Anyone in a wealthy area that isn’t competitive with colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you toured the top 20 schools in the last 2 years and actually noticed the students at these schools? Have you seen the kids on the tours with you? The demographic of top 20 schools has changed drastically. The kids attending skew nerdy and awkward. If you are more of a “smart, social kid that likes to party” type, the Ivy and Ivy+ are not that appealing — especially if you are already a part of the 1%. The top 20s used to be filled with kids like this, but those days are gone.

this ^ 100% - I advise kids and invariably it is the parents and hard core nerds looking for ivies. The cool, relaxed, athletic, social - and most of all, smart - kids want the Dukes, Vandies, SMU, UCLAs of the world. The tide shifted post covid and is only accelerating. Often a big disconnect between the striving parent (just saw this term on another post - luv it) who is ivy or bust, and what the kid wants. And where the kid doesn’t get a say, it’s almost as if they are robots saying “yes, I want ivy”

I had to laugh a bit at this because you have a somewhat biased view of "smart". I wonder if you looked at the profile of nobel laureates, top authors, journalists, musicians etc. how many would be considered nerdy and somewhat non-mainstream in high school and how many would be considered cool, relaxed, athletic, and social. However, I do agree that the "cool kids" probably would prefer the schools you mentioned.

DP

I guess it comes down to whether you’d rather end up living in Malibu Colony without a Nobel prize or living in a Tarzana condo with one?

I think most choose the former. Bear in mind, exceptional brilliance is more often a curse than a gift.

For that reason, I’d place my bet on a well-rounded “smart” applicant over “the smartest kid” every day of the week. Once I see 36/1600 and a wall of 5s on 12+ AP exams, the ability to solve a Rubik’s cube in 3 seconds matters not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine LA is like this.

It is. It’s not nearly as brand name conscious as DMV or NY ‘burbs. USC is the big enchilada here.

wtf are you talking about? Harvard Westlake and other LA prep schools send tons of kids to East Coast schools.

Also, kids don’t want to stay in their hometown for college…so USC isn’t the big enchilada for LA kids.

LA kids rather want to go to USC than UCLA.
That's for sure.

Grew up in L.A. in the 80s and 90s. It was the case then (and still the case now) that USC is for kids who couldn't get into UCLA. UCLA is way cheaper, has a nicer and safer campus, and is more diverse. The only reason to go to the University of Spoiled Children is for football and a decent film school and Marshall School of Business. The smart kids will go away to college to Cal or UCSD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in a wealthy part of Los Angeles where there's a lot of self made success. The knock-on effect is that there's lots of students at my kid's HS who have no ambition and as a result they have bad grades / fail classes and so on. They are going to graduate into wealth but without any ambition. It's weird and I think its a particular cultural quirk of the neighborhood we live in.

Agree. I see that all over as well. Southern California is so different than the east coast culture. People will say “but what about Harvard Westlake!” - well that’s irrelevant. Most Californians are not like the families who send their kids to HW. Most Californians are not brand conscious when it comes to college, and the only brands that matter are USC v UCLA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine LA is like this.

It is. It’s not nearly as brand name conscious as DMV or NY ‘burbs. USC is the big enchilada here.

wtf are you talking about? Harvard Westlake and other LA prep schools send tons of kids to East Coast schools.

Also, kids don’t want to stay in their hometown for college…so USC isn’t the big enchilada for LA kids.

LA kids rather want to go to USC than UCLA.
That's for sure.

Grew up in L.A. in the 80s and 90s. It was the case then (and still the case now) that USC is for kids who couldn't get into UCLA. UCLA is way cheaper, has a nicer and safer campus, and is more diverse. The only reason to go to the University of Spoiled Children is for football and a decent film school and Marshall School of Business. The smart kids will go away to college to Cal or UCSD.

This is a very dated opinion for sure. Students here want to go both USC and UCLA, but dealing with the Uc system is a headache no one wants, and USC is much better run. USC students hardly deal with the reprecussions of the area, because the school is mega wealthy and closed off. If you like Westwood, it’s like 4 or 5 expo lines away.

Truly intelligent people go to any of the schools you mentioned, but swap SD with Irvine and also UCSB CCS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine LA is like this.

It is. It’s not nearly as brand name conscious as DMV or NY ‘burbs. USC is the big enchilada here.

wtf are you talking about? Harvard Westlake and other LA prep schools send tons of kids to East Coast schools.

Also, kids don’t want to stay in their hometown for college…so USC isn’t the big enchilada for LA kids.

LA kids rather want to go to USC than UCLA.
That's for sure.

Grew up in L.A. in the 80s and 90s. It was the case then (and still the case now) that USC is for kids who couldn't get into UCLA. UCLA is way cheaper, has a nicer and safer campus, and is more diverse. The only reason to go to the University of Spoiled Children is for football and a decent film school and Marshall School of Business. The smart kids will go away to college to Cal or UCSD.

You are living in the past. Sure, 80’s to mid 90’s, Usc was an academic joke. Different story now. Especially with the uc’s being test-blind. Our children spent most of their grammar school years in SoCal. Keepin up with their cohort of SoCal friends, seems overly lottery-like who got into Ucla & Cal. Small sample, but from our old cohort of SoCal kids we know well. 4 kids got into Ucla. Not the strongest students or what most would expect for a school that claims elite status. A bs exaggerated boohoo medical sob story, a 1st-gen urm total personality admit(parents took her out private hs because it too stressful & academically competitive), & the other 2, decently nice but can’t look people in the eye & hold a conversation type kids, seemingly nothing standout about them. All 4(3 went test-optional)were rejected by Usc. Kids we know of who got into Usc last cycle seemed to be decently hi-stats(uw4.0, 1500+/34+) + outgoing personalities.

[Anonymous]

Wealthy areas of the south (I.e. anywhere with a flagship in the SEC). Top students will often choose the flagship.

[Anonymous]

I think folks are just forgetting how much geography plays a part of all college decisions.

86% of all students at residential colleges attend a school within 500 miles of where they are from.

If Harvard was located in Minnesota, you would have tons more midwesterners apply. How many threads on DCUM basically have parents saying their kid needs to be a 4 hour drive away.

32% of WashU is from the Midwest and only 5% is from New England. If WashU was moved to Vermont, the numbers would be reversed.

Perhaps it feels less stressful if you live in Iowa and you are told you can go to any college within 500 miles…you just eliminated every East Coast and West Coast hyper competitive school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine LA is like this.

It is. It’s not nearly as brand name conscious as DMV or NY ‘burbs. USC is the big enchilada here.

wtf are you talking about? Harvard Westlake and other LA prep schools send tons of kids to East Coast schools.

Also, kids don’t want to stay in their hometown for college…so USC isn’t the big enchilada for LA kids.

LA kids rather want to go to USC than UCLA.
That's for sure.

Grew up in L.A. in the 80s and 90s. It was the case then (and still the case now) that USC is for kids who couldn't get into UCLA. UCLA is way cheaper, has a nicer and safer campus, and is more diverse. The only reason to go to the University of Spoiled Children is for football and a decent film school and Marshall School of Business. The smart kids will go away to college to Cal or UCSD.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine LA is like this.

It is. It’s not nearly as brand name conscious as DMV or NY ‘burbs. USC is the big enchilada here.

wtf are you talking about? Harvard Westlake and other LA prep schools send tons of kids to East Coast schools.

Also, kids don’t want to stay in their hometown for college…so USC isn’t the big enchilada for LA kids.

LA kids rather want to go to USC than UCLA.
That's for sure.

Grew up in L.A. in the 80s and 90s. It was the case then (and still the case now) that USC is for kids who couldn't get into UCLA. UCLA is way cheaper, has a nicer and safer campus, and is more diverse. The only reason to go to the University of Spoiled Children is for football and a decent film school and Marshall School of Business. The smart kids will go away to college to Cal or UCSD.

Welcome to th 21st century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a wealthy part of Los Angeles where there's a lot of self made success. The knock-on effect is that there's lots of students at my kid's HS who have no ambition and as a result they have bad grades / fail classes and so on. They are going to graduate into wealth but without any ambition. It's weird and I think its a particular cultural quirk of the neighborhood we live in.

Agree. I see that all over as well. Southern California is so different than the east coast culture. People will say “but what about Harvard Westlake!” - well that’s irrelevant. Most Californians are not like the families who send their kids to HW. Most Californians are not brand conscious when it comes to college, and the only brands that matter are USC v UCLA

My impression is the Bay Area is very different than Souther California in this respect. But I think parents in the Bay Area care a lot about major, whereas in DC it seems like STEM + Business is not as prioritized. Getting into Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, etc. in a a competitive major is the goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a wealthy part of Los Angeles where there's a lot of self made success. The knock-on effect is that there's lots of students at my kid's HS who have no ambition and as a result they have bad grades / fail classes and so on. They are going to graduate into wealth but without any ambition. It's weird and I think its a particular cultural quirk of the neighborhood we live in.

Agree. I see that all over as well. Southern California is so different than the east coast culture. People will say “but what about Harvard Westlake!” - well that’s irrelevant. Most Californians are not like the families who send their kids to HW. Most Californians are not brand conscious when it comes to college, and the only brands that matter are USC v UCLA

My impression is the Bay Area is very different than Souther California in this respect. But I think parents in the Bay Area care a lot about major, whereas in DC it seems like STEM + Business is not as prioritized. Getting into Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, etc. in a a competitive major is the goal.

Definitely

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in a really wealthy area and it’s surprisingly not that competitive about college admissions. Top ranked public school, average house now over 2.5m in our district and people just want their kids to get into state schools. A small handful go on to more prestigious universities but for the most part people go to middle of the road schools and don’t stress about it. Top 5 % kids go to Georgia or Michigan. Duke and UCLA would be considered elite.

People with generational wealth don't really care that much about college pedigrees. Most often, it's because they themselves are the beneficiaries of generational wealth. They didn't have to do anything, so why should their kids and grandkids have to do hard things?

I used to live in Pebble Beach. The genuine wealth - it's family money. It's not earned. No one worked hard for it. And the wealth continues to grow because they have professionals taking care of it. And in that world, SMU and TCU are elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a really wealthy area and it’s surprisingly not that competitive about college admissions. Top ranked public school, average house now over 2.5m in our district and people just want their kids to get into state schools. A small handful go on to more prestigious universities but for the most part people go to middle of the road schools and don’t stress about it. Top 5 % kids go to Georgia or Michigan. Duke and UCLA would be considered elite.

People with generational wealth don't really care that much about college pedigrees. Most often, it's because they themselves are the beneficiaries of generational wealth. They didn't have to do anything, so why should their kids and grandkids have to do hard things?

I used to live in Pebble Beach. The genuine wealth - it's family money. It's not earned. No one worked hard for it. And the wealth continues to grow because they have professionals taking care of it. And in that world, SMU and TCU are elite.

Nobody in Pebble Beach even gives one second of thought to SMU or TCU. You need better examples…because those are terrible.

There are plenty with multiple generations attending Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you toured the top 20 schools in the last 2 years and actually noticed the students at these schools? Have you seen the kids on the tours with you? The demographic of top 20 schools has changed drastically. The kids attending skew nerdy and awkward. If you are more of a “smart, social kid that likes to party” type, the Ivy and Ivy+ are not that appealing — especially if you are already a part of the 1%. The top 20s used to be filled with kids like this, but those days are gone.

I disagree with this statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a wealthy part of Los Angeles where there's a lot of self made success. The knock-on effect is that there's lots of students at my kid's HS who have no ambition and as a result they have bad grades / fail classes and so on. They are going to graduate into wealth but without any ambition. It's weird and I think its a particular cultural quirk of the neighborhood we live in.

Agree. I see that all over as well. Southern California is so different than the east coast culture. People will say “but what about Harvard Westlake!” - well that’s irrelevant. Most Californians are not like the families who send their kids to HW. Most Californians are not brand conscious when it comes to college, and the only brands that matter are USC v UCLA

Someone said LA…not Southern CA. That’s like saying the DMV is the same as how people in St Mary’s County MD think of college…which of course isn’t the case at all.

I have 5 friends in LA…not southern CA…LA (Brentwood, Santa Monica (OK, technically not LA), Hancock Park)…they all send their kids to private schools and the college competitiveness is no different although no surprise Stanford is the gold standard in their eyes.

They tell me LA public schools are fairly bad at the HS level, though there are magnets. I don’t know enough about LA public comprehensive high schools to comment.