if you want to be the best, you gotta hang out with the best. so much is made of where we go to college. in high school, the most important thing to aim your studies towards was "a good college." never mind actually learning anything or joining extracurriculars that you enjoy. "what? chess club won't help me get into a stellar institution of higher learning? but i know what en passant is! isn't that invaluable?" there is a formula to getting into the top tier colleges and you have to do your best to cover all of your bases. spectacular grades, citizenship, leadership, superior talents outside the academic arena, community service.



i'm not sure why community service ever made this list. but as a high schooler, i was told that "key club looks great on your transcipt!" why? because it shows that i'm willing to help people if and only if it benefits me? because my weekends are free and available? because ten hours spent scooping soup is training for the ordeals suffered while eating food in college dorms? i don't get it. what does joining key club do for me that joining any other organization wouldn't? it's all about perception, that the student who does community service is a good student indeed.



and so perception is just as important in your choice of college. which college you go to is supposed to be a factor in getting future jobs. attendance (on paper) of a major college can only open doors. the quality of education at a "good" college? questionable. and this isn't just from my own personal experiences. i've talked to lots of people and the consensus about the quality of education and "what i got out of college" seems to be whether or not you engaged in class -- or even went to class. time spent at the local community college can be more valuable than four years at an ivy league school. until, until you actually get around to getting a job. names like stanford, yale and harvard still evoke an educational trust. people only need to hear things to believe them, so the myth that a top ten school is automatically better than one of the bottom feeders, fuels the idea that if you went to a good school, you're better prepared to tackle real life.



this is obviously false. sure, on average, based on grades and standardized testing results, the average freshman class at a harvard will be poised for more success than a comparable class at a cal poly school. but who would you rather hire? the slacker who got Cs at harvard or the dean's list student who went to cal poly? i think the smart money would be on the A student. achievement has a place in this world, and it should be valued more than potential. luckily for me, potential sells. since based on achievement, i've never done anything to deserve anything i've ever gotten. but we gotta hang our hats on something right? even if it's admittance into a top twenty five college?



i've spent some time, in my nomadic college career, in universities of all types. i've been at michigan, i've been at ucsd, i've been at baruch, i've been at community college, i've visited the campus of a few ivy's. and the question i always ask myself is "how does this school compare to my baseline (michigan)?" let's start with the community college. was the competion there less or the classes easier? the answer is, "yes." it's like taking an AP class in high school and then going back to the regular class (which i did with AP physics). everything seemed much simpler and high grades were easy to achieve just by satisfying the base requirements for regurgitation. much of the difference between AP physics and normal phyics could have been attributed to pace. AP physics moved very quickly, and time wasn't spent on building wooden projectile weapons as so called "experiments." i suppose the same is true of "higher end schools." you quickly move over the simple stuff and dive headlong into the harder topics. that's what i've gleaned anyway.



i wonder if this applies to grad school too. does going to a less prestigious law school get you the same education and knowledge of a duke or a columbia? i'm willing to bet it does, but i'm sure that there is some added edcuational value in going to a top tier law school right? i guess i'll never know since i don't have plans (or the qualifications) to attend law school of any type. i've heard that when you go to harvard law school, all you're paying for is the name. is this true? it doesn't seem to be out of the question.



i am sure people have died when they they got wait listed or rejected from their number one choice of school. how terrible it must be to not get into the school of your dreams. of course, i'm able to talk flippantly about this now, eight years removed from my own experience with college anxiety. or more accurately, lack there of. since i chose my school based on "oh i don't like the way ucla feels, i'm off to michigan (sight unseen)!"