Colleges with very smart and successful students but relatively few DCUM competitive a**hole types

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the catch.

You know how kids around here have been groomed for top schools their whole lives?
There is a culture in NJ/NJ/CT/MA where kids are groomed socially their entire lives, taught who to associate with and who not to, taught how to choose friends like they’re making business connections...not based on friendship, but based on who has access to what. They don’t care so much about academics, and aren’t that competitive about it, but it’s creepy as hell how calculating these kids are by the time they are in college.

I think I prefer the academically competitive crowd down here.

Funny, to me that is a description that fits the DC area to a perfect tee. There’s a reason everyone makes jokes about DC and its residents’ obsession with the “so what do you do?” question.

NP. But the point is that the “What do you do?” Question is so much better than the “Who are your parents (grandparents)?” Or “What prep school(s) did you attend?” Question.

I avoided the Ivys when I was that age for precisely OP’s reasons. But I think that was a mistake. Harvard is a huge school and therefore has space to admit lots of normal kids as well as all the competitive snobs. It has such name recognitions that a lot of kids who nowheresville have heard of Harvard and will pick it. So, after now having met lots of Harvard grads, I think Harvard is a good choice. I wouldn’t say the same about Yale or Princeton. Stanford has a different kind of snobbery going on. It’s more California cool kid meets future tech bro meet chess club geek.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the catch.

You know how kids around here have been groomed for top schools their whole lives?
There is a culture in NJ/NJ/CT/MA where kids are groomed socially their entire lives, taught who to associate with and who not to, taught how to choose friends like they’re making business connections...not based on friendship, but based on who has access to what. They don’t care so much about academics, and aren’t that competitive about it, but it’s creepy as hell how calculating these kids are by the time they are in college.

I think I prefer the academically competitive crowd down here.

Funny, to me that is a description that fits the DC area to a perfect tee. There’s a reason everyone makes jokes about DC and its residents’ obsession with the “so what do you do?” question.

What I encountered up there was more family wealth/family history and social based. They don’t care so much what you do as who you know and what you have access to that they could gain access to by forging a relationship with you. Down here, I feel like people are looking more for work related networking opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Carleton!

[Anonymous]

MIT
CalTech
Rice
GA Tech
Carnegie Mellon


DCUM types can't handle hardcore engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think where you need to target are places that have lots of well raised, auto-didactic kids who also come from lots of wealth so they don't have be 'gunners' because they have a massive safety net that allows them to be 'chill'.

Non-preprofessional, small, lots of wealth are the keys.

Out of curiosity, which schools match this description? I think of Brown.

Vassar comes to mind. Maybe reed

reed has way too many drugs and i'm pretty lax about drugs myself but reed drug culture is way over the top so it's off the list.

Vassar is a good call. Some of the middle tier nescacs.

[Anonymous]

PP who mentioned going to Reed. I grew up in an affluent suburb of a major city and knew a lot of people who were intelligent, stellar students, and went on to be very successful. But many of them were not particularly intellectual or invested in school outside of getting As...they saw it as a means to achieve and move on to the next thing. They wouldn't want to discuss schoolwork outside of school, for example. Many of those people became management consultants, investment bankers, work in big law, went to med school, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. But for a certain sort of student, that pre-professional environment isn't a great fit. That's why so many people I went to college with are academics now (including myself).

Reed just draws people who don't fit in with that sort of achievement culture that I would stereotype with, say, being a McKinsey consultant. But I have a whole lot of friends from college who are doing incredible work now. Many are faculty, others have started companies, others work in journalism, others in tech. There tends to be a certain desire for autonomous, creative work among Reedies. At Reed, it is cool to care deeply about what you are learning in class and to discuss it constantly outside of class. Everyone is encouraged to dive deeply in their senior thesis. You are given grades, but they are de-emphasized (for example you will get a graded exam back, but it won't have a letter grade on it, or you will get a paper back with comments only, only to find out your grade at the end of the semester--something that would drive my students crazy where I work now). It's not for everyone, and it is largely able to operate like that due to privilege.

And some of the other aspects people associate with Reed that are more negative come with a similar non-conformism that is in both parts intellectually freeing/exploratory and privileged, like its reputation for having a bit of a drug culture. In terms of its drug culture, it's there but not everyone participates, and most who do only participate very occasionally because they are focused on their studies. I won't say it's totally overblown--it is more pervasive than some schools. But I did my postdoc in Berkeley, and I have a lot of high achieving friends who work in tech and biotech in the bay area who have similar attitudes towards drugs, even as adults. It's more that there's a certain type of personality who is curious about, say, taking acid and many of them are drawn to those sorts of environments.

All and all it was a really fantastic, intellectually shaping time for me. I am still in touch with my professors from college now. I feel like I received an excellent education there. Of course there are plenty of issues that come with the entitlement of having an environment like that catered to pretentious, weird, nerdy, intellectual 18-22 year olds. Since leaving college I have worked at public universities, and I appreciate the mission that those schools have and the role they play in their communities and the range of students that attend them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP who mentioned going to Reed. I grew up in an affluent suburb of a major city and knew a lot of people who were intelligent, stellar students, and went on to be very successful. But many of them were not particularly intellectual or invested in school outside of getting As...they saw it as a means to achieve and move on to the next thing. They wouldn't want to discuss schoolwork outside of school, for example. Many of those people became management consultants, investment bankers, work in big law, went to med school, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. But for a certain sort of student, that pre-professional environment isn't a great fit. That's why so many people I went to college with are academics now (including myself).

Reed just draws people who don't fit in with that sort of achievement culture that I would stereotype with, say, being a McKinsey consultant. But I have a whole lot of friends from college who are doing incredible work now. Many are faculty, others have started companies, others work in journalism, others in tech. There tends to be a certain desire for autonomous, creative work among Reedies. At Reed, it is cool to care deeply about what you are learning in class and to discuss it constantly outside of class. Everyone is encouraged to dive deeply in their senior thesis. You are given grades, but they are de-emphasized (for example you will get a graded exam back, but it won't have a letter grade on it, or you will get a paper back with comments only, only to find out your grade at the end of the semester--something that would drive my students crazy where I work now). It's not for everyone, and it is largely able to operate like that due to privilege.

And some of the other aspects people associate with Reed that are more negative come with a similar non-conformism that is in both parts intellectually freeing/exploratory and privileged, like its reputation for having a bit of a drug culture. In terms of its drug culture, it's there but not everyone participates, and most who do only participate very occasionally because they are focused on their studies. I won't say it's totally overblown--it is more pervasive than some schools. But I did my postdoc in Berkeley, and I have a lot of high achieving friends who work in tech and biotech in the bay area who have similar attitudes towards drugs, even as adults. It's more that there's a certain type of personality who is curious about, say, taking acid and many of them are drawn to those sorts of environments.

All and all it was a really fantastic, intellectually shaping time for me. I am still in touch with my professors from college now. I feel like I received an excellent education there. Of course there are plenty of issues that come with the entitlement of having an environment like that catered to pretentious, weird, nerdy, intellectual 18-22 year olds. Since leaving college I have worked at public universities, and I appreciate the mission that those schools have and the role they play in their communities and the range of students that attend them.

awesome write up.

[Anonymous]

Vassar, Reed and Carleton sound great. How are they on performing and visual arts? And how do they compare to Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan?

[Anonymous]

About the comments about Reed:

I would refer folks to an earlier thread on colleges that are the most "intellectual." That thread suggested Swarthmore, Carleton, Chicago and Reed. These schools aren't for everyone, but they are what they are.

[Anonymous]

I had a similar kid. She looked at schools in these groups:
1. British and Canadian schools (more transparent admissions requirements = less gaming of the system).
2. Great state flagships (a greater range of students = the cutthroat factor doesn't dominate campus culture)
3. Midwestern/non coastal mid-size and SLACS (i.e. Notre Dame, Carlton and Rice)
DD wound up going to McGill, loved every minute of it, got a world-class education AND it cost me about 1/3 of the others on her list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a similar kid. She looked at schools in these groups:
1. British and Canadian schools (more transparent admissions requirements = less gaming of the system).
2. Great state flagships (a greater range of students = the cutthroat factor doesn't dominate campus culture)
3. Midwestern/non coastal mid-size and SLACS (i.e. Notre Dame, Carlton and Rice)
DD wound up going to McGill, loved every minute of it, got a world-class education AND it cost me about 1/3 of the others on her list.

I was just going to say McGill. I think McGill has a reputation for being more relaxed than U Toronto, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP who mentioned going to Reed. I grew up in an affluent suburb of a major city and knew a lot of people who were intelligent, stellar students, and went on to be very successful. But many of them were not particularly intellectual or invested in school outside of getting As...they saw it as a means to achieve and move on to the next thing. They wouldn't want to discuss schoolwork outside of school, for example. Many of those people became management consultants, investment bankers, work in big law, went to med school, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. But for a certain sort of student, that pre-professional environment isn't a great fit. That's why so many people I went to college with are academics now (including myself).

Reed just draws people who don't fit in with that sort of achievement culture that I would stereotype with, say, being a McKinsey consultant. But I have a whole lot of friends from college who are doing incredible work now. Many are faculty, others have started companies, others work in journalism, others in tech. There tends to be a certain desire for autonomous, creative work among Reedies. At Reed, it is cool to care deeply about what you are learning in class and to discuss it constantly outside of class. Everyone is encouraged to dive deeply in their senior thesis. You are given grades, but they are de-emphasized (for example you will get a graded exam back, but it won't have a letter grade on it, or you will get a paper back with comments only, only to find out your grade at the end of the semester--something that would drive my students crazy where I work now). It's not for everyone, and it is largely able to operate like that due to privilege.

And some of the other aspects people associate with Reed that are more negative come with a similar non-conformism that is in both parts intellectually freeing/exploratory and privileged, like its reputation for having a bit of a drug culture. In terms of its drug culture, it's there but not everyone participates, and most who do only participate very occasionally because they are focused on their studies. I won't say it's totally overblown--it is more pervasive than some schools. But I did my postdoc in Berkeley, and I have a lot of high achieving friends who work in tech and biotech in the bay area who have similar attitudes towards drugs, even as adults. It's more that there's a certain type of personality who is curious about, say, taking acid and many of them are drawn to those sorts of environments.

All and all it was a really fantastic, intellectually shaping time for me. I am still in touch with my professors from college now. I feel like I received an excellent education there. Of course there are plenty of issues that come with the entitlement of having an environment like that catered to pretentious, weird, nerdy, intellectual 18-22 year olds. Since leaving college I have worked at public universities, and I appreciate the mission that those schools have and the role they play in their communities and the range of students that attend them.

Thank you very much for writing this! My DD is going to Reed in the fall. I feel much better sending her so far away now.

[Anonymous]

This is old and totally anecdotle, but I think it gets at what you're asking...

I toured Johns Hopkins the weekend before I toured Notre Dame. The tour guide at JHU talked about how it's a great school, but the pre-med kids are intense and will steal each others text books.
So I asked the tour guide at ND about that, and she looked at me like I was crazy and talked about the pre-professional science learning centers and the study groups, etc. I ended up at ND, and while it's not a perfect school, and it's not for everyone, generally the student body wants each other to succeed, and sees it as a community, not a competition.

My Carlton and Wash U friends would describe the same type of environment.

The DCUM types who strive for HYPS wouldn't think of going to a school in flyover country, so you're safe for their toxicity there.

[Anonymous]

For what it is worth...someone on reddit calculated where all the 140 valedictorians from a region right outside of NYC we're headed and just over a quarter are headed to ivies with almost all stem majors. Don't usually associate stem majors (with more then half female) with privileged frat bro jerks but maybe times have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a similar kid. She looked at schools in these groups:
1. British and Canadian schools (more transparent admissions requirements = less gaming of the system).
2. Great state flagships (a greater range of students = the cutthroat factor doesn't dominate campus culture)
3. Midwestern/non coastal mid-size and SLACS (i.e. Notre Dame, Carlton and Rice)
DD wound up going to McGill, loved every minute of it, got a world-class education AND it cost me about 1/3 of the others on her list.

Is DD canadian?