Anonymous wrote:I think prestige is mostly helpful in affording a person instant recognition. I just think prestige is much more concentrated at the top than people would like to recognize. At the Olympics, Gabby Thomas was repeatedly recognized as being a Harvard grad. That happens with VERY few schools.
Interesting, because the Olympics is filled to the brim with Stanford grads, and it never really comes up. Then again, the h bomb just works that way.
It’s the rare sight of a Harvard grad in a non-country club sport, that’s why. I guarantee it would come up all the time if she was a Brown or Yale or other Ivy grad.
You would hear even more if she went to Williams because it’s essentially unheard of for a D3 school to produce Olympic talent in non-country club sports (maybe even country club too).
Stanford is a Power 4 school…same reason you won’t hear someone accentuate Duke or Vandy or other dual Power 4 academic school grads…they produce lots of top athletes in general.
I think it is the Harvard name that factors heavily. Williams doesn't have that name recognition, nor Brown for that matter.
Anonymous wrote:I think prestige is mostly helpful in affording a person instant recognition. I just think prestige is much more concentrated at the top than people would like to recognize. At the Olympics, Gabby Thomas was repeatedly recognized as being a Harvard grad. That happens with VERY few schools.
Interesting, because the Olympics is filled to the brim with Stanford grads, and it never really comes up. Then again, the h bomb just works that way.
It’s the rare sight of a Harvard grad in a non-country club sport, that’s why. I guarantee it would come up all the time if she was a Brown or Yale or other Ivy grad.
You would hear even more if she went to Williams because it’s essentially unheard of for a D3 school to produce Olympic talent in non-country club sports (maybe even country club too).
Stanford is a Power 4 school…same reason you won’t hear someone accentuate Duke or Vandy or other dual Power 4 academic school grads…they produce lots of top athletes in general.
It was the combo:
Beautiful, black, amazing athletics, and not just Harvard—but STEM major. And grad.
Anonymous wrote:I think prestige is mostly helpful in affording a person instant recognition. I just think prestige is much more concentrated at the top than people would like to recognize. At the Olympics, Gabby Thomas was repeatedly recognized as being a Harvard grad. That happens with VERY few schools.
Interesting, because the Olympics is filled to the brim with Stanford grads, and it never really comes up. Then again, the h bomb just works that way.
It’s the rare sight of a Harvard grad in a non-country club sport, that’s why. I guarantee it would come up all the time if she was a Brown or Yale or other Ivy grad.
You would hear even more if she went to Williams because it’s essentially unheard of for a D3 school to produce Olympic talent in non-country club sports (maybe even country club too).
Stanford is a Power 4 school…same reason you won’t hear someone accentuate Duke or Vandy or other dual Power 4 academic school grads…they produce lots of top athletes in general.
It was the combo:
Beautiful, black, amazing athletics, and not just Harvard—but STEM major. And grad.
The woman is truly amazing.
As a white pretty girl biochem major/field at a state university- I got crazy attention first job. Stereotype is that pretty girls don’t do STEM and pretty D1 athletes doing STEM, even crazier….and I was at a typical public state university, not Harvard
Anonymous wrote:I think prestige is mostly helpful in affording a person instant recognition. I just think prestige is much more concentrated at the top than people would like to recognize. At the Olympics, Gabby Thomas was repeatedly recognized as being a Harvard grad. That happens with VERY few schools.
Interesting, because the Olympics is filled to the brim with Stanford grads, and it never really comes up. Then again, the h bomb just works that way.
It’s the rare sight of a Harvard grad in a non-country club sport, that’s why. I guarantee it would come up all the time if she was a Brown or Yale or other Ivy grad.
You would hear even more if she went to Williams because it’s essentially unheard of for a D3 school to produce Olympic talent in non-country club sports (maybe even country club too).
Stanford is a Power 4 school…same reason you won’t hear someone accentuate Duke or Vandy or other dual Power 4 academic school grads…they produce lots of top athletes in general.
It was the combo:
Beautiful, black, amazing athletics, and not just Harvard—but STEM major. And grad.
The woman is truly amazing.
They don't introduce Sydney McLaughlin (who beat Gabby in the 200 this year) by saying she went to Kentucky in the same way they mention Gabby Thomas and Harvard.
Anonymous wrote:I’m just happy that people aren’t putting 3 at the top. There’s too many PhDs coming out of the Ivy league, let alone the rest of the T50, to even begin suggesting that there’s some extreme difference in education. Unless your kid is on the bounds and is highly highly intelligent (like top 0.001%) where they need specialized/accelerated instruction to the level of grad school near freshman year, you’re probably receiving a very similar education to others.
Even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities
Cite?
https://math.cornell.edu/lower-level-courses (scroll to bottom)
Compre this to the freshman math options at most other lower ranked schools (e.g. any VA school besides UVA)
I don't think this is true.
What do you mean? I just gave a task to compare the courses yourself; you can't disagree with that. If you want to refute me, find a comparable course at a VA school outside UVA (or MD school outside MD, etc), ignoring other elite schools of course.
In the thread it was asserted that "even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities. This was asserted without evidence so it can also be dismissed without evidence. The burden is not on me.
The evidence is that in VA, a state with many strong universities, only UVA (the highest ranking school) has a comparable freshman math course.
Show us the courses that you say are and aren't comparable.
The comparable course sequence is 1315/3315 at UVA. Even 2315 uses Williamson and Trotter, which is easier than Cornell's text by Hubbard and Hubbard, but they still are comparable. Every other freshman math sequence at every other VA school is not comparable.
What makes the standards at VT, W&M, W&L etc. lower in your view?
I don't know about the standards for the comparable courses (although I doubt they're at the level of the Ivy+ basic calculus classes I linked above), but the reason I said their sequences are not conpara is because none of them have a proof-based multivariable calculus and linear algebra freshman math sequence like Cornell (and similarly ranked institutions) and UVA (and UGA and UMD as a matter of fact).
You may use this as a canary in the coal mine for rigor throughout the later years of the math program - if you have such a rigorous course for freshmen, you likely have further upper level courses to challenge that course's graduates as sophomores and juniors.
Strongly agree. The most rigorous courses and offerings are located at the top 15 or 20 universities, and it applies across disciplines, not just math, though quantitative courses can be easier to compare. In humanities if one can get access to syllabi, the number and breadth of primary source use along with the textbook(s), as well as writing requirements: literature-cited writing expected throughout the semester not just one end of term paper. There are fluff classes at top universities too, but it is all relative: even the occasional easy ones are typically on par with a "normal" difficulty class at a typical non-T50 state school.
The humanities point is really moot. Essay expectations are higher, but there are plenty of top schools with light reading requirements. DC goes to Harvard and barely has to pick up a book for some of the humanities course work. It's a lot of talking about feelings of short texts these days.
Put another way…every university has “gut” classes that kids will seek out to fulfill a requirement where you have little interest.
The internet has reviews for every class, so you know which classes have more work than others.
It’s no different than the humanities majors picking Physics for poets to satisfy their science requirement.
Eh, there is no "physics for poets." Physics is just hard...
No…literally at Princeton there was a class with that title…still there anyone?
It was not considered a challenging course.
occasional dumbed-down compared to normal princeton classes happens at all elites. These classes in a T100 college would be considered normal difficulty. They are taught at elites because of the recruited athletes: that is who fills the majority of them, and the athlete tutor/course advisors push them into these unless they are actually bright athletes who are similar to the average student. Many helmet-sport and basketball athletes have SAT scores around 1100, and are not be able to handle normal elite courses: they have a couple easier courses in all disciplines to allow them to get through with a 3.3 (far below ivy medians). Occasionally a pre-law who detests stem will take Rocks for Jocks, for example, for the easy A, though it is not possible to use that course for anything other than elective credit if one is a stem major. However that Geology class uses the same text as they use at the state flagship for their earth science major requirement. The elite requires earth sci majors to do much more chem, bio, physics and math than the flagship. It is all relative. "Dumb" ivy courses are not watered down when compared to average-US-college courses.
The earth sciences are dominated by state schools with top climatology, physics, and chemistry programs. You're speaking out of your ass as someone who works in industry for the geosciences. I'm not taking some random guy from Princeton unless it's Harry Hess.
I'm not sure how that disproves PP's point, given that it was about undergrad course rigor rather than graduate prestige
Most rigorous geoscience programs are at like UOklahoma and UF, not the ivies. Its one of the few industries where there's an inverse of respect by going to a state school over private universities.
Can you provide evidence for this claim, perhaps by pointing out specific courses and/or syllabi like I did with math?
In math, everyone needs to start with MVC, Linear, and Diff. Eq.
But the style of the course can greatly vary from plug and chug to highly abstract and proof based. I'm sure geosciences also has various levels of difficulty (if not, how can you say that the Ivies are weaker?)
Anonymous wrote:I’m just happy that people aren’t putting 3 at the top. There’s too many PhDs coming out of the Ivy league, let alone the rest of the T50, to even begin suggesting that there’s some extreme difference in education. Unless your kid is on the bounds and is highly highly intelligent (like top 0.001%) where they need specialized/accelerated instruction to the level of grad school near freshman year, you’re probably receiving a very similar education to others.
Even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities
Cite?
https://math.cornell.edu/lower-level-courses (scroll to bottom)
Compre this to the freshman math options at most other lower ranked schools (e.g. any VA school besides UVA)
I don't think this is true.
What do you mean? I just gave a task to compare the courses yourself; you can't disagree with that. If you want to refute me, find a comparable course at a VA school outside UVA (or MD school outside MD, etc), ignoring other elite schools of course.
In the thread it was asserted that "even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities. This was asserted without evidence so it can also be dismissed without evidence. The burden is not on me.
The evidence is that in VA, a state with many strong universities, only UVA (the highest ranking school) has a comparable freshman math course.
Show us the courses that you say are and aren't comparable.
The comparable course sequence is 1315/3315 at UVA. Even 2315 uses Williamson and Trotter, which is easier than Cornell's text by Hubbard and Hubbard, but they still are comparable. Every other freshman math sequence at every other VA school is not comparable.
What makes the standards at VT, W&M, W&L etc. lower in your view?
I don't know about the standards for the comparable courses (although I doubt they're at the level of the Ivy+ basic calculus classes I linked above), but the reason I said their sequences are not conpara is because none of them have a proof-based multivariable calculus and linear algebra freshman math sequence like Cornell (and similarly ranked institutions) and UVA (and UGA and UMD as a matter of fact).
You may use this as a canary in the coal mine for rigor throughout the later years of the math program - if you have such a rigorous course for freshmen, you likely have further upper level courses to challenge that course's graduates as sophomores and juniors.
Strongly agree. The most rigorous courses and offerings are located at the top 15 or 20 universities, and it applies across disciplines, not just math, though quantitative courses can be easier to compare. In humanities if one can get access to syllabi, the number and breadth of primary source use along with the textbook(s), as well as writing requirements: literature-cited writing expected throughout the semester not just one end of term paper. There are fluff classes at top universities too, but it is all relative: even the occasional easy ones are typically on par with a "normal" difficulty class at a typical non-T50 state school.
The humanities point is really moot. Essay expectations are higher, but there are plenty of top schools with light reading requirements. DC goes to Harvard and barely has to pick up a book for some of the humanities course work. It's a lot of talking about feelings of short texts these days.
Put another way…every university has “gut” classes that kids will seek out to fulfill a requirement where you have little interest.
The internet has reviews for every class, so you know which classes have more work than others.
It’s no different than the humanities majors picking Physics for poets to satisfy their science requirement.
Eh, there is no "physics for poets." Physics is just hard...
No…literally at Princeton there was a class with that title…still there anyone?
It was not considered a challenging course.
occasional dumbed-down compared to normal princeton classes happens at all elites. These classes in a T100 college would be considered normal difficulty. They are taught at elites because of the recruited athletes: that is who fills the majority of them, and the athlete tutor/course advisors push them into these unless they are actually bright athletes who are similar to the average student. Many helmet-sport and basketball athletes have SAT scores around 1100, and are not be able to handle normal elite courses: they have a couple easier courses in all disciplines to allow them to get through with a 3.3 (far below ivy medians). Occasionally a pre-law who detests stem will take Rocks for Jocks, for example, for the easy A, though it is not possible to use that course for anything other than elective credit if one is a stem major. However that Geology class uses the same text as they use at the state flagship for their earth science major requirement. The elite requires earth sci majors to do much more chem, bio, physics and math than the flagship. It is all relative. "Dumb" ivy courses are not watered down when compared to average-US-college courses.
The earth sciences are dominated by state schools with top climatology, physics, and chemistry programs. You're speaking out of your ass as someone who works in industry for the geosciences. I'm not taking some random guy from Princeton unless it's Harry Hess.
I'm not sure how that disproves PP's point, given that it was about undergrad course rigor rather than graduate prestige
Most rigorous geoscience programs are at like UOklahoma and UF, not the ivies. Its one of the few industries where there's an inverse of respect by going to a state school over private universities.
Can you provide evidence for this claim, perhaps by pointing out specific courses and/or syllabi like I did with math?
In math, everyone needs to start with MVC, Linear, and Diff. Eq.
But the style of the course can greatly vary from plug and chug to highly abstract and proof based. I'm sure geosciences also has various levels of difficulty (if not, how can you say that the Ivies are weaker?)
Prestige basically determines whether you will be important and worth something or die poor and potentially alone. Those who cannot get into elite institutions do not understand the value of communication and have strained relationships
Anonymous wrote:I’m just happy that people aren’t putting 3 at the top. There’s too many PhDs coming out of the Ivy league, let alone the rest of the T50, to even begin suggesting that there’s some extreme difference in education. Unless your kid is on the bounds and is highly highly intelligent (like top 0.001%) where they need specialized/accelerated instruction to the level of grad school near freshman year, you’re probably receiving a very similar education to others.
Even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities
Cite?
https://math.cornell.edu/lower-level-courses (scroll to bottom)
Compre this to the freshman math options at most other lower ranked schools (e.g. any VA school besides UVA)
I don't think this is true.
What do you mean? I just gave a task to compare the courses yourself; you can't disagree with that. If you want to refute me, find a comparable course at a VA school outside UVA (or MD school outside MD, etc), ignoring other elite schools of course.
In the thread it was asserted that "even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities. This was asserted without evidence so it can also be dismissed without evidence. The burden is not on me.
The evidence is that in VA, a state with many strong universities, only UVA (the highest ranking school) has a comparable freshman math course.
Show us the courses that you say are and aren't comparable.
The comparable course sequence is 1315/3315 at UVA. Even 2315 uses Williamson and Trotter, which is easier than Cornell's text by Hubbard and Hubbard, but they still are comparable. Every other freshman math sequence at every other VA school is not comparable.
What makes the standards at VT, W&M, W&L etc. lower in your view?
I don't know about the standards for the comparable courses (although I doubt they're at the level of the Ivy+ basic calculus classes I linked above), but the reason I said their sequences are not conpara is because none of them have a proof-based multivariable calculus and linear algebra freshman math sequence like Cornell (and similarly ranked institutions) and UVA (and UGA and UMD as a matter of fact).
You may use this as a canary in the coal mine for rigor throughout the later years of the math program - if you have such a rigorous course for freshmen, you likely have further upper level courses to challenge that course's graduates as sophomores and juniors.
Strongly agree. The most rigorous courses and offerings are located at the top 15 or 20 universities, and it applies across disciplines, not just math, though quantitative courses can be easier to compare. In humanities if one can get access to syllabi, the number and breadth of primary source use along with the textbook(s), as well as writing requirements: literature-cited writing expected throughout the semester not just one end of term paper. There are fluff classes at top universities too, but it is all relative: even the occasional easy ones are typically on par with a "normal" difficulty class at a typical non-T50 state school.
The humanities point is really moot. Essay expectations are higher, but there are plenty of top schools with light reading requirements. DC goes to Harvard and barely has to pick up a book for some of the humanities course work. It's a lot of talking about feelings of short texts these days.
Put another way…every university has “gut” classes that kids will seek out to fulfill a requirement where you have little interest.
The internet has reviews for every class, so you know which classes have more work than others.
It’s no different than the humanities majors picking Physics for poets to satisfy their science requirement.
Eh, there is no "physics for poets." Physics is just hard...
No…literally at Princeton there was a class with that title…still there anyone?
It was not considered a challenging course.
occasional dumbed-down compared to normal princeton classes happens at all elites. These classes in a T100 college would be considered normal difficulty. They are taught at elites because of the recruited athletes: that is who fills the majority of them, and the athlete tutor/course advisors push them into these unless they are actually bright athletes who are similar to the average student. Many helmet-sport and basketball athletes have SAT scores around 1100, and are not be able to handle normal elite courses: they have a couple easier courses in all disciplines to allow them to get through with a 3.3 (far below ivy medians). Occasionally a pre-law who detests stem will take Rocks for Jocks, for example, for the easy A, though it is not possible to use that course for anything other than elective credit if one is a stem major. However that Geology class uses the same text as they use at the state flagship for their earth science major requirement. The elite requires earth sci majors to do much more chem, bio, physics and math than the flagship. It is all relative. "Dumb" ivy courses are not watered down when compared to average-US-college courses.
The earth sciences are dominated by state schools with top climatology, physics, and chemistry programs. You're speaking out of your ass as someone who works in industry for the geosciences. I'm not taking some random guy from Princeton unless it's Harry Hess.
I'm not sure how that disproves PP's point, given that it was about undergrad course rigor rather than graduate prestige
Most rigorous geoscience programs are at like UOklahoma and UF, not the ivies. Its one of the few industries where there's an inverse of respect by going to a state school over private universities.
Can you provide evidence for this claim, perhaps by pointing out specific courses and/or syllabi like I did with math?
In math, everyone needs to start with MVC, Linear, and Diff. Eq.
But the style of the course can greatly vary from plug and chug to highly abstract and proof based. I'm sure geosciences also has various levels of difficulty (if not, how can you say that the Ivies are weaker?)
The poster is emphasizing the sequence part of it. In geosciences, the content is taught in a much more sporadic manner
If there is something about the sequencing at UF or UOklahoma, it would be apparent in the major requirements, yet to my untrained eye they don't seem to be anything special compared to the Ivies
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
