Why is it so hard to accept that the students at better colleges are simply better students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay but why should I, as an employer, GAF who is the best student? I don’t have any jobs for studying and taking tests. I need to know who is the best project manager and best salesperson and best communicator. Mind you, I do think student quality has some overlap with the skills I’m looking for, but you’re the one talking about the “best students.”

I find the obsession over where a person spends 4 years of their life really odd. Especially in the DMV, people seem to take more about predictors of success than actual… success.

And before you accuse me of being a naive populist, I went to Northwestern.

The easiest way for you, as an employer, to determine who is the best manager / salesperson / communicator would be to administer some type of IQ or aptitude test to job applicants. But you're not allowed to do that thanks to Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Therefore, you, like all employers, are forced to use proxies to achieve the same effect. The leading proxy for ability to do the job is, of course, "what degree do you have and where did you get it from". That may not be optimal from an employer's perspective but here we are.

Not at all. To be blunt some of my best sales people surely had unimpressive IQs. Communication skills also are not well-predicted by IQ but are obvious from a good interview process. Getting the most tippy top bright students has never been my goal, because, again, I’ve never hired for a test taker.

+1
Most of the profession pp mentioned needs more social IQ and political skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the quibbling, it is accurate to say that the AVERAGE student at a highly-ranked school is better academically than the AVERAGE student at a significantly lower-ranked school. While there are students at the higher-ranked school who might have lower test scores than the top student at a lower-ranked school, that is comparing apples and oranges. If one wants to complain about legacy, URM, and athletes at better schools, one must compare them to legacy, URM, and athletes at lower-ranked schools. Again, compare apples to apples. Finally, for those students who turn down Yale for a full ride at a much lower-rated school, the case doesn’t dispute that the AVERAGE student at Yale is better academically than at the alternative institution. Instead, it just means that they’re is some, perhaps little, overlap between the best students at lower-ranked schools and the low-end of the best schools. Even then, the education at the two schools is very different.

Yes, obviously. But most of us who are taking the time to post here aren't arguing about average students, because that would be a waste of time. What I'm saying, at least, is that two equally capable and motivated students who go to colleges at selectivity levels that are reasonably close are not going to have different outcomes based on anything but luck. If Jeff Bezos had gone to Georgia Tech instead of Princeton, I bet he'd still be ridiculously successful and wealthy. He'd be Sergei Brin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before you accuse me of being a snob or an elitist, I will start by saying that I went to a pretty bad college; one that accepts students with C minus averages and whose 4-year-graduation rate is less than 20 percent. The first piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the obvious fact that we got into colleges like this in the first place. In my case, you don't even need to look at where I went to college in order to know that I was a bad student in high school; just the fact that I graduated with a B average and 6 AP credits is proof enough.

The next piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the fact that the 4-year-graduate rates at these colleges are much lower. This seems like it should also be pretty self-explanatory, in that they failed to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they couldn't get into a better college. Notice that I've switched the tense to "third-person" because this doesn't apply to me; I was in the <20 percent of students who graduated in 4 years. And yet, I constantly hear excuses made for these students, namely that they have to work. Well, I had a job in college even though I didn't have to, and I still graduated on time. Also, I visited the campus of a top-ranked college with a >99% graduation rate, and saw that there was a tutoring center there where students could work and tutor other students, which means that there are plenty of students at the college who also work and graduate on time.

Also, it's much easier to graduate from these worse colleges in 4 years or less because they take all your AP credits. So the fact that students who go to worse colleges generally have a harder time graduating in 4 years even though the road to graduating on time is easier at said colleges really proves that they are worse students.

I was "first gen" from a poor family. My parents said they could pay for me if I went to [School X] that basically took most applicants. I had nearly all A's, extracurriculars, leadership positions, and worked every available minute from the time I turned 14 (because we were poor). So that's where I went (and then they ended up not paying but I didn't want to lose credits transferring).

The premise that kids go to lesser colleges only b/c they are lesser students to begin with is flawed from the start.

That's not the premise. The premise is that because of this choice you went to school with lower ability students on average. I'd go further, you had lower quality course work because of that population. The flip side, if you were the standout, you may have received individual attention and extra guidance from professors who saw you were exceptional. That wouldn't have happened to you at better school because someone else would have eaten your lunch. Better school, may simply mean high ranked state flagship, public ivy, doesn't have to mean country club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

There are also highly motivated, aggressive strivers at state schools and state satellite campuses.

When I’m looking to hire, the university from which a person graduated is one of the last things I consider. I’m more interested in how a person conducts themselves during an interview. I’m also interested in relevant experiences or skills that person may have, which can come from any school.

I’m sure there are people who care about this, but I’m not one of them. You came from a top school? Great. Show me what you can do. You came from a state school? Great. Show me what you can do.

+1

School rank is just not very important to me when I hire. Actually if anything, it might weigh a little against the T10 grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before you accuse me of being a snob or an elitist, I will start by saying that I went to a pretty bad college; one that accepts students with C minus averages and whose 4-year-graduation rate is less than 20 percent. The first piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the obvious fact that we got into colleges like this in the first place. In my case, you don't even need to look at where I went to college in order to know that I was a bad student in high school; just the fact that I graduated with a B average and 6 AP credits is proof enough.

The next piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the fact that the 4-year-graduate rates at these colleges are much lower. This seems like it should also be pretty self-explanatory, in that they failed to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they couldn't get into a better college. Notice that I've switched the tense to "third-person" because this doesn't apply to me; I was in the <20 percent of students who graduated in 4 years. And yet, I constantly hear excuses made for these students, namely that they have to work. Well, I had a job in college even though I didn't have to, and I still graduated on time. Also, I visited the campus of a top-ranked college with a >99% graduation rate, and saw that there was a tutoring center there where students could work and tutor other students, which means that there are plenty of students at the college who also work and graduate on time.

Also, it's much easier to graduate from these worse colleges in 4 years or less because they take all your AP credits. So the fact that students who go to worse colleges generally have a harder time graduating in 4 years even though the road to graduating on time is easier at said colleges really proves that they are worse students.

I was "first gen" from a poor family. My parents said they could pay for me if I went to [School X] that basically took most applicants. I had nearly all A's, extracurriculars, leadership positions, and worked every available minute from the time I turned 14 (because we were poor). So that's where I went (and then they ended up not paying but I didn't want to lose credits transferring).

The premise that kids go to lesser colleges only b/c they are lesser students to begin with is flawed from the start.

That's not the premise. The premise is that because of this choice you went to school with lower ability students on average. I'd go further, you had lower quality course work because of that population. The flip side, if you were the standout, you may have received individual attention and extra guidance from professors who saw you were exceptional. That wouldn't have happened to you at better school because someone else would have eaten your lunch. Better school, may simply mean high ranked state flagship, public ivy, doesn't have to mean country club.

Ok, but the premise is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the quibbling, it is accurate to say that the AVERAGE student at a highly-ranked school is better academically than the AVERAGE student at a significantly lower-ranked school. While there are students at the higher-ranked school who might have lower test scores than the top student at a lower-ranked school, that is comparing apples and oranges. If one wants to complain about legacy, URM, and athletes at better schools, one must compare them to legacy, URM, and athletes at lower-ranked schools. Again, compare apples to apples. Finally, for those students who turn down Yale for a full ride at a much lower-rated school, the case doesn’t dispute that the AVERAGE student at Yale is better academically than at the alternative institution. Instead, it just means that they’re is some, perhaps little, overlap between the best students at lower-ranked schools and the low-end of the best schools. Even then, the education at the two schools is very different.

When athletes and URM have lower gpas, test scores and stats, which they most often do, your statement is inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the quibbling, it is accurate to say that the AVERAGE student at a highly-ranked school is better academically than the AVERAGE student at a significantly lower-ranked school. While there are students at the higher-ranked school who might have lower test scores than the top student at a lower-ranked school, that is comparing apples and oranges. If one wants to complain about legacy, URM, and athletes at better schools, one must compare them to legacy, URM, and athletes at lower-ranked schools. Again, compare apples to apples. Finally, for those students who turn down Yale for a full ride at a much lower-rated school, the case doesn’t dispute that the AVERAGE student at Yale is better academically than at the alternative institution. Instead, it just means that they’re is some, perhaps little, overlap between the best students at lower-ranked schools and the low-end of the best schools. Even then, the education at the two schools is very different.

When athletes and URM have lower gpas, test scores and stats, which they most often do, your statement is inaccurate.

New poster--No, it is not inaccurate. You're talking about individuals. The post you quoted is talking about averages.

[Anonymous]

Selective grad schools, law schools and med schools all disagree with you. They admit from elite undergrads, but most admits aren't and there are many admits from even very low ranked schools. You have a second chance to shine in undergrad and professional programs are happy to snatch up those who didn't attend an elite school, but who proved themselves as in undergrad.

Seriously, go look at the list of admits at Harvard Law or Yale Law and you'll be surprised. It's not at all dominated by T20 grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

There are also highly motivated, aggressive strivers at state schools and state satellite campuses.

When I’m looking to hire, the university from which a person graduated is one of the last things I consider. I’m more interested in how a person conducts themselves during an interview. I’m also interested in relevant experiences or skills that person may have, which can come from any school.

I’m sure there are people who care about this, but I’m not one of them. You came from a top school? Great. Show me what you can do. You came from a state school? Great. Show me what you can do.

+1

School rank is just not very important to me when I hire. Actually if anything, it might weigh a little against the T10 grads.

Yes everyone needs to get a job and put a roof over their head and food on the table. A high level education is valuable for that but also for going through life with the advantage of having a deep and complex education. There is nothing wrong with wanting to study at a high level and progress as far as you can in a subject.

[Anonymous]

OP, by definition the vast majority didn't go to "better" colleges. Most of them don't want to admit the simple fact that on average they are worse students compared to those from top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

There are also highly motivated, aggressive strivers at state schools and state satellite campuses.

When I’m looking to hire, the university from which a person graduated is one of the last things I consider. I’m more interested in how a person conducts themselves during an interview. I’m also interested in relevant experiences or skills that person may have, which can come from any school.

I’m sure there are people who care about this, but I’m not one of them. You came from a top school? Great. Show me what you can do. You came from a state school? Great. Show me what you can do.

+1

School rank is just not very important to me when I hire. Actually if anything, it might weigh a little against the T10 grads.

Yes everyone needs to get a job and put a roof over their head and food on the table. A high level education is valuable for that but also for going through life with the advantage of having a deep and complex education. There is nothing wrong with wanting to study at a high level and progress as far as you can in a subject.

And you can do that at any four-year university in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the quibbling, it is accurate to say that the AVERAGE student at a highly-ranked school is better academically than the AVERAGE student at a significantly lower-ranked school. While there are students at the higher-ranked school who might have lower test scores than the top student at a lower-ranked school, that is comparing apples and oranges. If one wants to complain about legacy, URM, and athletes at better schools, one must compare them to legacy, URM, and athletes at lower-ranked schools. Again, compare apples to apples. Finally, for those students who turn down Yale for a full ride at a much lower-rated school, the case doesn’t dispute that the AVERAGE student at Yale is better academically than at the alternative institution. Instead, it just means that they’re is some, perhaps little, overlap between the best students at lower-ranked schools and the low-end of the best schools. Even then, the education at the two schools is very different.

When athletes and URM have lower gpas, test scores and stats, which they most often do, your statement is inaccurate.

False.

And please keep ignoring the fact that a recruited athlete with a 1400+ SAT at a T20 school got there while ALSO outworking every other high school athlete in the country. Someone shows up with a 95th percentile score and stats in their sports that are good enough for many professional leagues - and then you cr*p all over them for not having a 99th percentile SAT score.

These recruited athletes (some URM, some not) are anything but AVERAGE.

You troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

There are also highly motivated, aggressive strivers at state schools and state satellite campuses.

When I’m looking to hire, the university from which a person graduated is one of the last things I consider. I’m more interested in how a person conducts themselves during an interview. I’m also interested in relevant experiences or skills that person may have, which can come from any school.

I’m sure there are people who care about this, but I’m not one of them. You came from a top school? Great. Show me what you can do. You came from a state school? Great. Show me what you can do.

+1

School rank is just not very important to me when I hire. Actually if anything, it might weigh a little against the T10 grads.

Yes everyone needs to get a job and put a roof over their head and food on the table. A high level education is valuable for that but also for going through life with the advantage of having a deep and complex education. There is nothing wrong with wanting to study at a high level and progress as far as you can in a subject.

And you can do that at any four-year university in the US.

Ikr? Every math department is exactly the same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

There are also highly motivated, aggressive strivers at state schools and state satellite campuses.

When I’m looking to hire, the university from which a person graduated is one of the last things I consider. I’m more interested in how a person conducts themselves during an interview. I’m also interested in relevant experiences or skills that person may have, which can come from any school.

I’m sure there are people who care about this, but I’m not one of them. You came from a top school? Great. Show me what you can do. You came from a state school? Great. Show me what you can do.

+1

School rank is just not very important to me when I hire. Actually if anything, it might weigh a little against the T10 grads.

Yes everyone needs to get a job and put a roof over their head and food on the table. A high level education is valuable for that but also for going through life with the advantage of having a deep and complex education. There is nothing wrong with wanting to study at a high level and progress as far as you can in a subject.

This answer is a perfect encapsulation of why it makes sense to side-eye T10 grads. Overly defensive, has nothing substantive to add, and betrays a very sensitive ego.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

There are also highly motivated, aggressive strivers at state schools and state satellite campuses.

When I’m looking to hire, the university from which a person graduated is one of the last things I consider. I’m more interested in how a person conducts themselves during an interview. I’m also interested in relevant experiences or skills that person may have, which can come from any school.

I’m sure there are people who care about this, but I’m not one of them. You came from a top school? Great. Show me what you can do. You came from a state school? Great. Show me what you can do.

+1

School rank is just not very important to me when I hire. Actually if anything, it might weigh a little against the T10 grads.

Yes everyone needs to get a job and put a roof over their head and food on the table. A high level education is valuable for that but also for going through life with the advantage of having a deep and complex education. There is nothing wrong with wanting to study at a high level and progress as far as you can in a subject.

This answer is a perfect encapsulation of why it makes sense to side-eye T10 grads. Overly defensive, has nothing substantive to add, and betrays a very sensitive ego.

Buy multiple homes, cars, diamonds if that is what time you on. Enjoy.