Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Does anyone have suggestions for good safety schools on the east coast for a boy (junior at large public hs) who is a whiz at science/latin, practice sats are in the 700s, will take physics, biology and calculus ap as a senior, all honors courses in difficult classes but b+ average due to indifference in subjects that don't interest him.? Ecs: rockclimbing, snowboarding, debate/math/latin clubs. Two internships at local university research labs. On his own, he learns computer languages. Also good at photography/computer art. I'm afraid that his gpa will keep him out of Ivys, but he is intelligent enough to be in them. I don't think he'll be happy at a school where the academic standards are not very high. Also, he doesn't want a high pressure environment.

By Counselor504 on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Your son sounds a lot like mine. He excels in things that interest him and doesn't want to be bothered with subjects that don't. Check out Worcester Polytechnic Institute, they have no foreign language requirement and minimal humanities requirements. The emphasis is on math, science, and technology and their graduates do very well. I think your son would easily fit their academic profile.

By worriedmom on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Thanks for the suggestion; I shoud have clarified that he wants to be in an environment where the humanities are a big part of campus life.

By Unprofessional advisor on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Look into U of Rochester and close-to-east-but-not-exactly Case Western Reserve to see if they fit your needs. It's one thing to hear about quality schools but specific respective stregnths and weaknesses are sometimes less well-known. Sarah Lawrence and Vassar might prefer men which would give an anemic GPA a boost. Not a safety school but maybe he could negotiate a mid-year start at Midd? Colgate and Hamilton sound like possible matches, too. Good luck.

By dotmom on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Rochester is a good suggestion. My daughter - who is a senior and presents a picture more or less like your son (high SATs, 3.6 GPA) - will apply there. Rochester has a couple of unique things going for it. 1. If SATs are over 1350, there is an (almost) automatic $5000/year grant. 2. They have this program called Take Five - students can go a 5th year tuition free (if they've met all their graduation requirements by the 4th year) to study things they didn't have time for in the first four years. 3. They're very strong in science, but also have the Eastman school for music and pretty decent departments in humanities.

Maybe Tufts? Boston College? Hobart & William Smith? Are you stuck on the east? Seems as if the competition is most intense in the east. Have you read, "Looking Beyond the Ivy League," by Loren Pope? Also, "Colleges that Change Lives." These books give hope that your kid can still be happy and successful at a non-Ivy school.

Good luck.

By worriedmom on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'll look into those schools. It does seem unfair that only high achievers should have access to the best schools. The current system doesn't allow kids to develop at their own speeds and pursue their own interests in high school -- they have to start padding resumes instead.

By hoping to help on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Bard? Sarah Lawrence?

By Pragmatic on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 12:21 am: Edit

You need to define your terms, worriedmom.

On the one hand, you want an intellectual environmernt but then you complain "that only high achievers...have access to the best schools." You want intellectuals, then bemoan restricting college admission to high acheivers.

Which is it?

Decry merit-based admissions if it makes you feel better but how else do you want these selections to be made?

Your messages are contradictory which makes it hard to make suggestions. You can get on a soapbox and vent all you want but don't let your attitude get in the way of expressing your needs clearly.

By wm on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 06:31 pm: Edit

I don't see a contradiction. Some kids blossom for the first time in college because they come alive in the new environment, some kids work beyond their means in order to get into a top school and they burn out once they get there. A student who looks good on paper is not necessarily going to be a better student in the long run then a student who doesn't look as good on paper. The problem, for college admissions, is how to address the fact that students with similar levels of intelligence (however you determine that) may approach their work in high school in different ways. Teenagers do not all reach the same developmental milestones at the same time, and those who mature faster should not necessarily have a lock on the best education.

As to pragmatic's response: I posted my previous comment in order to start a discussion on a complex topic. Characterizing me as "getting on a soapbox and venting" is not a very thoughtful response and it discourages discussion. Also, I don't think this is an appropriate forum for unsolicited advice on how to express needs clearly.

By Pragmatic on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 10:46 pm: Edit

The contradiction is that describing kids who blossom in college for the first time means that they haven't yet blossomed in high school. Therefore they lack the credentials to indicate future but thus far unrealized potential. It's these signs colleges normally look for in evaluating applicants and it's these same qualities that commonly attract other intellectual applicants.

"A student who looks good on paper is not necessarily going to be a better student in the long run then a student who doesn't look as good on paper."

Maybe, but he probably will do better in the long run, more likely than not. It's counterproductive and not logically sound to assume that students coming in with stronger GPAs will ultimately suffer by comparison.

You raise an interesting point about students with similar levels of intelligence and varying speeds of development but I ask, again, how else you would want these selections to be made? Do you want to remove all objective standards from the evaluation? Is it realistic to expect standards to be essentially waived (or at least applied very flexibly) for your child while you are at the same time looking for a student body filled with proven intellectuals?

I am sorry that you had a problem with the soapbox reference but I would have more sympathy if I had tried to keep you from venting. Contrary to discouraging discussion, I asked you to amplify your position, not limit it. It's not unusual for readers to ask for a more clear or specific statement when one is needed and I am sorry if this, too, hurt your feelings.

By dotmom on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 11:01 pm: Edit

If you're willing to go outside the east coast, Reed in Oregon has a reputation for being one of the most "intellectual" schools in the country - and it's not nearly as selective as the Ivies. It's not for everyone, but it is excellent. The University of Chicago is also less selective than the Ivies, and every bit as good.
Sometimes, especially when I read the student message boards here and at Princeton Review, I'm not so sure I want my child to go to any of the elite schools. Half the kids sound like neurotic, resume-building, over-achieving, agressive, investment banker wanna-bes.

By Poster on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 04:50 am: Edit

Reed is neither on the east coast nor a safety.

As far as the student postings go, don't believe everything you read on message boards. Anyway, kids from non-elite schools certainly sound no better.

By wm on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 01:52 pm: Edit

If the claims aren't inflated, do those kids have time to hang out with friends, read books just for the pleasure of it, spend time with family? I think that the bottleneck at college admissions is changing the nature of adolescence -- little can be done or experienced for its own sake and everything has to be documented and given a spin.

By Calmom (Calmom) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 05:33 pm: Edit

WM, I think that the problem with the college admissions process is the obsession with rankings and prestige. A kid with your son's stats, assuming a high SAT, can pretty much write his own ticket at 90% of the colleges in the country, EXCEPT the "mega selectives". In general, if you look at colleges that accept 35% or more of applicants - based on the other stats you have posted - your son will probably get in.

My son certainly had a relaxing high school experience, although partly it was because he was smart enough to get A's without much effort in studying -- but certainly he wasn't focused on resume building.

Your own description of what you are looking for certainly doesn't suggest that you or your son are trying to ride that train in any case. It really is o.k. to lead a normal life. The whole EC/resume stuff is basically the way the prestige schools are able to sort and weed out students, given the fact that most of their applicants have excellent grades and test scores.

By tom on Monday, December 02, 2002 - 03:11 pm: Edit

East Coast Safety Schools
Alfred - Colgate - University of VT,PA,CT
University of Scranton - Lafayette - Pitt
all would give money to anyone over 1350
tom

By Jess on Tuesday, December 03, 2002 - 09:19 am: Edit

What are you basing this on tom? Since when do Alfred, Scranton and Pitt attract intellectuals? How does money tie into this, did someone need FA?