Which colleges have majority student body of very bright kids but not brainiacs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

So, no one has answered. What is "doing better" post-college? Is it net worth at age 50? Lifetime W-2 income? Salary at age 30?

This whole discussion is misguided - speaking as someone who has retired from a Wall Street career at age 50.

It could mean for example their graduate school destination. Haverford top 10 may go to Harvard law school or Harvard medical school. Harvard bottom 50% may end up at lower ranked graduate schools.

Right, but it's so subjective. This whole discussion is pointless because there's not a standardized way of "doing better".

Example 1: I might say becoming a SWE at Google is "doing worse" than becoming an MD at Goldman in their Dallas, TX office. You might, rightly, disagree.

Example 2: So, Haverford's top 10 might go to Harvard Law, but Harvard's bottom 50% might go to KKR. No MBA needed. Right? Then the Haverford Biglaw (Latham, Kirkland) partner ends up working for the Harvard KKR MD - who is his top client and he's at his beck and call. So Haverford Biglaw makes $6MM a year and Harvard KKR MD makes $16M.

Do you see how this analysis simply fails? Obviously, the opposite could be true. But there's no guarantee. And I know people in all of the examples above. Replace Haverford with Colgate or Midd.

Ha.
No one really wants to know how the real world works. But maybe they'll come back in 10 years and claim everything was rigged against them. They were always focused on the wrong metrics. But who's going to tell them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

So, no one has answered. What is "doing better" post-college? Is it net worth at age 50? Lifetime W-2 income? Salary at age 30?

This whole discussion is misguided - speaking as someone who has retired from a Wall Street career at age 50.

It could mean for example their graduate school destination. Haverford top 10 may go to Harvard law school or Harvard medical school. Harvard bottom 50% may end up at lower ranked graduate schools.

Right, but it's so subjective. This whole discussion is pointless because there's not a standardized way of "doing better".

Example 1: I might say becoming a SWE at Google is "doing worse" than becoming an MD at Goldman in their Dallas, TX office. You might, rightly, disagree.

Example 2: So, Haverford's top 10 might go to Harvard Law, but Harvard's bottom 50% might go to KKR. No MBA needed. Right? Then the Haverford Biglaw (Latham, Kirkland) partner ends up working for the Harvard KKR MD - who is his top client and he's at his beck and call. So Haverford Biglaw makes $6MM a year and Harvard KKR MD makes $16M.

Do you see how this analysis simply fails? Obviously, the opposite could be true. But there's no guarantee. And I know people in all of the examples above. Replace Haverford with Colgate or Midd.

You are making it unnecessarily complicated. Each year some Haverford graduates go to HLS. Each year some Harvard graduates go to Fordham Law. As simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

So, no one has answered. What is "doing better" post-college? Is it net worth at age 50? Lifetime W-2 income? Salary at age 30?

This whole discussion is misguided - speaking as someone who has retired from a Wall Street career at age 50.

It could mean for example their graduate school destination. Haverford top 10 may go to Harvard law school or Harvard medical school. Harvard bottom 50% may end up at lower ranked graduate schools.

Right, but it's so subjective. This whole discussion is pointless because there's not a standardized way of "doing better".

Example 1: I might say becoming a SWE at Google is "doing worse" than becoming an MD at Goldman in their Dallas, TX office. You might, rightly, disagree.

Example 2: So, Haverford's top 10 might go to Harvard Law, but Harvard's bottom 50% might go to KKR. No MBA needed. Right? Then the Haverford Biglaw (Latham, Kirkland) partner ends up working for the Harvard KKR MD - who is his top client and he's at his beck and call. So Haverford Biglaw makes $6MM a year and Harvard KKR MD makes $16M.

Do you see how this analysis simply fails? Obviously, the opposite could be true. But there's no guarantee. And I know people in all of the examples above. Replace Haverford with Colgate or Midd.

You are making it unnecessarily complicated. Each year some Haverford graduates go to HLS. Each year some Harvard graduates go to Fordham Law. As simple as that.

I think you are measuring the wrong thing. And at the wrong interval.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

So, no one has answered. What is "doing better" post-college? Is it net worth at age 50? Lifetime W-2 income? Salary at age 30?

This whole discussion is misguided - speaking as someone who has retired from a Wall Street career at age 50.

It could mean for example their graduate school destination. Haverford top 10 may go to Harvard law school or Harvard medical school. Harvard bottom 50% may end up at lower ranked graduate schools.

Right, but it's so subjective. This whole discussion is pointless because there's not a standardized way of "doing better".

Example 1: I might say becoming a SWE at Google is "doing worse" than becoming an MD at Goldman in their Dallas, TX office. You might, rightly, disagree.

Example 2: So, Haverford's top 10 might go to Harvard Law, but Harvard's bottom 50% might go to KKR. No MBA needed. Right? Then the Haverford Biglaw (Latham, Kirkland) partner ends up working for the Harvard KKR MD - who is his top client and he's at his beck and call. So Haverford Biglaw makes $6MM a year and Harvard KKR MD makes $16M.

Do you see how this analysis simply fails? Obviously, the opposite could be true. But there's no guarantee. And I know people in all of the examples above. Replace Haverford with Colgate or Midd.

Ha.
No one really wants to know how the real world works. But maybe they'll come back in 10 years and claim everything was rigged against them. They were always focused on the wrong metrics. But who's going to tell them?

Yes. My point exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

I am sorta fascinated by the UChicago hater. S/he has a level of personal vendetta that goes above and beyond. Truly curious to understand this person's motivation.

The UChicago cured me of hating Northwestern.

Northwestern is a great university with great classes, but it was sometimes just so mean. The Kellogg people I met while doing a group project were so arrogant and stupid. Simply trying to figure out whether I should get a measles booster was a bureaucratic nightmare. I feel rage when I get a fundraising request from Northwestern

But I would be furious if someone trashed Northwestern the stupid way people here trash UChicago and Columbia. It’s so mean and unfair, and probably, in my opinion, part of the Trumpie attack on higher education. I want to hate Northwestern for my own reasons, but I don’t want to see the Trumpies tearing it down as part of their effort to destroy America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

I am sorta fascinated by the UChicago hater. S/he has a level of personal vendetta that goes above and beyond. Truly curious to understand this person's motivation.

The UChicago cured me of hating Northwestern.

Northwestern is a great university with great classes, but it was sometimes just so mean. The Kellogg people I met while doing a group project were so arrogant and stupid. Simply trying to figure out whether I should get a measles booster was a bureaucratic nightmare. I feel rage when I get a fundraising request from Northwestern

But I would be furious if someone trashed Northwestern the stupid way people here trash UChicago and Columbia. It’s so mean and unfair, and probably, in my opinion, part of the Trumpie attack on higher education. I want to hate Northwestern for my own reasons, but I don’t want to see the Trumpies tearing it down as part of their effort to destroy America.

I hated my experience at Northwestern too but I agree with you about not liking it when it’s trashed. Not having a positive opinion or experience with a certain school doesn’t mean that it’s not quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

I am sorta fascinated by the UChicago hater. S/he has a level of personal vendetta that goes above and beyond. Truly curious to understand this person's motivation.

The UChicago cured me of hating Northwestern.

Northwestern is a great university with great classes, but it was sometimes just so mean. The Kellogg people I met while doing a group project were so arrogant and stupid. Simply trying to figure out whether I should get a measles booster was a bureaucratic nightmare. I feel rage when I get a fundraising request from Northwestern

But I would be furious if someone trashed Northwestern the stupid way people here trash UChicago and Columbia. It’s so mean and unfair, and probably, in my opinion, part of the Trumpie attack on higher education. I want to hate Northwestern for my own reasons, but I don’t want to see the Trumpies tearing it down as part of their effort to destroy America.

I hated my experience at Northwestern too but I agree with you about not liking it when it’s trashed. Not having a positive opinion or experience with a certain school doesn’t mean that it’s not quality.

Huh.
I loved my northwestern experience. Mid90s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

I am sorta fascinated by the UChicago hater. S/he has a level of personal vendetta that goes above and beyond. Truly curious to understand this person's motivation.

The UChicago cured me of hating Northwestern.

Northwestern is a great university with great classes, but it was sometimes just so mean. The Kellogg people I met while doing a group project were so arrogant and stupid. Simply trying to figure out whether I should get a measles booster was a bureaucratic nightmare. I feel rage when I get a fundraising request from Northwestern

But I would be furious if someone trashed Northwestern the stupid way people here trash UChicago and Columbia. It’s so mean and unfair, and probably, in my opinion, part of the Trumpie attack on higher education. I want to hate Northwestern for my own reasons, but I don’t want to see the Trumpies tearing it down as part of their effort to destroy America.

I hated my experience at Northwestern too but I agree with you about not liking it when it’s trashed. Not having a positive opinion or experience with a certain school doesn’t mean that it’s not quality.

I had a very mixed experience at a T20 that is beloved among many. I would absolutely give the pros and cons for potential applicants/parents to consider, but I would never simply trash it in a mean-spirited way. I do wonder what drives the UC hater - a former faculty member who was denied tenure? Someone who made a 6-figure donation and her kid was still rejected? So bizarre and mysterious.

[Anonymous]

You are being ridiculous.

First if all, the SAT is not the only measure of intelligence. (Even if intelligence was the only human quality of value.)

But it is ridiculous that you seem to be seeking a school where your kid will never run the risk of having to mingle with anyone whose SAT score was lower than hers.

Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“We know she doesn't belong in a MIT, Caltech, Chicago type genius schools full of high scoring geniuses…”

How do you “know” this? I would suggest state school. They have a wide range of kids and she is sure to find her place with such a diversity of test aptitudes.

It’s a troll post. Especially calling Chicago a genius school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

So, no one has answered. What is "doing better" post-college? Is it net worth at age 50? Lifetime W-2 income? Salary at age 30?

This whole discussion is misguided - speaking as someone who has retired from a Wall Street career at age 50.

It could mean for example their graduate school destination. Haverford top 10 may go to Harvard law school or Harvard medical school. Harvard bottom 50% may end up at lower ranked graduate schools.

Right, but it's so subjective. This whole discussion is pointless because there's not a standardized way of "doing better".

Example 1: I might say becoming a SWE at Google is "doing worse" than becoming an MD at Goldman in their Dallas, TX office. You might, rightly, disagree.

Example 2: So, Haverford's top 10 might go to Harvard Law, but Harvard's bottom 50% might go to KKR. No MBA needed. Right? Then the Haverford Biglaw (Latham, Kirkland) partner ends up working for the Harvard KKR MD - who is his top client and he's at his beck and call. So Haverford Biglaw makes $6MM a year and Harvard KKR MD makes $16M.

Do you see how this analysis simply fails? Obviously, the opposite could be true. But there's no guarantee. And I know people in all of the examples above. Replace Haverford with Colgate or Midd.

You are making it unnecessarily complicated. Each year some Haverford graduates go to HLS. Each year some Harvard graduates go to Fordham Law. As simple as that.

You just don’t want to see how wrong you are. I bet you have a CS /math degree and/or lower middle management career someplace. Have no idea what the real world at the very top looks like.

This whole thread is clearly written by someone who has no idea what actual success looks like. It’s a caricature of success. Based on what they see on Twitter or from far away. Not up close or lived experience. It’s actually mind blowing how misguided people are on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

I am sorta fascinated by the UChicago hater. S/he has a level of personal vendetta that goes above and beyond. Truly curious to understand this person's motivation.

And she is just silly to think HPY still have extremely high standards and are filled with 1590s. The girl who got into Yale on TikTok bragging about her 1370, and all the athletes we know and DEI there do NOT have 1540s all around by ANY stretch, GIVE IT A REST.

DP. The so-called “Chicago hater” is correct that Chicago does not have enough money to drop ED. Or to revert to test-mandatory, for that matter.

They’re wrong when they imply that top private-school students don’t apply. The whole situation works because the kids who are “top students” from Chicago’s POV don't have the hooks to be “top students” from the POV of other T10 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

I am sorta fascinated by the UChicago hater. S/he has a level of personal vendetta that goes above and beyond. Truly curious to understand this person's motivation.

And she is just silly to think HPY still have extremely high standards and are filled with 1590s. The girl who got into Yale on TikTok bragging about her 1370, and all the athletes we know and DEI there do NOT have 1540s all around by ANY stretch, GIVE IT A REST.

DP. The so-called “Chicago hater” is correct that Chicago does not have enough money to drop ED. Or to revert to test-mandatory, for that matter.

They’re wrong when they imply that top private-school students don’t apply. The whole situation works because the kids who are “top students” from Chicago’s POV don't have the hooks to be “top students” from the POV of other T10 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

I am sorta fascinated by the UChicago hater. S/he has a level of personal vendetta that goes above and beyond. Truly curious to understand this person's motivation.

DP. The so-called “Chicago hater” is correct that Chicago does not have enough money to drop ED. Or to revert to test-mandatory, for that matter.

They’re wrong when they imply that top private-school students don’t apply. The whole situation works because the kids who are “top students” from Chicago’s POV don't have the hooks to be “top students” from the POV of other T10 schools.

And she is just silly to think HPY still have extremely high standards and are filled with 1590s. The girl who got into Yale on TikTok bragging about her 1370, and all the athletes we know and DEI there do NOT have 1540s all around by ANY stretch, GIVE IT A REST.

[Anonymous]

Curious what is Chicago’s point of view. 3.2-3.4 gpa full pay private school?