Intellectual peers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Iron sharpens iron.

Iron also dulls iron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

True and about 14-15 unis that are significantly different from the next 15-16. When you have one at a university ranked close to 30 and one ranked in T10 the differences in peers are evident. The pre-TO scores in these two groups typically tell the same tale: over 75% of students at the top unis are parallel to the top 20-25% of the lower unis.

So you’re admitting that these students can be found everywhere.

No one is arguing that the students at the top universities aren’t more “top” than at other universities. They’re pointing out that obsessing over the difference in peer group amongst schools that are all good and have strong students is misguided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

That is completely incorrect, there is virtually no difference in the student profiles fpr these schools

15 SLACs

10 SLACs with 1500+ median SAT: Amherst, Bowdoin, CMC, Hamilton, Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Williams
5 more with 1480+ SAT: Carleton, Grinnell, Haverford, Vassar, W&L

All from CDS reports

And they all have virtually the same outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

That is completely incorrect, there is virtually no difference in the student profiles fpr these schools

15 SLACs

10 SLACs with 1500+ median SAT: Amherst, Bowdoin, CMC, Hamilton, Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Williams
5 more with 1480+ SAT: Carleton, Grinnell, Haverford, Vassar, W&L

All from CDS reports

And they all have virtually the same outcomes.

you really think Claremont McKenna and Wellesley are at Williams level? How foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

it may be more than 10 where the noticeable drop is, but it is not 25-30 unis and 10-15 LACs before the gap

I haven’t studied the latest ranking, but it’s about 15 or so in my humble opinion.

agree

No CMU, WashU, NYU, Emory, GTown, USC ..... It goes deeper than people think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

That is completely incorrect, there is virtually no difference in the student profiles fpr these schools

15 SLACs

10 SLACs with 1500+ median SAT: Amherst, Bowdoin, CMC, Hamilton, Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Williams
5 more with 1480+ SAT: Carleton, Grinnell, Haverford, Vassar, W&L

All from CDS reports

And they all have virtually the same outcomes.

you really think Claremont McKenna and Wellesley are at Williams level? How foolish.

I don't think it, I am sure of it. And, so is any actually thinking human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

it may be more than 10 where the noticeable drop is, but it is not 25-30 unis and 10-15 LACs before the gap

I haven’t studied the latest ranking, but it’s about 15 or so in my humble opinion.

agree

No CMU, WashU, NYU, Emory, GTown, USC ..... It goes deeper than people think

Disagree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

That is completely incorrect, there is virtually no difference in the student profiles fpr these schools

15 SLACs

10 SLACs with 1500+ median SAT: Amherst, Bowdoin, CMC, Hamilton, Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Williams
5 more with 1480+ SAT: Carleton, Grinnell, Haverford, Vassar, W&L

All from CDS reports

And they all have virtually the same outcomes.

you really think Claremont McKenna and Wellesley are at Williams level? How foolish.

It always amazes me how normal the people here think statements like this are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

it may be more than 10 where the noticeable drop is, but it is not 25-30 unis and 10-15 LACs before the gap

I haven’t studied the latest ranking, but it’s about 15 or so in my humble opinion.

agree

No CMU, WashU, NYU, Emory, GTown, USC ..... It goes deeper than people think

Disagree

You can disagree but the objective numbers of their student profiles are a pretty compelling indicator that your position is incorrect and motivated by unsupported beliefs that widely exist on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

That is completely incorrect, there is virtually no difference in the student profiles fpr these schools

15 SLACs

10 SLACs with 1500+ median SAT: Amherst, Bowdoin, CMC, Hamilton, Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Williams
5 more with 1480+ SAT: Carleton, Grinnell, Haverford, Vassar, W&L

All from CDS reports

And they all have virtually the same outcomes.

you really think Claremont McKenna and Wellesley are at Williams level? How foolish.

It always amazes me how normal the people here think statements like this are.

Oh please! We get it you have no argument, but not try to make your position seem rational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

That is completely incorrect, there is virtually no difference in the student profiles fpr these schools

15 SLACs

10 SLACs with 1500+ median SAT: Amherst, Bowdoin, CMC, Hamilton, Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Williams
5 more with 1480+ SAT: Carleton, Grinnell, Haverford, Vassar, W&L

All from CDS reports

And they all have virtually the same outcomes.

you really think Claremont McKenna and Wellesley are at Williams level? How foolish.

It always amazes me how normal the people here think statements like this are.

Oh please! We get it you have no argument, but not try to make your position seem rational.

The argument is that you are so deep in the weeds of college rankings you don’t even realize how stupid your comments sound.

[Anonymous]

This thread is embarrassing. I can't believe anyone actually thinks like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is embarrassing. I can't believe anyone actually thinks like this.

It really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

That is completely incorrect, there is virtually no difference in the student profiles fpr these schools

15 SLACs

10 SLACs with 1500+ median SAT: Amherst, Bowdoin, CMC, Hamilton, Harvey Mudd, Middlebury, Pomona, Swarthmore, Wellesley, Williams
5 more with 1480+ SAT: Carleton, Grinnell, Haverford, Vassar, W&L

All from CDS reports

And they all have virtually the same outcomes.

you really think Claremont McKenna and Wellesley are at Williams level? How foolish.

It always amazes me how normal the people here think statements like this are.

Oh please! We get it you have no argument, but not try to make your position seem rational.

The argument is that you are so deep in the weeds of college rankings you don’t even realize how stupid your comments sound.

Amen. Talk about splitting hairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These threads are common and I suspect none change all that many people's minds.That said, here are a couple of other arguments.

College is not just about your future job. Sure, we all want our kids to find good jobs upon graduation. However, I really don't think that one's future career should be the sole focus of your college experience. So, imo, even if Liam and Adam end up in the same job at the same corporation at the same salary, if doesn't mean that they had equal college experiences. There's more to life than work.

And college is 4 years of your life--a non insignificant time span. It also comes at an age when it's easier to make good long term friends for most people than it is later in life. A lot of years ago now, there was a study of how life at a top private college differed from state flagships. Maybe it's become too competitive to join at some colleges, but one thing that showed up in that study was that students at top privates were more engaged in extracurriculars. The most common EC at state flagships was membership in a Greek organization. A relatively low percentage of students were active on the school newspaper or other campus publications, played in a musical group, acted in plays,played a school sport, etc. At the top private colleges, almost all students were engaged in one or more of these extracurriculars. (I remember David Brooks writing a column when he was teaching at Yale by how flabbergasted at just how much the Yalies he taught were doing outside of class.)

Despite the much vaunted "at the flagship my kid will make friends with all sorts of people" in reality they don't. Oh, a few may. But when the most common activity is Greek life--as it is at many state flagships--students tend to live in a bubble with people from very similar backgrounds. At one rising in rep Southern flagship, not only are almost all "white" sororities white, they are divided into those where almost everyone is Southern and those which pledge girls from other parts of the country. Moreover, private colleges are more likely to charge the same board for all rooms, so that where you live is determined by the housing draw. State schools often charge more for better housing. The effect is exacerbated when upperclassmen move off campus. There are often apartment complexes filled mostly with students and who lives in each complex correlates closely with family income.

Have any of you read "Paying for the Party," a study of the mixing of different social economic groups at Indiana University? Basically, the authors concluded that girls from lower income families were better off attending less selective regional colleges in Indiana than the state flagship precisely because they did not participate in bonding experiences like sorority rush and even studied different subjects. The authors claimed that if they did take the "rich kids" majors like journalism, broadcast television, and fashion merchandising, they were less able to get internships and entry level jobs because they didn't have the personal networks the richer kids did.

I am NOT claiming that there aren't groups of very wealthy students at top colleges that choose to socialize with other rich kids; there are such groups. But that is an affirmative choice. Especially first year, many of these kids will be sharing a room with someone on financial aid. And at schools with residential college or house systems, there will ALWAYS be forced interactions with kids from different backgrounds. (I remember reading an article that said that all of the girls who pledged the same sorority at U Texas that Jenna Bush Hager joined had mothers who not only were college graduates but who had graduated from the U of Texas )

A study many years ago about cross-racial friendships at Berkeley found that a low percentage of students of any race had made close friends outside their race. The kids who did? Athletes and musicians because sports teams and orchestra, band and other musical groups included students from different races and the participants just naturally broadened their friendship circle

Anyway..this is a novel already. But my intent is just to raise a few issues I think are relevant to this discussion that aren't discussed as often IME..

Interesting take. It rings true based on siblings who went to big state schools v the two of us who went to top privates. Ffwd and the next generation is similar: the elite college kids are doing more EC/outside class stuff in 2 days than the public kids do in a week.