Why is it so hard to accept that the students at better colleges are simply better students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selective grad schools, law schools and med schools all disagree with you. They admit from elite undergrads, but most admits aren't and there are many admits from even very low ranked schools. You have a second chance to shine in undergrad and professional programs are happy to snatch up those who didn't attend an elite school, but who proved themselves as in undergrad.

Seriously, go look at the list of admits at Harvard Law or Yale Law and you'll be surprised. It's not at all dominated by T20 grads.

Most grad schools are not selective. And at selective grad programs, those random no-name colleges you see on their class lists are generally hooked applicants.

So you think the kid that went to Appalachian State or Florida International University just saved their hook so they could use it to get into Harvard for grad school? They were just saving it for later? Or did their parents become billionaire donors while they were in college? Nope.

I was one of those kids. Got into a T20, but turned it down for a tier 4 because I needed a full ride. I also got into a top grad school, fully funded, and ultimately got my PhD from a Nobel Laureate. How? I applied and got funding to do research with very respected professors during each summer of undergrad so I had several top tier publications and amazing recommendation letters. No hooks. Just hard work.

Exactly. Many many stories like this every year. I know a guy who recently graduated from a university ranked in the 125-150 range after turning down Penn and Carnegie Mellon. He finished in 4 years with both a bachelor's and a master's, and like you he did research every year. He had a job as a researcher at one of the most desirable places for people in his field locked down before graduation.

Another recent grad chose a not-elite state university over Princeton, published two papers as an undergrad, graduated in 3 years, and is now at an Ivy pursuing his PhD.

No hooks for either. Just worked hard like you did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

I see, you never hired an employee before.

[Anonymous]

I went to what’s considered a great school now, and I had a 2.8 GPA. I bombed my freshman and sophomore years of high school.

Overall, this is sort of true. But there are so many kids with great grades and scores that—outside from being a legacy, famous, athlete, etc…you have to do things that are far beyond what normal kids do to be impressive. So, it’s not that lots of kids aren’t great students. But they aren’t great students + something else that is exceptional. And most 17 year olds just aren’t at that place yet…if they ever will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to what’s considered a great school now, and I had a 2.8 GPA. I bombed my freshman and sophomore years of high school.

Overall, this is sort of true. But there are so many kids with great grades and scores that—outside from being a legacy, famous, athlete, etc…you have to do things that are far beyond what normal kids do to be impressive. So, it’s not that lots of kids aren’t great students. But they aren’t great students + something else that is exceptional. And most 17 year olds just aren’t at that place yet…if they ever will be.

This is the answer. Having the stats is not enough.

[Anonymous]

True. The same things could be said of T10 law and medical schools! There I said it lol

[Anonymous]

1. Not ADD: While others may have been better students because they were neurotypical, that doesn't mean they are smarter. If a school only wants neurotypical students, then they can keep accepting 4.7 kids with 1700 SAT scores.

2. Cheating: My child spent four hours on a project when others spent 15 minutes cheating. So there's another reason. Some of the so-called "better students" are cheating.

3. Rich AF: Some of the "better students" are merely rich. Jared Kushner. George Bush (C Student at Yale) Do you think Ivanka Trump (Penn) could have been a "better student"? LOL!

4. Zero Support for College: My parents knew zilch about applying to schools and didn't help me at all. With zero support and an undiagnosed learning disability, I got decent grades, placed into gifted classes, and accepted into a state flagship.


I'm surprised you couldn't think of the reasons yourself, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Not ADD: While others may have been better students because they were neurotypical, that doesn't mean they are smarter. If a school only wants neurotypical students, then they can keep accepting 4.7 kids with 1700 SAT scores.

2. Cheating: My child spent four hours on a project when others spent 15 minutes cheating. So there's another reason. Some of the so-called "better students" are cheating.

3. Rich AF: Some of the "better students" are merely rich. Jared Kushner. George Bush (C Student at Yale) Do you think Ivanka Trump (Penn) could have been a "better student"? LOL!

4. Zero Support for College: My parents knew zilch about applying to schools and didn't help me at all. With zero support and an undiagnosed learning disability, I got decent grades, placed into gifted classes, and accepted into a state flagship.


I'm surprised you couldn't think of the reasons yourself, OP.

You really think kids are ‘cheating’ themselves into top colleges? You think you know they are cheating and their teachers, guidance counselors and the admissions officers do not?

OP has his point slightly wrong. They may not be ‘better students’ because that is subjective and for everyone. They are ‘better candidates’ because that is objective and set by the colleges and their admissions departments, and totally whatever they think that means. As it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Not ADD: While others may have been better students because they were neurotypical, that doesn't mean they are smarter. If a school only wants neurotypical students, then they can keep accepting 4.7 kids with 1700 SAT scores.

2. Cheating: My child spent four hours on a project when others spent 15 minutes cheating. So there's another reason. Some of the so-called "better students" are cheating.

3. Rich AF: Some of the "better students" are merely rich. Jared Kushner. George Bush (C Student at Yale) Do you think Ivanka Trump (Penn) could have been a "better student"? LOL!

4. Zero Support for College: My parents knew zilch about applying to schools and didn't help me at all. With zero support and an undiagnosed learning disability, I got decent grades, placed into gifted classes, and accepted into a state flagship.


I'm surprised you couldn't think of the reasons yourself, OP.

You really think kids are ‘cheating’ themselves into top colleges? You think you know they are cheating and their teachers, guidance counselors and the admissions officers do not?

OP has his point slightly wrong. They may not be ‘better students’ because that is subjective and for everyone. They are ‘better candidates’ because that is objective and set by the colleges and their admissions departments, and totally whatever they think that means. As it should be.

Actually, there is a lot more cheating going on than when we were in high school, especially since the pandemic. We who work in the schools are aware of it and doing what we can to stop it/convince them they're not helping themselves any in the long run. It's not easy when they feel such ridiculous pressure to have as high a GPA as possible and aren't focused on learning the skills as much as they should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Not ADD: While others may have been better students because they were neurotypical, that doesn't mean they are smarter. If a school only wants neurotypical students, then they can keep accepting 4.7 kids with 1700 SAT scores.

2. Cheating: My child spent four hours on a project when others spent 15 minutes cheating. So there's another reason. Some of the so-called "better students" are cheating.

3. Rich AF: Some of the "better students" are merely rich. Jared Kushner. George Bush (C Student at Yale) Do you think Ivanka Trump (Penn) could have been a "better student"? LOL!

4. Zero Support for College: My parents knew zilch about applying to schools and didn't help me at all. With zero support and an undiagnosed learning disability, I got decent grades, placed into gifted classes, and accepted into a state flagship.


I'm surprised you couldn't think of the reasons yourself, OP.

I don't even know where to start with this. Just no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

I see, you never hired an employee before.

I see you don’t understand the difference between data and anecdote.

(Hint: everyone in here claiming they don’t care about school rank when they hire = anecdote.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

And you’ll just have to accept that there are many people who aren’t worried about rank and prestige. Will you be a good employee? Will you be a good fit for the climate we cultivate? Awesome, and you’re hired. I don’t care where you went to school. I probably won’t even ask or pay attention to it on your resume.

If prestige is this important to you, then feel free to chase it. You’ll just have to accept that there many people who don’t want to join your race. And no, it’s not because we can’t compete. We just don’t care.

You can’t accept the obvious fact that many employers do indeed care about school prestige. They come and recruit at better campuses, they don’t do that at Begonia State. But yeah go ahead and “not care” in your crappy middle management job at the power company or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Not ADD: While others may have been better students because they were neurotypical, that doesn't mean they are smarter. If a school only wants neurotypical students, then they can keep accepting 4.7 kids with 1700 SAT scores.

2. Cheating: My child spent four hours on a project when others spent 15 minutes cheating. So there's another reason. Some of the so-called "better students" are cheating.

3. Rich AF: Some of the "better students" are merely rich. Jared Kushner. George Bush (C Student at Yale) Do you think Ivanka Trump (Penn) could have been a "better student"? LOL!

4. Zero Support for College: My parents knew zilch about applying to schools and didn't help me at all. With zero support and an undiagnosed learning disability, I got decent grades, placed into gifted classes, and accepted into a state flagship.


I'm surprised you couldn't think of the reasons yourself, OP.

I don't even know where to start with this. Just no.

Just went through the process twice and this all checks out. The rockstar student who has so many great leadership roles? He “earned votes” by promising to bring alcohol to all the competitions. The talented art student with a perfect gpa? Her mom did a lot of her art projects, their city connections got her shows, and her parents’ money bought her tutoring to ensure all As and full pay to college helped get her in. There are kids who don’t do this, of course, but they too are hurt by the number of kids and parents willing to win at all costs.

They get away with it because most schools (especially privates) don’t want to ruin relationships and the kid’s future. They also want the big names for their matriculation list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Not ADD: While others may have been better students because they were neurotypical, that doesn't mean they are smarter. If a school only wants neurotypical students, then they can keep accepting 4.7 kids with 1700 SAT scores.

2. Cheating: My child spent four hours on a project when others spent 15 minutes cheating. So there's another reason. Some of the so-called "better students" are cheating.

3. Rich AF: Some of the "better students" are merely rich. Jared Kushner. George Bush (C Student at Yale) Do you think Ivanka Trump (Penn) could have been a "better student"? LOL!

4. Zero Support for College: My parents knew zilch about applying to schools and didn't help me at all. With zero support and an undiagnosed learning disability, I got decent grades, placed into gifted classes, and accepted into a state flagship.


I'm surprised you couldn't think of the reasons yourself, OP.

You really think kids are ‘cheating’ themselves into top colleges? You think you know they are cheating and their teachers, guidance counselors and the admissions officers do not?

OP has his point slightly wrong. They may not be ‘better students’ because that is subjective and for everyone. They are ‘better candidates’ because that is objective and set by the colleges and their admissions departments, and totally whatever they think that means. As it should be.

Actually, there is a lot more cheating going on than when we were in high school, especially since the pandemic. We who work in the schools are aware of it and doing what we can to stop it/convince them they're not helping themselves any in the long run. It's not easy when they feel such ridiculous pressure to have as high a GPA as possible and aren't focused on learning the skills as much as they should be.

That’s irrelevant to the PPs claim kids were cheating themselves into top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people in here huffing and puffing that they don’t care about school rank when they hire.

Yet we know that grads from better schools make more money than grads from lower-tier schools both when they start and 20+ years after graduation. Thus, it is unquestionably clear that writ large, employers DO care about school rank, and do think that grads of top schools make better employees.

Money talks, bullsht stays on DCUM forums.

And you’ll just have to accept that there are many people who aren’t worried about rank and prestige. Will you be a good employee? Will you be a good fit for the climate we cultivate? Awesome, and you’re hired. I don’t care where you went to school. I probably won’t even ask or pay attention to it on your resume.

If prestige is this important to you, then feel free to chase it. You’ll just have to accept that there many people who don’t want to join your race. And no, it’s not because we can’t compete. We just don’t care.

You can’t accept the obvious fact that many employers do indeed care about school prestige. They come and recruit at better campuses, they don’t do that at Begonia State. But yeah go ahead and “not care” in your crappy middle management job at the power company or whatever.

I’m the PP. If it makes you feel better to put others down, then go right on ahead. You can feel more elite, more intelligent, or whatever. It really doesn’t bother me. My worth on this planet is not held up in what college I went to, what DCUMers think of me, etc. I grew out of that long ago.

- still not caring

[Anonymous]

Asian kid accepted on merit (non-athlete, non-legacy) at Bucknell will almost certainly be a better student than a minority kid at Harvard… or an athlete… or a white legacy kid. This dynamic has deepened in recent years as various quota programs—whether affirmative action, legacy, athletics, or over-reliance on BS extracurriculars that are mostly fake have overtaken the core objective of academic excellence at most schools. It’s terrible and will eventually screw these schools over,