Question for anxious parents: what are you truly afraid of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess im afraid that the lying and cheating kids and their parents do (like the fake need for an accommodation, which is rampant even in high school and the “foundations” they started, and the general attitude of doing things only for the application) to get into the “best” schools (and clubs and jobs and the other things) — and the results it all produces — will make my honest, genuine, and kind kid more cynical. He’s the type who helps anyone who needs it, but then watches as they use his work, input, suggestions for their own benefit and never do the same for him. I don’t think he feels like he’s the fool — yet — and I’d like it to stay that way.

I mean, adults aren't better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about spending 400K on their kids' college degree and then the kid can't find a job?

I will get criticized, but this is my honest observation:

Families who can comfortably pay $400k for 1 DC's college (so often over $1million for 2 kids esp if you consider this is post-tax net dollars and the opportunity investment cost) don't actually stress that much about whether their kids get can a job. They may have high expectations for getting the most prestigious and top-earning jobs, but these are not the families who fear their kids will starve and be homeless. Among our friend group, even those who have "normal great" jobs likes doctors, engineers, accountants, sales directors, etc. with HHI $250k-600k send their kids to state schools or try to get some merit. The ones who truly pays $400k cash out of pocket without loans have HHI $1mm+, and they are not worries their kids can't find any job. These parents and kids have enough connections, resources and frankly higher-than-average IQ that even if they don't get their dream job, they know they won't be working at Walmart.

I find it's typically the first-gen parents in the $200k-500k HHI category who are most intense about Ivies/T10 colleges. They have had some success themselves but are not secure about keeping that upward mobility going, and if they had seen someone at work getting promoted in the fast lane or a new young boss coming in with a HYP degree, that's all it takes to get them obsessed about getting into T10. Many top 1% families I know actually care less about Ivies, jobs after undergrad and prefer the WASP and grad school route.

I agree with this in part.

Yes, I agee that UHNW families who can quite comfortably pay $400k+ per child are not viewing the choice of college through a lens of future economic security.

For most familes in this group, questions and concerns about job prospects - especially first jobs and average starting salaries - are much lower on the list of priorities than for other families. Unless the family has a strong "do it yourself" ethos or forced "make your own way" approach, they know their kids will graduate college with accessible generational wealth behind them and access to whatever networks they may want or need to succeed.

But I disagree about these families being less interested or intense about the Ivies/T10 colleges, especially for their kids who have succeeded in rigorous private schools and demonstrated that they meet (or are close to) the "objective" criteria for admission.

In this country, college offers many things in addition to an education and a pathway to a job and career. In America, higher education is - and always has been - a social and economic sorting tool. And my experience tells me that UHNW families do prefer to see their kids at Ivies/T10 colleges if they think it will be a good experience for them overall. This is especially true for parents who themselves had good experiences at these elite schools.

When it comes to viewing college as a vehicle for economic security, families who can comfortably pay $400k_when it comes to the focus on job security

I just want to highlight the difference in what college rankings mean in East Asian countries vs. in US.

In East Asian countries the college rankings reflect purely academic excellence, not wealth. People genuinely respect you if you say you graduated from the University of Tokyo, simply for your academic achievements. Sure, socioeconomic status can provide some advantages, but ultimately it’s the student’s own performance that matters.

Because of this, students can fully enjoy their hobbies—playing soccer, baseball, games, dancing—simply for the joy of it. Extracurriculars are for fun, not to prove their worth, because their academic record already speaks for itself. I am well aware of the grinding culture in East Asia but for truly bright kids, that is not the case. They can do well academically without too much efforts not like how people portrait them that they are just NERDs. Quite the contrary.

Thanks for this perspective! Does this differ between East Asian countries though? And how do college rankings purely reflect academic excellence, and not wealth? Differences in admission procedures?

The key difference is equal opportunity supported by strong public education from K to undergraduate schools.

Reflecting on my own experience growing up in East Asia, I think the biggest difference—this is particularly impactful for the gifted students—is the emphasis on objective, measurable performance and equal access from K–12 through colleges. In countries like China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore, the top universities are all public institutions.

That said, I’m not claiming East Asian countries get everything right. They face serious challenges too: large populations, fewer resources than the U.S., and in some cases income inequality and nepotism that may be even worse than here. Forcing equity doesn’t work—people are born with different abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about spending 400K on their kids' college degree and then the kid can't find a job?

I will get criticized, but this is my honest observation:

Families who can comfortably pay $400k for 1 DC's college (so often over $1million for 2 kids esp if you consider this is post-tax net dollars and the opportunity investment cost) don't actually stress that much about whether their kids get can a job. They may have high expectations for getting the most prestigious and top-earning jobs, but these are not the families who fear their kids will starve and be homeless. Among our friend group, even those who have "normal great" jobs likes doctors, engineers, accountants, sales directors, etc. with HHI $250k-600k send their kids to state schools or try to get some merit. The ones who truly pays $400k cash out of pocket without loans have HHI $1mm+, and they are not worries their kids can't find any job. These parents and kids have enough connections, resources and frankly higher-than-average IQ that even if they don't get their dream job, they know they won't be working at Walmart.

I find it's typically the first-gen parents in the $200k-500k HHI category who are most intense about Ivies/T10 colleges. They have had some success themselves but are not secure about keeping that upward mobility going, and if they had seen someone at work getting promoted in the fast lane or a new young boss coming in with a HYP degree, that's all it takes to get them obsessed about getting into T10. Many top 1% families I know actually care less about Ivies, jobs after undergrad and prefer the WASP and grad school route.

I agree with this in part.

Yes, I agee that UHNW families who can quite comfortably pay $400k+ per child are not viewing the choice of college through a lens of future economic security.

For most familes in this group, questions and concerns about job prospects - especially first jobs and average starting salaries - are much lower on the list of priorities than for other families. Unless the family has a strong "do it yourself" ethos or forced "make your own way" approach, they know their kids will graduate college with accessible generational wealth behind them and access to whatever networks they may want or need to succeed.

But I disagree about these families being less interested or intense about the Ivies/T10 colleges, especially for their kids who have succeeded in rigorous private schools and demonstrated that they meet (or are close to) the "objective" criteria for admission.

In this country, college offers many things in addition to an education and a pathway to a job and career. In America, higher education is - and always has been - a social and economic sorting tool. And my experience tells me that UHNW families do prefer to see their kids at Ivies/T10 colleges if they think it will be a good experience for them overall. This is especially true for parents who themselves had good experiences at these elite schools.

When it comes to viewing college as a vehicle for economic security, families who can comfortably pay $400k_when it comes to the focus on job security

I just want to highlight the difference in what college rankings mean in East Asian countries vs. in US.

In East Asian countries the college rankings reflect purely academic excellence, not wealth. People genuinely respect you if you say you graduated from the University of Tokyo, simply for your academic achievements. Sure, socioeconomic status can provide some advantages, but ultimately it’s the student’s own performance that matters.

Because of this, students can fully enjoy their hobbies—playing soccer, baseball, games, dancing—simply for the joy of it. Extracurriculars are for fun, not to prove their worth, because their academic record already speaks for itself. I am well aware of the grinding culture in East Asia but for truly bright kids, that is not the case. They can do well academically without too much efforts not like how people portrait them that they are just NERDs. Quite the contrary.

Thanks for this perspective! Does this differ between East Asian countries though? And how do college rankings purely reflect academic excellence, and not wealth? Differences in admission procedures?

The key difference is equal opportunity supported by strong public education from K to undergraduate schools.

Reflecting on my own experience growing up in East Asia, I think the biggest difference—this is particularly impactful for the gifted students—is the emphasis on objective, measurable performance and equal access from K–12 through colleges. In countries like China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore, the top universities are all public institutions.

That said, I’m not claiming East Asian countries get everything right. They face serious challenges too: large populations, fewer resources than the U.S., and in some cases income inequality and nepotism that may be even worse than here. Forcing equity doesn’t work—people are born with different abilities.

Supposedly a massive percentage of University of Tokyo students come from just like 20 top private and public high schools.

I assume wealth matters in order to attend one of these feeder schools…you just can’t donate a building to get accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about spending 400K on their kids' college degree and then the kid can't find a job?

I will get criticized, but this is my honest observation:

Families who can comfortably pay $400k for 1 DC's college (so often over $1million for 2 kids esp if you consider this is post-tax net dollars and the opportunity investment cost) don't actually stress that much about whether their kids get can a job. They may have high expectations for getting the most prestigious and top-earning jobs, but these are not the families who fear their kids will starve and be homeless. Among our friend group, even those who have "normal great" jobs likes doctors, engineers, accountants, sales directors, etc. with HHI $250k-600k send their kids to state schools or try to get some merit. The ones who truly pays $400k cash out of pocket without loans have HHI $1mm+, and they are not worries their kids can't find any job. These parents and kids have enough connections, resources and frankly higher-than-average IQ that even if they don't get their dream job, they know they won't be working at Walmart.

I find it's typically the first-gen parents in the $200k-500k HHI category who are most intense about Ivies/T10 colleges. They have had some success themselves but are not secure about keeping that upward mobility going, and if they had seen someone at work getting promoted in the fast lane or a new young boss coming in with a HYP degree, that's all it takes to get them obsessed about getting into T10. Many top 1% families I know actually care less about Ivies, jobs after undergrad and prefer the WASP and grad school route.

I agree with this in part.

Yes, I agee that UHNW families who can quite comfortably pay $400k+ per child are not viewing the choice of college through a lens of future economic security.

For most familes in this group, questions and concerns about job prospects - especially first jobs and average starting salaries - are much lower on the list of priorities than for other families. Unless the family has a strong "do it yourself" ethos or forced "make your own way" approach, they know their kids will graduate college with accessible generational wealth behind them and access to whatever networks they may want or need to succeed.

But I disagree about these families being less interested or intense about the Ivies/T10 colleges, especially for their kids who have succeeded in rigorous private schools and demonstrated that they meet (or are close to) the "objective" criteria for admission.

In this country, college offers many things in addition to an education and a pathway to a job and career. In America, higher education is - and always has been - a social and economic sorting tool. And my experience tells me that UHNW families do prefer to see their kids at Ivies/T10 colleges if they think it will be a good experience for them overall. This is especially true for parents who themselves had good experiences at these elite schools.

When it comes to viewing college as a vehicle for economic security, families who can comfortably pay $400k_when it comes to the focus on job security

I just want to highlight the difference in what college rankings mean in East Asian countries vs. in US.

In East Asian countries the college rankings reflect purely academic excellence, not wealth. People genuinely respect you if you say you graduated from the University of Tokyo, simply for your academic achievements. Sure, socioeconomic status can provide some advantages, but ultimately it’s the student’s own performance that matters.

Because of this, students can fully enjoy their hobbies—playing soccer, baseball, games, dancing—simply for the joy of it. Extracurriculars are for fun, not to prove their worth, because their academic record already speaks for itself. I am well aware of the grinding culture in East Asia but for truly bright kids, that is not the case. They can do well academically without too much efforts not like how people portrait them that they are just NERDs. Quite the contrary.

Thanks for this perspective! Does this differ between East Asian countries though? And how do college rankings purely reflect academic excellence, and not wealth? Differences in admission procedures?

The key difference is equal opportunity supported by strong public education from K to undergraduate schools.

Reflecting on my own experience growing up in East Asia, I think the biggest difference—this is particularly impactful for the gifted students—is the emphasis on objective, measurable performance and equal access from K–12 through colleges. In countries like China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore, the top universities are all public institutions.

That said, I’m not claiming East Asian countries get everything right. They face serious challenges too: large populations, fewer resources than the U.S., and in some cases income inequality and nepotism that may be even worse than here. Forcing equity doesn’t work—people are born with different abilities.

Supposedly a massive percentage of University of Tokyo students come from just like 20 top private and public high schools.

I assume wealth matters in order to attend one of these feeder schools…you just can’t donate a building to get accepted.

Private feeder high schools in Japan aren’t that expensive—unless you’re talking about ASIJ or St. Mary’s. But those schools primarily target expats who plan to return to the U.S. for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prestigious colleges generally graduate more successful people, and some industries are only accessible to people who attend a select few elite universities. Resources, opportunities, and faculty relationships can be cultivated more easily at some schools as well.

This. I'm more nervous for my third kid than for my first two because by now I've seen a ton of kids with really great qualifications who got didn't get into schools that I thought were not really reaches-- like a friend's daughter who, this week, found out she didn't get into UMD though she has 1550 SAT and a lot of advanced classes. My kid would like to go to top school but I'd be happy with UMD. I think, though, that career and grad opportunities become much steeper hikes out of, say, UMBC.

[Anonymous]

Some of these posts make me think—and I mean no offense—that the shrinking middle class is probably inevitable. After decades of pushing for equity, it’s surprising to see that it may have actually led to this result.

[Anonymous]

Take it easy. The era of 1925 - 1960 would be similar to 1940-80 era in terms of govt policy. Neoliberal had its heyday and so did high finance . Making easy billions by doing some tech would be thing of the past.

A different era beckons. Worldwide. Don’t panic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about spending 400K on their kids' college degree and then the kid can't find a job?

I will get criticized, but this is my honest observation:

Families who can comfortably pay $400k for 1 DC's college (so often over $1million for 2 kids esp if you consider this is post-tax net dollars and the opportunity investment cost) don't actually stress that much about whether their kids get can a job. They may have high expectations for getting the most prestigious and top-earning jobs, but these are not the families who fear their kids will starve and be homeless. Among our friend group, even those who have "normal great" jobs likes doctors, engineers, accountants, sales directors, etc. with HHI $250k-600k send their kids to state schools or try to get some merit. The ones who truly pays $400k cash out of pocket without loans have HHI $1mm+, and they are not worries their kids can't find any job. These parents and kids have enough connections, resources and frankly higher-than-average IQ that even if they don't get their dream job, they know they won't be working at Walmart.

I find it's typically the first-gen parents in the $200k-500k HHI category who are most intense about Ivies/T10 colleges. They have had some success themselves but are not secure about keeping that upward mobility going, and if they had seen someone at work getting promoted in the fast lane or a new young boss coming in with a HYP degree, that's all it takes to get them obsessed about getting into T10. Many top 1% families I know actually care less about Ivies, jobs after undergrad and prefer the WASP and grad school route.

I agree with this in part.

Yes, I agee that UHNW families who can quite comfortably pay $400k+ per child are not viewing the choice of college through a lens of future economic security.

For most familes in this group, questions and concerns about job prospects - especially first jobs and average starting salaries - are much lower on the list of priorities than for other families. Unless the family has a strong "do it yourself" ethos or forced "make your own way" approach, they know their kids will graduate college with accessible generational wealth behind them and access to whatever networks they may want or need to succeed.

But I disagree about these families being less interested or intense about the Ivies/T10 colleges, especially for their kids who have succeeded in rigorous private schools and demonstrated that they meet (or are close to) the "objective" criteria for admission.

In this country, college offers many things in addition to an education and a pathway to a job and career. In America, higher education is - and always has been - a social and economic sorting tool. And my experience tells me that UHNW families do prefer to see their kids at Ivies/T10 colleges if they think it will be a good experience for them overall. This is especially true for parents who themselves had good experiences at these elite schools.

When it comes to viewing college as a vehicle for economic security, families who can comfortably pay $400k_when it comes to the focus on job security

I just want to highlight the difference in what college rankings mean in East Asian countries vs. in US.

In East Asian countries the college rankings reflect purely academic excellence, not wealth. People genuinely respect you if you say you graduated from the University of Tokyo, simply for your academic achievements. Sure, socioeconomic status can provide some advantages, but ultimately it’s the student’s own performance that matters.

Because of this, students can fully enjoy their hobbies—playing soccer, baseball, games, dancing—simply for the joy of it. Extracurriculars are for fun, not to prove their worth, because their academic record already speaks for itself. I am well aware of the grinding culture in East Asia but for truly bright kids, that is not the case. They can do well academically without too much efforts not like how people portrait them that they are just NERDs. Quite the contrary.

Thanks for this perspective! Does this differ between East Asian countries though? And how do college rankings purely reflect academic excellence, and not wealth? Differences in admission procedures?

The key difference is equal opportunity supported by strong public education from K to undergraduate schools.

Reflecting on my own experience growing up in East Asia, I think the biggest difference—this is particularly impactful for the gifted students—is the emphasis on objective, measurable performance and equal access from K–12 through colleges. In countries like China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore, the top universities are all public institutions.

That said, I’m not claiming East Asian countries get everything right. They face serious challenges too: large populations, fewer resources than the U.S., and in some cases income inequality and nepotism that may be even worse than here. Forcing equity doesn’t work—people are born with different abilities.

Supposedly a massive percentage of University of Tokyo students come from just like 20 top private and public high schools.

I assume wealth matters in order to attend one of these feeder schools…you just can’t donate a building to get accepted.

Private feeder high schools in Japan aren’t that expensive—unless you’re talking about ASIJ or St. Mary’s. But those schools primarily target expats who plan to return to the U.S. for college.

Average Japanese salaries aren’t that much, so it’s all relative. There was an article about doctors, nurses, waiters…lost of different professions…moving from Japan to Australia because Japanese salaries were like 50% of that in Australia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take it easy. The era of 1925 - 1960 would be similar to 1940-80 era in terms of govt policy. Neoliberal had its heyday and so did high finance . Making easy billions by doing some tech would be thing of the past.

A different era beckons. Worldwide. Don’t panic!

Interesting—both periods you mentioned came right after times of depression and war. In other words, these changes only happened when nearly everyone was poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prestigious colleges generally graduate more successful people, and some industries are only accessible to people who attend a select few elite universities. Resources, opportunities, and faculty relationships can be cultivated more easily at some schools as well.

Yes, agree, plus top med, phd, and MD/phD are far more likely if you attend a T25 uni/T10 LAC, even better if you come from an ivy or T10 uni.
All three of mine are stem kids. They dream of being researchers in stem at top unis or hospitals, or top labs across the country.
Having top tech consulting as a fall back /transitional career is another benefit of target schools.
For many subfields in medicine, science, and engineering, the path to actually working in these top careers starts with undergrad.
Top grad programs have a significant overrepresentation of students from T25 or better.
The vast majority of american students at T10 med and T10 phd stem programs who are from below T50ish undergrad are hooked students (underrepresented backgrounds or FGLI).
Mine are unhooked.
T10/ivy send students to T10 grad/professional schools on a regular basis, large numbers, and one does not have to be a top kid there, they merely need 3.85+ and the correct research and recs. T11-25 or T10 LAC is the next best group and the backup for ivies for us.

[Anonymous]

The elite schools do have a disproportionate number of sociopaths relative to other schools so there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peer group matters a lot. Obviously, there are smart kids at every university, but constantly being surrounded by driven & accomplished peers breeds a natural desire to excel and succeed. And as parents, we all want our children to succeed, no matter how we individually define 'success'; for me, it's defined by how my kid sees it, and they want to aim for an elite university.

Does it? My kid is at a T25 and has found all of the “perfect” kids annoying. She feels they are more focused on getting the club position or the good grade than the experience. They are afraid to not be perfect. She opted out of many of the clubs an major filled with these folks and has chose a path that gives her the experience she wants and surrounds herself with a great peer group (who are not the perfect top of the class kids).

Also, another thing she has noticed is that the “perfect” kids cheat (a lot).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone worried about spending 400K on their kids' college degree and then the kid can't find a job?

I will get criticized, but this is my honest observation:

Families who can comfortably pay $400k for 1 DC's college (so often over $1million for 2 kids esp if you consider this is post-tax net dollars and the opportunity investment cost) don't actually stress that much about whether their kids get can a job. They may have high expectations for getting the most prestigious and top-earning jobs, but these are not the families who fear their kids will starve and be homeless. Among our friend group, even those who have "normal great" jobs likes doctors, engineers, accountants, sales directors, etc. with HHI $250k-600k send their kids to state schools or try to get some merit. The ones who truly pays $400k cash out of pocket without loans have HHI $1mm+, and they are not worries their kids can't find any job. These parents and kids have enough connections, resources and frankly higher-than-average IQ that even if they don't get their dream job, they know they won't be working at Walmart.

I find it's typically the first-gen parents in the $200k-500k HHI category who are most intense about Ivies/T10 colleges. They have had some success themselves but are not secure about keeping that upward mobility going, and if they had seen someone at work getting promoted in the fast lane or a new young boss coming in with a HYP degree, that's all it takes to get them obsessed about getting into T10. Many top 1% families I know actually care less about Ivies, jobs after undergrad and prefer the WASP and grad school route.

I agree with this in part.

Yes, I agee that UHNW families who can quite comfortably pay $400k+ per child are not viewing the choice of college through a lens of future economic security.

For most familes in this group, questions and concerns about job prospects - especially first jobs and average starting salaries - are much lower on the list of priorities than for other families. Unless the family has a strong "do it yourself" ethos or forced "make your own way" approach, they know their kids will graduate college with accessible generational wealth behind them and access to whatever networks they may want or need to succeed.

But I disagree about these families being less interested or intense about the Ivies/T10 colleges, especially for their kids who have succeeded in rigorous private schools and demonstrated that they meet (or are close to) the "objective" criteria for admission.

In this country, college offers many things in addition to an education and a pathway to a job and career. In America, higher education is - and always has been - a social and economic sorting tool. And my experience tells me that UHNW families do prefer to see their kids at Ivies/T10 colleges if they think it will be a good experience for them overall. This is especially true for parents who themselves had good experiences at these elite schools.

When it comes to viewing college as a vehicle for economic security, families who can comfortably pay $400k_when it comes to the focus on job security

I just want to highlight the difference in what college rankings mean in East Asian countries vs. in US.

In East Asian countries the college rankings reflect purely academic excellence, not wealth. People genuinely respect you if you say you graduated from the University of Tokyo, simply for your academic achievements. Sure, socioeconomic status can provide some advantages, but ultimately it’s the student’s own performance that matters.

Because of this, students can fully enjoy their hobbies—playing soccer, baseball, games, dancing—simply for the joy of it. Extracurriculars are for fun, not to prove their worth, because their academic record already speaks for itself. I am well aware of the grinding culture in East Asia but for truly bright kids, that is not the case. They can do well academically without too much efforts not like how people portrait them that they are just NERDs. Quite the contrary.

Thanks for this perspective! Does this differ between East Asian countries though? And how do college rankings purely reflect academic excellence, and not wealth? Differences in admission procedures?

The key difference is equal opportunity supported by strong public education from K to undergraduate schools.

Reflecting on my own experience growing up in East Asia, I think the biggest difference—this is particularly impactful for the gifted students—is the emphasis on objective, measurable performance and equal access from K–12 through colleges. In countries like China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore, the top universities are all public institutions.

That said, I’m not claiming East Asian countries get everything right. They face serious challenges too: large populations, fewer resources than the U.S., and in some cases income inequality and nepotism that may be even worse than here. Forcing equity doesn’t work—people are born with different abilities.

x100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peer group matters a lot. Obviously, there are smart kids at every university, but constantly being surrounded by driven & accomplished peers breeds a natural desire to excel and succeed. And as parents, we all want our children to succeed, no matter how we individually define 'success'; for me, it's defined by how my kid sees it, and they want to aim for an elite university.

Does it? My kid is at a T25 and has found all of the “perfect” kids annoying. She feels they are more focused on getting the club position or the good grade than the experience. They are afraid to not be perfect. She opted out of many of the clubs an major filled with these folks and has chose a path that gives her the experience she wants and surrounds herself with a great peer group (who are not the perfect top of the class kids).

Also, another thing she has noticed is that the “perfect” kids cheat (a lot).

First two at ivies, the third likely heading to similar, already in at one T25.
The bottom-half kids are the likely ones to try to cheat, because they feel inferior to the top kids and can get desperate. With in-person tests on paper, long-answer problem style, cheating has been reduced to very rare, in stem at least. Even humanities has more in person written essays these days.
The top-quarter "perfect" ones often do it all: volunteer/lead a club, get the research, get the selective summer job, still have 3.9+ in difficult majors too. Many of them keep up the intensity and discipline because their peers do. Nothing wrong with using motivated peers to push yourself to be your best!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peer group matters a lot. Obviously, there are smart kids at every university, but constantly being surrounded by driven & accomplished peers breeds a natural desire to excel and succeed. And as parents, we all want our children to succeed, no matter how we individually define 'success'; for me, it's defined by how my kid sees it, and they want to aim for an elite university.

Does it? My kid is at a T25 and has found all of the “perfect” kids annoying. She feels they are more focused on getting the club position or the good grade than the experience. They are afraid to not be perfect. She opted out of many of the clubs an major filled with these folks and has chose a path that gives her the experience she wants and surrounds herself with a great peer group (who are not the perfect top of the class kids).

Also, another thing she has noticed is that the “perfect” kids cheat (a lot).

First two at ivies, the third likely heading to similar, already in at one T25.
The bottom-half kids are the likely ones to try to cheat, because they feel inferior to the top kids and can get desperate. With in-person tests on paper, long-answer problem style, cheating has been reduced to very rare, in stem at least. Even humanities has more in person written essays these days.
The top-quarter "perfect" ones often do it all: volunteer/lead a club, get the research, get the selective summer job, still have 3.9+ in difficult majors too. Many of them keep up the intensity and discipline because their peers do. Nothing wrong with using motivated peers to push yourself to be your best!

That’s sounds great in theory except 75% of students admit to some form of cheating so your so called bottom half are not alone.