That's one monster thread with a lot of interesting perspectives! I would imagine that most of the parents here know their viewpoints on the various issues and are unlikely to change them.
I read the McClean article and couldn't find any common ground with the derided trends, probably because my younger kids are only in 5th grade at this point. In our house, the kids are underscheduled (at their demand) and homework is completed whle waiting in the car pick-up lane and straight A+ are automatic without studying. That could all change by high school or even middle school. We'll see.
Actually, my thought today has more to do with the end-goal of the "parenting arms race". I graduated from an Ivy and DH from an Ivy equivalent a couple of decades ago. Notwithstanding these legacy advantages, I doubt that my children will end up at an Ivy (or equivalent) based on the perhaps even crazier competition in seven years. For a number of reasons, I am not even sure that I would nudge them toward our alma maters. However, I have one fifth-grader who has started asking about elite colleges and SAT scores, etc. None of this came from his parents. When I gave him the SAT math sections a year ago to gauge that he was around 600 with pre-algebra, I purposely hid that it was the SAT as well as his score. I have also decided against registering him for the SAT so far notwithstanding that I think he should be at that 700 mark by now having completed algebra (SET was the original reason for gauging/considering SAT at this young age). For some reason, DS' algebra teacher had some discussions regarding colleges with him and has been giving him a few SAT problems each week. I don't know if anyone else brought up the issue with him. Anyhow, I am getting the vibes from DS that he would like to attend one of those top tier colleges. This is the same child who has been asking about career options and making big money - it almost makes me feel inadequate somehow (LOL) because money has never been the focus in our household.
How would you respond if your child indicates a desire to attend a top-tier college? Would you encourage him? Would you bring him down to earth given the level of competition?
How would you respond if your child indicates a desire to attend a top-tier college? Would you encourage him? Would you bring him down to earth given the level of competition?
Our family rule is that you go where they will give you money to go for undergrad.
So, desire is irrelevant to the question, since it's one of cost.
75% off of Duke might be close enough, I suppose, but the target is "full ride merit scholarship".
As to your questions.... yes. To both. Yes, encourage. BUT... not at the expense of closing other doors, or tying identity to those particular hopes.
It sounds to me as though you have a very realistic view of things-- I'd just pass that along.
My DD ultimately opted
out of pursuing an elite college-- even though I think her odds of entry were pretty darned GOOD, actually-- because she recognized on some level that she'd feel quite out of step with a campus full of "strivers" who view the world through that kind of competitive lens. It's not who
she is.
I think that most of our kids will know by high school whether or not such a thing would suit them well.
Given the odds and the crazy associated, though, you're right to think about "what if it doesn't happen, though..." which is where applying to TEN schools comes into things.
The young man who has been featured in the news media this week for having attained acceptances at all 8 Ivies? Yeah-- he applied
also to UNC, Duke, etc. About fifteen schools in all. So he clearly wasn't thinking "It
must be Harvard or I shall perish."
The odds of getting into
an Ivy haven't moved
all that much in the past decade or two. The odds of getting into THAT particular Ivy (any particular one, incidentally) have, however.
Common App just means that they get a lot more applicants.
If it comes up, I plan to approach it better than my parents (with no college education) did.
Competitiveness would only be in the conversation as a part of having a set of tiered choices that still led to the desired outcome. I would paint acceptance more as fickle than difficult. I'd include money, budgeting, financial aid, etc. as well as the general college experience (small vs. large schools.)
But still have some time before this comes up for us.
Jonlaw, I love your attitude!
DS will likely do the cost calculations himself and then ask me for the difference to invest . . . unless he somehow decides that he must go to a particular school.
My DS13 has been thinking and discussing about this for a few years now. At first it was Harvard. Then it evolved into Harvard or similar quality. These days a new possibility emerged in his head which is state flagship for undergrad. and Ivy for grad school. I tell him a couple of things: 1) as long as you are motivated and have goals and a plan to reach the goals, you will be fine anywhere (I honestly think the state flagship is his safety). and 2) there is unpredictability in college admissions. Be sure to be proud if you are a strong candidate, and don't mind it if they happen to not choose you.
HowlerKarma, you are right that the kids will have a much better sense of what they actually want by high school. One of the problem though is that it is hard to gauge the atmosphere of a particular campus unless you spent time there. Part of it is guilt on my part - I know how great these (at least mine) schools can be. I found so many people to whom I could relate and actually felt like I really belong in college.
Hmm, that's an interesting point about getting into an Ivy versus the Ivy. I haven't even looked into the Common App issue but to me the Ivies are not interchangeable as they have different characteristics (at least they did a couple of decades ago).
That was what I was missing - I was actually crazy enough not to have applied to any safety schools! In my defence, in those days there would have still been time to apply to the in-state universities after the letters arrive.
Yes, they do-- but something else to bear in mind (and I say this as an Academic)-- everyone thinks that their alma mater is "one of the great ones."
It's a peculiar kind of bias, that-- and it's not limited to Ivy alums. The fact of the matter seems to be that any college can be a "great" educational experience for almost any student-- given that the student has the proper mindset and approach.
People simply worry far more about this than they should, IMO. How many people do you know IRL that bemoan their choice of institutions? Not many, right?
I guess that "unpredictability" has always been there but somehow it seem worse now with such an over-abundance of qualified candidates.
HowlerKarma, you are right that the kids will have a much better sense of what they actually want by high school. One of the problem though is that it is hard to gauge the atmosphere of a particular campus unless you spent time there. Part of it is guilt on my part - I know how great these (at least mine) schools can be. I found so many people to whom I could relate and actually felt like I really belong in college.
I didn't have the faintest idea what I wanted in a college, or why I was going. I looked at it as "Grade 13".
As far as I could tell, I wasn't going to feel like I belonged in any of the colleges.
I was waaaaay to socially immature to deal with college.
And I will say that college made my immaturity worse and not better, since I was less socialized when I was finished. That really didn't help with law school.
Fortunately, it was free....
I see what you mean, but for me, it wasn't that I thought my alma mater was "one of the great ones," it was just that it fit. I didn't get the same feel with either of my graduate level institutions., although perhaps there is that difference between undergraduate and graduate.
Fortunately, it was free....
There you have it!
I see what you mean, but for me, it wasn't that I thought my alma mater was "one of the great ones," it was just that it fit. I didn't get the same feel with either of my graduate level institutions., although perhaps there is that difference between undergraduate and graduate.
What I probably needed was another year or two to grow up more than anything else.
DD9 has expressed her desire to attend a college nearby so she can continue to live at home, since she's a member of the generation that inexplicably likes its parents. So at the moment, that's not an issue.
DD is naturally competitive, is responsive to extrinsic rewards, and is perfectionist to boot, so she'd be a wonderful tiger cub, as she already has the claws and fangs, and she just needs to earn her stripes. But since we're [insert the opposite of tiger here, what is that? bear? antelope? meercat?] parents, we've been spending a lot of time helping her file down those claws and fangs. Among the dulling exercises, we deliberately cut back on her schedule if she's getting overloaded, we aggressively schedule her some down/play time, we emphasize mistakes as a valuable part of learning, and we pay her for earning Bs.
At age 5 she became fascinated with Olympic gymnastics, and we discouraged her from pursuing that by pointing out all the hours of training that requires, and all the things in her life that would displace. Once she knew the opportunity costs, she decided she was unwilling to pay. The same argument will still play when it comes time to pursuing an elite college. She can remain an emotionally stable human being who makes connections with other human beings while earning some B's in high school, or she can strive for valedictorian.
And then she'll probably qualify for an Ivy anyway.
I try really hard to make sure that DS fully enjoy his childhood without pressures or inappropriate expectations, partly in the hope that he will be ready to be a grown-up by college. By the way, not that I am implying that was your problem.
I try really hard to make sure that DS fully enjoy his childhood without pressures or inappropriate expectations, partly in the hope that he will be ready to be a grown-up by college. By the way, not that I am implying that was your problem.
Well, I also had effective total control over my school environment since my father was the school superintendent.
College didn't have that....
Once she knew the opportunity costs, she decided she was unwilling to pay. The same argument will still play when it comes time to pursuing an elite college. She can remain an emotionally stable human being who makes connections with other human beings while earning some B's in high school, or she can strive for valedictorian.
PRECISELY.
#1 is important to my DD-- no idea if she'll get there or not (it's possible), but an Ivy ultimately was not.
She's eying possible national (maybe Olympic) competition in another area, and has made some choices about college appropriately... but that meant either MIT or {where she's chosen, which is a "best buy" but FAR from elite}.
I like that visual - claws and fangs! For some reason, DS is not particularly competitive, at least with his classmates but that can change.
It's also kind of weird how clearly DS understands statistics from an early age. He undestands that even 99.9 percentile is ultimately a dime a dozen when there are millions of people. He is the one who pointed out to me that you can hit perfect scores on all the AMCs and be a long way from gaining one of the few slots on the USAMO team.
I try really hard to make sure that DS fully enjoy his childhood without pressures or inappropriate expectations, partly in the hope that he will be ready to be a grown-up by college. By the way, not that I am implying that was your problem.
I'm hoping to reach an emotional age of 20 by the time my kids are in college. I figure I'm about 17 or 18 now.
As to your questions.... yes. To both. Yes, encourage. BUT... not at the expense of closing other doors, or tying identity to those particular hopes.
This.
I know quite a number of young adults who currently attend Ivy's and top tier schools. These schools are not impossible to get into especially for a gifted student but it does mean taking the most rigorous classes (typically lots of AP's) and getting top grades, and having interesting extracurriculars. If this desire is coming from him, then he will be motivated to jump through all the hoops.
In my case my husband went to top tier/ivy schools but I have no illusion that my DS15 will manage get accepted at either university despite the legacy. My son is not motivated and it shows in his grades. We have been discussing what grades he needs to attend top public research universities. I am assuming that he will do well on the SAT, and it looks like he will mostly likely be interested in math/computers/engineering or science at university.
HowlerKarma, you are right that the kids will have a much better sense of what they actually want by high school. One of the problem though is that it is hard to gauge the atmosphere of a particular campus unless you spent time there. Part of it is guilt on my part - I know how great these (at least mine) schools can be. I found so many people to whom I could relate and actually felt like I really belong in college.
Hmm, that's an interesting point about getting into an Ivy versus the Ivy. I haven't even looked into the Common App issue but to me the Ivies are not interchangeable as they have different characteristics (at least they did a couple of decades ago).
Yes fit is an important part of the college selection. And it why it's good to give a kid a sense of perspective and that there are many excellent options out there. And for a parent to encourage their student to explore multiple options. But I've seen the desire to attend a top school really motivate a younger student. Even if they don't make it to their dream school or change their mind along the way that desire can open doors for them in the long run.
DD9 has expressed her desire to attend a college nearby so she can continue to live at home, since she's a member of the generation that inexplicably likes its parents. So at the moment, that's not an issue.
Interesting, I was not aware of this trend with the generation (or are you joshing?), although I've had just about the same conversation with ds13.
DD9 has expressed her desire to attend a college nearby so she can continue to live at home, since she's a member of the generation that inexplicably likes its parents. So at the moment, that's not an issue.
Interesting, I was not aware of this trend with the generation (or are you joshing?), although I've had just about the same conversation with ds13.
Not joshing. There's data about generation Y, and I expect the trend to continue, given what I'm seeing generally among parents of younger children.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/03/15/the-boomerang-generation/Among the three-in-ten young adults ages 25 to 34 (29%) who’ve been in that situation during the rough economy of recent years, large majorities say they’re satisfied with their living arrangements (78%)
Not joshing. There's data about generation Y, and I expect the trend to continue, given what I'm seeing generally among parents of younger children.
That's because there's no generation gap in the sense of different cultural ideas, since everything is post-1960's.
That was what I was missing - I was actually crazy enough not to have applied to any safety schools! In my defence, in those days there would have still been time to apply to the in-state universities after the letters arrive.
I only applied to one school; no defense, just the wondrous youthful mixed air of arrogance and ignorance.
Of the top four kids in DD's graduating class-- and the top four in last year's?
I think they applied to a grand total of eight schools-- between them, I mean.
I don't know of a single one that applied to more than three.
I like that visual - claws and fangs! For some reason, DS is not particularly competitive, at least with his classmates but that can change.
It's also kind of weird how clearly DS understands statistics from an early age. He undestands that even 99.9 percentile is ultimately a dime a dozen when there are millions of people. He is the one who pointed out to me that you can hit perfect scores on all the AMCs and be a long way from gaining one of the few slots on the USAMO team.
That is what often scares me. Ds7 is about 1 in 18,000. We only have 4.5 million in this country.
I like that visual - claws and fangs! For some reason, DS is not particularly competitive, at least with his classmates but that can change.
It's also kind of weird how clearly DS understands statistics from an early age. He undestands that even 99.9 percentile is ultimately a dime a dozen when there are millions of people. He is the one who pointed out to me that you can hit perfect scores on all the AMCs and be a long way from gaining one of the few slots on the USAMO team.
That is what often scares me. Ds7 is about 1 in 18,000. We only have 4.5 million in this country.
And there are only *500* Fortune 500 companies!
That means *only* 500 CEO's!
So, the competition will become fiercer and more brutal as you move through the system!
LOL. Assuming that they haven't devoured one another in hand-to-hand combat by the time you get there, of course, which COULD mean that only the top 250 of the Fortune 500 even survive to be toppled.
Just trying to look on the bright side.
I don't see him heading that way. He is not very people oriented. Ds4 maybe and he has a more optimal IQ.
It is more the potential of finding a group of HG+ people in a small city in a small country. Small has heaps of benefits though and we have no Ivy League system and only a few courses are heavily contested (most of those have more or less free entry into the first year then take only the top x number into second year).
That's because there's no generation gap in the sense of different cultural ideas, since everything is post-1960's.
I suspect it has more to do with changes in our ideas about parenting. People have warmer relationships with their children than they did a few generations ago. Less yelling, more playing. And more sheer time spent with the kids. It's easy to dump on this as overprotectiveness, but it also signals that you just like having your kids around.
That's because there's no generation gap in the sense of different cultural ideas, since everything is post-1960's.
I suspect it has more to do with changes in our ideas about parenting. People have warmer relationships with their children than they did a few generations ago. Less yelling, more playing. And more sheer time spent with the kids. It's easy to dump on this as overprotectiveness, but it also signals that you just like having your kids around.
There also aren't groups of kids wandering around the neighborhoods.
There also aren't groups of kids wandering around the neighborhoods.
I've seen that musical.
... everyone thinks that their alma mater is "one of the great ones."
It's a peculiar kind of bias, that-- and it's not limited to Ivy alums. The fact of the matter seems to be that any college can be a "great" educational experience for almost any student-- given that the student has the proper mindset and approach.
This sounds like the power of a self-fulfilling prophecy? People looking for a positive experience, find a positive experience. There may be a down-side too: People looking to be victims, can unfortunately find that experience as well. There is good and bad in everything. With flexibility, resilience, grit, and a sense of humor, people can find joy and wisdom in their experiences.
Our family rule is that you go where they will give you money to go for undergrad.
So, desire is irrelevant to the question, since it's one of cost.
In light of the psychological inclination to be pleased with one's alma mater, this makes great sense. For many families, this also does not preclude applying to the Ivies.
[quote=HowlerKarma]... everyone thinks that their alma mater is "one of the great ones."
Um, no.
Granted, I think I have college PTSD. At this point, I'm tired of having recurrent nightmares about it.
Good to know.
I think my kids have the academic wherewithal but perhaps not the special skills/extracurriculars and "leadership." That's kind of sad, but that's how it looks to me, though DS may be more up that alley than DD. There is probably a good chance they'd get into my or DH's alma maters (SLACs--not Ivys, but top 20) due to the legacy advantage.
With DD, I'm concerned about getting her through school with mental health intact. That will be primary. She is on track for a very competitive high school experience. I'm not sure how it's going to go.
DS is more mentally centered, but interestingly, has more perfectionism issues at this time, which will be a real problem if they continue. This may be because he is totally underchallenged, whereas DD is getting at least some stretch. The perfectionism is one reason to keep him very active in chess, where he is surrounded by other very bright children and needs must lose from time to time.
DS7 didn't warm to the notion that going to college normally includes living away from home. Based on that knowledge, he is currently only interested in ones we will live near so he can live with us. I'm guessing that will change.
Between DH, myself and our siblings, we have a nice mixture of colleges (large public universities with some highly-regarded programs, schools like Duke, Notre Dame, private northeastern non-Ivies (very competitive)).
He's started to ask about Duke and I've explained that many people want to go there, so not only does one needs excellent grades but also other activities. I'm not pushing past that at this point.
Based on my own experiences in conducting admissions interviews (for a top-ranked MBA program) and in conducting intern interviews for a major corporation, my goal is for my children to stand out as logical, personable, smart (!) and well-rounded individuals. The kind of people who can start their own businesses and keep them running or be welcome additions to any company. Critical thinkers who have compassion for others. What I hope they aren't is the kind of candidate who has no good answers for why they did something, what they learned from it or what they care about most deeply.
Between now and college time, I harbor some fantasy that the current "parenting arms race" will burn itself out.
I harbored that fantasy as well. Right alongside the "but I'm above all of that so I won't let it get to me" fantasy.
Well, it didn't, and while I didn't actually much succumb to the voices whispering in my head, they were certainly THERE, telling me things that I never thought I'd find myself thinking.
I know many of you have good reasons for ruling this out, and that I've said it before, but for anyone who hasn't heard it: remember that the extra-curricular war is purely American. To a first approximation, the rest of the world thinks it weird, and is only interested in how well equipped the student is for the course.
I had an American potential student in my office the other week; he had an offer from [one of the top 6 US colleges], from us and from several other places round Europe. He was visiting his shortlist to decide where to go. Sensible lad. (Lucky, too, to have the funds to make such a tour, of course - but the cost is peanuts compared to a US college education.)
Doesn't have to be the UK, either; more and more European universities teach courses in English.
The QS rankings for subjects of interest are one good place to start:
http://www.topuniversities.com/subject-rankings/2014
I disagree. The extracurricular war in American is minor compared to the schedule of many Chinese students.
And they hire consultants to get their kids in top global schools and plan around the strategy early.
I think Europe is not attuned that way, just like Canada. They don't have that for Canadian schools. You are a top student you can get into U of Toronto, which is on the list of top 20 in the world. Or U of Britsh Columbia, which is next.
Or many non Canadians choose McGill because it has name recognition but not the ranking. So an American can get in without the extracurriculars, pay less tuition and live in Montreal.
I disagree. The extracurricular war in American is minor compared to the schedule of many Chinese students.
And they hire consultants to get their kids in top global schools and plan around the strategy early.
Really? I thought university admission in China was all about the Gaokao. Evidently I'm not alone in that belief:
http://chineseculture.about.com/od/historyofchina/fl/The-Gaokao.htmWikipedia is confused and controversial, but there's no suggestion that extra-curriculars matter at all, let alone to the same extent they do in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Higher_Education_Entrance_ExaminationWhere's your information from?
We were talking about admissions to US schools, I thought.
Are you saying that the Chinese kids applying to US schools don't have anything but grades?
I wasn't talking about admissions to US schools. My post that you were replying to was specifically talking about admissions to non-US universities. I thought the rest of your reply, concerning Canada, made it clear that you understood that, hence my confusion! But I see now that you had read my "American" as pertaining to US citizens, where I meant it to pertain to US universities.
It's hardly news that foreigners who apply to universities that admit on the basis of extra-curricular activities also have to care about extra-curricular activities, is it?
But that was the point. The extracurricular race was a result of the Chinese thing. Or the fact that 2 of the most known musicians, Lang Lang and Yo Yo are both Chinese?
When you look at the NY Philharmonic, the violin players under 35 are all asian ethnicity.
A friend who went to China for a couple of years, was asked by middle income families to help them choose instruments, since she went to Julliard. They were all willing to spend money on good equipment because their kids had to practice and be really good. No just taking some piano lessons like I did.
Americans don't push like that in the same way. I think it is a minority. They are competitive in team sports in middle America but that is about getting to Ohio State to play football. I never met anyone west of the Hudson who was obsessed with extra curriculars to get into Ivys. Not that they don't exist but not pervasive like China. There was an article posted here long ago that talked about the preschool day in China for 10 million preschoolers. It was more jam packed than a typical day for a high school kid in America, with music and language classes and sport activities.
Someone I know just got a job with McKinsey. Entry level associate with an MBA. Top school MBA. 135000 salary with 35000 signing bonus. Plus bonus plus mercedes. Now being a strategist with McKinsey is not everyone's cup of tea, but you could pay your mortgage with that. Her resume was quite awesome, but the rest of her new associates were pretty much the same. There are some really outstanding people out there.
Hence the income gap which continues to widen. The amazing people on one side and the average on the other. Hence, why would anyone want to be on the average side with bills to worry over?
I harbored that fantasy as well. Right alongside the "but I'm above all of that so I won't let it get to me" fantasy.
Well, it didn't, and while I didn't actually much succumb to the voices whispering in my head, they were certainly THERE, telling me things that I never thought I'd find myself thinking.
I have to avoid those thoughts.
Because COINTELPRO.
Someone I know just got a job with McKinsey. Entry level associate with an MBA. Top school MBA. 135000 salary with 35000 signing bonus. Plus bonus plus mercedes. Now being a strategist with McKinsey is not everyone's cup of tea, but you could pay your mortgage with that. Her resume was quite awesome, but the rest of her new associates were pretty much the same. There are some really outstanding people out there.
Hence the income gap which continues to widen. The amazing people on one side and the average on the other. Hence, why would anyone want to be on the average side with bills to worry over?
Income isn't wealth.
See BigLaw for details.
They don't have that for Canadian schools. You are a top student you can get into U of Toronto, which is on the list of top 20 in the world. Or U of Britsh Columbia, which is next.
...which is one of the (many) reasons I'm delighted to be Canadian. I like that DS has the prospect of attending a world-class university and not impoverishing his parents in the process.
For the information of non-Canadians here, many Canadians take the approach of attending a highly ranked Canadian institution for undergraduate and/or master's, then completing doctoral or postdoctoral work at a US school like a Stanford. The most expensive undergraduate programs are in commerce and engineering, and domestic tuition runs ~$10-$15K/year. Arts and science undergrads typically cost $6-$10K/year. (International students pay considerably higher rates.)
The key word there is "considerably."
We looked into what it would cost and the feasibility of DD attending UBC, Trinity Dublin, and a handful of other institutions. The major problem was that she cannot live on campus anywhere that she attends school, which (at 15yo) means having a parent living internationally WITH her... which means...
a work visa, or at the very least having the cash on hand.
Again, the problem then becomes one of sheer economics. It would have cost about the same for her to attend MIT as Trinity Dublin, once we added all of that together... and about the same as it would cost to attend UW or UBC, for that matter. It was all adding up to be right around 50-70K (USD) annually once living expenses got tallied in with tuition costs.
Maybe we just don't see it the way that many families do, but DH and I firmly believe that there are a VERY slim handful of institutions on earth that are worth THAT kind of premium. Sure, MIT is probably among them. But UBC? UW? Not so much.
That's a good reminder, ColinsMum, since I anticipate having kids with high numbers but less shiny resumes.
I actually don't think I really know yet what my kids' abilities are. Maybe that is unusual. Nobody has asked them to go to their limits, and I don't plan to advocate more than I have, unless something happens to take either of them off the GT magnet/IB school track. It will sort out more in middle and high school, I think. Anyway, all I want is for them to able to pursue whatever career they want, within their abilities, of course. To me, it's looking like grad school is the new college, anyway, so probably the focus should be more on getting out of college without huge debt while also finding someplace that one feels comfortable and that can support one's interests. For their sake, I hope they have a sense of what those are at age 18.
I disagree. The extracurricular war in American is minor compared to the schedule of many Chinese students.
And they hire consultants to get their kids in top global schools and plan around the strategy early.
I think Europe is not attuned that way, just like Canada. They don't have that for Canadian schools. You are a top student you can get into U of Toronto, which is on the list of top 20 in the world. Or U of Britsh Columbia, which is next.
Or many non Canadians choose McGill because it has name recognition but not the ranking. So an American can get in without the extracurriculars, pay less tuition and live in Montreal.
But we are talking about English speaking universities in this case, no?
McGill is an English university even though it is in Montreal.
I was referring to world rankings. The Chinese and Arab schools are rapidly gaining ranking because of the large investment dollars into their research. They may or may not have classes in English. I didn't look into it.
In my case my husband went to top tier/ivy schools but I have no illusion that my DS15 will manage get accepted at either university despite the legacy. My son is not motivated and it shows in his grades. We have been discussing what grades he needs to attend top public research universities. I am assuming that he will do well on the SAT, and it looks like he will mostly likely be interested in math/computers/engineering or science at university.
We have three more years until high school so it is difficult to predict how things will be then. DS never grubs for grades (even when the teacher made a mistake) while DD makes sure that she gets every point. Interestingly, DS has been pestering me about my grades and courses in high school recently. My feeling is that he will have the high grades and testing scores but I don't know whether he will have the patience to jump through all the hoops. DD might be leaning toward top art schools, but I have already warned her that the very top art schools (at least in my day) are probably as rigorous and selective as the ivies.
I'm always surprised by these types of questions. Although, I don't know why I should be.
These are a series of little conversations we have along the way.
I know what you mean. I guess in the back of my mind, I am thinking, aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself? Let's see how you do in middle school and then high school first. With DS at least, I am finding that those little conversations keep popping up.
That was what I was missing - I was actually crazy enough not to have applied to any safety schools! In my defence, in those days there would have still been time to apply to the in-state universities after the letters arrive.
I only applied to one school; no defense, just the wondrous youthful mixed air of arrogance and ignorance.
Spot on!
Of the top four kids in DD's graduating class-- and the top four in last year's?
I think they applied to a grand total of eight schools-- between them, I mean.
I don't know of a single one that applied to more than three.
Wow - that is very rare in my experience. Both only applying to three colleges and the top eight students limiting themeselves to the same eight schools.
I like that visual - claws and fangs! For some reason, DS is not particularly competitive, at least with his classmates but that can change.
It's also kind of weird how clearly DS understands statistics from an early age. He undestands that even 99.9 percentile is ultimately a dime a dozen when there are millions of people. He is the one who pointed out to me that you can hit perfect scores on all the AMCs and be a long way from gaining one of the few slots on the USAMO team.
That is what often scares me. Ds7 is about 1 in 18,000. We only have 4.5 million in this country.
You are dealing with a much smaller pool - there can't be more than 200,000 kids within a year of his age range in your country. Just curious - how did you calculate that your DS is at the 99.995 percentile?
I like that visual - claws and fangs! For some reason, DS is not particularly competitive, at least with his classmates but that can change.
It's also kind of weird how clearly DS understands statistics from an early age. He undestands that even 99.9 percentile is ultimately a dime a dozen when there are millions of people. He is the one who pointed out to me that you can hit perfect scores on all the AMCs and be a long way from gaining one of the few slots on the USAMO team.
That is what often scares me. Ds7 is about 1 in 18,000. We only have 4.5 million in this country.
And there are only *500* Fortune 500 companies!
That means *only* 500 CEO's!
So, the competition will become fiercer and more brutal as you move through the system!
Fortunately, the life cycles of many of those CEOs are rather short so it is not as hopeless as it seems. LOL
I think my kids have the academic wherewithal but perhaps not the special skills/extracurriculars and "leadership." That's kind of sad, but that's how it looks to me, though DS may be more up that alley than DD. There is probably a good chance they'd get into my or DH's alma maters (SLACs--not Ivys, but top 20) due to the legacy advantage.
With DD, I'm concerned about getting her through school with mental health intact. That will be primary. She is on track for a very competitive high school experience. I'm not sure how it's going to go.
DS is more mentally centered, but interestingly, has more perfectionism issues at this time, which will be a real problem if they continue. This may be because he is totally underchallenged, whereas DD is getting at least some stretch. The perfectionism is one reason to keep him very active in chess, where he is surrounded by other very bright children and needs must lose from time to time.
That is exactly why I think that DS is kind of jumping the gun. He has three long years of middle school before even starting high school so who knows what will happen. I hear so many stories of kids losing their way in middle school as well as shifts in the pecking order due to any number of things. It's not that I think either DS or DD will become average but in the top 10% there is a lot of room for other factors than pure intelligence.
I wondered about the perfectionism issue - how much of it is genetic and how much environmental. Fortunately, none of my children tend that way (for now).
Based on my own experiences in conducting admissions interviews (for a top-ranked MBA program) and in conducting intern interviews for a major corporation, my goal is for my children to stand out as logical, personable, smart (!) and well-rounded individuals. The kind of people who can start their own businesses and keep them running or be welcome additions to any company. Critical thinkers who have compassion for others. What I hope they aren't is the kind of candidate who has no good answers for why they did something, what they learned from it or what they care about most deeply.
Between now and college time, I harbor some fantasy that the current "parenting arms race" will burn itself out.
You and I both! Your criteria makes sense, but in a sense those kinds of characteristics would probably get in the way of building the stereotypical successful application.
I know many of you have good reasons for ruling this out, and that I've said it before, but for anyone who hasn't heard it: remember that the extra-curricular war is purely American. To a first approximation, the rest of the world thinks it weird, and is only interested in how well equipped the student is for the course.
I had an American potential student in my office the other week; he had an offer from [one of the top 6 US colleges], from us and from several other places round Europe. He was visiting his shortlist to decide where to go. Sensible lad. (Lucky, too, to have the funds to make such a tour, of course - but the cost is peanuts compared to a US college education.)
Doesn't have to be the UK, either; more and more European universities teach courses in English.
The QS rankings for subjects of interest are one good place to start:
http://www.topuniversities.com/subject-rankings/2014Thanks, Colinsmom. Come to think of it, I do have relatives in UK but I am not sure that I would want them a continent away at 18, although grad school would be different.
It's not that I think either DS or DD will become average but in the top 10% there is a lot of room for other factors than pure intelligence.
Yes, I 100% agree and this is how I feel as well. My kids will probably stay in the top 10%, barring major issues (which is not totally impossible--DD is going to be a tough teen). But there is much ahead of us, and I don't know how things will play out. I actually think one of my children is brighter than the other but that that child is not as internally motivated.
I like that visual - claws and fangs! For some reason, DS is not particularly competitive, at least with his classmates but that can change.
It's also kind of weird how clearly DS understands statistics from an early age. He undestands that even 99.9 percentile is ultimately a dime a dozen when there are millions of people. He is the one who pointed out to me that you can hit perfect scores on all the AMCs and be a long way from gaining one of the few slots on the USAMO team.
That is what often scares me. Ds7 is about 1 in 18,000. We only have 4.5 million in this country.
You are dealing with a much smaller pool - there can't be more than 200,000 kids within a year of his age range in your country. Just curious - how did you calculate that your DS is at the 99.995 percentile?
Google says there's 4 million per year in that age range. The page with relative frequency is here.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspxSo there's about 222 kids your DS age and IQ, 2000 within +- 5 years, and of course kids with higher IQs, and just a fraction lower, too. You only have to go down to 150 to be 1 in 2000, which is much more reasonable at 2000 per year, 20,000 within +- 5 years
I like that visual - claws and fangs! For some reason, DS is not particularly competitive, at least with his classmates but that can change.
It's also kind of weird how clearly DS understands statistics from an early age. He undestands that even 99.9 percentile is ultimately a dime a dozen when there are millions of people. He is the one who pointed out to me that you can hit perfect scores on all the AMCs and be a long way from gaining one of the few slots on the USAMO team.
That is what often scares me. Ds7 is about 1 in 18,000. We only have 4.5 million in this country.
You are dealing with a much smaller pool - there can't be more than 200,000 kids within a year of his age range in your country. Just curious - how did you calculate that your DS is at the 99.995 percentile?
Google says there's 4 million per year in that age range. The page with relative frequency is here.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspxSo there's about 222 kids your DS age and IQ, 2000 within +- 5 years, and of course kids with higher IQs, and just a fraction lower, too. You only have to go down to 150 to be 1 in 2000, which is much more reasonable at 2000 per year, 20,000 within +- 5 years
I am not the poster with the 99.995 percentile child (1 in 18,000) but was responding to that post. Interesting. It was my understanding that the frequencies did not follow the bell curve at the high end beyond a certain point for the IQ tests commonly used in the U.S. For example, a ton more kids tested at the 150+ Full Scale IQ on the WISC than bell curve statistics would have predicted. I heard that there are other ways to tease out a reliable estimate and I was simply wondering what was used.
It was my understanding that the frequencies did not follow the bell curve at the high end beyond a certain point for the IQ tests commonly used in the U.S. For example, a ton more kids tested at the 150+ Full Scale IQ on the WISC than bell curve statistics would have predicted. I heard that there are other ways to tease out a reliable estimate and I was simply wondering what was used.
You are correct. The data available at the high end of the curve is very sparse. This makes it difficult to tease out accurate normalized IQ scores.
To see one way this is done, I recommend reading the following official report on the WISC IV extended norms and how they were derived:
http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/WISC-IV/WISCIV_TechReport_7.pdfThe standardized IQ tests in common use for gifted children were developed to be accurate in the center of the bell curve, so they could identify abnormal IQ. They weren't designed to differentiate those in the highly gifted population in any way, although they are frequently used for this purpose.