Intellectual peers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s overrated. A lot of the insanely intelligent types of students go to public university, breeze through at the beginning and then challenge themselves in grad courses.

This is the answer.

[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

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.

DP
Actually for students who are well within top 25% of the TOP schools, it would be a fairly low percentage of the lesser schools that were true intellectual peers to push them. For the median ivy kid does it matter a ton to be at a top 10 where you are average vs a 25/30 where you are top quarter, maybe or maybe not depending on personality. But it matters a lot to those who are the top10-15% of the ivy kids. They would have very few intellectual peers and be an outlier at a 25-30ish. Many of those kids did that already in Magnet high schools where the median SAT was 1430 and they had less than a handful of peers they could relate to intellectually. These kids exist I know several from different magnets or top privates. They are a significant percentage of them at top schools and it is genuinely refreshing to see them finally have so many that are similar, and finally meet a few who are beyond them—still outliers in the most competitive setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Iron sharpens iron.

Iron also dulls iron

Iron also rusts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s overrated. A lot of the insanely intelligent types of students go to public university, breeze through at the beginning and then challenge themselves in grad courses.

This is the answer.

The highest intelligent ones would be better off feeling some sort of challenge as undergrads, get to grad level course as juniors(not that uncommon at top schools for a lot of students to be ready) and really explore some complex subjects in depth as an undergrad. That would be a much better use of that levelof brain. Besides, who wants to pay for their kid to “breeze through?” That is not the point of college. It should challenge them.

[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

There are known ivy professors who have publicly lamented from experience that the students at some of these schools are not even close to the average group at the ivy they taught at

[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

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.

DP
Actually for students who are well within top 25% of the TOP schools, it would be a fairly low percentage of the lesser schools that were true intellectual peers to push them. For the median ivy kid does it matter a ton to be at a top 10 where you are average vs a 25/30 where you are top quarter, maybe or maybe not depending on personality. But it matters a lot to those who are the top10-15% of the ivy kids. They would have very few intellectual peers and be an outlier at a 25-30ish. Many of those kids did that already in Magnet high schools where the median SAT was 1430 and they had less than a handful of peers they could relate to intellectually. These kids exist I know several from different magnets or top privates. They are a significant percentage of them at top schools and it is genuinely refreshing to see them finally have so many that are similar, and finally meet a few who are beyond them—still outliers in the most competitive setting.

Well, no, if you’re top 10-15% at an Ivy you aren’t really amongst your peers there either. But we aren’t talking about outliers. Those outliers are always going to struggle to find peers regardless.

[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

There are known ivy professors who have publicly lamented from experience that the students at some of these schools are not even close to the average group at the ivy they taught at

Name them with links to where they said this, please.

Most professors couldn’t give a f*ck about the undergrads, even at Ivies, so I have a hard time believing this is some common trope.

[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

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.

DP
Actually for students who are well within top 25% of the TOP schools, it would be a fairly low percentage of the lesser schools that were true intellectual peers to push them. For the median ivy kid does it matter a ton to be at a top 10 where you are average vs a 25/30 where you are top quarter, maybe or maybe not depending on personality. But it matters a lot to those who are the top10-15% of the ivy kids. They would have very few intellectual peers and be an outlier at a 25-30ish. Many of those kids did that already in Magnet high schools where the median SAT was 1430 and they had less than a handful of peers they could relate to intellectually. These kids exist I know several from different magnets or top privates. They are a significant percentage of them at top schools and it is genuinely refreshing to see them finally have so many that are similar, and finally meet a few who are beyond them—still outliers in the most competitive setting.

Well, no, if you’re top 10-15% at an Ivy you aren’t really amongst your peers there either. But we aren’t talking about outliers. Those outliers are always going to struggle to find peers regardless.

The top 10-15 % of ivy kids do find their peers there, because they are close enough to the median to relate well to most of the top half! That is the point. If you have a couple of these kids and /or were one yourself it would make sense. It is like coming home to finally relate to a large portion of peers. The top 2-3 brightest from the magnet almost always go to ivy/stanford/Mit. We know a lot of these parents well and our own kids were that way. These kids are not that rare and DCUM likely skews toward having overrepresentation of them. I heard about this from a fellow top kid parent. Our kids did competitive orchestra and JHU CTY camps together. This website used to be great for the super bright but lately anyone who wants the right fit is told State publics are the same, All schools are the same. They just are not. And the differences are very important to a lot of kids at the top.

[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

There are known ivy professors who have publicly lamented from experience that the students at some of these schools are not even close to the average group at the ivy they taught at

So it’s not uncommon for faculty at those schools to also have second choice syndrome. I worked at Georgetown and sooo many faculty thought they belonged teaching and researching/publishing at an Ivy rather than Georgetown. They were worse than the students.

[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

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.

DP
Actually for students who are well within top 25% of the TOP schools, it would be a fairly low percentage of the lesser schools that were true intellectual peers to push them. For the median ivy kid does it matter a ton to be at a top 10 where you are average vs a 25/30 where you are top quarter, maybe or maybe not depending on personality. But it matters a lot to those who are the top10-15% of the ivy kids. They would have very few intellectual peers and be an outlier at a 25-30ish. Many of those kids did that already in Magnet high schools where the median SAT was 1430 and they had less than a handful of peers they could relate to intellectually. These kids exist I know several from different magnets or top privates. They are a significant percentage of them at top schools and it is genuinely refreshing to see them finally have so many that are similar, and finally meet a few who are beyond them—still outliers in the most competitive setting.

Well, no, if you’re top 10-15% at an Ivy you aren’t really amongst your peers there either. But we aren’t talking about outliers. Those outliers are always going to struggle to find peers regardless.

The top 10-15 % of ivy kids do find their peers there, because they are close enough to the median to relate well to most of the top half! That is the point. If you have a couple of these kids and /or were one yourself it would make sense. It is like coming home to finally relate to a large portion of peers. The top 2-3 brightest from the magnet almost always go to ivy/stanford/Mit. We know a lot of these parents well and our own kids were that way. These kids are not that rare and DCUM likely skews toward having overrepresentation of them. I heard about this from a fellow top kid parent. Our kids did competitive orchestra and JHU CTY camps together. This website used to be great for the super bright but lately anyone who wants the right fit is told State publics are the same, All schools are the same. They just are not. And the differences are very important to a lot of kids at the top.

You can’t keep saying “the top 10%” of an already narrow subset (i.e., Ivies) or “top 2-3 from the magnet” and then keep saying “these kids are not that rare.” It makes no sense. Again, these are outliers. This discussion isn’t just about outliers.

[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

There are known ivy professors who have publicly lamented from experience that the students at some of these schools are not even close to the average group at the ivy they taught at

There are not, that is utter nonsense. Show us one single piece of credible materila that makes this claim. You are talking out your ass at this point.

[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

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.

DP
Actually for students who are well within top 25% of the TOP schools, it would be a fairly low percentage of the lesser schools that were true intellectual peers to push them. For the median ivy kid does it matter a ton to be at a top 10 where you are average vs a 25/30 where you are top quarter, maybe or maybe not depending on personality. But it matters a lot to those who are the top10-15% of the ivy kids. They would have very few intellectual peers and be an outlier at a 25-30ish. Many of those kids did that already in Magnet high schools where the median SAT was 1430 and they had less than a handful of peers they could relate to intellectually. These kids exist I know several from different magnets or top privates. They are a significant percentage of them at top schools and it is genuinely refreshing to see them finally have so many that are similar, and finally meet a few who are beyond them—still outliers in the most competitive setting.

Well, no, if you’re top 10-15% at an Ivy you aren’t really amongst your peers there either. But we aren’t talking about outliers. Those outliers are always going to struggle to find peers regardless.

The top 10-15 % of ivy kids do find their peers there, because they are close enough to the median to relate well to most of the top half! That is the point. If you have a couple of these kids and /or were one yourself it would make sense. It is like coming home to finally relate to a large portion of peers. The top 2-3 brightest from the magnet almost always go to ivy/stanford/Mit. We know a lot of these parents well and our own kids were that way. These kids are not that rare and DCUM likely skews toward having overrepresentation of them. I heard about this from a fellow top kid parent. Our kids did competitive orchestra and JHU CTY camps together. This website used to be great for the super bright but lately anyone who wants the right fit is told State publics are the same, All schools are the same. They just are not. And the differences are very important to a lot of kids at the top.

You do not know alot of them because by definition there are not alot of them. You are just having a superiority fever dream which is completely unsupported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can you give specific examples? Even made up ones if privacy is an issue. I don't see how 2 days can fit a week's worth of ECs

[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

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.

DP
Actually for students who are well within top 25% of the TOP schools, it would be a fairly low percentage of the lesser schools that were true intellectual peers to push them. For the median ivy kid does it matter a ton to be at a top 10 where you are average vs a 25/30 where you are top quarter, maybe or maybe not depending on personality. But it matters a lot to those who are the top10-15% of the ivy kids. They would have very few intellectual peers and be an outlier at a 25-30ish. Many of those kids did that already in Magnet high schools where the median SAT was 1430 and they had less than a handful of peers they could relate to intellectually. These kids exist I know several from different magnets or top privates. They are a significant percentage of them at top schools and it is genuinely refreshing to see them finally have so many that are similar, and finally meet a few who are beyond them—still outliers in the most competitive setting.

Well, no, if you’re top 10-15% at an Ivy you aren’t really amongst your peers there either. But we aren’t talking about outliers. Those outliers are always going to struggle to find peers regardless.

The top 10-15%ile are quite close to the 60%ile at Ivies. The top 5% is where the international olympiad medalists and such are. Regardless, anyone above the median at an Ivy is going to be better of socially compared to a less selective school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s overrated. A lot of the insanely intelligent types of students go to public university, breeze through at the beginning and then challenge themselves in grad courses.

This is the answer.

The highest intelligent ones would be better off feeling some sort of challenge as undergrads, get to grad level course as juniors(not that uncommon at top schools for a lot of students to be ready) and really explore some complex subjects in depth as an undergrad. That would be a much better use of that levelof brain. Besides, who wants to pay for their kid to “breeze through?” That is not the point of college. It should challenge them.

Going to a top school doesn’t guarantee that. I know a kid who breezed through CMU for CS and now works quant; he could’ve gone anywhere and been fine with the challenge. Some people just are intelligent.