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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you really believe that there are so many kids who, at ages 14-17 are so mature and long-term goal focused that they can graduate with a 4.5 (no mistakes, high rigor), a 1490+, multiple sports, leadership positions, awards, volunteer work, and have such great personalities that they get glowing letters of Rec that all the best schools can fill their freshmen classes with them? I couldn’t hold my laughter writing that. It’s absurd. Lots of lying, cheating, and unethical assistance going on from the kids and parents. And lots of pretending not to notice from schools- both high schools and colleges.

Clearly you have such a child. Good for you. Sincerely. I’ve been teaching for 20 years, though, and I can tell you that’s not uncommon. I teach higher-level classes and I have taught many straight-A athletes / musicians / etc. with tons of volunteer hours and awards. I’ve watched some go to top schools. I’ve watched some go to state universities. I’ve watched a couple go to academies or straight into the military. We are fortunate that we have SO MANY high performing students in our high schools.

You’re welcome to laugh, I suppose, but that doesn’t change reality. Sure, a few have cheated their way through with some help from their parents, but that only gets you so far. It’s really hard to cheat on the SAT, AP, and IB exams. Most have graduated honorably after putting in a ton of work. I’m proud of all of them, and the institutions they attend for college are lucky to have them (no matter which institution that is).

I actually don’t have such a child. I’m saying very few exist. I didn’t say they cheat on SATs. I’m saying very few kids are the WHOLE package but that’s what it takes to get into the top schools. It’s a show. If you really work with teenagers, you know how complicated these years are emotionally. Very few kids can really do it all without major helicoptering and help that crosses the line into cheating and lying and $$$ as the initial poster said. I don’t deny that they work hard. It’s just not enough to be so all around perfect for four years of adolescence and that’s what it takes.

I’m the PP and I stand by what I wrote. There are many, many high-performing students. None of them are perfect, nor does it take perfection to get into elite schools. I’m not sure why it’s a bad thing that there are so many good students?

On a related note, the best recommendation I ever wrote was actually for a B student who went to a very good school, one that DCUM would approve of. She was tremendous, with a work ethic and a positive demeanor that was such a pleasure to have in the classroom. Clearly the school saw in her the same thing her teachers did: a star. Was she perfect? No. Has she done very well at her college? Yes. (No, she was not an athlete, nor did she have a hook.)

[Anonymous]

Several reasons.
Their DC didn't get into a top school or the school of desired choice.

Top schools are more diverse now a days so there are people out there that think URMs at top 25s are not as good as whites at top 100s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several reasons.
Their DC didn't get into a top school or the school of desired choice.

Top schools are more diverse now a days so there are people out there that think URMs at top 25s are not as good as whites at top 100s.

probably not as good as Asians at top 50?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before you accuse me of being a snob or an elitist, I will start by saying that I went to a pretty bad college; one that accepts students with C minus averages and whose 4-year-graduation rate is less than 20 percent. The first piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the obvious fact that we got into colleges like this in the first place. In my case, you don't even need to look at where I went to college in order to know that I was a bad student in high school; just the fact that I graduated with a B average and 6 AP credits is proof enough.

The next piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the fact that the 4-year-graduate rates at these colleges are much lower. This seems like it should also be pretty self-explanatory, in that they failed to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they couldn't get into a better college. Notice that I've switched the tense to "third-person" because this doesn't apply to me; I was in the <20 percent of students who graduated in 4 years. And yet, I constantly hear excuses made for these students, namely that they have to work. Well, I had a job in college even though I didn't have to, and I still graduated on time. Also, I visited the campus of a top-ranked college with a >99% graduation rate, and saw that there was a tutoring center there where students could work and tutor other students, which means that there are plenty of students at the college who also work and graduate on time.

Also, it's much easier to graduate from these worse colleges in 4 years or less because they take all your AP credits. So the fact that students who go to worse colleges generally have a harder time graduating in 4 years even though the road to graduating on time is easier at said colleges really proves that they are worse students.

Surely, less affluent kids go to lower rated colleges and drop out more.

More affluent kids have tutors, private education, enrichment, tiger moms, 529s, legacy, etc.

This is really a completely bullsh--t post OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before you accuse me of being a snob or an elitist, I will start by saying that I went to a pretty bad college; one that accepts students with C minus averages and whose 4-year-graduation rate is less than 20 percent. The first piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the obvious fact that we got into colleges like this in the first place. In my case, you don't even need to look at where I went to college in order to know that I was a bad student in high school; just the fact that I graduated with a B average and 6 AP credits is proof enough.

The next piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the fact that the 4-year-graduate rates at these colleges are much lower. This seems like it should also be pretty self-explanatory, in that they failed to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they couldn't get into a better college. Notice that I've switched the tense to "third-person" because this doesn't apply to me; I was in the <20 percent of students who graduated in 4 years. And yet, I constantly hear excuses made for these students, namely that they have to work. Well, I had a job in college even though I didn't have to, and I still graduated on time. Also, I visited the campus of a top-ranked college with a >99% graduation rate, and saw that there was a tutoring center there where students could work and tutor other students, which means that there are plenty of students at the college who also work and graduate on time.

Also, it's much easier to graduate from these worse colleges in 4 years or less because they take all your AP credits. So the fact that students who go to worse colleges generally have a harder time graduating in 4 years even though the road to graduating on time is easier at said colleges really proves that they are worse students.

Unless they are there on some quota for free (aid or parent) and other student has no quota or parents/ banks/financial aid won't pay for expensive college or give loans so attending a college for scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend’s DD was accepted to Yale last year. They are middle class. She is not going to Yale due to $$. You will say “anecdata!” but there it is.

Nobody believes these lies. Let me guess, she ended up at the local state school instead.

Your head is in the sand. Top students are priced out of “top” schools. This has always been true.

+1

This is why half of the Blair magnet class goes to UMD every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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,

Your opinion is not shared by all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hon, the reason those kids make more money is because they all know and hire each other, and then each other's kids. It's nothing to do with making 'better employees.' The term you're looking for is 'nepotism.' You wouldn't know the term, of course; they called it 'merit' at your 'better school,' to make you and the other gentlemen's C students feel better about your poor sweet little mediocre selves.

Hon, if you think every single Ivy grad is personally known to thousands of employers and HR departments across the land, you are truly deluded. That's not how it works. What is happening is that the HR departments and hiring managers get countless applications from countless kids they don't even know, and they are putting the elite school grads at the top of the stack to get interviewed under the assumption (whether you like it or not) that these are smart kids and good students. And then those kids interview well so they get hired.

After that, an elite diploma might be enough to get you in the door but if you don't perform, you won't get promoted. The fact that the grads of top schools do better 20 years after graduating than kids of lesser schools shows that the elite grads are, indeed, performing.

But keep coping that your kid who went to some crappy state school has only been held back due to nepotism, lol.

NP. Have you ever actively worked in an elite environment? I think it’s pretty clear you haven’t.

Give us an example of the elite environments you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend’s DD was accepted to Yale last year. They are middle class. She is not going to Yale due to $$. You will say “anecdata!” but there it is.

Nobody believes these lies. Let me guess, she ended up at the local state school instead.

Your head is in the sand. Top students are priced out of “top” schools. This has always been true.

+1

This is why half of the Blair magnet class goes to UMD every year.

Or is it because it's really cheap in-state and very strong across the board?

[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.

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.)

Fine, here's your not-anecdote. Take a look at the hard data for 12 different fields on this website where not attending an elite school is not an issue. Start with Tech, and then look at the others under the lists tab.

https://lesshighschoolstress.com/lists/tech/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before you accuse me of being a snob or an elitist, I will start by saying that I went to a pretty bad college; one that accepts students with C minus averages and whose 4-year-graduation rate is less than 20 percent. The first piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the obvious fact that we got into colleges like this in the first place. In my case, you don't even need to look at where I went to college in order to know that I was a bad student in high school; just the fact that I graduated with a B average and 6 AP credits is proof enough.

The next piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the fact that the 4-year-graduate rates at these colleges are much lower. This seems like it should also be pretty self-explanatory, in that they failed to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they couldn't get into a better college. Notice that I've switched the tense to "third-person" because this doesn't apply to me; I was in the <20 percent of students who graduated in 4 years. And yet, I constantly hear excuses made for these students, namely that they have to work. Well, I had a job in college even though I didn't have to, and I still graduated on time. Also, I visited the campus of a top-ranked college with a >99% graduation rate, and saw that there was a tutoring center there where students could work and tutor other students, which means that there are plenty of students at the college who also work and graduate on time.

Also, it's much easier to graduate from these worse colleges in 4 years or less because they take all your AP credits. So the fact that students who go to worse colleges generally have a harder time graduating in 4 years even though the road to graduating on time is easier at said colleges really proves that they are worse students.

Honestly can't believe an adult wrote this little essay. In the case of OP, yes, "students at worse colleges are worse students."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hon, the reason those kids make more money is because they all know and hire each other, and then each other's kids. It's nothing to do with making 'better employees.' The term you're looking for is 'nepotism.' You wouldn't know the term, of course; they called it 'merit' at your 'better school,' to make you and the other gentlemen's C students feel better about your poor sweet little mediocre selves.

Hon, if you think every single Ivy grad is personally known to thousands of employers and HR departments across the land, you are truly deluded. That's not how it works. What is happening is that the HR departments and hiring managers get countless applications from countless kids they don't even know, and they are putting the elite school grads at the top of the stack to get interviewed under the assumption (whether you like it or not) that these are smart kids and good students. And then those kids interview well so they get hired.

After that, an elite diploma might be enough to get you in the door but if you don't perform, you won't get promoted. The fact that the grads of top schools do better 20 years after graduating than kids of lesser schools shows that the elite grads are, indeed, performing.

But keep coping that your kid who went to some crappy state school has only been held back due to nepotism, lol.

NP. Have you ever actively worked in an elite environment? I think it’s pretty clear you haven’t.

Give us an example of the elite environments you're talking about.

Big Four
Big Law
FAANG
IB

It is transparently clear to me you’ve never stepped foot in one of those environments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hon, the reason those kids make more money is because they all know and hire each other, and then each other's kids. It's nothing to do with making 'better employees.' The term you're looking for is 'nepotism.' You wouldn't know the term, of course; they called it 'merit' at your 'better school,' to make you and the other gentlemen's C students feel better about your poor sweet little mediocre selves.

Hon, if you think every single Ivy grad is personally known to thousands of employers and HR departments across the land, you are truly deluded. That's not how it works. What is happening is that the HR departments and hiring managers get countless applications from countless kids they don't even know, and they are putting the elite school grads at the top of the stack to get interviewed under the assumption (whether you like it or not) that these are smart kids and good students. And then those kids interview well so they get hired.

After that, an elite diploma might be enough to get you in the door but if you don't perform, you won't get promoted. The fact that the grads of top schools do better 20 years after graduating than kids of lesser schools shows that the elite grads are, indeed, performing.

But keep coping that your kid who went to some crappy state school has only been held back due to nepotism, lol.

NP. Have you ever actively worked in an elite environment? I think it’s pretty clear you haven’t.

Give us an example of the elite environments you're talking about.

Big Four
Big Law
FAANG
IB

It is transparently clear to me you’ve never stepped foot in one of those environments.

The only thing transparently clear is that you're a troll.

[Anonymous]

OP is stating nonsense. Have three degrees. Undergrad is from University of South Podunk. Grad degrees are from a top private and top state (think Berkeley/Michigan/UCLA.

-- the top students at all three schools would have done well anywhere. There were just a greater % at my higher ranked places, though grad school obviously is a different dynamic.

- there were good and bad professors at each

Podunk had a number of excellent students who did not have the emotional or social maturity to go away to school. I consider myself one of them and remain thankful for this institution to get me on my feet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hon, the reason those kids make more money is because they all know and hire each other, and then each other's kids. It's nothing to do with making 'better employees.' The term you're looking for is 'nepotism.' You wouldn't know the term, of course; they called it 'merit' at your 'better school,' to make you and the other gentlemen's C students feel better about your poor sweet little mediocre selves.

Hon, if you think every single Ivy grad is personally known to thousands of employers and HR departments across the land, you are truly deluded. That's not how it works. What is happening is that the HR departments and hiring managers get countless applications from countless kids they don't even know, and they are putting the elite school grads at the top of the stack to get interviewed under the assumption (whether you like it or not) that these are smart kids and good students. And then those kids interview well so they get hired.

After that, an elite diploma might be enough to get you in the door but if you don't perform, you won't get promoted. The fact that the grads of top schools do better 20 years after graduating than kids of lesser schools shows that the elite grads are, indeed, performing.

But keep coping that your kid who went to some crappy state school has only been held back due to nepotism, lol.

NP. Have you ever actively worked in an elite environment? I think it’s pretty clear you haven’t.

Give us an example of the elite environments you're talking about.

Big Four
Big Law
FAANG
IB

It is transparently clear to me you’ve never stepped foot in one of those environments.

The only thing transparently clear is that you're a troll.

Actually, she is right on point in all four areas.