Biggest stressor in 8th grade girls.....

[8filltheheart]

We wilI just have to agree to disagree.  My view is different from the majority of the posters in this thread. First, I do not believe only a handful of colleges prepare students for great careers. (It has not been our experience as adults or our experience with our adult children.)  Targeting certain schools for college when our kids are in middle school is absolutely not an approach I would ever even consider.   Second, you have to able to afford whatever school your child attends.  For a large number of families, cost is the biggest determining factor for attendance. Top competitive schools do not offer any or only a handful of merit scholarships.  The largest awards come from lower ranked schools.  So if your family makes too much $$ for institutional grants (need-based aid is all many top schools offer) and not enough $$ to pay your expected parental contribution, that may eliminate a large number of schools, regardless of how qualified an applicant your child is.  (We live there, so for our kids that is simple reality.)

 

Second, our experience with our children is that if a student is not naturally internally motivated, and both strong and advanced academically, we would not even want them to consider an extremely competitive college.  Academically, it would not be a good fit.  Top competitive schools are not always a good.  There are strong students who arrive on those campuses only to decide that they aren't as strong of students as they thought they were and they change their majors b/c they don't think they are qualified for their original goals.  On a less competitive campus, they may have been the top student and may  have had incredible opportunities which encouraged them forward to that goal.  (I don't know what our son's experience would have been at a competitive school b/c we couldn't afford them.  But at the state flagship where he is attending, he is constantly encouraged and supported in his goals.  He has research opportunities, great faculty mentors, and has a program allowing him to pursue his masters degree as an undergrad.  He recently applied to 6 extremely competitive REUs (research experiences for undergrads, typically for about 5-10 positions there are hundreds of applicants) and has received 3 offers so far.  He has not yet  heard back from the other 3.  Getting 1 offer is great. Getting 3 is phenomenal.  His state flagship experience has not at all hindered him in his goals.  Not that he had any other option b/c free vs. $160,000-$200,000 for UG was not even a question in our household, but based on some worldviews, he was doomed before he even started.)

 

For our kids who do fit that competitive criteria, they arrive at that level simply moving at their natural pace.  Nothing has had to be planned from 5th or 6th grade in order for them to achieve that advanced standing.   (FWIW, if that were the case, our current college student would have been completely unqualified for a competitive school, considering that he didn't read on grade level until the end of 4th/beginning of 5th.  But, by graduation he was a top competitive student b/c that is where he naturally landed, not b/c he was being driven toward a specific goal.)

 

But, that all brings me back to my original point in posting the article.  I am so incredibly thankful for the ability to homeschool our children.  We can follow our own path and not have to caught up by anyone else's goals or objectives.  We are not dictated what we have to study and when.  Our kids can simply be who they are and the path they forge is completely their own.  And 8th grade is simply a time of being a young teen with the world wide open and no stress about deciding their future.  I am so glad that we can offer that to our children.  

Edited March 4, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[Mrs Twain]

For many majors such as engineering, it doesn't matter which college a student attends because the end result will be roughly equivalent. For some majors and professions, though, attending top schools makes a significant difference.

 

The other point is that some kids belong in a magnet school like Jefferson. Why hold them back? To get into Jefferson, kids are planning out their math courses at least by 4th or 5th grade, and many are taking SAT prep courses starting in 5th. That is the way to get in, and kids who don't do those things generally can't compete in the admission process.

 

8, I don't think you should make a blanket statement encouraging parents to completely disregard early planning. We should consider each child individually and the pathway that is suitable for him or her.

[8filltheheart]

For many majors such as engineering, it doesn't matter which college a student attends because the end result will be roughly equivalent. For some majors and professions, though, attending top schools makes a significant difference.

 

The other point is that some kids belong in a magnet school like Jefferson. Why hold them back? To get into Jefferson, kids are planning out their math courses at least by 4th or 5th grade, and many are taking SAT prep courses starting in 5th. That is the way to get in, and kids who don't do those things generally can't compete in the admission process.

 

8, I don't think you should make a blanket statement encouraging parents to completely disregard early planning. We should consider each child individually and the pathway that is suitable for him or her.

 

I'm not making a blanket statement.  I am stating our experiences which include homeschooling through to high school graduation.  If you have kids who want to attend high school, that is a different scenario.  Taking high school classes before high school can cause problems for some high schools b/c they won't give students credit for them if they were completed at home. High schools tend to be more difficult to deal with than colleges.    High schools are rigid controllers of course sequences and who is allowed to take what when. Classes progress at the school's pace.  We do not face those types of constraints.

 

FWIW, I wouldn't put a child in Jefferson b/c that is contradictory to the academic atmosphere we want our kids to be in during high school.  That is my point.  Kids do not have to be in a pressure cooker competitive atmosphere to achieve an equivalent academic outcome.   My kids can be kids and do their own thing and still graduate with diffEQ, multivariable, linear alg, etc without having to conform to any pre-determined path.  They do it b/c it is who they are, absolutely not b/c we planned on it in 4th grade.  (Goodness, in 4th grade ds was completing Horizons 5 and that was all.)  I certainly am not advocating holding kids back.  The exact opposite is true.  It is letting kids progress at their own natural ability.  By 8th grade, 4 yrs later, the kid who was in Horizons 5th in 4th grade had completed alg 1 (twice with different texts), geometry, alg 2, counting and probability, and AoPS intermediate.)  But that was bc that is who he is and what he did, not b/c he needed to meet Jefferson's criteria for admissions.

 

If other parents feel the need to engage in early planning and focus on elite schools, nothing I am sharing is hindering or altering their ability to do so.  However, if parents do not want to but are feeling like somehow their children's futures are at stake b/c little Johnny or Suzy doesn't have their life planned out a 13 and that they are not going to take 14 APs by their sr yr, I am simply sharing that they don't have to.  To each their own.  

 

No way would I jump on the roller coaster ride that believes the hype that elites are the only path to success.  My sharing that POV is no different than your posting that you think planning from 5th grade is vital.  We just happen to disagree. 

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[Arcadia]

 

 However, if parents do not want to but are feeling like somehow their children's futures are at stake b/c little Johnny or Suzy doesn't have their life planned out a 13 and that they are not going to take 14 APs by their sr yr, I am simply sharing that they don't have to.  To each their own.  

 

I agree with you but human nature is such that it is hard for some parents to stop/reduce the paper pushing.   

 

Hubby and I sat in on a parent talk by a nation wide tutoring center to pass the time while our kids were having fun in free drama classes in the same compound.  

 

The speaker said that for college admission and success in college, STEM is over hyped in the media and what is essential is that the high school student has strong mastery of their communication skills in both verbal and written.  He also said to focus on encouraging reading at the younger ages even if the child is willing to read only graphic novels. He said the new SAT is reading heavy and ACT Science is reading comprehension heavy rather than science facts.

 

He does college guidance as part of his job and he also said that beyond a certain number of exams, it is just overkill for the college app. The company does college counselling as well as test prep and general tutoring. 

 

While I do know friend's kids who read and write well and are in public school all the way from kindergarten,  I wonder how many are disadvantaged by the unequal public school education :(

[daijobu]

 

Second, our experience with our children is that if a student is not naturally internally motivated, and both strong and advanced academically, we would not even want them to consider an extremely competitive college.  Academically, it would not be a good fit.  Top competitive schools are not always a good.  There are strong students who arrive on those campuses only to decide that they aren't as strong of students as they thought they were and they change their majors b/c they don't think they are qualified for their original goals.  On a less competitive campus, they may have been the top student and may  have had incredible opportunities which encouraged them forward to that goal.  (I don't know what our son's experience would have been at a competitive school b/c we couldn't afford them.  But at the state flagship where he is attending, he is constantly encouraged and supported in his goals.  He has research opportunities, great faculty mentors, and has a program allowing him to pursue his masters degree as an undergrad.  

 

I will speak to this, since I attended a top competitive name college.  I was constantly in the company of incredibly accomplished students, quite brilliant and amazing.  On the one hand, it's hard to hold one's head high in the face of such of an environment, but at the same time it is inspiring.  I grew by following the examples of my peers.  But I didn't receive any special attention from my professors or anyone really because I was not a shining star among all these amazing students.  I was mediocre compared to them.  (I was admitted because my family resided in an underrepresented state in the midwest.  I call it "the other affirmative action."  I never would have been admitted from a more urbane location, though I wonder if I would have been a more competitive candidate?)

 

OTOH, upon graduation I have found that our colleagues have gone on to extremely successful careers; many of them have founded companies you have heard of.  These contacts are invaluable to my dh in particular.  He often attends meetings where he meets up with someone he TA'd for or had a class with, or lived with, and now they do important work in his field.   

 

So, yes an uber-competitive college is not for everyone, but it does have advantages, too.  Reading 8's description of her son's college made me wistful.  What if I had been a big fish in a small pond?  What if I had received recognition and encouragement from my professors?  

[Carol in Cal.]

We wilI just have to agree to disagree.  My view is different from the majority of the posters in this thread. First, I do not believe only a handful of colleges prepare students for great careers.

 

Nobody has said this--it's a straw man.  Please, give us the credit for having some experience, some knowledge, and a far more nuanced view than this.

 

Second, our experience with our children is that if a student is not naturally internally motivated, and both strong and advanced academically, we would not even want them to consider an extremely competitive college.  Academically, it would not be a good fit.  Top competitive schools are not always a good.  There are strong students who arrive on those campuses only to decide that they aren't as strong of students as they thought they were and they change their majors b/c they don't think they are qualified for their original goals.  On a less competitive campus, they may have been the top student and may  have had incredible opportunities which encouraged them forward to that goal.  (I don't know what our son's experience would have been at a competitive school b/c we couldn't afford them.  But at the state flagship where he is attending, he is constantly encouraged and supported in his goals.  He has research opportunities, great faculty mentors, and has a program allowing him to pursue his masters degree as an undergrad.  He recently applied to 6 extremely competitive REUs (research experiences for undergrads, typically for about 5-10 positions there are hundreds of applicants) and has received 3 offers so far.  He has not yet  heard back from the other 3.  Getting 1 offer is great. Getting 3 is phenomenal.  His state flagship experience has not at all hindered him in his goals.  Not that he had any other option b/c free vs. $160,000-$200,000 for UG was not even a question in our household, but based on some worldviews, he was doomed before he even started.)

 

I agree with the above paragraph, but would like to note that 'state flagships', though economically far less expensive than tony private universities, are among the top programs in many fields.  For instance, in my major (chemical engineering), the majority of the top 10 programs in the nation are at flagship state schools. 

 

For our kids who do fit that competitive criteria, they arrive at that level simply moving at their natural pace.  Nothing has had to be planned from 5th or 6th grade in order for them to achieve that advanced standing.   (FWIW, if that were the case, our current college student would have been completely unqualified for a competitive school, considering that he didn't read on grade level until the end of 4th/beginning of 5th.  But, by graduation he was a top competitive student b/c that is where he naturally landed, not b/c he was being driven toward a specific goal.)

 

But, that all brings me back to my original point in posting the article.  I am so incredibly thankful for the ability to homeschool our children.  We can follow our own path and not have to caught up by anyone else's goals or objectives.  We are not dictated what we have to study and when.  Our kids can simply be who they are and the path they forge is completely their own.  And 8th grade is simply a time of being a young teen with the world wide open and no stress about deciding their future.  I am so glad that we can offer that to our children.  

I entirely agree that it's rough on kids to be benchmarked timewise rather than taught at their own pace.  It's deplorable that some paths require this kind of pressure.  That is just not good for anyone.  And it should rightly be questioned and changed in our society.

 

But the fact is that if kids don't converge on having their requirements meant and excellence/superiority demonstrated by the time they apply for college, some opportunities will be closed to them.  Saying that that is OK is one thing.  But drifting along without facing that is quite another. I think that that is what is being questioned in this thread--the fact that some posts sound like they are counseling people just not to concern themselves with those lost opportunities because they are insignificant or even nonexistent.  That's dangerous advice because it is misleading.

 

We are blessed to be in the US where second chances are more prevalent than in most places, but they don't extend infinitely.

[8filltheheart]

I'm not referring to public flagships that are extremely competitive.  I also do not agree that not attending one of those competitive schools means that in general opportunities are lost.  Some, probably.  But definitely not most.  I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.  It is just my opinion.  But, it is not an illogical one. Attending a lower ranked school, say one ranked in the top 150 vs. the top 20, leaves the majority of career paths open.

 

For example, where did the CEOs for the top 10 Fortune 500 companies earn their bachelors?  There are a lot of  state flagships for bachelors degrees.

http://www.businessinsider.com/where-fortune-500-ceos-went-to-college-2015-3

 

 

1. Doug McMillon (Wal-Mart Stores) — University of Arkansas (BS) ranked 129, University of Tulsa (MBA)
2. Rex Tillerson (Exxon Mobil) — University of Texas at Austin (BS) ranked 52
3. John S. Watson (Chevron) — University of California, Davis (BA), ranked 41 University of Chicago (MBA)
4. Warren E. Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway) — University of Nebraska (BS),ranked 103 Columbia University (MS)
5. Tim Cook (Apple) — Auburn University (BS), ranked 102 Duke University (MBA)
6. Greg C. Garland (Phillips 66) — Texas A&M University (BS) ranked 70
7. Mary Barra (General Motors) — General Motors Institute/Kettering University (BS),regional ranking , not national 23 Stanford University (MBA)
8. Mark Fields (Ford Motor) — Rutgers University (BA), ranked 72 Harvard University (MBA)
9. Jeff Immelt (General Electric) — Dartmouth College (BA),ranked 12 Harvard University (MBA)
10. Joe Gorder (Valero Energy) — University of Missouri-St. Louis (BA), ranked not published Our Lady of the Lake University (MBA)

 

The path can be made from a bachelors at a lower ranked school to a top grad school.  One of the kids from ds's very small physics dept is at Stanford.  

 

The Goldwater scholarship is one of the most prestigious UG award given to STEM students. In 2015, 152 of 260 awards went to public university students.  

http://publicuniversityhonors.com/2015/04/21/goldwater-scholars-2015-alabama-clemson-maryland-umass-minnesota-and-rutgers-lead-the-way/

In 2014, only three public universities had four Goldwater Scholars, the maximum number any school can have in a year. But in 2015, six public universities had the maximum: Alabama, Clemson, Maryland, Massachusetts Amherst, Minnesota, and Rutgers. An additional ten public universities had three scholars: Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, University at Buffalo, UT Dallas, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, and Montana State.

 

 

The US has lots of great universities.

[daijobu]

 

 

The US has lots of great universities.

 

I think this speaks to the strength of our PhD programs.  The US churns out many, many excellent academics doing great research, but there aren't very many spots available for full time tenured faculty at the tippy top universities.  So you'll have highly trained researchers taking jobs at colleges without a big name.  

 

This may represent a great opportunity for students at lower ranked schools to have access to top faculty who could not get a tenured position at a name school, simply because the timing wasn't right.  If you are a competitive candidate (big fish) at a less selective college, you'll not only enjoy greater recognition, but faculty of a quality equivalent to that of name schools.  

 

But that's just my speculation.  

[8filltheheart]

There may be something to that. The UG advisor who sold my ds on the opportunities in his dept completed his UG and post grad work at MIT.