What an Ivy league education gets you - the Atlantic

[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 It's a very outdated metric.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.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

They're test required now. All is well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 It's a very outdated metric.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.

bingo.

Parent of a current Ivy student who describes all of his classmates as "cracked" and says it has made him better.

Same. It can cause angst but boy does it push them all.

If you aspire for your child to be a societal and environmental menace, by all means these schools with a statistically higher concentration of sociopaths will push them.

Some people aspire to more than that, however.

A disproportionate number of medical breakthroughs come from their grads, a disproportionate number of NGOs are run by their grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 It's a very outdated metric.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.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

Disagree. Ivy leagues are all test required now. Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores. The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities.

These tests are meaningless when we all know that the little Larlos of the world studied with tutors for years AND had to take the tests multiple times to achieve their “superior” scores.

These tests are the single most valid and predictive indicators of everything from future college performance to likelihood of publishing research that will be cited.

[Anonymous]

With the Ivy+ schools, once you take out the ALD, FGLI, and DEI, you are not left with many students. The top students tend to be Asian American who may not have many connections. It's a stratified social dynamic that hasn't been captured by researchers yet. Most students will not impress but have regular happy lives. The outliers at every school are the ones to watch for extraordinary lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

Disagree. Ivy leagues are all test required now. Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores. The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities.

Columbia remains TO

If Columbia wasn’t in nyc, it would be struggling to be a t30

If nyu wasn’t in nyc it would be a t100

BS, Forbes ranks Columbia 2nd, after only MIT. The Forbes ranking is exclusively based on outcomes, not the softer factors which are easily manipulated. Columbia is right to ignore USN

That's because it's in NYC.

It measures average outcomes, mostly income

Columbia 2025 < Columbia 2019

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most sure thing you get from an Ivy degree (really only HPY) is bragging rights. In most circles it is shorthand for I’m smart.

But, it also comes with a lot of baggage, especially outside Ivy circles. Many think that Ivy “normals” rest on their laurels and think too highly of themselves. Some normals are so intoxicated by their supposed sophistication that they are tone-deaf to their obnoxiousness. The worst is when Ivy normals level-up by name-dropping notable alumni, especially ones who attended school at the same time but didn’t interact with them. In other words, for many Ivy graduates, the diploma becomes a burden that many don’t wear well. With great opportunities come great, perhaps insurmountable, expectations.

I think one exception might be Cornell.

If you say you went to Cornell, you are signaling that you are smart but nobody thinks you're bragging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is very true. And both schools are full of brilliant kids. Caltech does seem to produce more PhDs who want to advance research. And to the PP that said Caltech shouldn’t be on any list because it’s so small - aren’t the SLACs this board loves also similar size?

[Anonymous]

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.

Great…so please provide your in-depth research or even just a different Atlantic or similar news article supporting your claim.

Also…why do people keep referencing the article as though it came out 10 years ago? It literally just dropped…in the year 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most sure thing you get from an Ivy degree (really only HPY) is bragging rights. In most circles it is shorthand for I’m smart.

But, it also comes with a lot of baggage, especially outside Ivy circles. Many think that Ivy “normals” rest on their laurels and think too highly of themselves. Some normals are so intoxicated by their supposed sophistication that they are tone-deaf to their obnoxiousness. The worst is when Ivy normals level-up by name-dropping notable alumni, especially ones who attended school at the same time but didn’t interact with them. In other words, for many Ivy graduates, the diploma becomes a burden that many don’t wear well. With great opportunities come great, perhaps insurmountable, expectations.

I think one exception might be Cornell.

If you say you went to Cornell, you are signaling that you are smart but nobody thinks you're bragging.

I actually think Cornell says "I'm a slave to the Ivy brand but this is the best I could do." It's kind of embarrassing.
This describes many kids I know who are there.

[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.

This is the reason for the waitlist design, but I agree would be stronger if it was admitted students who decided to go elsewhere. I believe there IS a.study like that but its older (90s?) and showed no effect of attendance choice. The landscape may have changed since then though.

The waitlist are high stat, amazing kids that are UNHOOKED, completely unhooked. The seats available for an unhooked (non-recruit, no legacy, not First Gen, questbridge, Pell Grant, etc). They are waitlisted due to class shaping and priority kids. That’s it.

All of the schools already out the WL kids through committee rounds and they passed, when it came to class shaping there wasn’t a spot. The WL is unranked and they will fill any need from that list, they do not re-review the application.

I have a kid that got off the WL who is top of his class, winning awards, prestigious internships….i think largely because the path wasn’t paved. They weren’t guaranteed admits. Some of the teams have kids with much lower stats that never would be admitted otherwise.

And my kid’s friends at UVA and other schools were of similar caliber. A lot comes down to just luck.

Yep. My kids friend at UVA were identical to him except they were Asian (this is pre SFFA)... and it's not like my kid was the least talented kid at Penn.

[Anonymous]

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’s their exact argument so you agree.

[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.

This is the reason for the waitlist design, but I agree would be stronger if it was admitted students who decided to go elsewhere. I believe there IS a.study like that but its older (90s?) and showed no effect of attendance choice. The landscape may have changed since then though.

The waitlist are high stat, amazing kids that are UNHOOKED, completely unhooked. The seats available for an unhooked (non-recruit, no legacy, not First Gen, questbridge, Pell Grant, etc). They are waitlisted due to class shaping and priority kids. That’s it.

All of the schools already out the WL kids through committee rounds and they passed, when it came to class shaping there wasn’t a spot. The WL is unranked and they will fill any need from that list, they do not re-review the application.

I have a kid that got off the WL who is top of his class, winning awards, prestigious internships….i think largely because the path wasn’t paved. They weren’t guaranteed admits. Some of the teams have kids with much lower stats that never would be admitted otherwise.

And my kid’s friends at UVA and other schools were of similar caliber. A lot comes down to just luck.

Yep. My kids friend at UVA were identical to him except they were Asian (this is pre SFFA)... and it's not like my kid was the least talented kid at Penn.

Yes. My older kid is at an Ivy. My current senior is a carbon copy, with even slightly more rigor. He did not get into an Ivy—though WL at two HPYS. Going to UVA. Got into a T10 and other T20, but the fit isn’t for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true. I went to an Ivy and I'm a Fortune 500 CEO.

Everyone should send their kid to an Ivy 25 years ago so they can be a Fortune 500 CEO too!

Look at Sundae Pichai, Satya Nadella, Jensen Huang, Tim Cook...

Sundai did attend UPenn and Satya attended an ITT school in India which are the equivalent of HYPSM.

Jensen has a graduate degree from Stanford and gives tons more to Stanford than Oregon where he did undergrad.

Tim Cook I will give you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most sure thing you get from an Ivy degree (really only HPY) is bragging rights. In most circles it is shorthand for I’m smart.

But, it also comes with a lot of baggage, especially outside Ivy circles. Many think that Ivy “normals” rest on their laurels and think too highly of themselves. Some normals are so intoxicated by their supposed sophistication that they are tone-deaf to their obnoxiousness. The worst is when Ivy normals level-up by name-dropping notable alumni, especially ones who attended school at the same time but didn’t interact with them. In other words, for many Ivy graduates, the diploma becomes a burden that many don’t wear well. With great opportunities come great, perhaps insurmountable, expectations.

I think one exception might be Cornell.

If you say you went to Cornell, you are signaling that you are smart but nobody thinks you're bragging.

Ummmm, well, not that I assume she’s representative of Cornell graduates in general, but the only one I know fairly well prefaced comments with: “We of the Ivy League…” It probably doesn’t leave the impression that she’s hoping for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a bunch of new ivies including Emory, Vandy, Rice. They can simulate a similar environment.

Ha, nope. Look at parchment match ups, while those are great schools, they are full of kids who didn't get into an Ivy and would have picked it if they had.

My Emory kid toured a couple Ivies but really wasn’t interested and didn’t apply to any. Emory checked off their boxes- warm weather, urban, global, diverse student body. I won’t pretend that Emory (or its peers) are just as selective or prestigious as the Ivies because they’re not. However, not everyone at Emory is wishing they were at an Ivy.

Which in turn is part of why Emory (and similar) will never be in the group of ivy+: the concentration of the highly-driven super smart kids is not as high there. And that's ok.

+1