannot figure out from year to year which kids will get into the tippy top. The only ones he knows will be admitted are those who enter their senior year having been told by a college athletic coach they will be admitted. Otherwise, you just don't know (although full pay, potential donor does seem to matter). So, if there is an observable difference, they have not been able to figure it out. 

 

They can pretty much guarantee to get the students into selective colleges. Almost all the students who go here go on to highly selective colleges. But the tippy top is a bit of a mystery. Used to be the case that the school could just send their top names to the Ivies and those kids would get in. But the admission picture has changed. So even being number 1 in your class here is not a guarantee anymore. I can sort of understand the sense of pressure and desperation (although I don't condone it). These folks expect, and are used to, being admitted. But the bottleneck is very narrow now. That's a good thing for some students from less privileged backgrounds, but it has created a really crazy atmosphere among the elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I asked my dh, and he says, after 13 years he still cannot figure out from year to year which kids will get into the tippy top. The only ones he knows will be admitted are those who enter their senior year having been told by a college athletic coach they will be admitted. Otherwise, you just don't know (although full pay, potential donor does seem to matter). So, if there is an observable difference, they have not been able to figure it out. 

 

They can pretty much guarantee to get the students into selective colleges. Almost all the students who go here go on to highly selective colleges. But the tippy top is a bit of a mystery. 

 

Hence, why they are called "Lottery Schools."  They could fill their freshmen class 5 - 10 times over without admitting an "unqualified" student I suspect.

 

I feel for those who have these schools as their "make it or bust" desire, whether students or parents.  There are so many truly good schools out there, not just three (HYP), eight (Ivy), or ten (includes MIT and Stanford).  I'm thankful I'm not part of that culture nor have any of my guys felt the pull.  

 

But for those who are there, stereotyping them in the way that has been done or is often done is also not fair IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this part

 

"Experience itself has been reduced to instrumental function, via the college essay. From learning to commodify your experiences for the application, the next step has been to seek out experiences in order to have them to commodify."[/size]

SO TRUE.

 

I hear parents in my area talking about this all the time; setting up particular experiences for their kid to give them something to write about on their essay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willingness to try and fail isn't necessarily a good mix with a University degree. in a University you are a student whose job it is to synthesize knowledge from professors using good questioning skills etc. If I hire a recent grad, I want someone who spend 4 years challenging himself to learn incredibly complicated material from brilliant professors. And that is not a horrible thing.

I want to talk about this a bit more. I also suspect the author is getting at something deeper, as another poster pointed out. I know a handful of Ivy kids locally, and they are a mix, just as kids at other universities are, but frankly, to a lesser degree. IOW, my sample of IVY kids contains a greater preponderance of kids who have no plan when they finish their bachelors, than the kids I know locally who are not Ivy grads. Not sure what that small n means.

 

Willingness to try and fail is one thing. Willingness, or more to the point, capacity, to bounce back after a failure, figure it out, and keep going, is a really important life skill. But I think that much about our current system is designed specifically to PREVENT, at all costs, any contact with real failure. Because honestly, it WILL prevent a kid from getting into a better school. Ask me how I know. But I don't for one minute think my kid would have been better off if he'd played his cards better, been spared those failures, and gotten into a more highly-ranked school. His failures, as he has told me more than once, were really vital learning experiences, and moved him toward maturity. I doubt that he would have grown as much, personally, if he had gotten what he wanted to begin with. So Poppy, I do think both things (being a good student, and having some experience with failure) are possible.

 

I don't doubt that Ivy students are extremely bright, accomplished, happy, friendly, and well-socialized. I would argue that the article is addressing something slightly different from social presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willingness to try and fail is one thing. Willingness, or more to the point, capacity, to bounce back after a failure, figure it out, and keep going, is a really important life skill. But I think that much about our current system is designed specifically to PREVENT, at all costs, any contact with real failure. Because honestly, it WILL prevent a kid from getting into a better school. 

 

That's interesting - I hadn't really thought about this before.  Certainly in the UK system, failing at school, except in a quite minor way, will get in the way of getting into the best universities.  One can do badly in one or two subjects maybe, but not more.

 

On the other hand, the traditional best universities in the UK are set up to allow failure and rebuilding during the courses: in most cases, it's only the final year's work that has any bearing on one's final degree grade.  Before the final year, one just has to pass.

 

So the school years definitely do not reward failure and learning through failure, but the university years allow space for that.

 

L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree with this.  There IS a huge difference in the academic education at higher tier schools (not meaning just Harvard or just the Ivies) and lower tier schools in the same way that there is (usually) a difference between Honors and Regular classes in a typical high school.

 

My youngest has had the opportunity to sit in on many Bio classes at places we've visited.  Lower tiers, cc, and similar he terms "Bio Lite" compared to those at higher tier schools.

 

In general, kids go IN to higher tier schools with a deeper level of Bio already covered and profs expect that.  They go deeper in their content.  If kids haven't had the same foundational level, they'll need to do extra studying to catch up.

 

Lower/mid and cc assumes kids have not had the deeper foundation and mainly cover that.

 

For an example youngest gave me... if they were discussing a biological process, the Bio-Lite classes would say, "There's an enzyme that assists with this process."  Higher tier classes would say, "There are nine different enzymes that work in this process.  Here are what they are and what they specifically do."

This reminds me of a passage in Sheryl Sandburg's book, Lean In. She went to Harvard and on the first day of her English 101 class (she chose a class about The Iliad and The Odyssey), the professor asked how many students had read the epics, and almost every hand shot up. Then he asked how many had read them in the original ancient Greek, and only about half went down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a passage in Sheryl Sandburg's book, Lean In. She went to Harvard and on the first day of her English 101 class (she chose a class about The Iliad and The Odyssey), the professor asked how many students had read the epics, and almost every hand shot up. Then he asked how many had read them in the original ancient Greek, and only about half went down.

 

And if they had graduated from the high school where I work, assuming they did nothing else on their own, no one could raise their hand to either question as those books are not read in any of the classes.

 

Our graduates often have major difficulty handling higher tier schools.  It isn't due to lack of ability.  It's due to lack of foundation in many classes.  Without the foundation, so much more needs to be learned quickly and many feel discouraged seeing that they have to do it and others don't.  Then they feel less capable too.

 

We don't have (many) parents signing their kids up for activities just for college apps.  That's a different culture than I'm used to.  Even at the high school I went to (where we would send kids to Ivies each year) that just didn't happen, but that was also a different era of college apps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my microculture, we have very few parents who push for high tier schools or sign up activities in order to play the admission's game. The small subset that does, tend to be in 4H and the game they are playing is vying for scholarships to MSU. The actual norm is for most of my acquaintances to not give two hoots about anything but sports and certainly to not worry about what is happening academically at local high. They are the unpleasantly shocked to discover that kids from class D schools do not get sports scholarships to U of M/State nor even podunk so low ranked it staggers the imagination regional U. The further shock is that they figured, "go for the easy a" was the best advice they could give so the ACT score is low and full freight at the regional crappy U that has no standards is the best outcome and on the waiting list for remedial classes at CC is common, but then so is occupying space on mom and dad's couch doing not much because local employers know just exactly what these students accomplishe and it wasn't a lot so they do not want to hire them for unskilled labor, minimum wage jobs.

 

So, for the most part, the IVY discussion just doesn't happen here. The talented students in my tri county area go to U of M, MSU, and MTU with a few choosing great LAC's like Kalamazoo, Alma, and Hillsdale colleges and those kids have had excellent educations and gone on to work in thekr fields of choice. Occasionally one lands at MIT, VA tech, Georgia Tech, or Embry Riddle.

 

Here's a funny. I mentioned in a professional setting here about six weeks ago that middle ds might apply to Cornell. The response was, "Cornell? What's Cornell? Ain't he smart enough to be a Spartan?" I swallowed a loud snort!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, for the most part, the IVY discussion just doesn't happen here. The talented students in my tri county area go to U of M, MSU, and MTU with a few choosing great LAC's like Kalamazoo, Alma, and Hillsdale colleges and those kids have had excellent educations and gone on to work in thekr fields of choice. Occasionally one lands at MIT, VA tech, Georgia Tech, or Embry Riddle.

 

Here's a funny. I mentioned in a professional setting here about six weeks ago that middle ds might apply to Cornell. The response was, "Cornell? What's Cornell? Ain't he smart enough to be a Spartan?" I swallowed a loud snort!

 

As I mentioned before, most Ivy is out here due to the perceived elitist attitude that graduates have and it being a negative for our area (at least for undergrad).  A top Ivy name on a job app would not be a plus in most places locally.  Middle son even opted out of applying to any partially because if he decided to come back here to live, he didn't want the stigma - the other part was Ivies not having merit aid, but I'd have allowed him to apply and see what happened financially if he'd have wanted to.

 

However, Cornell and UPenn don't have as much stigma as H/Y/P, so some will go to those places - one every couple of years or so.  Even those parents/students don't sign themselves up for things in 7th/8th/9th/10th grade thinking about it though.  They do what they want to do.  Colleges (specific) are only thought about in late junior or early senior year - sometimes late in senior year by some who really don't know what it takes for some schools.  The best that happens earlier is guidance telling academically able kids to take our Level 3 classes (college prep) whenever offered so they can check the "most rigorous" box when application time comes around.

 

I can think of one family (multiple kids) and one other student who were/are aware enough to be plotting ahead of time.  One of those got into Stanford (and deserved it), but ended up going to Wake Forest due to the unbeatable free ride.  She's doing great, but since she was aware of the foundation needed, she did a TON outside of school to build hers both academically (told me she taught herself everything on the Math SAT II and I don't doubt it) and extra curricular-wise.  The parents of the other sent her to a prep school after graduating here when her scores didn't hit that desirable range.  She got into MIT after a year at the prep school.  I've lost track since then.  Only the latter was "super top school or bust" in mentality and it was the parents.  The student hated it when she was in high school.  She'd have been happy at Penn St, or so she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Creekland, at least people in your area know what Cornell is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I strongly suspect that most do not realize it's an Ivy school to be honest.  They think of it as strong in Ag and Engineering.

 

I also doubt many recognize that U Penn is Ivy (aside from those applying to it, of course).  It's noted strength is Business.

 

That would be why neither hit the stigma of "Ivy."

 

If you ask most people what the #1 college is they will either tell you Penn St or whoever is top in the latest football poll.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly suspect that most do not realize it's an Ivy school to be honest. They think of it as strong in Ag and Engineering.

 

I also doubt many recognize that U Penn is Ivy (aside from those applying to it, of course). It's noted strength is Business.

 

That would be why neither hit the stigma of "Ivy."

 

If you ask most people what the #1 college is they will either tell you Penn St or whoever is top in the latest football poll. ;)

And of course for the 2013/14 season Michigan State ruled the roost!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago I looked up Ivy schools.  I was surprised to find out that I really didn't know which schools were Ivy other than a few of them.   I thought Stanford was on the list and it isn't.

 

Dawn

 

I strongly suspect that most do not realize it's an Ivy school to be honest.  They think of it as strong in Ag and Engineering.

 

I also doubt many recognize that U Penn is Ivy (aside from those applying to it, of course).  It's noted strength is Business.

 

That would be why neither hit the stigma of "Ivy."

 

If you ask most people what the #1 college is they will either tell you Penn St or whoever is top in the latest football poll.   ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...