Are students outside of the top 20 or so universities more interesting people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a lot of insecurity on here by people who did not get into said schools

Silly passive-aggressive types trying to feel better by coming on here and trash-talking schools neither they nor their kids have any realistic shot of attending.

[Anonymous]

After many years of dealing with artists, I can say that I've never personally known a truly outstanding musician (or painter, sculpture, etc.) who didn't periodically falter in some serious way in terms of criteria viewed as a necessity for admission at top universities. ALL of the Ivies, plus Stanford, and Duke will certainly accept a B+/1200 SAT student who is truly a top international talent. But they view that as a major concession for a seriously "lopsided" talent like this. Try getting a B-/C student who is barely willing to prep and take the SAT and has an issue with authority that causes them to periodically have unexcused absences and speak rudely to the teacher into these same schools. I know everyone has some anecdotal counterexample, but just understand that this is what real talent looks like, and these are the kinds of people that just can't be admitted. Everyone doesn't have to be a part of every institution, and Ivies/Duke/Stanford are fabulous institutions, but let's just be clear about what kinds of talents are actually being admitted into these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This conversation makes me think of the movie Booksmart, where two high school friends realize at the end of senior year that they haven’t had any fun at all because they’ve worked so hard to get into top colleges. There’s a funny scene where they realize that a bunch of goof-offs who they assume are heading to community college actually have impressive plans of their own, and one of the characters says “we care about school, it’s just not the only thing we care about.”

do you recommend this for a rising senior who is within reach of top 10 schools but may or may not get in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.

DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).
Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n

I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.

Every successful person is a grinder type…including people like Taylor Swift, Dave Grohl, The Beatles…heck, read the Motley Crue book…they were grinders as well.

Inspiration and hard work to pursue an artistic passion vs. extrinsically motivated conformists packaging themselves to be societal machine cogs.

Except read their stories…you could replace pop music for banking and it’s almost identical. They wanted to be stars…not just pursue an artistic passion…but to become rich and famous doing it.

They would identify more with successful business people than failed artists sticking to their artistic purity.

Tell us you don’t know any artists without telling us you don’t know any artists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After many years of dealing with artists, I can say that I've never personally known a truly outstanding musician (or painter, sculpture, etc.) who didn't periodically falter in some serious way in terms of criteria viewed as a necessity for admission at top universities. ALL of the Ivies, plus Stanford, and Duke will certainly accept a B+/1200 SAT student who is truly a top international talent. But they view that as a major concession for a seriously "lopsided" talent like this. Try getting a B-/C student who is barely willing to prep and take the SAT and has an issue with authority that causes them to periodically have unexcused absences and speak rudely to the teacher into these same schools. I know everyone has some anecdotal counterexample, but just understand that this is what real talent looks like, and these are the kinds of people that just can't be admitted. Everyone doesn't have to be a part of every institution, and Ivies/Duke/Stanford are fabulous institutions, but let's just be clear about what kinds of talents are actually being admitted into these schools.

You focused on musicians and sculptors because you knew people would immediately be more familiar with talented writers and actors who’ve attended elite schools. So transparent.

[Anonymous]

I just watched Friends from College and I kept thinking that there was no way they went to Harvard, all the characters are way too fun and silly to be Harvard grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After many years of dealing with artists, I can say that I've never personally known a truly outstanding musician (or painter, sculpture, etc.) who didn't periodically falter in some serious way in terms of criteria viewed as a necessity for admission at top universities. ALL of the Ivies, plus Stanford, and Duke will certainly accept a B+/1200 SAT student who is truly a top international talent. But they view that as a major concession for a seriously "lopsided" talent like this. Try getting a B-/C student who is barely willing to prep and take the SAT and has an issue with authority that causes them to periodically have unexcused absences and speak rudely to the teacher into these same schools. I know everyone has some anecdotal counterexample, but just understand that this is what real talent looks like, and these are the kinds of people that just can't be admitted. Everyone doesn't have to be a part of every institution, and Ivies/Duke/Stanford are fabulous institutions, but let's just be clear about what kinds of talents are actually being admitted into these schools.

You focused on musicians and sculptors because you knew people would immediately be more familiar with talented writers and actors who’ve attended elite schools. So transparent.

I focused on them because they are artists who I spend a lot of time around! But I don't see any reason why outstanding writers are any more able to fit into the structure of these universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After many years of dealing with artists, I can say that I've never personally known a truly outstanding musician (or painter, sculpture, etc.) who didn't periodically falter in some serious way in terms of criteria viewed as a necessity for admission at top universities. ALL of the Ivies, plus Stanford, and Duke will certainly accept a B+/1200 SAT student who is truly a top international talent. But they view that as a major concession for a seriously "lopsided" talent like this. Try getting a B-/C student who is barely willing to prep and take the SAT and has an issue with authority that causes them to periodically have unexcused absences and speak rudely to the teacher into these same schools. I know everyone has some anecdotal counterexample, but just understand that this is what real talent looks like, and these are the kinds of people that just can't be admitted. Everyone doesn't have to be a part of every institution, and Ivies/Duke/Stanford are fabulous institutions, but let's just be clear about what kinds of talents are actually being admitted into these schools.

You focused on musicians and sculptors because you knew people would immediately be more familiar with talented writers and actors who’ve attended elite schools. So transparent.

I focused on them because they are artists who I spend a lot of time around! But I don't see any reason why outstanding writers are any more able to fit into the structure of these universities.

And for that matter, I don't know how you would study this, but I'm pretty sure that the "best" writers are significantly less likely to attend "elite" colleges, at least in the last 50 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important.

Actually, they select *against* precisely this group of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just watched Friends from College and I kept thinking that there was no way they went to Harvard, all the characters are way too fun and silly to be Harvard grads.

I mean that's a fake show so....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After many years of dealing with artists, I can say that I've never personally known a truly outstanding musician (or painter, sculpture, etc.) who didn't periodically falter in some serious way in terms of criteria viewed as a necessity for admission at top universities. ALL of the Ivies, plus Stanford, and Duke will certainly accept a B+/1200 SAT student who is truly a top international talent. But they view that as a major concession for a seriously "lopsided" talent like this. Try getting a B-/C student who is barely willing to prep and take the SAT and has an issue with authority that causes them to periodically have unexcused absences and speak rudely to the teacher into these same schools. I know everyone has some anecdotal counterexample, but just understand that this is what real talent looks like, and these are the kinds of people that just can't be admitted. Everyone doesn't have to be a part of every institution, and Ivies/Duke/Stanford are fabulous institutions, but let's just be clear about what kinds of talents are actually being admitted into these schools.

These are the type to do well with portfolio based admissions, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important.

Actually, they select *against* precisely this group of people.

+1. Tell us you know nothing about elite schools without saying you know nothing about elite schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a lot of insecurity on here by people who did not get into said schools

Silly passive-aggressive types trying to feel better by coming on here and trash-talking schools neither they nor their kids have any realistic shot of attending.

nailed it

signed,
HYP grad who went to college with some very interesting people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After many years of dealing with artists, I can say that I've never personally known a truly outstanding musician (or painter, sculpture, etc.) who didn't periodically falter in some serious way in terms of criteria viewed as a necessity for admission at top universities. ALL of the Ivies, plus Stanford, and Duke will certainly accept a B+/1200 SAT student who is truly a top international talent. But they view that as a major concession for a seriously "lopsided" talent like this. Try getting a B-/C student who is barely willing to prep and take the SAT and has an issue with authority that causes them to periodically have unexcused absences and speak rudely to the teacher into these same schools. I know everyone has some anecdotal counterexample, but just understand that this is what real talent looks like, and these are the kinds of people that just can't be admitted. Everyone doesn't have to be a part of every institution, and Ivies/Duke/Stanford are fabulous institutions, but let's just be clear about what kinds of talents are actually being admitted into these schools.

You focused on musicians and sculptors because you knew people would immediately be more familiar with talented writers and actors who’ve attended elite schools. So transparent.

I focused on them because they are artists who I spend a lot of time around! But I don't see any reason why outstanding writers are any more able to fit into the structure of these universities.

And for that matter, I don't know how you would study this, but I'm pretty sure that the "best" writers are significantly less likely to attend "elite" colleges, at least in the last 50 years.

As long as you’re “pretty sure” it must be true, right? Do you really have no idea how silly you sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important.

Actually, they select *against* precisely this group of people.

Agree, these types from our HS do not get in to T10s even some years when they are val/sal. They come across as vanilla grinders for grades alone. The ones who get in are also at or near the top of the class (depends on year) but have some sort of longer-standing creative activity or in depth extracurricular, and are known to be deep thinkers/curious types, and school success seems to come more naturally with less effort/ less grind mentality.