Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, had to go to work for a while. What a bummer; work getting in the way of posting on CD!
Anyway, as I interpret what you're saying, students who go to "open access" colleges (which are almost, but not entirely, CCs) are less likely to graduate. Upthread you stated some reasons for that which have little or nothing to do with the schools, e.g. "money, or proximity to family drama, pregnancies/need to work full time, lack of support systems at the schools (who tend to have very small budgets, so they have less money for certain types of student services),". So this may be a case of correlation not equaling causation, in other words, it's not the school (in many cases), but other factors in the student's life. So it seems that the thread title is a bit of a stretch, if many of the students that don't succeed are those with problems to begin with.
Yes, that's exactly it.
Some students are very smart, but are coming from 1. high schools that aren't the greatest; 2. families that don't have a lot of college savvy, so they can't help their kids navigate the process and in fact might hinder it; 3. a history of drama and strife that have made the student extremely distrustful of others and overly self-reliant, and therefore not likely to reach out for help if needed; and/or finally 4. carriers of a lot of family responsibilities they are reluctant to leave behind. Add any of the above plus money problems, and you can begin to see why such students may not do as well in a school where they are largely left to their own devices. That is not the school's fault. Open access schools are designed to help a lot of remedial type learners and people who take classes at night after work, and often do a great job out it. Not many are set up to help this kind of student. Plus not many are residential (by design) where it is easier to intervene. The ones that are, are often operating with much smaller budgets than selective schools so they don't have a big staff that can spot as many floundering students and pull them in, nor do they have as many programs (honors programs, living/learning communities, sports teams) that might provide the student with a ready made peer group to fall into.
That said, there are some community colleges and lower level 4 years that do a terrific job at this, as well as some selective schools that do a horrendous job. But on average the selective college will have the money and resources to help students at all levels do better than they would have if they were not immersed in college life.
So students who have slightly lower GPAs/SATs might actually do better in the residential school with more resources, as well as high achieving first generation students, low income students, minority students, etc.
Too many people who believe they can just ride on the coat tails of their high school stats for the rest of their lives.
Not really.
If that MIT grad doesn't leverage his degree into medical or dental school or some other automatic high paying gig, and he goes into say, engineering, then yea, he's at not too much of a higher playing field than the rest of us.
What his degree will be good for is catching attention early on, but later in his career, his education will drift towards the bottom of his resume. Nobody is saying it means all THAT much. Well, I'm not at least. I just find it comical that some people think it means absolutely nothing and not only that but it SHOULD mean absolutely nothing.
When it comes down to it, it's a competitive world, and you want every little advantage you can get.
You realize the same thing happened when I made a comment on a thread in the work/employment forum about college GPA, don't you? TONS of posters said that college GPA should mean nothing. One guy went as far as to say when he's looking for employees, he throws resumes in the trash that have a GPA printed on them. These were obviously people who did not fare too well in college.
So, you can play the game that way in every facet of life...
What his degree will be good for is catching attention early on, but later in his career, his education will drift towards the bottom of his resume. Nobody is saying it means all that much. Well, I'm not at least. I just find it comical that some people think it means absolutely nothing and not only that but it SHOULD mean absolutely nothing.
Nobody here, including myself, is saying a degree from MIT means nothing. It is, no doubt, impressive for someone to get in to MIT. The problems enters in when you start *assuming* greatness out of someone based solely on the name of the school they went to...
What do you do about all of those high achieving high school students that decided to go elsewhere for college? These kids are automatically at a disadvantage, even though they might be twice as competent as some elite school graduates. This is an exception to the norm, sure, but you have to consider the possibility of exceptions before making blanket statements - some students WILL be adversely affected by them.
Nobody here, including myself, is saying a degree from MIT means nothing. It is, no doubt, impressive for someone to get in to MIT. The problems enters in when you start *assuming* greatness out of someone based solely on the name of the school they went to...
What do you do about all of those high achieving high school students that decided to go elsewhere for college? These kids are automatically at a disadvantage, even though they might be twice as competent as some elite school graduates. This is an exception to the norm, sure, but you have to consider the possibility of exceptions before making blanket statements - some students WILL be adversely affected by them.
First off, it's not MIT grads and everybody else. Everything is subjective. Local places hire from local schools. University of Michigan is not MIT, but still a highly regarded school. Those students will be fine. Nobody ever said they wouldn't be.
You kind of have a chip on your shoulder. Do you mind me asking where you went?
In any case, if you did well there, you can get your Masters at MIT, and then you won't have to revisit this subject again.
You kind of have a chip on your shoulder. Do you mind me asking where you went?
I'm not sure why you think that, but alright... I received my BS (aero engineering) from Embry-Riddle Prescott, and MS (aero engineering) from USC.
My undergrad school is well-known within aerospace, but it is nowhere near MIT as far as selectivity is concerned. Regardless, I loved it there, and am doing quite well for myself as an engineer.
Some students are very smart, but are coming from 1. high schools that aren't the greatest; 2. families that don't have a lot of college savvy, so they can't help their kids navigate the process and in fact might hinder it; 3. a history of drama and strife that have made the student extremely distrustful of others and overly self-reliant, and therefore not likely to reach out for help if needed; and/or finally 4. carriers of a lot of family responsibilities they are reluctant to leave behind. Add any of the above plus money problems, and you can begin to see why such students may not do as well in a school where they are largely left to their own devices. That is not the school's fault. Open access schools are designed to help a lot of remedial type learners and people who take classes at night after work, and often do a great job out it. Not many are set up to help this kind of student. Plus not many are residential (by design) where it is easier to intervene. The ones that are, are often operating with much smaller budgets than selective schools so they don't have a big staff that can spot as many floundering students and pull them in, nor do they have as many programs (honors programs, living/learning communities, sports teams) that might provide the student with a ready made peer group to fall into.
That said, there are some community colleges and lower level 4 years that do a terrific job at this, as well as some selective schools that do a horrendous job. But on average the selective college will have the money and resources to help students at all levels do better than they would have if they were not immersed in college life.
So students who have slightly lower GPAs/SATs might actually do better in the residential school with more resources, as well as high achieving first generation students, low income students, minority students, etc.
These are many of the reasons I mentioned earlier; but, how do we know if these students would have performed better at more selective schools when so many are choosing open access schools? There have to be reasons for why these students are choosing open access schools: more guidance during the admissions process, closer to home, flexible class schedules, sometimes cheaper tuition rates, sometimes free childcare, etc. What if the student really needs to be close to home and work in order to take care of family members? I would like to think that most people aren't so cruel as to leave a sick or disabled family member on his or her own or leave younger siblings to fend for themselves just so that they can attend a selective college.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
