What an Ivy league education gets you - the Atlantic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study findings are what I intuitively would have said was the thing an elite institution gets you. I was a small town girl from a MC high school. Living in a dorm with heiresses and UMC girls acclimated me to the life I lived "ever after."

I would say the same but with regard to academic and intellectual firepower rather than lifestyle factors.

I managed to get to a T10 school without working hard or challenging myself much in high school. I knew I was very smart, so though I engaged when I wanted to, I mostly coasted through.

My T10 college changed that immediately. The environment stimulated and challenged me - to dig deeper, work harder, and push myself to the learning edge again and again. The discourse was more complex and sophisticated, and the “average” performance was astronomical compared to my previous environments. My classmates were truely impressive, and being around them helped me grow more than any concept or material I learned in a book or from a lecture.

It’s always about the people. Our peers help frame our daily lives and influence us so much more than we often realize.

And you get the exact same peer profile at another 20 or so universities and dozen or so SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

When these schools corner the market on high student caliber, the result is the same.
There schools studied have the maximum density if you will of superior minded students, everywhere: classrooms, labs, clubs.
Though I suppose one could add Caltech, Northwestern and JHU to the ivy+ schools studied: based on pre-test optional data they are likely essentially the same student population.

Caltech provides something Americans don’t respect: rigorous education and a dedication towards improving science, not for profit, but for humanity’s sake. There’s a reason the American people adore MIT as a bastion for intellectual science while having never heard of Caltech- MIT provides all the useful tech for bombing others, stealing our data, creating polarizing media. Meanwhile Caltech students disproportionately receive PhDs and go in to the less profitable route of academia to improve our society.

Cool story bro.
today’s Caltech is for MIT rejects, which isn’t that bad actually:

Maybe, but my DD got into MIT and she didn't get into CalTech so maybe not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

That has been studied, multiple times, comparing the group of students who had the choice and picked ivy+ MIT/Stanford/Duke /Chicago versus those who picked lower ranked schools. For the most competitive sectors of various fields, the ivy+ schools gave a small but statistically significant boost.

Until you control for family income and education. In those cases it's pretty negligible except in cases of kids going from poverty to ivy--but there's not a huge control group because those kids will get full rides anywhere so there isn't a huge comparison group at flagships.

For UMC kids, not much difference.

Oh yes there is. You have to have one at an ivy and one at a good public or good LAC to see it. It is night and day.

Been there and done that. May hold for a public but the kids at one's Ivy had nothing on the kids at the other ones' SLAC. It was the opposite if anything. You can ask either today and they will agree that the one who went to the SLAC got the better deal all around. Both are highly successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

When these schools corner the market on high student caliber, the result is the same.
There schools studied have the maximum density if you will of superior minded students, everywhere: classrooms, labs, clubs.
Though I suppose one could add Caltech, Northwestern and JHU to the ivy+ schools studied: based on pre-test optional data they are likely essentially the same student population.

Caltech provides something Americans don’t respect: rigorous education and a dedication towards improving science, not for profit, but for humanity’s sake. There’s a reason the American people adore MIT as a bastion for intellectual science while having never heard of Caltech- MIT provides all the useful tech for bombing others, stealing our data, creating polarizing media. Meanwhile Caltech students disproportionately receive PhDs and go in to the less profitable route of academia to improve our society.

Cool story bro.
today’s Caltech is for MIT rejects, which isn’t that bad actually:

Maybe, but my DD got into MIT and she didn't get into CalTech so maybe not.

Does that conflict with what I said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

When these schools corner the market on high student caliber, the result is the same.
There schools studied have the maximum density if you will of superior minded students, everywhere: classrooms, labs, clubs.
Though I suppose one could add Caltech, Northwestern and JHU to the ivy+ schools studied: based on pre-test optional data they are likely essentially the same student population.

Caltech provides something Americans don’t respect: rigorous education and a dedication towards improving science, not for profit, but for humanity’s sake. There’s a reason the American people adore MIT as a bastion for intellectual science while having never heard of Caltech- MIT provides all the useful tech for bombing others, stealing our data, creating polarizing media. Meanwhile Caltech students disproportionately receive PhDs and go in to the less profitable route of academia to improve our society.

Cool story bro.
today’s Caltech is for MIT rejects, which isn’t that bad actually:

Maybe, but my DD got into MIT and she didn't get into CalTech so maybe not.

Does that conflict with what I said?

Pretty much the reverse, MIT was for the Caltech reject in her case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

When these schools corner the market on high student caliber, the result is the same.
There schools studied have the maximum density if you will of superior minded students, everywhere: classrooms, labs, clubs.
Though I suppose one could add Caltech, Northwestern and JHU to the ivy+ schools studied: based on pre-test optional data they are likely essentially the same student population.

Caltech provides something Americans don’t respect: rigorous education and a dedication towards improving science, not for profit, but for humanity’s sake. There’s a reason the American people adore MIT as a bastion for intellectual science while having never heard of Caltech- MIT provides all the useful tech for bombing others, stealing our data, creating polarizing media. Meanwhile Caltech students disproportionately receive PhDs and go in to the less profitable route of academia to improve our society.

Cool story bro.
today’s Caltech is for MIT rejects, which isn’t that bad actually:

Maybe, but my DD got into MIT and she didn't get into CalTech so maybe not.

Does that conflict with what I said?

Pretty much the reverse, MIT was for the Caltech reject in her case.

You wouldn’t think your DD’s case is representative or you’re not lying, would you?
https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=MIT&with=Caltech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

The waitlisted students are of a similar calibre yet don't get the same benefits

So all these CEOs and leaders they’re looking at were waitlisted first? How do they even know if someone was waitlisted in 1950?

You should read the study, or paste it into AI and ask it these questions.

Stupid answer. Thanks for confirming that you’re an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study findings are what I intuitively would have said was the thing an elite institution gets you. I was a small town girl from a MC high school. Living in a dorm with heiresses and UMC girls acclimated me to the life I lived "ever after."

I would say the same but with regard to academic and intellectual firepower rather than lifestyle factors.

I managed to get to a T10 school without working hard or challenging myself much in high school. I knew I was very smart, so though I engaged when I wanted to, I mostly coasted through.

My T10 college changed that immediately. The environment stimulated and challenged me - to dig deeper, work harder, and push myself to the learning edge again and again. The discourse was more complex and sophisticated, and the “average” performance was astronomical compared to my previous environments. My classmates were truely impressive, and being around them helped me grow more than any concept or material I learned in a book or from a lecture.

It’s always about the people. Our peers help frame our daily lives and influence us so much more than we often realize.

Do your truly impressive former classmates also post pathetic screeds on anonymous mommy message boards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12% are ivy ceos. What about the other 88%? It’s a dumb report. I know plenty of multi millionaires who went to average schools and some who didn’t even go to college.

If 0.5% percent of American students attend an Ivy but 12% of CEOs went to an Ivy, then that actual demonstrates that Ivy grads actually are overrepresented at the top, relative to their prevalence in the general population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

When these schools corner the market on high student caliber, the result is the same.
There schools studied have the maximum density if you will of superior minded students, everywhere: classrooms, labs, clubs.
Though I suppose one could add Caltech, Northwestern and JHU to the ivy+ schools studied: based on pre-test optional data they are likely essentially the same student population.

Caltech provides something Americans don’t respect: rigorous education and a dedication towards improving science, not for profit, but for humanity’s sake. There’s a reason the American people adore MIT as a bastion for intellectual science while having never heard of Caltech- MIT provides all the useful tech for bombing others, stealing our data, creating polarizing media. Meanwhile Caltech students disproportionately receive PhDs and go in to the less profitable route of academia to improve our society.

Cool story bro.
today’s Caltech is for MIT rejects, which isn’t that bad actually:

Maybe, but my DD got into MIT and she didn't get into CalTech so maybe not.

Does that conflict with what I said?

Pretty much the reverse, MIT was for the Caltech reject in her case.

You wouldn’t think your DD’s case is representative or you’re not lying, would you?
https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=MIT&with=Caltech

Lying no, she didn’t get into Caltech and she got into MIT. Simple as that and given the excess of demand relative to supply either result makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is calling Caltech the spot for MIT rejects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

This is it, it’s not the same despite what everyone wants to believe.

Isn't the absolute number of 1%ers on SAT much larger than it was decades ago? Because the Ivies haven't expanded enrollment, a lot of top kids must go elsewhere. More than in the past. I think that's why some schools' reputations have strengthened significantly...more top students exist to attend them. Plus the prepping/grinding culture has spread along with American economic uncertainty. So there are tons of high stat kids with hooks not at Ivies.

https://www.economicstrategygroup.org/publication/the-small-role-of-ivy-league-schools-in-us-higher-education/

"America’s elite institutions can certainly take steps to play a larger role in the higher education landscape – most prominently perhaps is expanding access, something done by only a few of these schools very recently. In fact, while America’s colleges and universities awarded nearly 1 million more bachelor’s degrees in 2022 compared to 1990, Ivy League schools accounted for just 3,539 (or 0.35 percent) of that increase."

I don't believe that Ivy-educated people can become more powerful in an population where their numbers are getting diluted.

I also think there is evidence that academic and ethical culture is very messed up at top schools just as well as at lower-ranked schools. So not sure that past results as measured by retrospective studies predict future performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

That has been studied, multiple times, comparing the group of students who had the choice and picked ivy+ MIT/Stanford/Duke /Chicago versus those who picked lower ranked schools. For the most competitive sectors of various fields, the ivy+ schools gave a small but statistically significant boost.

Until you control for family income and education. In those cases it's pretty negligible except in cases of kids going from poverty to ivy--but there's not a huge control group because those kids will get full rides anywhere so there isn't a huge comparison group at flagships.

For UMC kids, not much difference.

Oh yes there is. You have to have one at an ivy and one at a good public or good LAC to see it. It is night and day.

Been there and done that. May hold for a public but the kids at one's Ivy had nothing on the kids at the other ones' SLAC. It was the opposite if anything. You can ask either today and they will agree that the one who went to the SLAC got the better deal all around. Both are highly successful.

Which Ivy and which SLAC? Dartmouth is basically a SLAC with a grad school tacked on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

When these schools corner the market on high student caliber, the result is the same.
There schools studied have the maximum density if you will of superior minded students, everywhere: classrooms, labs, clubs.
Though I suppose one could add Caltech, Northwestern and JHU to the ivy+ schools studied: based on pre-test optional data they are likely essentially the same student population.

Caltech provides something Americans don’t respect: rigorous education and a dedication towards improving science, not for profit, but for humanity’s sake. There’s a reason the American people adore MIT as a bastion for intellectual science while having never heard of Caltech- MIT provides all the useful tech for bombing others, stealing our data, creating polarizing media. Meanwhile Caltech students disproportionately receive PhDs and go in to the less profitable route of academia to improve our society.

Cool story bro.
today’s Caltech is for MIT rejects, which isn’t that bad actually:

Maybe, but my DD got into MIT and she didn't get into CalTech so maybe not.

Does that conflict with what I said?

Pretty much the reverse, MIT was for the Caltech reject in her case.

You wouldn’t think your DD’s case is representative or you’re not lying, would you?
https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=MIT&with=Caltech

This doesn't prove your claim of Caltech being for MIT rejects. For that, you would need to look at all the Caltech admits and see what fraction where admitted to MIT. Parchment does not have that data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

The waitlisted students are of a similar calibre yet don't get the same benefits

So all these CEOs and leaders they’re looking at were waitlisted first? How do they even know if someone was waitlisted in 1950?

You should read the study, or paste it into AI and ask it these questions.

Stupid answer. Thanks for confirming that you’re an idiot.

It's not answer, it's advice. It's one thing to demand to be spoonfed, and quite another to throw a tantrum when told to feed yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, yes.

I was at MIT with Drew Houston (knew him) and at the same time Zuckerberg (didn't know him) was at Harvard. Could've dated two future billionaires 🤣.

I've had friends that created and sold tech companies created with team mates or classmates at MIT.

Some people came to MIT with money or access to money. MIT opened doors to money too. Still does.

Yep, Zuckerberg's wife who came from a humble, working-class, and immigrant background hit the jackpot by being admitted to Harvard.

Did she though? Have you ever met Mark Zuckerberg? I have and um, yeah I don't think she "hit the jackpot" at all.

But, but he did impersonate Benson Boone to sing "Beautiful Things" to her and commissioned a statue of her for their backyard. That should make up for Facebook and sucking up to Trump.