Jump to content

Menu

Big fish in a small pond or small fish in a big pond? Something to think about.


8filltheheart
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am pretty sure that Hoggirl mentioned Maxwell Gladwell's book earlier this yr during the college application process. I never had the opportunity to read it.

 

I just watched this video of him presenting his position. The statistics presented in this video are worth the time it takes to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How interesting!  From a personal standpoint, I went to a "top ten" and got a stem degree, but it was absolutely crushing to be the small fish after having been the big fish.  I felt like I was holding on with my fingernails while my classmates breezed through, and when I got my degree, I told myself that there was no point in going to grad school because I was at the limit of my intellectual capacity.  I wonder if I would have the same impression if I'd gone to another school! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering to what degree this theory is neglecting individual students' personalities. Some people strive under intense competition and need challenge to rise to their full potential, whereas others wither under pressure and need to be the big fish in the little pond to maintain their self esteem.

 

He is also ignoring those students who do end up being the big fish in the big pond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the link Regentrude posted and then add this info.  Basically he showed statistics that show that regardless of the school, Harvard or unknown unprestigious school, that the top 1/3 are around 50% likely to graduate with a stem degree while the middle 1/3 is around 30% and the bottom 1/3 less than 20%.   So even though the kids at Harvard are brilliant when they are in the middle 1/3 or bottom 1/3, their perception of themselves compared to their peers makes them assume they are too dumb to succeed bc their peers are more successful.

 

It is also reflected in the number of papers published, etc.   Top students (I think the stat he used here was the top 5 %, but I'd have to go back and watch) publish while a student that may only be 6th in rank in their top school may publish little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm at home for the summer and our rural internet connection isn't fast enough to run anything more than a minute or two, so unless someone summarizes... I'm out of luck on this one.

 

In brief...

 

Your relative ranking within your degree at your particular university is a MUCH better predictor of successfully completing a STEM degree and publishing well afterwards than is your global ranking of all STEM students (in the US). 

 

So a student at Harvard who got an SAT score in the 80%ile might rank at only the 50%ile of his classmates because Harvard is a very elite school.  Because his relative ranking WITHIN the Harvard STEM majors is quite low, the chances of the parson successfully graduating with a STEM degree are quite low. 

 

Had the same student (80%ile SAT) gone to No-Name University where that score put them at a relative ranking of 90%ile within the STEM majors of the school, they would have a MUCH higher chance of successfully completing a STEM degree. 

 

And after grad school, their relative rank within their university's grad program is a much better predictor of publishing rates in top journals than whether or not their school is an elite institution and whether or not their global ranking (SAT score) is higher. 

 

I can't remember the name of the phenomenon, but basically, if you are always the "big fish", you are psychologically in a position to continue to strive and continue to be successful because you continue to assume you will be.  If you are the "small fish," you are much more likely to look around you at the big fish and decide you just aren't cut out for that pond. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering to what degree this theory is neglecting individual students' personalities. Some people strive under intense competition and need this challenge to rise to their full potential, whereas others wither under pressure and need being the big fish in the little pond to maintain their self esteem.

 

And he is also ignoring the students who do end up being the big fish in the big pond.

 

I'd have to go back and watch, but didn't he say that the relationship between where they fell in the admission stats ended up being related to where they functioned in the class ranking at the institution?   I thought he did b/c I thought he said that the kids that were in the lower admission stats would be the ones that should look elsewhere.

 

But, I am sick and have a pounding headache, so I may have misheard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering to what degree this theory is neglecting individual students' personalities. Some people strive under intense competition and need challenge to rise to their full potential, whereas others wither under pressure and need to be the big fish in the little pond to maintain their self esteem.

 

He is also ignoring those students who do end up being the big fish in the big pond.

 

I don't believe these are being ignored, I think it's just a question of statistics.  As he called it, going to a big name school is taking a "risk" (using invented numbers, he gave an example of a 30% risk) of not completing your STEM degree.  The pay-off for the risk is good- most employers are not watching his video and therefore would rather hire a low-ranked big name grad than a high ranked no-name grad, but the risk is real, statistically, that going to a big-name may be so psychologically difficult that you end up with a non-STEM degree due to giving up. 

 

There are always the outliers!  People who must take the information in this presentation and say, "Well, I don't mind being the little fish, I want my STEM degree, and I want it from big-name U!" and then go out and get it, without being demoralized by their immediate ranking.

 

And, of course the top students who will be successful no matter where they are, and so should go to a big name U. 

 

I think the take-home message is that you should be pretty darned confident you are in one of those two categories before taking the risk of a big-name school, if your top priority is a specific STEM degree and/or high publishing rate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all!

 

I'll admit that I'm actually in agreement with him based upon the stories of returning students who share at my local high school... and I fully encouraged all of my boys to go to a school where they were comfortably in the Top 25% of admitted student stats.  So far, I've no regrets. 

 

Oldest did well where he went and now has a job in his field. 

 

Middle is doing superbly at his Top 30 school and will start his junior year having gotten into his first choice research lab. I've no doubt that he would have done well at any college he had chosen (his ability and personality), but where he is he definitely has more options than at many other schools.

 

Youngest?  Time will tell, but I do feel his odds are best where he is going.

 

All different schools, but all carefully chosen based upon fit and finances - and hours of research to find them.  What was "best" for one would not have been "best" for another.

 

To me, it doesn't matter if it's a STEM degree or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe these are being ignored, I think it's just a question of statistics.  As he called it, going to a big name school is taking a "risk" (using invented numbers, he gave an example of a 30% risk) of not completing your STEM degree....

 

There are always the outliers!  People who must take the information in this presentation and say, "Well, I don't mind being the little fish, I want my STEM degree, and I want it from big-name U!" and then go out and get it, without being demoralized by their immediate ranking.

 

 

But I think for the individual student, these statistics are not useful a tool to help this individual student make a choice.

Whether a student sticks it out is more a matter of perseverance and attitude, i.e. the student's personality and character.

 A student who is determined to see it through and not quit will - if he was smart enough to be admitted to a top school - finish his degree if he sets his mind to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the link Regentrude posted and then add this info.  Basically he showed statistics that show that regardless of the school, Harvard or unknown unprestigious school, that the top 1/3 are around 50% likely to graduate with a stem degree while the middle 1/3 is around 30% and the bottom 1/3 less than 20%.   So even though the kids at Harvard are brilliant when they are in the middle 1/3 or bottom 1/3, their perception of themselves compared to their peers makes them assume they are too dumb to succeed bc their peers are more successful.

 

It is also reflected in the number of papers published, etc.   Top students (I think the stat he used here was the top 5 %, but I'd have to go back and watch) publish while a student that may only be 6th in rank in their top school may publish little.

 

Yes the bottom 1/3 at Harvard are brilliant, but not all are brilliant in math.  Look at the numbers they showed - SAT math score of 581.  Not likely to do well in a STEM courses at Harvard, unless there is some problem testing, late bloomer, etc.  I imagine those students to be brilliant humanities students whose parents want them to have a STEM degree.   No wonder.  IMO it has nothing to do with their perception of themselves, but the reality of their own strengths.  If these students definitely wanted a STEM career, they should have chosen a different school where they may have had a better chance of graduating with a STEM degree.   I imagine the majority of these students had other interests entirely and didn't mention wanting to pursue STEM in their Harvard (Common) application.  

 

I only listened to his speech once, but I'm not even sure that the percent used in his studies is for those pursuing STEM, or just the percent graduating with STEM out of the student body as a whole.   It makes sense that those with less than a 600 Math SAT score wouldn't want to pursue a math or STEM degree at Harvard. 

 

I also noted that his kids are going to college.  Any of them at a less competitive school wanting to work for Google?   He chose to speak there without compensation for a reason.

 

Definitely for some students it's better to choose a less competitive, big fish in small pond environment, but for others they want or need a different environment.  Different strokes for different folks.   No "study" will show which college each individual student should attend.  Each has to decide based on their own priorities and their own limitations, whether financial or otherwise.

 

As far as the publishing rates, how many of the elite college graduates are working and not teaching and publishing?  How many are raising young families?   Not all STEM graduates publish within the first six years of graduation.   Some logical errors in his assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering to what degree this theory is neglecting individual students' personalities. Some people strive under intense competition and need challenge to rise to their full potential, whereas others wither under pressure and need to be the big fish in the little pond to maintain their self esteem

 

Absolutely. The same thing applies with courses as well -- for example, a lot of people say "no matter what, your child should repeat calculus at university -- what's the harm in an easy course?!" Well, some children shut down intellectually in easy courses -- and for them, the challenge of jumping up may be a better idea.

 

You *have* to know your child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think for the individual student, these statistics are not useful a tool to help this individual student make a choice.

Whether a student sticks it out is more a matter of perseverance and attitude, i.e. the student's personality and character.

 A student who is determined to see it through and not quit will - if he was smart enough to be admitted to a top school - finish his degree if he sets his mind to it.

 

I don't disagree.   Those are the students in the bottom 1/3 that are graduating with a STEM degree.   But, statistically there around 80% of those kids that don't.   Those are high odds against a less than determined student who in a different environment may have thrived in an environment where they were in the top 1/3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think for the individual student, these statistics are not useful a tool to help this individual student make a choice.

Whether a student sticks it out is more a matter of perseverance and attitude, i.e. the student's personality and character.

 A student who is determined to see it through and not quit will - if he was smart enough to be admitted to a top school - finish his degree if he sets his mind to it.

 

:iagree:  And this is where a good visit to a school can really help.  If the student can see themselves there, succeeding (having found "their people") they often do well.  If they come back intimidated and unsure, that tends to carry over too.  It's not an immediate "fail" as some of those will feel better after they have their first success on a test (or whatever), but many who decide later to transfer or change majors often started out intimidated to start with.

 

What's sad is seeing a student choose a "lesser" place (in opportunities, not necessarily pure rankings), then be bored and wonder what the big hype about college is.  They do well GPA-wise, but miss out on what "could have been" with more in depth or opportunities or other such things they thrive upon.

 

Fit is incredibly important IMO.  And fit varies based upon the student.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teachin Mine, I can't imagine that they used across the board admission criteria for all majors to determine the graduation rates of STEM majors.   That study wouldn't pass muster by any standards.

 

You're right.   The answer is in what he said, but honestly I have no interest in listening to his speech again.  : P  If you watch it again, or anyone else,  please post what the stats represent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but...

 

I only have vague memories of the one year we sort-of did Fallacy Detective, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about here, but mightn't this be a doesn't-go-the-other-way problem?  Just because the top third of a university's STEM majors are more likely to graduate doesn't necessarily mean that as a STEM major, you are more likely to graduate if you go to a school where you are in the top third.  I think that might be the point where you have to add in personality, strength of character, personal goals, academic preparedness, and study skills?  A student can be disheartened by the ease with which all his friends succeed and the attention and opportunities lavished on them, but he also can become depressed, cynical, alienated, and discouraged by the lack of kindred spirits and interesting material.  This assumes that the material a top school teaches is the same as the material a mediocre school teaches and that either school prepares a student equally well for the workplace (something that is emphasized in STEM degrees, unlike the general mind-training goal of many liberal arts degrees).

 

Youngest's school presents material fast and uses fairly challenging problems that would swamp a less able student (and swamped youngest at times).  MIT presents material even faster and uses all the challenge problems as their normal problems.  An easier school presents material slower, using easier problems.  All three types of schools give engineering degrees.  Anyone with an engineering degree can guess what sort program the student completed and might or might not want to work with that student, depending on the job.  It isn't just a matter of prestige.  Students who are less able at math need to go STEM schools where the material is presented more slowly and the problems are easier.  I'm rather suspicious of SAT scores, generally, but the math one seems to be a fair indication of how fast and how easily one is able to solve simple math problems, something which certainly correlates to whether one will make it through engineering school.  I know nothing about Harvard's engineering school, but as a parent, I would seriously discourage my child from going to a world-famous university's engineering program unless their math score was over 700.  High 500's is fine for a school that presents the material a bit slower and doesn't try to challenge their students with the most challenging problems, but I have to wonder about that statistic. 

All three of my children were or are STEM majors.  We wanted them at schools where they landed in the middle, academic ability wise.  No matter how much it is true that one makes one's own opportunities and that there are opportunities at any school, that doesn't mean that my particular children are going to be the superstars that do this.  They aren't.  They make lots of opportunities for themselves, but they aren't the sort that count, at least not immediately.  UMass's engineering program, which is mass education, is mostly solving math problems.  They don't have the resources to give every student a hands-on education.  My children would have to work hard at inspiration to make it through their program.  And they would have to work hard to find friends.  Maybe I am misjudging my children, but I doubt their ability to persist and I doubt they are superstar-y enough for people to lavish opportunities on them without asking.  My children are just brightish and oddish.  They are unlikely to be noticed in a crowded lecture hall.   Neither are my children the sort of superstar that rises to meet infinately high expectations.  MIT is not the right place for them.  I don't think a really small private school where they would be the tiptop would be the right place, either.  I doubt mine would work hard if they thought they were smarter or knew more than their professors and all the rest of the students and it would be bad for their characters, as well presenting a depressing view of the world.  We wanted them in the middle of the student population and we wanted the school to be interesting and offer something more than endless textbooks and math problems.

 

In other words... as much as I like his books, I think this video oversimplifies things so much that it is dangerous to use these statistics to go the other direction, as advice for picking a college.  But as I said, I don't really understand logic and I am definately ignorant about statistics, so maybe I'm wrong.  If his conclusion is don't send children like mine to MIT, then I agree with him, but it would be a mistake for MIT to accept my children in the first place, one they would be unlikely to make.  If his conclusion is that nobody should go to the top college that accepts them, then I think he is very wrong, but maybe that is because he is ignoring the section of students who do a good job of picking the right college and just apply there rather than shoot for the moon.  And my family isn't all that prestige-oriented.  And my children inevitably are the ones for whom the statistics don't apply, because for some reason, we always seem to be playing with a different goal or different rules or a different deck than everyone else.

 

Nan, now off to read the 11 replies that were written while I wrote this one which probably said the same thing in two sentences, better worded : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very much a matter of personality.

 

This is where you really have to know your kid, & your kid has to know himself *before* he picks a school. The article regentrude linked has a good discussion. Gladwell makes a good point, but he's taking it too far. You might well end up at the top of an elite school. Or, on the other hand, you might fail to end up at the top of a lower level program. There's an inherent risk in both choices.

 

Some kids do thrive in the elite environment. Some wither without competition, and some non-competitive types (mine included) simply love the diversity, intellectual environment both in & out of the classroom, and engaged classmates. These kids might be more in danger of dropping out when those factors are not present.

 

When I was in grad school at Carnegie Mellon, I had fellow grad students who crashed & burned after coming in as top student from a lower level undergraduate program. Same thing happened recently with the daughter of a friend of mine. She was top student in her department at a mid tier school, but was devastated & dropped out when she got to grad school and no longer was the best. It can happen at any step of the game (undergrad, grad, career) if you have that kind of temperament. Does Gladwell offer the same advice on choosing a grad school or a job?

 

Teachin' Mine made a good point above that I have personally witnessed at Stanford during the years my daughter attended. She met several STEM major kids who were struggling. Most of these kids were being pressured by parents to major in computer science. Her junior year roommate is now on leave of absence for that reason. Sad story, but the pressure got to her. She might have done well in another major.

 

Those who do stick it out at Stanford are getting great offers, even those without the top 10% GPAs. I just returned from graduation week where I had a chance to meet many of my dd's friends. One thing I found interesting was that few of them are pursuing the "expected" grad school to PhD and academia trajectory, at least not immediately. In fact, I can't think of a single kid I met who is doing so! Most are joining start ups, working for Google or Amazon or Oracle, etc, while several others are opting for Teach for America & other charitable endeavors. One friend is moving to a Jesuit house in Harlem for a few years to work with the poor. One is traveling the globe studying regions of conflict (I would hate to be his mom!). Many take *very* unconventional next steps, and that's got to affect the # of papers published in the first six (?) years past the degree - the statistic mentioned in Gladwell's formula.

 

My own kiddo went in as a probable STEM major, but came out with a Classics degree & two STEM minors, with our full support. She is not at the tip top of her class GPA wise, and she has no regrets at all! One thing we noticed over the years is that her friends seemed much more engaged in learning and doing than on striving for a top GPA. Most of them are coming out in four years very happy, and they are still getting hired or moving on to the next desired step.

 

Our daughter is still going to launch a STEM career next month. The degree choice ended up not making a difference in her case, nor the fact that she's not at the tip top of her college class (she's solidly in the middle). What did matter was knowledge gleaned (AoPS gave her on the spot tests in math and CS, which she did extremely well on...they told her some PhDs don't pass), presentation skills, (she had to give a talk, during which they badgered her with hard questions, something she's had lots of experience with during the last four years both in class & in her ECs), and the day long interview. So I don't completely buy Gladwell's implication that dropping out of STEM is some sort of failure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if his conclusion is don't send children like mine to MIT, then I agree with him, but it would be a mistake for MIT to accept my children in the first place, one they would be unlikely to make.  If his conclusion is that nobody should go to the top college that accepts them, then I think he is very wrong,

 

No, Nan, that is not really what he is saying.   What he is saying is  look at the stats of your peers.......let's make it simple and totally change the number system and make it based on a scale of 10-1, and the top third of your peers have scores 10-8, the mid tier 7-4, and the bottom tier 3-1, yet those numbers are really in terms of say the top 5% of all students nationally, so all of the kids are really strong students.  The kids that are statistically the top 1-2% nationally when admitted are going to be far more likely to graduate with their desired stem degree (50% in that range) then the kids that are statistically in the bottom 1/3 (which let's pretend are in the 4th-5th % nationally) and only around 15-20% likely to graduate with a STEM degree.

 

However if you take that bottom 1/3 of students and put them in a school where they become students in the top 1/3 of the student body, they statistically move up to 50% likely to graduate with their desired stem degree.

 

It is reflected in essentially all student bodies regardless of the actual statistical entrance stats.   

 

I personally think the stats don't lie.   I think they also make sense.   We base our view of our abilities based on those around us.   If we perceive we are good at something we are far more likely to pursue it then if we compare our selves to others and see ourselves as far weaker.   We are more likely to think, gee, I am not very good at this.   Enthusiasm for our own abilities goes a long way in persevering.

 

Obviously about 20% of the kids in the bottom 1/3 are succeeding.   But, 80% not is a large number.    Kids that have strong internal motivation vs. needing external motivation are probably the successful ones.  This is where kids knowing themselves is going to make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was really interesting to me.  Thanks for posting it.

 

Stats are stats.  Logical and mathematical.  They purposefully do not take into account of individual personalities.  But, I think they are important.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...We base our view of our abilities based on those around us.   If we perceive we are good at something we are far more likely to pursue it then if we compare our selves to others and see ourselves as far weaker.   We are more likely to think, gee, I am not very good at this.   Enthusiasm for our own abilities goes a long way in persevering.

 

Obviously about 20% of the kids in the bottom 1/3 are succeeding.   But, 80% not is a large number.    Kids that have strong internal motivation vs. needing external motivation are probably the successful ones.  This is where kids knowing themselves is going to make a difference.

 

Ok, now I'm confused.  When I said that students like mine should not go to MIT, what I meant was that if you are at the rock bottom of your class, academic-ability-wise, you have a high chance of not graduating with your engineering degree because MIT did not design its program for students with academic abilities at your level.  It designed them for students whose academic abilities are a good bit better than yours.  You might be ok if you are good at rising to challenges and persisting, but it is risky.  If he said that, I agree.  I thought, though, in the video, he said that you should not go to the top college that accepts you.  That I disagree with because this discounts the many students who don't apply to a reach school.  I also thought he drew the conclusion that you were more likely to graduate if you are a big fish in a small pond.  Perhaps this is statistically true, but I think this is one of those things that is a bad statistic to apply to choosing a college because I think personality and other factors play a greater part than the statistics show.  I thought, also, that he said one should not be swayed by prestige when choosing a college or hiring for a STEM job.  That, I agree with, but only partially.  I think it is fair, when it comes to STEM programs, to think about WHY a certain college has that prestige.  If it is because they have a selection process and a program that turns out excellent, creative STEM people, then it might be worth thinking about when you are choosing what you want to learn and how, or when you are hiring a designer for your building or bridge or spaceship, or someone you are hoping will help you cure cancer.  Or you might, like my husband, know that what you want your new STEM person to do is chomp through some rather boring stuff, in which case, that UMass major is more likely to complete the job than an MIT grad.  They tend to get bored and go look for a more interesting project. : )  The rest of my post was just me having doubts about my children persisting through that somewhat dry UMass engineering degree or surviving the challenges of MIT's program or making it as a big fish in a small pond in an unchallenging school.  (I suspect they would just refuse to play, in any of those scenarios.)

 

Nan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His pt was not to not attend the top school that accepted you.   Obviously in every scenario the kids in the top 1/3 of the class are succeeding at a high rate.   His suggestion was to not attend the school where you were accepted but by comparison you represent the low end of their admitted class.  If you represent the higher end of the admitted class, it is probably a good fit and you have a higher statistical likelihood of graduating with the STEM degree.

 

I think he was also pointing out the opportunities for publication, etc tend to fall to the top students.  So students that are really strong but not as strong as their peers lose those opportunities to the stronger students.   So for kids that are not tippy top at one school and active involvement in research is important to them, attending a lesser school where they are more likely to have the opportunity to publish might be more to their long term benefit than being a higher ranked school where they don't get to have the opportunity.

 

Since he was only addressing things statistically, personality is ignored.   I agree completely that we are human and not numbers.   Our kids definitely need to know themselves and where they will thrive.  Some kids are definitely the fighting underdog and thrive in the competition.  But for kids who need outside affirmation that they are really good at what they are doing to encourage them to persevere or they quit.....those kids are the ones that these #s probably have more meaning.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, I agree that "very good" students can get lost behind the "excellent" students.  That was me all right.

 

I went to a small, top-ranked state school, and I was very intimidated.  It was pretty open admission as long as your SAT's were above a certain level, but very few graduated.  I struggled the whole way with both A's and B's and really didn't consider myself to be that great because indeed I was surrounded by giants.  This was early in the IT craze, I went to school with some who later became internationally known in the field, including a daughter of one of the founders of HP.  I was not on par with the giants but plugged along.  I had to work several jobs to support myself, and having one of the on-campus research jobs would not have provided the income I needed.  When I graduated, I was completely broke with no job while almost everyone else went to the big name employers (HP, IBM, Intel) or on the big name graduate schools (Perdue, MIT, CMU).

 

Thankfully I snagged a short-term research assistant job that lead to a full-time job that paid for graduate school. In both cases I found that I did know what I was doing after all, but being around superstars as an undergraduate did indeed scare me.  My graduate school classes were larger than my undergraduate classes, and I actually did better grade-wise in graduate school than I did undergraduate.

 

Now as a homeschool mom -- we're in a complex situation where a big name school is out of the question for my DC because of finances, and need-based aid won't be there.  They're going to have to live at home and attend local community colleges or 4-year schools with in-state tuition.  Thankfully the schools are all "upper middle" with honor programs and other special tracks.  And I think it will fine.  Truly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But for kids who need outside affirmation that they are really good at what they are doing to encourage them to persevere or they quit.....those kids are the ones that these #s probably have more meaning.

 

Hmm...  I still think big-fish-in-a-small-pond can go dreadfully wrong, if you are not careful.  Some small ponds do not have the funds to offer any extras, leaving poor fishy to receive its encouragement by comparing scores with classmates and feeling bored and isolated by the results, while others offer projects, tutoring, trips, interesting lectures, etc., to all students, top or bottom.

 

He is a good speaker.  I have enjoyed reading his books very much, although at times I questioned his conclusions or thought he was stating the obvious in a rather sensational way.  It is fun to be able to put a face to the voice.  I will have to look for his new one.

 

Nan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be tippy top to rock bottom.    There are lots of opportunities in between.   Someone might be the in the bottom one third of an accepted class at a top 10 school, but be in the top third at a top 50 school (just throwing numbers out there for examples, not saying these are actually accurate).    

 

His use of pond isn't institution specific.  It is simply student ability compared to student body.   Simply becoming a big fish in a small pond does not have to mean sacrificing "funds to offer any extras, leaving poor fishy to receive its encouragement by comparing scores with classmates and feeling bored and isolated by the results, while others offer projects, tutoring, trips, interesting lectures, etc., to all students, top or bottom."   I think it is as simple as meaning what Creekland posted in her response:

Thanks all!

 

I'll admit that I'm actually in agreement with him based upon the stories of returning students who share at my local high school... and I fully encouraged all of my boys to go to a school where they were comfortably in the Top 25% of admitted student stats.  So far, I've no regrets. 

 

Oldest did well where he went and now has a job in his field. 

 

Middle is doing superbly at his Top 30 school and will start his junior year having gotten into his first choice research lab. I've no doubt that he would have done well at any college he had chosen (his ability and personality), but where he is he definitely has more options than at many other schools.

 

Youngest?  Time will tell, but I do feel his odds are best where he is going.

 

All different schools, but all carefully chosen based upon fit and finances - and hours of research to find them.  What was "best" for one would not have been "best" for another.

 

To me, it doesn't matter if it's a STEM degree or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I listened to it again with a focus on what the stats he presented actually represented.

 

Next to the numbers I give a paraphrased statement of what he says, or claims, in the video, and my take on it follows.

 

1.   Half of all STEM majors drop out of their STEM major (not college) by their sophomore year.

 

I think that we can all agree that for many high school students, they're graduating high school without great math skills.  This begins in elementary and continues through middle and into high school.  Not only are they under-prepared, but STEM courses are generally harder and more time consuming than those of other majors.  A student scoring less than 600 on the math SAT will likely struggle to stay in a STEM major at any college, but likely even moreso at the top colleges than at the colleges which admit a high percentage of the applying students.

 

2.  Persistence is a function of your cognitive ability.

 

In my opinion, this is blatantly false.  Seriously.  Some brilliant people are persistent and some aren't.  Some who struggle academically are persistent, and some aren't.  No correlation IMO other than the struggling student likely has needed to be more persistent to make it to the college level.   So with the premise false, IMO, then nothing more can be derived from this statement.

 

3.  The stats are for those students who are intending to major in STEM fields.

 

While I think that many have been honest in their intentions, I think it's also true that some say that they're STEM majors to gain an admissions advantage at some schools, or to do as their parents have said they must, and then later switch to their actual area of interest.  

 

4.  Based on more STEM majors graduating with a STEM degree from the top third of the Hartwick class and few from the bottom third, he says that this supports his statement that persistence is a function of cognitive ability.  

 

I say hogwash.   : )   To me it says that STEM majors generally need to arrive at college with the skill base and math ability in order to survive STEM classes and coursework rigor.   Without persistence, few will graduate college with any degree, but of course there are exceptions.  Even skating by in classes takes some amount of persistence to do this over four years and manage to fulfill graduation requirements.

 

5.  From the top institutions, we should fewer kids dropping out because the kids are all smarter.  But what we see is the exact same pattern at Harvard as we see at Hartwick.

 

This is not only evidence that his assumption of persistence being a function of cognitive ability is likely false, but it also says to me that Harvard students also need to be well prepared in math before pursuing STEM degrees there.  Just because the bottom third scored about the same as the top third at Hartwick doesn't mean that they should be able to survive Harvard's STEM courses. The courses are made of students who mostly scored above 700 and the classes are taught at a level which is right for them, not for those who scored lower on the math.

 

Next point shows that he was a humanities major and not a STEM major.  : D

 

6 What it shows is that the kids in the bottom third are dropping out like flies ... even though these kids are brilliant.

 

He's reading his own stats wrong!

 

Here's Harvard:  Top third 53, middle third 31 and bottom third 15.   With the tenth points included, that adds up to 100%.

 

It's not that 85 percent of the bottom third are dropping out of the STEM major, it's that of all the STEM majors, only fifteen percent of the graduates come from the bottom third of the math SAT score students.  This makes perfect sense!   He's twisting the stats to say what he wants them to say, not what they do say.

 

And again, someone at Harvard who scored 581 on the math portion of the SAT may be brilliant, but (barring testing or learning difficulties or late blooming) likely not in math or a STEM field.

 

 

I rest my case.  lol   And I only got about half way through the video. 

 

 

Just my take on it, and I may have heard incorrectly, so feel free to correct me.

 

There's nothing wrong with a student choosing a college which they feel will be a better fit because they thrive on being one of the best, and likewise there's nothing wrong with a student choosing the most rigorous one because they thrive on the challenge or the academic climate.

 

8 Fill, I'm so rusty on The Fallacy Detective, but I think it's fair to say that his video could serve as an example of what not to do.

 

And I still wonder what his real motivate was for speaking there.  Maybe it was as simple as being able to list Google as one of his speaking engagements, but I tend to think there's more to it.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe how many things I find wrong with the presentation.  Let me just start with one.

 

Mr. Gladwell claims that the bottom 33% of all STEM students at Harvard have a Math SAT score of 581 (or below?  or is this the average of the bottom 33%?).  I find this difficult to believe.  I can't find verification of the SAT scores for the STEM (whatever _that_ is) cohort, but about.com says that the for the entire admissions class of 2013 at Harvard's 25th percentile Math SAT score is 710.  The 75th percentile, is, of course, 800.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe how many things I find wrong with the presentation.  Let me just start with one.

 

Mr. Gladwell claims that the bottom 33% of all STEM students at Harvard have a Math SAT score of 581 (or below?  or is this the average of the bottom 33%?).  I find this difficult to believe.  I can't find verification of the SAT scores for the STEM (whatever _that_ is) cohort, but about.com says that the for the entire admissions class of 2013 at Harvard's 25th percentile Math SAT score is 710.  The 75th percentile, is, of course, 800.

 

I couldn't read the graphics.   Did the graphics show an SAT of 581 for Harvard or the H school he mentioned for upstate NY?   If it was Harvard, yeah, then I completely agree that there is something off about those #s.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't read the graphics.   Did the graphics show an SAT of 581 for Harvard or the H school he mentioned for upstate NY?   If it was Harvard, yeah, then I completely agree that there is something off about those #s.  

 

Another thing that really bugged me about this talk was that for a talk that was based on numbers, they were really hard to see.

 

I went back and double checked.  He claims that for STEM students, math SAT scores are

 

Harvard   top third: 753   middle third: 674     bottom third: 581

Hartwick  top third: 569    middle third: 472     bottom third: 407  (this last number was blurry)

 

I don't know anything about Hartwick, but I still don't believe these numbers at all for Harvard.  In fact, I would be surprised if there are any students admitted to Harvard with a 581 Math SAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teachin Mine, I can't imagine that they used across the board admission criteria for all majors to determine the graduation rates of STEM majors.   That study wouldn't pass muster by any standards.

 

I read the book (David and Goliath), and the stats are based on the department, not the entire universities. I enjoyed this book even more than Outliers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the book (David and Goliath), and the stats are based on the department, not the entire universities. I enjoyed this book even more than Outliers.

 

Which department?  It's not like there a "STEM" department anywhere.  I bet you my dog-eared WTM that there isn't single Math major at Harvard with a 580 Math SAT score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full disclaimer! Ha ha! I did not watch the video, and it has been at least six months since I read David and Goliath! However, my recollection of his writing is that he often confuses the concepts of correlation and causation. I also seem to recall that he tends to focus heavily on anecdotal evidence. I also seem to recall that "Caroline Sacks" was in a different socio-economic status from many of her peers. However, as I said, it has been awhile since I read the book. My ds is NOT going to be a STEM kid and has no interest in academia/publishing papers. Interestingly, he attended a STEM charter school which has a very dynamic IR teacher who poaches off the STEM kids. He has no fear of math with a 35 on the ACT math section. I have encouraged him to use his quant skills to his advantage, regardless of what he pursues.

 

We definitely had the fish/pond discussion as and before ds was choosing his school. We revisited this topic tonight over dinner after I had seen this thread, because I really did not have specific insights into how he had made his final choice. For those who do not know, ds was accepted to 9 of the 11 schools to which he applied, and his short list was Ole Miss, Rice, and Stanford. He chose Stanford. He told me tonight that the biggest temptation about choosing Ole Miss (where he would definitely have been at the top of the heap) was not all the $$ they offered (honestly, they would have covered the cost of his toothpaste there!!!), but the fact that he felt like he would have had a lot more time to pursue outside/extracurricular activities had that been the choice. He feels that, at Stanford, he is going to have to be much more focused on academics because he perceives his courses will be FAR more challenging. I am sure that is correct. Don't get me wrong - I know the boy will have fun, and I fully expect to see his face painted on the front row at football games! He believes his personality is such that he wouldn't have slacked off had he chosen the lower tier school. I don't disagree with that; he's pretty driven. He has no expectation that he will be a big fish at Stanford, but I think he will do just fine nevertheless. I agree with others who have posted that it depends on the personality, character, and perseverance of the child. I also agree that looking at retention and graduation rates is important.

 

In the end, the conclusion was at Stanford he would be swimming with the best fish. Please do NOT misconstrue that - there are fantastic fish at all schools! ;)

 

We recently met another family from our area whose daughter will also be a frosh at Stanford in the fall. She clearly has some reservations about the classroom environment once she gets there and wonders if she is well-prepared enough. She seemed to feel reassured by the fact that she was told at admit weekend, "We don't make mistakes in admissions."

 

Time will tell for both of them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgia,

Do you know if all of the info was from the 90s? (otherwise apples to oranges) Over 20 yrs the entire college system has changed dramatically.

My stupid eBook copy has the footnotes all weird. I think all of the SAT stats came from the same study titled "The Role of Ethnicity in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions" A. Christopher Stents and Roger Elliott. So yeah all the same time frame/study.

 

The 30% greater risk of dropping out came from a 2010 study by Mitchell Chang et al.

 

Georgia

(Sorry posting on a tablet is not easy or quick.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the book (David and Goliath), and the stats are based on the department, not the entire universities. I enjoyed this book even more than Outliers.

 

Yes, they are based on all STEM degree graduates, but as I noted in the post I wrote after re-watching part of the video, he treats the numbers he posts - the percentages - as though they represent the percentage of STEM majors who graduated in each third.  But what the numbers represent is the number of STEM majors who graduated from each third.  That's a huge difference.  He suggests that they were dropping like flies from the lowest third when in fact we don't even know how many began as STEM majors vs how many graduated with STEM degrees.  What we do know, if the numbers are even accurate, is that 15% of the STEM graduates were in the bottom third of the SAT stats.  And the SAT stats are highly suspect to begin with.

 

I'm guessing that this was an attention getter for selling his book.  Even the way he dressed for his presentation suggests he had every intention of giving Google their money's worth.  (They didn't pay him to speak.)   I also wonder if he accepted the speaking engagement  to use it as an opportunity to sell his book, but later found that he wouldn't be allowed to sell his book at the event. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My stupid eBook copy has the footnotes all weird. I think all of the SAT stats came from the same study titled "The Role of Ethnicity in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions" A. Christopher Stents and Roger Elliott. So yeah all the same time frame/study.

 

 

 

Thank you for the reference!  I found this paper here  It has the table, and claims it is from a book published in 1985!  Quoting the paper;

 

 

 

The table shows how science degrees are distributed within each institution as a 
function of terciles of the SATM distribution; institutions are listed in descend- 
ing order of average SATM score. Thus, in institution A, over 53% of all the 
science degrees given were earned by students whose SATM scores were in the 
top third of its SATM distribution, averaging 753. A similar percentage of all 
the science degrees given in institution J were earned by students in the top 
tercile of their SATM distribution, but the average of that tercile was much 
lower, at 591

 

 

 

So, these numbers aren't for students who started out as "STEM majors" (a term which didn't even exist in 1985), and then switched majors.  These numbers just talk about the distribution of SAT Math scores for graduates with a Natural Science degree.  And, as someone above says, it makes total sense that at these institutions, all of which are private liberal arts schools, the science majors tend to have higher math SAT scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I listened to it again with a focus on what the stats he presented actually represented.

 

Next to the numbers I give a paraphrased statement of what he says, or claims, in the video, and my take on it follows.

 

1.   Half of all STEM majors drop out of their STEM major (not college) by their sophomore year.

 

I think that we can all agree that for many high school students, they're graduating high school without great math skills.  This begins in elementary and continues through middle and into high school.  Not only are they under-prepared, but STEM courses are generally harder and more time consuming than those of other majors.  A student scoring less than 600 on the math SAT will likely struggle to stay in a STEM major at any college, but likely even moreso at the top colleges than at the colleges which admit a high percentage of the applying students.

 

2.  Persistence is a function of your cognitive ability.

 

In my opinion, this is blatantly false.  Seriously.  Some brilliant people are persistent and some aren't.  Some who struggle academically are persistent, and some aren't.  No correlation IMO other than the struggling student likely has needed to be more persistent to make it to the college level.   So with the premise false, IMO, then nothing more can be derived from this statement.

 

3.  The stats are for those students who are intending to major in STEM fields.

 

While I think that many have been honest in their intentions, I think it's also true that some say that they're STEM majors to gain an admissions advantage at some schools, or to do as their parents have said they must, and then later switch to their actual area of interest.  

 

4.  Based on more STEM majors graduating with a STEM degree from the top third of the Hartwick class and few from the bottom third, he says that this supports his statement that persistence is a function of cognitive ability.  

 

I say hogwash.   : )   To me it says that STEM majors generally need to arrive at college with the skill base and math ability in order to survive STEM classes and coursework rigor.   Without persistence, few will graduate college with any degree, but of course there are exceptions.  Even skating by in classes takes some amount of persistence to do this over four years and manage to fulfill graduation requirements.

 

5.  From the top institutions, we should fewer kids dropping out because the kids are all smarter.  But what we see is the exact same pattern at Harvard as we see at Hartwick.

 

This is not only evidence that his assumption of persistence being a function of cognitive ability is likely false, but it also says to me that Harvard students also need to be well prepared in math before pursuing STEM degrees there.  Just because the bottom third scored about the same as the top third at Hartwick doesn't mean that they should be able to survive Harvard's STEM courses. The courses are made of students who mostly scored above 700 and the classes are taught at a level which is right for them, not for those who scored lower on the math.

 

Next point shows that he was a humanities major and not a STEM major.  : D

 

6 What it shows is that the kids in the bottom third are dropping out like flies ... even though these kids are brilliant.

 

He's reading his own stats wrong!

 

Here's Harvard:  Top third 53, middle third 31 and bottom third 15.   With the tenth points included, that adds up to 100%.

 

It's not that 85 percent of the bottom third are dropping out of the STEM major, it's that of all the STEM majors, only fifteen percent of the graduates come from the bottom third of the math SAT score students.  This makes perfect sense!   He's twisting the stats to say what he wants them to say, not what they do say.

 

And again, someone at Harvard who scored 581 on the math portion of the SAT may be brilliant, but (barring testing or learning difficulties or late blooming) likely not in math or a STEM field.

 

 

I rest my case.  lol   And I only got about half way through the video. 

 

 

Just my take on it, and I may have heard incorrectly, so feel free to correct me.

 

There's nothing wrong with a student choosing a college which they feel will be a better fit because they thrive on being one of the best, and likewise there's nothing wrong with a student choosing the most rigorous one because they thrive on the challenge or the academic climate.

 

8 Fill, I'm so rusty on The Fallacy Detective, but I think it's fair to say that his video could serve as an example of what not to do.

 

And I still wonder what his real motivate was for speaking there.  Maybe it was as simple as being able to list Google as one of his speaking engagements, but I tend to think there's more to it.

 

With more info here (based upon what you've written), I definitely don't agree with his reasoning overall.  I do, however, still believe that most kids do their best in college (regardless of major) when they are in the Top 25% of stats where they go (which "stats" count depend a little upon the major).  That belief (of mine) comes from seeing thousands of college graduates head off (and come back with stories) over the years.  It can vary a little based upon the personality of the student, of course.

 

But back to your points...(from his video)

 

1)  I seem to recall that 65% of students change their major in college.  Some change because they realize they can't hack the material, that's true, but many change because they get into the classes and realize they simply don't want to do ____. 

 

That latter was my situation.  I had significant computer advantages in high school since my dad took a year off from teaching and worked for IBM as they set up their "test" schools.  We had one of the first home computers.  Like other computer geeks of the time, I was teaching the teacher some things I knew.  Therefore, it was determined I should be a computer science major!  I was doing well (As in computer classes), but there was this one class where the prof made the statement, "I hope you like what you're doing as you're going to be doing it every day for the rest of your life."  WHAT?  I wasn't enjoying myself.  This isn't what I wanted to be doing!!!  I immediately went and switched my major.

 

Don't ask me how, but somehow that connection just hadn't hit before.  Computers was a "class" that I did well in, like many others.  Doing it as a job?  Every day?  Not me.

 

My story happens OFTEN in college - not just because students see that they don't want to do ____ every day, but also because they look at _____ and decide they like that better.

2)  Yeah, totally false.  Many who do well have decent cognitive ability, but tons who don't do well have it as well.  Some have simply figured out that they don't want the "high academic" life, but prefer something else.

 

The rest hangs on those two.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And I still wonder what his real motivate was for speaking there.  Maybe it was as simple as being able to list Google as one of his speaking engagements, but I tend to think there's more to it.

 

It's a variation on his theme from Outliers, that situation has a lot more to do with success than most people think.  In Outliers, he went on and on about birth month and how being one of the oldest in the year-group (ie.  the Canadian Hockey League players born in Jan-Feb-Mar).  Here it is being the big fish in the little pond. There are all sorts of assumptions in both premises, but neither hold water for individuals.

 

 

 

claims it is from a book published in 1985!

 

 

That was before the SAT was re-normed.  There probably were kids at Harvard with 581 Math scores then.  

 

 

 

The 30% greater risk of dropping out came from a 2010 study by Mitchell Chang et al.

 

 

25 years apart?  That's not even the same generation, let alone the same kids.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read other replies but watched the whole video. I do not agree with him. I have an EE degree from the top university in South Korea. Yes, I went through a painful transition from being a big fish to a small fish, but the academically rigorous and competitive atmosphere at my univ also motivated me to push myself beyond the level I though I could do. I only managed to survive there with an average GPA but the STEM degree from the top school have brought me tremendous benefits including my early employment into Samsung Electronics (one year before my graduation) and acceptance into the top engineering grad school in the U.S., not to mention the network I've built and the opportunities I got to see the world. I ended up giving up my career due to my personal situation (DH's military job) but I greatly value all experiences I had in those "Big Ponds." I do not think I could have enjoyed those same benefits and opportunities if I chose to be a big fish in a local "no-name" univ. To me, the atmosphere and peer pressure are a motivation factor so there's even no guarantee that I could have graduated with a perfect GPA from this local univ and gotten a job at Samsung or accepted into the top Ph.D program. There are too many variables and the same kind of Gladwell's assertion can be made about any other majors. So, I do not regret a bit about my college decision.

 

From a foreigner's perspective, I think the reason why the STEM is failing in the U.S. is, not because the students choose the top Ivies, but because the overall academic expectations and standards are simply much lower than the ones in other better-performing countries. For example, in Korea all high school students are expected to master the differential and integral calculus by 11th grade. No exceptions. (The school curriculum is nationally standardized and homeschooling is very rare.) We also learn statistics and probability theory in math and other science subjects in depth in high school and they all appear in the Korean version of SAT. To me, a higher rate of dropout in 2nd yr of STEM in the U.S. just means that a more number of students here are less prepared and trained to tackle the college level of STEM materials, which leads to tendency of switching to other easier majors. I'm currently teaching Singapore Primary 1A to my DS and he is breezing through it, but even with IP and CWP, while it is a good way to teach the concepts, I do not think this curriculum alone offers enough practice for arithmetic mastery, so I'm going to add the Korean-style daily math drills to it like every Korean student does, which is similar to the Kumon's repetitive method. I think the different expectation on workload is what resulted in the different overall status of STEM education between the U.S. and other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creekland I agree that many college students change their major for a variety of reasons, including what you experienced.   But the stats he lists aren't even about how many intended STEM majors graduated with a STEM degree, it's about where the STEM degree graduates had tested on the math SAT.  For only fifteen percent of the STEM graduates to have gotten the lower scores while 53 percent got the highest scores makes perfect sense.

 

I was curious about his own education, so I looked it up.  Wiki offers some interesting insights.  His father was a mathematics professor and his mother a psychotherapist who served as a writing role model.  He graduated from the University of Toronto with a degree in history.  According to Wiki "Gladwell's grades were not good enough for graduate school (as Gladwell puts it, "college was not an... intellectually fruitful time for me") ... "

 

The University of Toronto is rated as the top university in Canada.   I think this, together with his admission that he didn't get good grades and couldn't get into grad school, has heavily influenced his research and findings based on his "interpretation" of the statistics.   I've never read his books and I have no idea if he works stats in the same way he did in this limited sample.   I have no doubt that there are students who attend schools which are really beyond their academic abilities or not a good fit, but to use irrelevant data to "prove" that point is ridiculous.  I'm sure there's pertinent data out there, or he could have conducted his own study.

 

 

 

 

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

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...