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.
I didn't mean to imply that all faculty outside of a top-10 program is terrible. I really just meant what I said. It's unusual to find good faculty outside of a top-10 program. This generally has to do with the fact that programs that rank near the top also obtain the greatest amount of funding for academic research. That doesn't mean that good faculty doesn't exist outside of a top-10 program. They sure do. Just not common.... and even then, they are mixed with the rest of the faculty at that school.
In many cases, this isn't quite true in a practical sense. In a lot of cases those top faculty who bring in the big research bucks tend to focus primarily on just that -- generating research dollars. Which they then focus on their graduate students. So for a lot of undergrads they never actually benefit from classes taught by the top faculty. They will get better one on one interaction at lower tier schools and get a better education.
And frankly many of the elite schools are not really that much better from the next tier down, except for certain fields and actually may be worse in some fields. Really the advantage of the "ivies" is more about the reputation and connections than academics.
There's plenty of options in that case. A common option is to re-assess credentials and re-apply. Another option is to apply to other schools. There is a gentleman across the street from me who did not get into the undergrad bio program at JHU. He decided to intern at Cleveland Clinic for a year and re-applied. He got in the second time around. He could have easily just applied to Stanford or another school. But he was determined to get into a particular program and he didn't give up.
Should student's who don't go to a top 10 program just not go? It depends on what they are looking for out of a college. If the student wants to go to an "elite school", then he/she should exhaust their options for that before settling for something else.
There are thousands of students who didn't get into Harvard/Yale/etc (or whatever school is top ten in their program) and "settled" on schools like Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt or their state flagship (Michigan, Virginia, etc.) and it's absolutely ridiculous and patently false to claim that they are not getting access to top, or even good, faculty.
My parents did the same thing, many, many years ago. They discouraged me from applying to any of the Ivies because they were scared by the sticker prices. I ended up with acceptances into a couple of tuition-free schools, including a service academy.
I'm glad it worked out for your son, but I've always regretted not applying to at least one or two to at least see what it would have actually cost had I been accepted. My wife attended a USNWR top-3 school for undergrad, and I'm consistently impressed by the opportunities and experiences she had in college, as well as the accomplishments of her peers. I did wind up at an Ivy for grad school, but that made me even more wistful for what could have been.
I didn't discourage him. But based off my income, I knew it was going to cost big $$'s. There are calculators that show what it will cost. It's not a mystery that it would run a couple hundred grand. He did apply to Stanford and got rejected. I know he is glad that he at least applied to one very selective school. He wasn't innovative enough. Truth be told, I didn't think he was going excel as much as he has so I under estimated his potential. After all, the Ivy's are full of brilliant kids.
With that said, I think being the big fish in a small pond helped. He went to one of the three service academies that needed a nomination (there are 5 academies). Those three have programs for the top kids that are awesome and to the next level. That group is taught by the best facility where a Supreme court justices might pop in, authors of books that they read pay them a visit, they get to go on selective scholarships across the world, go to scholar seminars like the Aspen Institute, they do research with industry, go overseas, and the list goes on and on and on. My son has been overseas twice. This summer for a month in China. All while getting paid (endowments pay for everything). They have a dedicated group of people that groom this group and stretch them to their full extent. I just don't think that would have happened at Stanford or Harvard. He would have been a big fish in a big pond. He also gets paid to go to college. For him, it was the right decision.
In many cases, this isn't quite true in a practical sense. In a lot of cases those top faculty who bring in the big research bucks tend to focus primarily on just that -- generating research dollars. Which they then focus on their graduate students. So for a lot of undergrads they never actually benefit from classes taught by the top faculty. They will get better one on one interaction at lower tier schools and get a better education.
And frankly many of the elite schools are not really that much better from the next tier down, except for certain fields and actually may be worse in some fields. Really the advantage of the "ivies" is more about the reputation and connections than academics.
jim
Undergraduate students might not sit in classes with said faculty, but they do spend a lot of time in the research labs with them. The out-of-classroom learning is where most of the learning is at a university. The classroom learning is a small foundational layer.
There are thousands of students who didn't get into Harvard/Yale/etc (or whatever school is top ten in their program) and "settled" on schools like Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt or their state flagship (Michigan, Virginia, etc.) and it's absolutely ridiculous and patently false to claim that they are not getting access to top, or even good, faculty.
All those schools you just mentioned have top 10 programs. Michigan is a great university with many top 10 programs. I never said that good faculty wouldn't be at these schools. Either you're not familiar with the schools you just mentioned, or you failed to comprehend my post.
All those schools you just mentioned have top 10 programs. Michigan is a great university with many top 10 programs. I never said that good faculty wouldn't be at these schools. Either you're not familiar with the schools you just mentioned, or you failed to comprehend my post.
No, what I'm saying is that just because a student does not get into a top 10 program does not mean that they cannot experience top faculty at a program that is not top 10. Get it? There are plenty of business students at Emory who are experiencing excellent faculty even though it may not be a top 10 business school, plenty of engineering students at University of Wisconsin-Madison experiencing excellent faculty even though it may not be a top 10 engineering school, and so on.
I'm sure they're finding their education "worth it"...
Undergraduate students might not sit in classes with said faculty, but they do spend a lot of time in the research labs with them. The out-of-classroom learning is where most of the learning is at a university. The classroom learning is a small foundational layer.
Of course much/most learning takes place outside the class room. But it does not necessarily follow that said learning will take place from the top faculty. I will grant that some undergrad students may get time in the lab with some top faculty, not all students will have that opportunity regardless of program.
Unless of course you are redefining top faculty to mean all those above the bottom 40% instead of the small handful, meaning <5% of all faculty across the country/world, who are the actual tops in their fields. While the Ivies can of course offer the benefits to get those top faculty, and will therefore have more of them, they are so few that most students will never have a conversation with one, much less actual work with them.
The real secret to success for much of the students at the top schools results from two things. The first being the students themselves. The top schools are able to attract high quality students who would be successful regardless of where they went and these top schools have a name recognition and network that opens doors.
I didn't discourage him. But based off my income, I knew it was going to cost big $$'s. There are calculators that show what it will cost. It's not a mystery that it would run a couple hundred grand.
I'm not sure how it works these days, but back then I was under the impression that even the Ivies could be flexible with their financial aid packages. I remember reading financial aid books that claimed that once you had some leverage (like other tuition-free options), schools were willing to sweeten the pot to bring in students that they wanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
With that said, I think being the big fish in a small pond helped. He went to one of the three service academies that needed a nomination (there are 5 academies). Those three have programs for the top kids that are awesome and to the next level. That group is taught by the best facility where a Supreme court justices might pop in, authors of books that they read pay them a visit, they get to go on selective scholarships across the world, go to scholar seminars like the Aspen Institute, they do research with industry, go overseas, and the list goes on and on and on. My son has been overseas twice. This summer for a month in China. All while getting paid (endowments pay for everything). They have a dedicated group of people that groom this group and stretch them to their full extent. I just don't think that would have happened at Stanford or Harvard. He would have been a big fish in a big pond. He also gets paid to go to college. For him, it was the right decision.
It sounds like an incredible experience. There were two of us in my graduating class that received nominations and were offered admission, although for different academies. I declined, but my classmate who went on to the USAFA seemed to really love it, although he ended up cross-commissioning after graduation.
Having worked in this particular field for more years than I care to remember, this thread to me highlights how complex it is. Almost everyone has said something that is "right" while also leaving room for correction or clarification. But really dissecting it all would require a page of text.
One big issue is that almost every college/univ approaches both admissions and financial aid slightly differently. Even just among the Ivies, it's not exactly the same. And I don't say that just to pick on Cornell.
As far as need goes, 125k is pretty significant money from a federal perspective, but for a private school how significant it is will vary. No, by and large COL where you live is not a factor in aid. Though if a private school is looking at home equity, it can filter in a bit. If you're looking at schools on the coasts, geographic diversity (being from KS) probably will help a bit.
My personal advice is, in the admissions process, to cast a moderately wide net. In your case I'd say apply to an Ivy or two, apply to 2-3 well endowed selective privates, apply to a less selective private (provided you still think the academics are adequate) where they have less money overall but he's more likely to be a rock star, and whatever in-state public appeals. At least one of those should be a "safety" school where on paper he's in the top 10-15%.
From there, you're really talking less about the generalities of the system (very high variance) and more about the specifics of how those particular 5-10 coll/univs he's applying to operate.
I didn't mean to imply that all faculty outside of a top-10 program is terrible. I really just meant what I said. It's unusual to find good faculty outside of a top-10 program. This generally has to do with the fact that programs that rank near the top also obtain the greatest amount of funding for academic research. That doesn't mean that good faculty doesn't exist outside of a top-10 program. They sure do. Just not common.... and even then, they are mixed with the rest of the faculty at that school.
Lots of excellent faculty bring in research dollars outside "the Top 10".
From someone who went to Michigan, many excellent researchers (who bring in the grant $) tend to be very poor teachers.
However, getting a letter of recommendation from a Nobel Prize winning faculty will open lots of doors.
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.
