"Where you go is not who you'll be", by Frank Bruni: Anyone read it?

I've heard a couple of interviews with Frank Bruni, the NYT columnist, and author of "Where you go is not who you'll be", a recent book about college admissions.  Apparently, his thesis is that the elite colleges are not the be-all, and all, and that it is better to be a big fish in a small pond than vice versa.  He points to his college experience, where despite an elite prep school upbringing, he chose not to go to an Ivy league school, but went to UNC-Chapel Hill instead, and was very successful in life.

 

I haven't read the book yet, but wonder if I should.  I have several misgivings from what I've heard already though:

 

o) From my perspective, UNC-Chapel Hill, and many big state schools, are pretty elite, and by no means a shoo-in, or even inexpensive, especially for out of state applicants.  But not all big state schools are this kind of elite, or, more accurately, not all departments at all big state schools.

 

o) I know it is anecdotal, but I'm haunted by some of the reports I've read over the last few years about kids who graduate from college, and can't find any job in their field.  In particular, in "Paying for the Party", one of the students is a classics major at Indiana University, which is not noted for that degree.  She does very well, her professors like her, encourage her to pursue graduate work in classics, but she can't get accepted at any graduate school, ostensibly because of the quality of her undergraduate school.  As a result, after graduation, she ends up in a full-time version of her college job, taking care of janitorial work in the dorms, a job which really doesn't require a college degree. 

 

o) A couple of years ago, we talked about this: a girl who apparently did well in school, but racked up six figures of debt, and could only find work as a Starbucks barrista.  There was a lot of healthy discussion here about the value of a communications degree, some said that it was a sure ticket to a good job, others claimed it was an easy major with no good prospects.  After thinking about this for some time, I now believe that the problem isn't the major, but the tiny college in the middle of Iowa that no one in New York has heard of, and expecting that a degree there will be a ticket to a job in the big city.

 

So, I think I agree with some of the premise of the book:  It isn't enough to just go to college, but you have to work hard to make the best of the opportunities present:  find research positions, make personal connections with professors, etc. 

 

However, I'm starting to think that it does matter where you go to school, but not to the extent that it is the Ivies or nothing.  I'm beginning to think that there are a lot of colleges in, say, the bottom 20% of their particular fields, especially, private LACs, who are not selective at all, who have no name recognition outside their local area, and yet still charge as much as the Ivies (!), these are the schools that it is important to avoid.

 

So, one of my questions is, where is that line, below which it isn't a good idea to go to a particular department in a particular school, and how do you find that out?

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I'm reading it to get a different perspective from How to Be a High School Superstar, which just about sent me 'round the bend...

 

I'm only a chapter or so into the book, so no real thoughts yet. (Other than it's made me teary-eyed a time or two...)

 

[Jen in NY]

I am heading out the door, but I wanted to throw something down here quickly before I go.

 

As in any huge life choice, I think people and families really need to weigh the options. Life isn't neat. Things don't work out like you think. Going to a well known school doesn't mean you will automatically write a ticket to a happy life.... going to a no-name school doesn't mean you can't be happy. Sometimes well known schools can be more affordable than no-name schools. Sometimes not. It depends on so many variables.

 

But as in everything... be an informed consumer. Do your due diligence. Read about what people from the program you are considering do after school. Reach out and talk to alums. Profs. People in the line of work you are considering. If it seems like a reasonable investment, make it. (Obviously don't pay full ticket for an unknown school with a 50% six year grad rate and no alumni network, lol.) But the real investment must come from the student's effort toward making a life. Making connections. Becoming an ethical, productive, curious adult. If that doesn't happen, it doesn't matter what the degree says. If not, even if the person can get a job, he or she may not be happy.

 

The worst thing a kid can do is to get an acceptance letter from some highly regarded place and think, "My life is complete. I will be happy forever."

I do feel badly for kids that think their life is over because they don't get into their "dream school" because of their momentary disappointment, but in reality, it is most likely the best thing that could happen for their personal growth.

 

I know way too many people that are happy, productive, giving, whole people who went to community college or no college at all to think that any one college or set of colleges will make someone's life. I do think there are colleges that are better for some things than others... but the person in question has to be ready to receive the gift of the opportunity.

[Scarlett]

I saw that guy interviewed on tv.....they asked him to explain the presidents.....and they named off the last few and the great schools they'd attended. He pointed out Georg W didn't get to be president because of where he went to school.

 

So agreeing with Jen there is just more to life than what college you choose.....and really there is more to life than how you make money. What I keep telling my son is you are responsible for providing for yourself when you are grown...and any family you might take on. I will STRONGLY discourage him from going into debt for school beyond something he can reasonably pay back quickly. His dad and I will help where we can but I certainly will not be going into debt at this stage of my life.

 

My advice to young people is to take care of your health, make wise personal decisions, stay out of debt and learn to make a living which sometimes for young people is trial and error.....better to figure that out without 50k in college debt and a wife and kids to care for,

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that we are in the (slow) process of recovering from an anomaly.

 

For a brief period in history, each generation did better than the one before it, and a college degree guaranteed at minimum a middle class lifestyle.  Neither of those is true anymore, and they were never true for very long.

 

The generations doing better and better happened largely because WWII took out the major manufacturing capacity everywhere but in the US, AND because we tooled up for that war very quickly, giving us excess capacity.  For years after WWII we were supplying the whole world, one way or another, and that meant that prosperity or at least comfortable lifestyles here were fairly widespread.

 

The college degree guarantee worked like this--it used to be that only the well to do or very capable would even aspire to college, so college education tended to correlate with success.  Then it became a truism that college caused success, and the GI bill enabled many veterans to attend college who would never have tried to do so before, and they were largely more mature than their high school graduate counterparts, and participated in the general expansion due to us surviving WWII with our manufacturing intact and beefed up.  So that enhanced the idea that college caused and even guaranteed success.

 

But actually, there is far less demand now for college graduates AND for manufacturing personnel, and so comfortable lifestyles are harder to come by and less broadly distributed in general.  And that is a trend that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

 

So books like this are wrong--they reflect the view that college education gives you a reasonably comfortable life, and they are also right in that no education is ever wasted.  But one big thing that we all have to keep in mind is that while education is not wasted, it is not necessarily lucrative.  The hardest thing to accept, but we MUST accept it, is that there is no long any sure path to comfort and success.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I'm sure it depends on location and other factors, but in my experience having a degree matters. It matters a great deal.

[fairfarmhand]

Another thing to consider is that just because a school offers a particular degree, doesn;t mean that you will be able to go far in that field. My dh talks about schools that offer engineering degrees but are not ABET accredited. Without a degree from an ABET accredited school, you can't even SIT for the PE exam.

 

He knows people who borrowed money to go to school and worked really hard to get an engineering degree from a prestigious school that just wasn't accredited. Then they are stuck as  an EIT forever.  It's sad. It would've helped if they;d talked to a real, licensed engineer before they went to school.

[8filltheheart]

It has not been our experience. Most successful people we know are not elite school grads. Local professionals' kids apply to instate publics. Some friends whose ds is valedictorian of a top private school with an 35 ACT didn't apply to any schools other than a couple of instate schools. Rankings don't really matter to the vast majority of people.

 

Fwiw, I am a strong believer that kids who make the most of the opportunities they have will succeed bc it is mojo that gets them there. Our ds is a top student attending a lower ranked school. I am not concerned about his ability to get into grad school. His dept is ranked 95th! Students graduating from his dept DO attend to grad schools. (One who is a recent grad from the honors program ds is in is currently attending Stanford.)

[texasmama]

Often when I read this board, I think I have lived in a closet or under a rock for years.   My plan for college was simple, and my dh's plan for college was simple.  He has an undergraduate degree, and I have undergraduate and graduate degrees.  For undergraduate degrees, we went to local colleges which were respectable but not in any way prestigious.  I went to a state university.  He went to a small private university.  For my graduate degree, I was living in a different state than I grew up in and went to the local state university because it offered the degree I wanted.  

 

Reading the college board makes my head spin.  If I drank, I would need a bottle of wine or some hard liquor after reading some of the threads.  There is so much information, and it feels overwhelming.  I wonder if it must be so complicated.  I wonder if I am missing something.

 

My plan for my kids is pretty simple.  They will dual enroll in our local, large and good community college system.  This will begin when they are 16 (or younger, if I can petition successfully for my younger ds).  Then, based on how they do there, they will go to a state university unless they are offered a fabulous scholarship.  They will take the PSAT, the SAT, and the ACT.  If they get great scores and attract a lot of attention from universities due to test scores and receive amazing scholarship opportunities, they will have the opportunity to do something different.  We are not people of means by a long shot.

 

 

[fairfarmhand]

Often when I read this board, I think I have lived in a closet or under a rock for years.   My plan for college was simple, and my dh's plan for college was simple.  He has an undergraduate degree, and I have undergraduate and graduate degrees.  For undergraduate degrees, we went to local colleges which were respectable but not in any way prestigious.  I went to a state university.  He went to a small private university.  For my graduate degree, I was living in a different state than I grew up in and went to the local state university because it offered the degree I wanted.  

 

Reading the college board makes my head spin.  If I drank, I would need a bottle of wine or some hard liquor after reading some of the threads.  There is so much information, and it feels overwhelming.  I wonder if it must be so complicated.  I wonder if I am missing something.

 

My plan for my kids is pretty simple.  They will dual enroll in our local, large and good community college system.  This will begin when they are 16 (or younger, if I can petition successfully for my younger ds).  Then, based on how they do there, they will go to a state university unless they are offered a fabulous scholarship.  They will take the PSAT, the SAT, and the ACT.  If they get great scores and attract a lot of attention from universities due to test scores and receive amazing scholarship opportunities, they will have the opportunity to do something different.  We are not people of means by a long shot.

 

This is pretty much our plan. with one exception. We will be sure that out kids do a bit of research and talk to a couple of professionals in their field to ask all the questions and get a bit of advice.

 

I think that we are in the (slow) process of recovering from an anomaly.

 

For a brief period in history, each generation did better than the one before it, and a college degree guaranteed at minimum a middle class lifestyle.  Neither of those is true anymore, and they were never true for very long.

 

The generations doing better and better happened largely because WWII took out the major manufacturing capacity everywhere but in the US, AND because we tooled up for that war very quickly, giving us excess capacity. 

 

 

Ack!  Quoting is messed up, so I'll just reply to this bit

 

While I agree that being the sole unscathed major power after WWII helped the US economy a lot, generations much before that saw their children end up better than them. My great grandparents worked on a farm without electricity, and no indoor plumbing.  I think most of America was agricultural in those days.  This is a hard, hard life, and their kids, who mostly worked in factories (before WWII), had a much easier life.  Even if my kids don't have the standard of living that I don't, I'm sure they won't be hauling water every morning.

I saw that guy interviewed on tv.....they asked him to explain the presidents.....and they named off the last few and the great schools they'd attended. He pointed out George W didn't get to be president because of where he went to school.

 

Oh!  That was the other thing that's bothered me about the interviews.  I don't care what college US Presidents went to -- my goal as a parent isn't to raise Presidents or world-shakers.  I just want my kids to be happy and well-adjusted, and not drowning in debt.  The underlying theme here seems to be if your kid isn't on a path to be President of the US, you are a failure.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Hmmm...so far the book hasn't given me that impression at all!

[Matryoshka]

Often when I read this board, I think I have lived in a closet or under a rock for years.   My plan for college was simple, and my dh's plan for college was simple.  He has an undergraduate degree, and I have undergraduate and graduate degrees.  For undergraduate degrees, we went to local colleges which were respectable but not in any way prestigious.  I went to a state university.  He went to a small private university.  For my graduate degree, I was living in a different state than I grew up in and went to the local state university because it offered the degree I wanted.  

 

Reading the college board makes my head spin.  If I drank, I would need a bottle of wine or some hard liquor after reading some of the threads.  There is so much information, and it feels overwhelming.  I wonder if it must be so complicated.  I wonder if I am missing something.

 

My plan for my kids is pretty simple.  They will dual enroll in our local, large and good community college system.  This will begin when they are 16 (or younger, if I can petition successfully for my younger ds).  Then, based on how they do there, they will go to a state university unless they are offered a fabulous scholarship.  They will take the PSAT, the SAT, and the ACT.  If they get great scores and attract a lot of attention from universities due to test scores and receive amazing scholarship opportunities, they will have the opportunity to do something different.  We are not people of means by a long shot.

 

Amen.  Why has it gotten so complicated?  I applied (and was accepted to) exactly one school, the big State U - that's what my parents said we could afford.  They said I could apply elsewhere if I wanted to make up the difference.  Debt-free sounded good. :)

 

Dh attended a local university with a strong coop system.  He did not have great grades in high school.  He did the coops and lived at home and commuted after freshman year, and used the coop money to pay off the tuition.  (Today this same school is super-competitive to get into and what one gets paid for the coop program wouldn't put a dent in tuition - how times change).

 

All the stuff people are doing now makes my head spin.  I'm sure my kids will apply to a range of schools, and if someone offers one or more of them a bucket of money that makes a 'better' school affordable, great.  But a state school (or perhaps a NY state school, as the MA state schools cost as much in-state as NY schools do out-of-state :glare: ) is going to have to be a reasonable backup.  Two of my dds are fine with this, the third is annoyed that I keep talking about the price tag.  Well, sorry... reality.  I think I may finally have made a tiny impression on her when I pointed out that my brother, who graduated debt-free undergrad, then did a one year graduate program, spent 10 years paying off that one year.  Everything she wants to do is almost definitely going to require a graduate degree that she'll have to pay for somehow.  She really can't be taking on big undergrad debt!

 

I have to agree - a bubble has to burst.  I just wish it would burst before my kids got to college age!  I'm losing hope that that will happen in time...

 

[texasmama]

I'm reading it to get a different perspective from How to Be a High School Superstar, which just about sent me 'round the bend...

 

I'm only a chapter or so into the book, so no real thoughts yet. (Other than it's made me teary-eyed a time or two...)

I have this one but have not read it.  Maybe I should skip it.

[Trilliums]

I haven't read this book.  I will look into it but I do not find his examples particularly compelling.  

 

UNC CH is rated #30 in National Colleges by USNWR.  I am guessing it is a top 10 of public universities.  Isn't is considered a public ivy?

 

Whether or not Washington attended a top school hardly matters now.  

 

I don't know, honestly.  We are grappling with the issue of paying for son to attend a strong private school vs. our state school almost free.  We can afford the private without debt but it is a large enough sum of money to give me great pause and more than a few heart palpitations.  :P

 

Dh attended state schools for ug and grad school.  He has a great career and his earnings allow us to live very comfortably.  But, overwhelmingly, his bosses, be they VP's when he was in private sector or Deans in academia, hail from high tier schools.  He feels that pedigree matters substantially for gaining opportunities for advancement beyond a certain level.  I honestly do not know if my kids have those kinds of aspirations, but this is actually not the real reason I am considering the private option.  I think son would personally benefit more from a small setting.  I think he would be more likely to find mentors, peers and challenges.   He takes classes at the local U already and the focus on grads students is undeniable.  He has gotten involved and met great people at the U, but the atmosphere is very different from what we hope for him.  Maybe I am just dreaming and hoping, but I think son's other potential school could actually shape him far differently than the public U.  I do not means in terms of future jobs though.  I mean in terms of growth and development of ideas and exposure to thoughts and sparks of interest. 

 

Ah, the questions simply do not end even after you graduate them!

[Scarlett]

Oh! That was the other thing that's bothered me about the interviews. I don't care what college US Presidents went to -- my goal as a parent isn't to raise Presidents or world-shakers. I just want my kids to be happy and well-adjusted, and not drowning in debt. The underlying theme here seems to be if your kid isn't on a path to be President of the US, you are a failure.

I got the exact opposite out that comment. The interviewer was trying to make the connection that great colleges make presidents. This author said no, family dynasties make presidents. I didnt think the author thought anyone needed to be president.

Whether or not Washington attended a top school hardly matters now.  

 

 

I think she meant George Walker Bush, i.e. President #43.

[Scarlett]

I think she meant George Walker Bush, i.e. President #43.

Yes I did. :)

[Corraleno]

However, I'm starting to think that it does matter where you go to school, but not to the extent that it is the Ivies or nothing.  I'm beginning to think that there are a lot of colleges in, say, the bottom 20% of their particular fields, especially, private LACs, who are not selective at all, who have no name recognition outside their local area, and yet still charge as much as the Ivies (!), these are the schools that it is important to avoid.

 

So, one of my questions is, where is that line, below which it isn't a good idea to go to a particular department in a particular school, and how do you find that out?

 

IMO the cited examples don't prove the importance of choosing a highly ranked school/department so much as they prove the importance of having realistic expectations and not taking on insurmountable debt. Both of the girls mentioned above seem to have not thought things through very well.

 

Regarding the communications major from Wartburg, taking on massive debt for any degree, let alone a not-very-marketable one, is generally a bad idea, whether it's a well-known school or an unknown one. There was a similar story in the NYT a few years ago about a girl with a degree in Women's Studies from NYU who also had six figures in student loan debt and was making $20/hrs as a photographer's assistant. She took on that debt precisely because she was convinced that "where you go to school matters," and assumed that the name-brand degree was worth the investment. Both she and the girl who went to Wartburg would have been better off attending a state school or somewhere that would offer them significant aid and lower debt.

 

I haven't read the Paying for the Party book, but I question their conclusion that the girl from IU didn't get into grad school simply because her undergrad department wasn't highly ranked. First of all, Classics grad programs are notoriously selective, because there are so few jobs available and they don't want to be producing large numbers of PhDs who will never find jobs. Secondly, I wonder what "doing very well" means in her case? If she's a 3.5 student with good but not stellar GREs, good but not OMG recommendations, and nothing that really stands out to grad programs, then she probably would not get into a Classics PhD program even if she graduated from a much more highly ranked department. 

 

By contrast, I was an undergrad at a small LAC which had exactly 2 anthro professors (one of whom was pretty useless, lol) and offered few courses in the subject. I was still accepted to every PhD program I applied to, including two very highly ranked (top 5) programs and several others in the top 20, with Fellowships at every one of them and full rides at most. But I had 99th% GREs, some unusual independent study courses, glowing rec's from my mentor (a philosophy prof), and theoretical interests that were uncommon at the time. I also had very little debt, thanks to a full 4 yr tuition scholarship. I would absolutely choose that route again over taking on a lot of debt to attend a more prestigious school with a higher ranked department.

 

I think grad schools (like colleges in general) really want to see what you've done with the resources you have, and how passionate and driven you are, not just that you can plug along and check off the boxes in a highly ranked undergrad program. Also, departments are generally ranked based on their graduate programs, so attending a school with a highly ranked program as an undergrad may mean lots of courses taught by TAs and not much personal attention from profs. I think that's especially the case if the school was a "reach" for the student, so they are a not-very-noticeable small fish in a big pond full of flashy fish. In that case, going somewhere lower ranked, where the student will be a big fish, get more attention, and have lower debt, may be a much more prudent choice.

[Trilliums]

Ah, my mistake, I thought he said "Washington".

 

In any case, I still don't see that as a huge support of his assertion.  Is it the ONLY way?  No.  I know there are studies showing high achieving students do well wherever they attend school.   But to me that is like rationalizing that my smart kid would have done well in ps or homeschool.  It isn't just just the end result I care about, but the journey along the way as well.

I haven't read the Paying for the Party book, but I question their conclusion that the girl from IU didn't get into grad school simply because her undergrad department wasn't highly ranked. First of all, Classics grad programs are notoriously selective, because there are so few jobs available and they don't want to be producing large numbers of PhDs who will never find jobs. Secondly, I wonder what "doing very well" means in her case? If she's a 3.5 student with good but not stellar GREs, good but not OMG recommendations, and nothing that really stands out to grad programs, then she probably would not get into a Classics PhD program even if she graduated from a much more highly ranked department. 

 

"Patying for the Party" is pretty certain that she didn't get into grad school because of her background: Quoting from "Paying for the Party"

 

[Valerie graduated] with a 3.8 GPA, a 1220 on her GRE, great faculty recommendations, applications to to PhD programs in the humanities and minimal debt.  ... she was only accepted to the least prestigious school on her list -- without any funding.

 

It surprised her that she didn't get in, and it surprised her professors, too.

 

"She was competing against Ivy league and elite liberal arts graduates, all with similar GPAs, but with likely better test scores, and more research experience."

[creekland]

However, I'm starting to think that it does matter where you go to school, but not to the extent that it is the Ivies or nothing. 

 

...

 

So, one of my questions is, where is that line, below which it isn't a good idea to go to a particular department in a particular school, and how do you find that out?

 

I'm definitely of the belief that it DOES matter - but certainly not to the extent of Top 100 (or whatever) or nothing.

 

It matters what employers or those in the field think of the school.  MANY state schools are quite good at what they do.  Many (including UNC) are ranked quite highly.

 

But even when a school (like Eckerd - where my youngest attends) doesn't fit in the Top Whatever on a general list, they can be quite good within fields.  Eckerd's dominance for Marine Science is pretty solid... and when we talked with those in the field, their name came up EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.  There's something to be said for that.

 

Around us, to get hired for a first job in Civil Engineering, Penn St is the best name to have on an application.  It doesn't matter what their ranking is nationally.  In other states, GA Tech, Virginia Tech, NC State, U Alabama, etc, etc, etc, would be better.  Some private schools can be good with engineering, of course, but often the state schools are powerhouses.

 

In general though... it's tough to disagree that a college degree helps the average person.  I just saw recent unemployment rates (on TV).  Those 25+ with a Bachelor's Degree have an unemployment rate of 2.5%.  That's not bad...  It didn't say if they are employed in their field or what salary they have... but of those I've seen IRL who have degrees and aren't using them, too often they went to schools that aren't as respected in their field.

[Corraleno]

"Patying for the Party" is pretty certain that she didn't get into grad school because of her background: Quoting from "Paying for the Party"

 

[Valerie graduated] with a 3.8 GPA, a 1220 on her GRE, great faculty recommendations, applications to to PhD programs in the humanities and minimal debt.  ... she was only accepted to the least prestigious school on her list -- without any funding.

 

It surprised her that she didn't get in, and it surprised her professors, too.

 

"She was competing against Ivy league and elite liberal arts graduates, all with similar GPAs, but with likely better test scores, and more research experience."

 

But that's exactly what I'm talking about — 1220 on the GRE is not a very good score, and she had less research experience and other things to make her stand out. That's like a high school student with a 3.8 GPA, 1220 CR+M SATs, and no stand-out activities, complaining that the reason she didn't get into any elite colleges is because she attended a public high school.

 

It's likely the applicants from Ivies and elite LACs had much higher GRE scores — i.e., the same level of scores that got them into elite undergrad programs to begin with. Plus, I'm pretty sure that even the top Classics PhD programs don't fill their programs entirely with students from Ivies and Top 10 LACs, so there are students getting into those programs from "lesser" undergrad schools.

 

Now, if this particular girl had had the stats and test scores to get into a top school for undergrad, and chose IU instead for financial reasons, then made the most of her time there, took Honors seminars, did research/attended conferences/published papers/etc., achieved 1500+ GRE scores, and still didn't get into any good grad programs, then I think she could say that attending IU made the difference. But it sounds to me like her stats just didn't match the schools she applied to.

[8filltheheart]

 

 

In any case, I still don't see that as a huge support of his assertion. Is it the ONLY way? No. I know there are studies showing high achieving students do well wherever they attend school. But to me that is like rationalizing that my smart kid would have done well in ps or homeschool. It isn't just just the end result I care about, but the journey along the way as well.

However, many state flagships have high enrollment numbers. When a freshman class has 3000+ students (some 7000+ freshman), large numbers of incredibly strong students are going to be found on that campus. When they are there in large numbers, the opportunities for those students do exist. For example, Bama's freshman class's ACT Scores: 30 - 36: 36%/ 24 - 29: 33% /18 - 23: 31%

 

Considering that their freshman class is 6824, that means 2456 students scored 30 or greater on the ACT. (While I am biased against standardized testing, this seems to be the way most schools want to quantify the quality of their students.) That 36% of students is larger than some schools entire entering freshman class. B/c state flagships serve their state, they do meet the needs of avg students. But, it isn't as if the entire university dwells in the land of avg.

 

There are some really bad public universities out there, but that doesn't discredit the rest.

[Pen]

 

So, one of my questions is, where is that line, below which it isn't a good idea to go to a particular department in a particular school, and how do you find that out?

 

 

If a child knows what s/he wants to major in and do in life, talking to people in the field would be a good step.

 

Another question, I think is whether college makes sense if a child does not yet have any idea what s/he wants to do. Yes, it is good for general education and growth and social life--but a very expensive way to get that.

 

At the same time, if baristas and janitors have college degrees it could make it that much harder to get jobs without a college degree.

 

Incidentally, I know someone who started at Starbucks as a barista and rose to upper management levels. It isn't necessarily a dead end job.

 

As well, there are not that many positions for classics majors even from the top classics departments so far as I know.

 

Maybe thinking through what one plans to do in the longer run makes some sense.

 

 

I think part of the difficulty is that there are so many options and so much more knowledge via internet and so on than there used to be.  For example, my godson graduated from university in Poland recently (he is of Polish descent and they still had family there so he would have someone to go to if needed)--this has apparently gotten popular for some American children, and even with foreign travel was less expensive for the family than going to an in state public university in USA would have been. It would not have even been on my radar as a possibility when I was seeking a college myself.

 

And probably the idea of school in Poland was not on the radar of most of you reading this till you just read it.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about — 1220 on the GRE is not a very good score, and she had less research experience and other things to make her stand out. That's like a high school student with a 3.8 GPA, 1220 CR+M SATs, and no stand-out activities, complaining that the reason she didn't get into any elite colleges is because she attended a public high school.

 

 

The complaint isn't so much that she didn't get in, but that her professors actively encouraged her to take this route, and were surprised the plan didn't work, and had no backup plan.  Apparently, she did as much research as possible for undergraduates at that school.  The equivalent metaphor is not that a high school student with a 1220 SAT didn't get into Harvard, it's that a public high school student with this score was convinced by her guidance counselor to only apply to Harvard and Yale, and be shocked when she didn't get in, and have no plan "B".

[EmilyK]

I'm having trouble quoting but I was interested to return to the OP's original question, which is:

 

"So, one of my questions is, where is that line, below which it isn't a good idea to go to a particular department in a particular school, and how do you find that out?"

 

I'm interested in that question too. I guess I'm thinking ahead perhaps more to my second child, but it could apply to either. in our limited amount of college visiting for #1 so far, we went to variety of size of schools. Although this wasn't our bias going in, both my husband and I were struck by the amount of individualized attention and small class sizes at the LACs we visited. Not saying you can't get a good education at mid size or large universities, but the LACs seemed a good fit for our son.

 

But it raised the question of which LACs set you up for future success in job or graduate school placement. I'm sure the elite ones do, but at what point should you be concerned that you are doing what some of those examples above point to?

I'm having trouble quoting but I was interested to return to the OP's original question, which is:

 

"So, one of my questions is, where is that line, below which it isn't a good idea to go to a particular department in a particular school, and how do you find that out?"

 

 

Conventional wisdom for advanced research degrees is that you should only go to a graduate school that accepts you with funding.  This is not for financial reasons, but if you are accepted without funding, it means that the school doesn't really think you have what it takes to succeed there, but is happy to take your money.

 

I wonder if there is a corollary for undergraduates and aid.

[Gwen in VA]

Programs vary widely.

 

DDs went to a highly-ranked LAC to major in X and found his inner passion -- a different major -- during his junior year abroad at Oxford. Since he already had some classes in the new field, he managed to graduate with honors in his new major. However, he didn't get accepted into any top grad programs, even though his college is a top LAC and he graduated with top honors and recognitions in his field. He then discovered that basically the top ten grad programs in his new major draw exclusively from about 20 undergraduate schools. (It's also a ridiculously competitive field -- the acceptance rate at the #1 program was about 3%!) He went to the wrong college for going to grad school in his new major, even though the college is highly-ranked.

 

So you never know.

 

You can't predict or even plan for all of life's eventualities!

 

Ask questions. Consider possibilities. And at the end of the day every decision we make eliminates some future choices and makes other future choices more likely.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Ask questions. Consider possibilities. And at the end of the day every decision we make eliminates some future choices and makes other future choices more likely.

 

With all the talk of keeping doors open, I think this is an important reminder.  One can never truly keep all doors open.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

. His dept is ranked 95th!

 

Newbie question...

 

How do you find department rankings? I hear people talking about this, but I'm not sure how to find these. Also, how do you find what percentage go on to graduate school, etc.

 

I can find overall school rankings, but not by department.

[8filltheheart]

Newbie question...

 

How do you find department rankings? I hear people talking about this, but I'm not sure how to find these. Also, how do you find what percentage go on to graduate school, etc.

 

I can find overall school rankings, but not by department.

 

There are lots of different places you can look. USNWR does rank major depts, BUT they are grad school rankings and not undergrad.  We contacted depts one by one to find out where their students had gone on to grad school.   :)

[Jenny in Florida]

Conventional wisdom for advanced research degrees is that you should only go to a graduate school that accepts you with funding.  This is not for financial reasons, but if you are accepted without funding, it means that the school doesn't really think you have what it takes to succeed there, but is happy to take your money.

 

I wonder if there is a corollary for undergraduates and aid.

 

I've seen the undergraduate version referred to as an "admit-deny." Essentially, the school doesn't want the student badly enough to offer money as an enticement, but is content to have the student on campus if he or she (or the parents) are willing to pay all the bills.

[Pawz4me]

There are lots of different places you can look. USNWR does rank major depts, BUT they are grad school rankings and not undergrad.  We contacted depts one by one to find out where their students had gone on to grad school.   :)

 

USNWR ranks some undergraduate programs, as does Bloomberg Businessweek.  Many times that information will be on the school's website, but we found that a Google search is usually the easiest way to find it.

[creekland]

But it raised the question of which LACs set you up for future success in job or graduate school placement. I'm sure the elite ones do, but at what point should you be concerned that you are doing what some of those examples above point to?

 

To us, it was important to see where recent grads in the desired major have gone.  It isn't a perfect system, but it sure doesn't hurt.  Sometimes this info was on web sites and other times we had to ask for it.  If a college didn't want to provide it, we took that to be a BIG red flag.  Most colleges like bragging about their grads and where they've gone.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

That was the teary-eyed part I mentioned up-thread. ;)

 

I finished the book. I think it started stronger than it finished, but overall it was a quick and breezy worthwhile read.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I do think the title is a bit ironic. Throughout the book the author shows how non-elite colleges have shaped the lives of successful people. Many of these people said it was the non-elite college that made all the difference. So in some respects, where you go is who you'll be.... how can it not affect you?

 

The point is that elite schools aren't the only places producing well-educated, happy, successful people. Other colleges can have a profoundly positive effect as well.

 

In fact, one could almost look at it like this:

 

Where you go is who you'll be. Consider carefully if the debt, competition, stress, and everything else that goes along with the Ivies is who you want to be. ;)

[daijobu]

Another thing to consider is that just because a school offers a particular degree, doesn;t mean that you will be able to go far in that field. My dh talks about schools that offer engineering degrees but are not ABET accredited. Without a degree from an ABET accredited school, you can't even SIT for the PE exam.

 

He knows people who borrowed money to go to school and worked really hard to get an engineering degree from a prestigious school that just wasn't accredited. Then they are stuck as  an EIT forever.  It's sad. It would've helped if they;d talked to a real, licensed engineer before they went to school.

 

I know a fair number of successful engineers--mostly ME's, EE's and CS people--and I was an IE, but I've never heard of an ABET or EIT.  What fields of engineering does this apply to?  What sort of companies require this designation?  

[madteaparty]

That there is a whole book, with pages and words, about this, boggles the mind.

More and more I think we have the problems we can afford to have. So very thankful for that!

[Corraleno]

I know a fair number of successful engineers--mostly ME's, EE's and CS people--and I was an IE, but I've never heard of an ABET or EIT.  What fields of engineering does this apply to?  What sort of companies require this designation?  

 

ABET is an accrediting agency for college engineering programs:

 

ABET is a non-profit and non-governmental accrediting agency for academic programs in the disciplines of applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology. ABET is a recognized accreditor in the United States (U.S.) by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

 

ABET accreditation provides assurance that a college or university program meets the quality standards established by the profession for which the program prepares its students. ABET accredits postsecondary programs housed in degree-granting institutions which have been recognized by national or regional institutional accreditation agencies or national education authorities worldwide.

 

I think an EIT is an Engineer in Training.

[creekland]

I know a fair number of successful engineers--mostly ME's, EE's and CS people--and I was an IE, but I've never heard of an ABET or EIT.  What fields of engineering does this apply to?  What sort of companies require this designation?  

 

I know at least with Civil Engineering you need to pass a test to be an EIT (I believe for four years) before you can take the test for PE (Professional Engineer).  In our state PEs also need continuing education courses to keep their certification.

 

When you're an EIT you need to have a PE sign off on pretty much anything (major) you do.  It's more or less an apprenticeship.

[daijobu]

I know at least with Civil Engineering you need to pass a test to be an EIT (I believe for four years) before you can take the test for PE (Professional Engineer).  In our state PEs also need continuing education courses to keep their certification.

 

 

 

Ah, that explains it.  I don't actually know any civil engineers, lol.

[EmilyGF]

Yes - what you do with what you have is of the utmost importance! So it is much better to see a student from a state school taking every hard class and applying for REUs (are they still called that?) while knowing each professor personally than to see a so-so student at an awesome school who followed the path of least resistance. 

 

However, if you think of universities in "tiers", a 3rd tier university will not generally offer classes at the challenge level necessary to succeed at a 1st tier university for graduate school. There are programs at 2nd tier (and 1st tier) schools that offer 1 year masters programs that offer these students to learn what they missed out on in undergrad.

 

Anecdotally, when our friend transferred into our college after getting his AA at a community college, he was put in as a sophomore and it was a challenge. (He's quite successful now. Just a little bit older than the people he graduated with - he'd taken a gap year, too.)

 

 

So, yes and no.

 

[Bristayl]

Reviving this thread because I just finished the book. I found this quote (on the last page) to be very affirming of our lifestyle as homeschoolers, even though he was not talking about a homeschooler. The quote is addressing another Mom who was trying to reassure her son after he had a great academic disappointment:

 

"Your son has something so much more essential and nourishing and lasting than whatever he’s going to get on whichever campus becomes his home, because that’s only his temporary home. You’ve given him his real home, the one he had before college and the one he’ll have after, and just look at all that it brims with, and consider all that it will bequeath him."