The T-20 obsession comes down to class, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're setting up a strawman with 'foreclose.' For STEM careers, where you did your undergrad does matter. Georgia Tech, UT Cockrell, Caltech, Rice, MIT aren't just names on the back of your SUV. The research pipelines, faculty connections, peer networks, and venture capital ecosystems (looking at you, Stanford and MIT) shape outcomes in concrete ways, especially for students headed toward PhD programs, elite research positions, or startups.
The law school analogy isn't quite right. A strong LSAT and GPA can get you from Arizona into a T-14, and from there the law school prestige and targeted recruiting does the heavy lifting for clerkships, the academy, big law. PhD admissions, research opportunities, faculty recommendations, the institutional reputation (prestige) runs through all of it in STEM in ways the law school pipeline simply doesn't.

Strive much?

DP. You say “strive” like it’s a bad thing. My kid is a striving AI research scientist who no doubt could make a lot more in industry but is choosing academia as a career. DC, whose work focuses on translational AI in health and medicine, is glad to be at a resource-rich, “prestigious” university where they were able to join a lab as a freshman, attain funded fellowships to conduct full-time research over the summers, publish and present at conferences early on in their academic career, and so on.

Just listen to yourself. You sound unhinged.

You sound like unhinged. Why are you going after a stem nerd?

[Anonymous]

I think your major plays a role. I went to Northern Illinois University and majored in Math. I am an actuary and make a very good living. I make over $300k/year. Now I understand that for some on this forum unless you make $500l/year you are an absolute failure. Whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this seems primarily an East Coast obsession.

If you have spent time in the bay area immigrant community you wouldn't say that. Among the non-immigrant upper class private school crowd on the West Coast things seem to be a bit more chill. Very good schools or better are expected but the T20 obsession definitely isn't as strong.

That's because rich people don't need their kids to go to a T10 to make connections. They already have those connections. Their kids will get the top jobs through those connections.

Unhooked kids can benefit most from the T10 connections, but most of the universities have more spots open for legacies, the wealthy and athletes than for unhooked applicatns.

While, this is intuitively true...the wealthiest, most connected rich people still send their kids to T10 schools. Gates' kids at Stanford, Bezos' kids at Princeton (transferred to MIT), Musk's kid at Brown, etc.

It's simply a strange, urban myth that rich parents aren't pretty obsessed with their kids also attending top schools. The crazy top college consultants charge like $750,000 to children of hedge fund founders, PE fund founders, Tech entrepreneurs...and yes, very wealthy international families (though those families are a far cry from immigrant families in the US).

I don't doubt that, and I bet they hide the obsession with elite colleges from other parents. They like to play it off cool.. "Oh, I don't really care where Larla goes to college as long as it's a good fit and they are happy there", all while paying $$$ to college consultants to get their kids into the most prestigious college they can.

I paid $100 for a college student to read one of my DC's essays. Other than that, we didn't pay for any tutors (for any SAT/AP exams) or college consultants. The one person I know who did pay $$$ for a college consultant was an umc white parent.

The stereotyping of Asian parents on this board is off the charts.

-asian immigrant parent

Putting it another way for you: racism and jealousy from the white people are off the chart here.

I think these white parents hate that Asian kids "strive" too hard, making it harder for their kids. They believe that these Asian kids' efforts should be purely based on innate talent. But then these same white parents will pay up the nose for travel sports, college counselors and all kinds of extra curriculars; send them to private schools.. all to package their kid's college application.

This kind of thing happened in the town of Princeton years ago when the white parents didn't like that the Asian kids were coming into their HS with their studying and work ethic, making it harder for their white kids to keep up. The white parents wanted their kids to be able to be involved in extra curriculars and have top grades, but it was getting harder to do that because the Asian kids came into town and up'd the academic rigor. Said Asian students also had extra curriculars and kept their grades up. But, the white parents didn't like that there was "too much pressure" now on their kids.

Same old sh(t - blame the others for taking away what you think is rightfully yours without you having to work too hard. This is very MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're setting up a strawman with 'foreclose.' For STEM careers, where you did your undergrad does matter. Georgia Tech, UT Cockrell, Caltech, Rice, MIT aren't just names on the back of your SUV. The research pipelines, faculty connections, peer networks, and venture capital ecosystems (looking at you, Stanford and MIT) shape outcomes in concrete ways, especially for students headed toward PhD programs, elite research positions, or startups.
The law school analogy isn't quite right. A strong LSAT and GPA can get you from Arizona into a T-14, and from there the law school prestige and targeted recruiting does the heavy lifting for clerkships, the academy, big law. PhD admissions, research opportunities, faculty recommendations, the institutional reputation (prestige) runs through all of it in STEM in ways the law school pipeline simply doesn't.

You are correct...but there has to be a reason when you see the undergrads at say Yale or Harvard law school, you may only see 2-3 kids who attended Arizona, but you will see literally hundreds that attended an Ivy or other Top 20 undergrad. Both Yale and Harvard law schools alone will have like 100+ kids who attended Yale undergrad and a 100+ kids who attended Harvard undergrad.

Perhaps it's because Arizona undergrads for the most part just want to practice law in Phoenix or Tucson...I don't know. I would imagine the University of Arizona law school has 100+ kids who went to University of Arizona undergrad.

Yale Law doesn't even have 200 total students in an entire class.

Yeah...that's why the 100+ was for the entire law school. When Yale last published this data, I believe like 29% of Yale Law School students went to Yale undergrad.

Nope. The class of 2028 has 204 students from 85 schools. If the percent were anywhere near that high, we'd be talking 60 from Yale and 142 from 84 other schools. Less than 2 kids on average. The class is not now and never has been that lopsided.

The most recent data I can find on line is the Yale Law bulletin for 2020. It says that out of 636 students in the JD program in 2018, 90 went to Yale undergrad. That's 14 percent, not 29.

The most annoying thing about DCUM's college forum is how often posters pull the wrong numbers completely out of their a$$es when the right ones are so easily searchable on line. It happens time and again.

Way to miss the forest through the trees, but OK 14% went to Yale (which is close to 100, but yes well below 29%).

You have the data, so how many at Yale law went to a top 20 school undergrad in 2018...and how many went to University of Arizona. Or post the link, and I will tell you.

Certainly, when you review the list there are at least 60+ colleges who are just sending 1 kid to Yale each.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. I know I should just go outside and pull some weeds or do something else more useful than participate in yet another pissing match on this board, but I'll bite.

Hard working immigrants and other disadvantaged folks can actually benefit more from a top 20 than others because going to one of them moves them up from first base to third, where most of the others who attend those schools started on third base in the first place. Study after study confirms this.

But if you're ALREADY on third base, as most DCUM families and private school families are, then no it doesn't matter in the slightest.

It would depend on what the kid wants to do. Even for those born on third base, going to a T20 matters if they want to go into finance, consulting or increasingly tech. And that typically is where a majority of graduates end up from the top 20 schools. That degree opens doors on Wall Street, FAANG and so on that are largely closed to everyone else.

Also, as others have noted, the top 20 universities are often the most affordable option for bright and accomplished MC and UMC students. The cost is often substantially lower than going to the state flagship. Add in the peer group and generally a great education and you can see why so many want to attend.

That is not my experience. I went to my state flagship because I had a full ride. The flagship in the neighboring state gave me a partial scholarship. Plenty of kids from my kid's high school get scholarships to in-state universities. If a kid has the qualifications to be admitted to a T-20, with financial aid, there is no way that kid is not going to get a substantial (or full) scholarship from their own state university.

FALSE. The most generous schools (five ivies, MIT and Stanford) give need based aid to some degree up to around 300k HHI, free tuition for up to 200k.
The next tier (rest of ivies, Duke, JHU, handful of others) give need based aid into the upper 200s and free tuition high 100s. They all have NPCs and seek to continue to have over half their students on need-based aid. This is not secret information. The families in the group around 150k-300k get need based aid from these schools that often takes the cost down to the same or slightly higher than UVA or WM in state yet those schools offer ZERO need based aid to these families, and have ZERO merit scholarships for top students. Many flagships are similar to their in-state residents, minimal need based and almost no merit. Merit at lower ranked publics for OOS families will get that public close to their in-state public but the ivy+ top-need-aid will remain a better deal.

WRONG: You completely missed the point, which is that a kid who is qualified for admission to an Ivy is guaranteed a merit-based scholarship to their state school. The post had nothing to do with financial aid. Kids from DC's high school have received merit-based aid from UVA and other VA schools, so your argument that UVA provides zero merit-based scholarships is wrong. My niece just got a full-ride to a flagship in another state. I mean, seriously, what state school offers zero merit-based aid to in-state students? You are clearly an Ivy booster/apologist.

Absolutely false! I have two kids admitted HYPSM and none of them received merit scholarship at the state colleges, not even a penny!

Were you applying to your in-state schools, or out-of-state public schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this seems primarily an East Coast obsession.

If you have spent time in the bay area immigrant community you wouldn't say that. Among the non-immigrant upper class private school crowd on the West Coast things seem to be a bit more chill. Very good schools or better are expected but the T20 obsession definitely isn't as strong.

That's because rich people don't need their kids to go to a T10 to make connections. They already have those connections. Their kids will get the top jobs through those connections.

Unhooked kids can benefit most from the T10 connections, but most of the universities have more spots open for legacies, the wealthy and athletes than for unhooked applicatns.

While, this is intuitively true...the wealthiest, most connected rich people still send their kids to T10 schools. Gates' kids at Stanford, Bezos' kids at Princeton (transferred to MIT), Musk's kid at Brown, etc.

It's simply a strange, urban myth that rich parents aren't pretty obsessed with their kids also attending top schools. The crazy top college consultants charge like $750,000 to children of hedge fund founders, PE fund founders, Tech entrepreneurs...and yes, very wealthy international families (though those families are a far cry from immigrant families in the US).

I don't doubt that, and I bet they hide the obsession with elite colleges from other parents. They like to play it off cool.. "Oh, I don't really care where Larla goes to college as long as it's a good fit and they are happy there", all while paying $$$ to college consultants to get their kids into the most prestigious college they can.

I paid $100 for a college student to read one of my DC's essays. Other than that, we didn't pay for any tutors (for any SAT/AP exams) or college consultants. The one person I know who did pay $$$ for a college consultant was an umc white parent.

The stereotyping of Asian parents on this board is off the charts.

-asian immigrant parent

Putting it another way for you: racism and jealousy from the white people are off the chart here.

I think these white parents hate that Asian kids "strive" too hard, making it harder for their kids. They believe that these Asian kids' efforts should be purely based on innate talent. But then these same white parents will pay up the nose for travel sports, college counselors and all kinds of extra curriculars; send them to private schools.. all to package their kid's college application.

This kind of thing happened in the town of Princeton years ago when the white parents didn't like that the Asian kids were coming into their HS with their studying and work ethic, making it harder for their white kids to keep up. The white parents wanted their kids to be able to be involved in extra curriculars and have top grades, but it was getting harder to do that because the Asian kids came into town and up'd the academic rigor. Said Asian students also had extra curriculars and kept their grades up. But, the white parents didn't like that there was "too much pressure" now on their kids.

Same old sh(t - blame the others for taking away what you think is rightfully yours without you having to work too hard. This is very MAGA.

According to my observation, this is actually the case for the most part, i.e., Asian kids tend to have much more raw talent than their white counterparts, which I believe is where the jealousy is really from. For example, look at the IMO outcomes and team selection process, Asians simply dominate. This is not something that can be made up for by work ethic. But white people are just too jealous and reluctant to admit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. I know I should just go outside and pull some weeds or do something else more useful than participate in yet another pissing match on this board, but I'll bite.

Hard working immigrants and other disadvantaged folks can actually benefit more from a top 20 than others because going to one of them moves them up from first base to third, where most of the others who attend those schools started on third base in the first place. Study after study confirms this.

But if you're ALREADY on third base, as most DCUM families and private school families are, then no it doesn't matter in the slightest.

It would depend on what the kid wants to do. Even for those born on third base, going to a T20 matters if they want to go into finance, consulting or increasingly tech. And that typically is where a majority of graduates end up from the top 20 schools. That degree opens doors on Wall Street, FAANG and so on that are largely closed to everyone else.

Also, as others have noted, the top 20 universities are often the most affordable option for bright and accomplished MC and UMC students. The cost is often substantially lower than going to the state flagship. Add in the peer group and generally a great education and you can see why so many want to attend.

That is not my experience. I went to my state flagship because I had a full ride. The flagship in the neighboring state gave me a partial scholarship. Plenty of kids from my kid's high school get scholarships to in-state universities. If a kid has the qualifications to be admitted to a T-20, with financial aid, there is no way that kid is not going to get a substantial (or full) scholarship from their own state university.

FALSE. The most generous schools (five ivies, MIT and Stanford) give need based aid to some degree up to around 300k HHI, free tuition for up to 200k.
The next tier (rest of ivies, Duke, JHU, handful of others) give need based aid into the upper 200s and free tuition high 100s. They all have NPCs and seek to continue to have over half their students on need-based aid. This is not secret information. The families in the group around 150k-300k get need based aid from these schools that often takes the cost down to the same or slightly higher than UVA or WM in state yet those schools offer ZERO need based aid to these families, and have ZERO merit scholarships for top students. Many flagships are similar to their in-state residents, minimal need based and almost no merit. Merit at lower ranked publics for OOS families will get that public close to their in-state public but the ivy+ top-need-aid will remain a better deal.

WRONG: You completely missed the point, which is that a kid who is qualified for admission to an Ivy is guaranteed a merit-based scholarship to their state school. The post had nothing to do with financial aid. Kids from DC's high school have received merit-based aid from UVA and other VA schools, so your argument that UVA provides zero merit-based scholarships is wrong. My niece just got a full-ride to a flagship in another state. I mean, seriously, what state school offers zero merit-based aid to in-state students? You are clearly an Ivy booster/apologist.

Penn State. Notoriously stingy with merit aid.

[Anonymous]

It depends on your major.

For CS, UIUC or UMD or George Tech are much better than JHU or Chicago, or many other T20 school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. I know I should just go outside and pull some weeds or do something else more useful than participate in yet another pissing match on this board, but I'll bite.

Hard working immigrants and other disadvantaged folks can actually benefit more from a top 20 than others because going to one of them moves them up from first base to third, where most of the others who attend those schools started on third base in the first place. Study after study confirms this.

But if you're ALREADY on third base, as most DCUM families and private school families are, then no it doesn't matter in the slightest.

It would depend on what the kid wants to do. Even for those born on third base, going to a T20 matters if they want to go into finance, consulting or increasingly tech. And that typically is where a majority of graduates end up from the top 20 schools. That degree opens doors on Wall Street, FAANG and so on that are largely closed to everyone else.

Also, as others have noted, the top 20 universities are often the most affordable option for bright and accomplished MC and UMC students. The cost is often substantially lower than going to the state flagship. Add in the peer group and generally a great education and you can see why so many want to attend.

That is not my experience. I went to my state flagship because I had a full ride. The flagship in the neighboring state gave me a partial scholarship. Plenty of kids from my kid's high school get scholarships to in-state universities. If a kid has the qualifications to be admitted to a T-20, with financial aid, there is no way that kid is not going to get a substantial (or full) scholarship from their own state university.

FALSE. The most generous schools (five ivies, MIT and Stanford) give need based aid to some degree up to around 300k HHI, free tuition for up to 200k.
The next tier (rest of ivies, Duke, JHU, handful of others) give need based aid into the upper 200s and free tuition high 100s. They all have NPCs and seek to continue to have over half their students on need-based aid. This is not secret information. The families in the group around 150k-300k get need based aid from these schools that often takes the cost down to the same or slightly higher than UVA or WM in state yet those schools offer ZERO need based aid to these families, and have ZERO merit scholarships for top students. Many flagships are similar to their in-state residents, minimal need based and almost no merit. Merit at lower ranked publics for OOS families will get that public close to their in-state public but the ivy+ top-need-aid will remain a better deal.

WRONG: You completely missed the point, which is that a kid who is qualified for admission to an Ivy is guaranteed a merit-based scholarship to their state school. The post had nothing to do with financial aid. Kids from DC's high school have received merit-based aid from UVA and other VA schools, so your argument that UVA provides zero merit-based scholarships is wrong. My niece just got a full-ride to a flagship in another state. I mean, seriously, what state school offers zero merit-based aid to in-state students? You are clearly an Ivy booster/apologist.

Absolutely false! I have two kids admitted HYPSM and none of them received merit scholarship at the state colleges, not even a penny!

Were you applying to your in-state schools, or out-of-state public schools?

Both, e.g., UVA, Umich, Gatech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. I know I should just go outside and pull some weeds or do something else more useful than participate in yet another pissing match on this board, but I'll bite.

Hard working immigrants and other disadvantaged folks can actually benefit more from a top 20 than others because going to one of them moves them up from first base to third, where most of the others who attend those schools started on third base in the first place. Study after study confirms this.

But if you're ALREADY on third base, as most DCUM families and private school families are, then no it doesn't matter in the slightest.

It would depend on what the kid wants to do. Even for those born on third base, going to a T20 matters if they want to go into finance, consulting or increasingly tech. And that typically is where a majority of graduates end up from the top 20 schools. That degree opens doors on Wall Street, FAANG and so on that are largely closed to everyone else.

Also, as others have noted, the top 20 universities are often the most affordable option for bright and accomplished MC and UMC students. The cost is often substantially lower than going to the state flagship. Add in the peer group and generally a great education and you can see why so many want to attend.

That is not my experience. I went to my state flagship because I had a full ride. The flagship in the neighboring state gave me a partial scholarship. Plenty of kids from my kid's high school get scholarships to in-state universities. If a kid has the qualifications to be admitted to a T-20, with financial aid, there is no way that kid is not going to get a substantial (or full) scholarship from their own state university.

FALSE. The most generous schools (five ivies, MIT and Stanford) give need based aid to some degree up to around 300k HHI, free tuition for up to 200k.
The next tier (rest of ivies, Duke, JHU, handful of others) give need based aid into the upper 200s and free tuition high 100s. They all have NPCs and seek to continue to have over half their students on need-based aid. This is not secret information. The families in the group around 150k-300k get need based aid from these schools that often takes the cost down to the same or slightly higher than UVA or WM in state yet those schools offer ZERO need based aid to these families, and have ZERO merit scholarships for top students. Many flagships are similar to their in-state residents, minimal need based and almost no merit. Merit at lower ranked publics for OOS families will get that public close to their in-state public but the ivy+ top-need-aid will remain a better deal.

WRONG: You completely missed the point, which is that a kid who is qualified for admission to an Ivy is guaranteed a merit-based scholarship to their state school. The post had nothing to do with financial aid. Kids from DC's high school have received merit-based aid from UVA and other VA schools, so your argument that UVA provides zero merit-based scholarships is wrong. My niece just got a full-ride to a flagship in another state. I mean, seriously, what state school offers zero merit-based aid to in-state students? You are clearly an Ivy booster/apologist.

Penn State. Notoriously stingy with merit aid.

Are you a Pennsylvania resident?

[Anonymous]

In France we don't put our college bumper sticker on our car. We do have prestigious colleges and we do have people who are obsessed with the best colleges as well.

But the US is at a whole different level. If I tell someone I went to X(Polytechnique) he probably won't ask me further questions. Now when an American tells you her went to MIT OMG lol..

[Anonymous]

My Ivy (not HYPSM) got a full-ride at an oos public flagship. Their own highly ranked public didn’t even choose them for any of their special programs they applied to or even honors (buts it’s kind of a joke there anyway). I don’t think he was their target for those based on a classmate that received and things read online. No complaints, but it was eye-opening. I was very naive going in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this seems primarily an East Coast obsession.

If you have spent time in the bay area immigrant community you wouldn't say that. Among the non-immigrant upper class private school crowd on the West Coast things seem to be a bit more chill. Very good schools or better are expected but the T20 obsession definitely isn't as strong.

That's because rich people don't need their kids to go to a T10 to make connections. They already have those connections. Their kids will get the top jobs through those connections.

Unhooked kids can benefit most from the T10 connections, but most of the universities have more spots open for legacies, the wealthy and athletes than for unhooked applicatns.

While, this is intuitively true...the wealthiest, most connected rich people still send their kids to T10 schools. Gates' kids at Stanford, Bezos' kids at Princeton (transferred to MIT), Musk's kid at Brown, etc.

It's simply a strange, urban myth that rich parents aren't pretty obsessed with their kids also attending top schools. The crazy top college consultants charge like $750,000 to children of hedge fund founders, PE fund founders, Tech entrepreneurs...and yes, very wealthy international families (though those families are a far cry from immigrant families in the US).

I don't doubt that, and I bet they hide the obsession with elite colleges from other parents. They like to play it off cool.. "Oh, I don't really care where Larla goes to college as long as it's a good fit and they are happy there", all while paying $$$ to college consultants to get their kids into the most prestigious college they can.

I paid $100 for a college student to read one of my DC's essays. Other than that, we didn't pay for any tutors (for any SAT/AP exams) or college consultants. The one person I know who did pay $$$ for a college consultant was an umc white parent.

The stereotyping of Asian parents on this board is off the charts.

-asian immigrant parent

Putting it another way for you: racism and jealousy from the white people are off the chart here.

I think these white parents hate that Asian kids "strive" too hard, making it harder for their kids. They believe that these Asian kids' efforts should be purely based on innate talent. But then these same white parents will pay up the nose for travel sports, college counselors and all kinds of extra curriculars; send them to private schools.. all to package their kid's college application.

This kind of thing happened in the town of Princeton years ago when the white parents didn't like that the Asian kids were coming into their HS with their studying and work ethic, making it harder for their white kids to keep up. The white parents wanted their kids to be able to be involved in extra curriculars and have top grades, but it was getting harder to do that because the Asian kids came into town and up'd the academic rigor. Said Asian students also had extra curriculars and kept their grades up. But, the white parents didn't like that there was "too much pressure" now on their kids.

Same old sh(t - blame the others for taking away what you think is rightfully yours without you having to work too hard. This is very MAGA.

According to my observation, this is actually the case for the most part, i.e., Asian kids tend to have much more raw talent than their white counterparts, which I believe is where the jealousy is really from. For example, look at the IMO outcomes and team selection process, Asians simply dominate. This is not something that can be made up for by work ethic. But white people are just too jealous and reluctant to admit it.

What is raw talent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're setting up a strawman with 'foreclose.' For STEM careers, where you did your undergrad does matter. Georgia Tech, UT Cockrell, Caltech, Rice, MIT aren't just names on the back of your SUV. The research pipelines, faculty connections, peer networks, and venture capital ecosystems (looking at you, Stanford and MIT) shape outcomes in concrete ways, especially for students headed toward PhD programs, elite research positions, or startups.
The law school analogy isn't quite right. A strong LSAT and GPA can get you from Arizona into a T-14, and from there the law school prestige and targeted recruiting does the heavy lifting for clerkships, the academy, big law. PhD admissions, research opportunities, faculty recommendations, the institutional reputation (prestige) runs through all of it in STEM in ways the law school pipeline simply doesn't.

Strive much?

DP. You say “strive” like it’s a bad thing. My kid is a striving AI research scientist who no doubt could make a lot more in industry but is choosing academia as a career. DC, whose work focuses on translational AI in health and medicine, is glad to be at a resource-rich, “prestigious” university where they were able to join a lab as a freshman, attain funded fellowships to conduct full-time research over the summers, publish and present at conferences early on in their academic career, and so on.

Just listen to yourself. You sound unhinged.

You sound like unhinged. Why are you going after a stem nerd?

Right? That stem nerd is leveraging technology to improve people’s health and wellbeing, yet somehow PP thinks this is a negative. Heaven forbid young people strive like this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this seems primarily an East Coast obsession.

If you have spent time in the bay area immigrant community you wouldn't say that. Among the non-immigrant upper class private school crowd on the West Coast things seem to be a bit more chill. Very good schools or better are expected but the T20 obsession definitely isn't as strong.

That's because rich people don't need their kids to go to a T10 to make connections. They already have those connections. Their kids will get the top jobs through those connections.

Unhooked kids can benefit most from the T10 connections, but most of the universities have more spots open for legacies, the wealthy and athletes than for unhooked applicatns.

While, this is intuitively true...the wealthiest, most connected rich people still send their kids to T10 schools. Gates' kids at Stanford, Bezos' kids at Princeton (transferred to MIT), Musk's kid at Brown, etc.

It's simply a strange, urban myth that rich parents aren't pretty obsessed with their kids also attending top schools. The crazy top college consultants charge like $750,000 to children of hedge fund founders, PE fund founders, Tech entrepreneurs...and yes, very wealthy international families (though those families are a far cry from immigrant families in the US).

I don't doubt that, and I bet they hide the obsession with elite colleges from other parents. They like to play it off cool.. "Oh, I don't really care where Larla goes to college as long as it's a good fit and they are happy there", all while paying $$$ to college consultants to get their kids into the most prestigious college they can.

I paid $100 for a college student to read one of my DC's essays. Other than that, we didn't pay for any tutors (for any SAT/AP exams) or college consultants. The one person I know who did pay $$$ for a college consultant was an umc white parent.

The stereotyping of Asian parents on this board is off the charts.

-asian immigrant parent

Putting it another way for you: racism and jealousy from the white people are off the chart here.

I think these white parents hate that Asian kids "strive" too hard, making it harder for their kids. They believe that these Asian kids' efforts should be purely based on innate talent. But then these same white parents will pay up the nose for travel sports, college counselors and all kinds of extra curriculars; send them to private schools.. all to package their kid's college application.

This kind of thing happened in the town of Princeton years ago when the white parents didn't like that the Asian kids were coming into their HS with their studying and work ethic, making it harder for their white kids to keep up. The white parents wanted their kids to be able to be involved in extra curriculars and have top grades, but it was getting harder to do that because the Asian kids came into town and up'd the academic rigor. Said Asian students also had extra curriculars and kept their grades up. But, the white parents didn't like that there was "too much pressure" now on their kids.

Same old sh(t - blame the others for taking away what you think is rightfully yours without you having to work too hard. This is very MAGA.

According to my observation, this is actually the case for the most part, i.e., Asian kids tend to have much more raw talent than their white counterparts, which I believe is where the jealousy is really from. For example, look at the IMO outcomes and team selection process, Asians simply dominate. This is not something that can be made up for by work ethic. But white people are just too jealous and reluctant to admit it.

What is raw talent?

The ability of not having to ask such a dumb question.