Maggie's Farm

Jumping through hoops. They all have my sympathy.

From my high school of four decades ago, a girl a year ahead of me was a Straight-A student, took all the AP classes possible, was in a number of clubs including Debate, was a Merit Finalist, had a part-time job, and ended up rejected by various of the Seven Sisters and/or Ivy League schools.

Though admitted to Duke, she went to Kansas, as had her parents, and four years later was admitted to the public university medical school in her home state. Not getting into the "good school" made no difference in her life. She was bright and worked hard, and that was the difference in her success- not the school she attended.

All this college admissions stuff is a horrid waste of time and effort, and needlessly shatters the self esteem of many who buy into the "good school" BS. You will get out of college what you put into it, and there are very few students that will exhaust the intellectual resources of the college they attend. High school students would be much better off asking themselves about their high school years: what do I like doing? What do I not like doing? What comes easy for me ? What is difficult for me? What do I find it easy to work hard at? What do I have to pull teeth to work hard at? What do I care about? What am I indifferent about?

Having some idea of what these answers are will assist a high school senior in choosing a satisfying career path much more than getting into a "good school."

Some schools may be a better fit for some students than others, such as schools that offer freshmen seminar classes instead of huge lecture halls. Or, if you want to be a nuclear physicist, there is no point in applying to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. So, some investigation of various colleges may be worth it. But all in all, it occupies a disproportionate amount of time.

Faculty wife: I stand by what I said. A bright high school student is much better off doing a good self-assessment than buying into the "I'm a POS if I don't get into .." nonsense, and the implication that where one is carries more importance than what one does.

Yes, different levels of colleges will demand different levels of work. At the same time, my understanding is that it is much harder to flunk out of the Ivy League than it is to get admitted to it. It is as easy to get admitted to Impersonal State U as it is to flunk out of it. I imagine that a science or engineering student at Impersonal State U is worked harder than a Multi-Culti student- or some such major- at an Ivy League school. There are no simple answers.


If a bright student is at a school that isn’t completely taxing him, he can transfer out, or apply to a higher tier when it comes to graduate school. My father got his BA from the local teacher's college. It apparently didn't hurt him that much, as his research later made the cover of Science. What counts is what you put into it, not where you are nor where you came from.

Your statement about higher salaries attracting better lecturers doesn’t hold water: Publish or Perish. ¿Sabés? Higher salaries attract “better” researchers, who are not necessarily better teachers. I put “better” for researchers in quotes, because I doubt the world would lose anything if the works of the MLA, for example, were to go up in smoke. I know someone who had a Nobel Prize winner for a prof in grad school: an abysmal teacher, I was informed. You will find good and not so good teachers at all tiers. At least that has been my experience.


Regarding where we go to school : it all comes out in the wash. We perform later in life, or we don’t. Most of us are not as bright, not as superior as we may initially think we are. If a bright high school student hasn’t learned that yet, it is time to learn it, even if it means one is not admitted to Kenyon.

Why then is it not accurate to also state: pay them a bigger salary and you will have the freedom to choose the better lecturer?

As I previously stated: what is being chosen is not the better lecturer/teacher, but the better researcher. The better researcher is not necessarily the better teacher, especially when concerns about research dominate. Research is king in tenure decisions- not teaching. A great researcher but indifferent teacher will always be chosen over a great teacher but indifferent researcher. Once in tenure, the pattern will most likely continue: emphasis on research, indifference towards teaching. Indifferent teaching can also be masked by giving easy grades, which will improve student evaluations.

We have a fair of amount of agreement. Perhaps not all, but a fair amount.