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:Parents want their kids in the most elite orbits in high school to college because that’s likely where they’ll meet a spouse. You want your kids being orbited by flunkies and drunks with low ambition, be my guest. Take the bribe (merit money) to attend some tier 4 school. In all likelihood it will work out fine for your kid - - or maybe it won’t. And maybe it seems fine at first but doesn’t 10 years out.

Bored teens on Xmas morning are so tiresome. You are so, so unaware of how the real world works, child.

“You can still succeed even if you attend a mediocre state school” isn’t how the real world works now either, Boomer.

Lol, you are 13 and have no idea how the real world works. Go play with your new steam deck, child, and stop with your nonsense.

You went to a state school in the 1970s or 1980s and you have no idea how the real world works now, Boomer.

HYPS in the early 2000s. And I hire.

Idk why I am wasting my time with an ignorant troll, though. That is indeed a good question.

Sure thing, Boomer. Everyone on the internet went to Harvard and is a CEO or something.

The two of you are perfect for each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a high school English teacher, so I’m pretty involved and in tune with the application process. Having pushy parents to ensure teachers fear giving lower than an A and being able and willing to “help” in the application process is what gets at least half of our students who attend “elite” colleges over the line. Some of the more blatant acts of dishonesty stock in my mind and make me feel bad, years later, but I can assure you this is all a game, not strictly a merit-based system.

My HS English teacher relative says the same thing.

It’s honestly partially why I side-eye T20 resumes a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents want their kids in the most elite orbits in high school to college because that’s likely where they’ll meet a spouse. You want your kids being orbited by flunkies and drunks with low ambition, be my guest. Take the bribe (merit money) to attend some tier 4 school. In all likelihood it will work out fine for your kid - - or maybe it won’t. And maybe it seems fine at first but doesn’t 10 years out.

Are you from the 1960’s? People no longer go to college to meet their spouse. Most people I know don’t even get married until they’re 30’s. They want to establish their professional careers first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a high school English teacher, so I’m pretty involved and in tune with the application process. Having pushy parents to ensure teachers fear giving lower than an A and being able and willing to “help” in the application process is what gets at least half of our students who attend “elite” colleges over the line. Some of the more blatant acts of dishonesty stock in my mind and make me feel bad, years later, but I can assure you this is all a game, not strictly a merit-based system.

My HS English teacher relative says the same thing.

It’s honestly partially why I side-eye T20 resumes a bit.

Just have the applicant write something for you and then read it genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents want their kids in the most elite orbits in high school to college because that’s likely where they’ll meet a spouse. You want your kids being orbited by flunkies and drunks with low ambition, be my guest. Take the bribe (merit money) to attend some tier 4 school. In all likelihood it will work out fine for your kid - - or maybe it won’t. And maybe it seems fine at first but doesn’t 10 years out.

Are you from the 1960’s? People no longer go to college to meet their spouse. Most people I know don’t even get married until they’re 30’s. They want to establish their professional careers first.

Yes, they do. You’re just bitter you didn’t.

[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.

Nobody wants to admit their kid is dull and lacks ambition. The most ambitious smart kids DEMAND to be around the most ambitious collection of peers. The weak — which to be clear doesn’t always mean dull — want something local or to feel like a big fish in a small less cutthroat pond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you have a low IQ, you're not going to succeed no matter how rich your family is. When you're adult, natural intelligence matter much more than money when it comes to determining success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents want their kids in the most elite orbits in high school to college because that’s likely where they’ll meet a spouse. You want your kids being orbited by flunkies and drunks with low ambition, be my guest. Take the bribe (merit money) to attend some tier 4 school. In all likelihood it will work out fine for your kid - - or maybe it won’t. And maybe it seems fine at first but doesn’t 10 years out.

Are you from the 1960’s? People no longer go to college to meet their spouse. Most people I know don’t even get married until they’re 30’s. They want to establish their professional careers first.

Yes, they do. You’re just bitter you didn’t.

Not bitter at all. I happen to have a husband who is very close to the top in his field (is well known by people in his field) and makes well north of a million a year. And, btw, he went to a college and law school that DCUM would scorn if they had even heard of it. Didn’t hold him back. He built his career and reputation himself and is first gen to college (although that was not a hook when we went to college). We met after law school.

So no, we actually focused on our studies not meeting a spouse in college. Worked out great for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you have a low IQ, you're not going to succeed no matter how rich your family is. When you're adult, natural intelligence matter much more than money when it comes to determining success.

And AGAIN - professional boxers get hit in the head for a living. While a few are actual members Mensa International most are just folks who don't quit when life gets really tough.

When you are an adult persistence and determination matter much more than money when it comes to determining success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is simply so out of touch with reality. Most people don’t care. I don’t care. I’ve worked with people from ivies and I’ve worked with people from unimpressive party schools. Their educational background has almost no correlation with how good of a coworker (or, in general, how good of an employee) they are.

Do people really feel the way OP does? Caring that much about pedigree just sounds exhausting.

Only low ambition folks don’t care and people trying to cope with they or their kids landing at degree mills.

There's that binary thinking again -- either elite or a degree mill.

I just looked up where my company's CEO went to undergrad (large company, brand all of Dcum would know) -- Small Catholic U in the Midwest that I've never heard of with an 80% acceptance rate. My DD goes to a mid ranked LAC that most people haven't heard of but alums include Nobel prize winners. OP doesn't think these people exist.

Is ceo a Marquette Grad? Excellent school with a 80% acceptance rate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay but why should I, as an employer, GAF who is the best student? I don’t have any jobs for studying and taking tests. I need to know who is the best project manager and best salesperson and best communicator. Mind you, I do think student quality has some overlap with the skills I’m looking for, but you’re the one talking about the “best students.”

I find the obsession over where a person spends 4 years of their life really odd. Especially in the DMV, people seem to take more about predictors of success than actual… success.

And before you accuse me of being a naive populist, I went to Northwestern.

The easiest way for you, as an employer, to determine who is the best manager / salesperson / communicator would be to administer some type of IQ or aptitude test to job applicants. But you're not allowed to do that thanks to Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Therefore, you, like all employers, are forced to use proxies to achieve the same effect. The leading proxy for ability to do the job is, of course, "what degree do you have and where did you get it from". That may not be optimal from an employer's perspective but here we are.

Yes—pkrmty of companies use this. Don’t pass the test, you don’t make it to next round of interviews


Well how come they have the wunderlink test and I have had to take several tests to do jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selective grad schools, law schools and med schools all disagree with you. They admit from elite undergrads, but most admits aren't and there are many admits from even very low ranked schools. You have a second chance to shine in undergrad and professional programs are happy to snatch up those who didn't attend an elite school, but who proved themselves as in undergrad.

Seriously, go look at the list of admits at Harvard Law or Yale Law and you'll be surprised. It's not at all dominated by T20 grads.

Most grad schools are not selective. And at selective grad programs, those random no-name colleges you see on their class lists are generally hooked applicants.

So you think the kid that went to Appalachian State or Florida International University just saved their hook so they could use it to get into Harvard for grad school? They were just saving it for later? Or did their parents become billionaire donors while they were in college? Nope.

I was one of those kids. Got into a T20, but turned it down for a tier 4 because I needed a full ride. I also got into a top grad school, fully funded, and ultimately got my PhD from a Nobel Laureate. How? I applied and got funding to do research with very respected professors during each summer of undergrad so I had several top tier publications and amazing recommendation letters. No hooks. Just hard work.

Exactly. Many many stories like this every year. I know a guy who recently graduated from a university ranked in the 125-150 range after turning down Penn and Carnegie Mellon. He finished in 4 years with both a bachelor's and a master's, and like you he did research every year. He had a job as a researcher at one of the most desirable places for people in his field locked down before graduation.

Another recent grad chose a not-elite state university over Princeton, published two papers as an undergrad, graduated in 3 years, and is now at an Ivy pursuing his PhD.

No hooks for either. Just worked hard like you did.

That kind of proves my point. He probably graduated in 3 years for the same reason he got accepted into Princeton. But most people belong at the universities they're attending. I deserved fair-and-square to go to a bad college, but I clearly overcame whatever intelligence barrier I had had in high school by graduating before all of my classmates, many of whom never graduated at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selective grad schools, law schools and med schools all disagree with you. They admit from elite undergrads, but most admits aren't and there are many admits from even very low ranked schools. You have a second chance to shine in undergrad and professional programs are happy to snatch up those who didn't attend an elite school, but who proved themselves as in undergrad.

Seriously, go look at the list of admits at Harvard Law or Yale Law and you'll be surprised. It's not at all dominated by T20 grads.

Most grad schools are not selective. And at selective grad programs, those random no-name colleges you see on their class lists are generally hooked applicants.

So you think the kid that went to Appalachian State or Florida International University just saved their hook so they could use it to get into Harvard for grad school? They were just saving it for later? Or did their parents become billionaire donors while they were in college? Nope.

I was one of those kids. Got into a T20, but turned it down for a tier 4 because I needed a full ride. I also got into a top grad school, fully funded, and ultimately got my PhD from a Nobel Laureate. How? I applied and got funding to do research with very respected professors during each summer of undergrad so I had several top tier publications and amazing recommendation letters. No hooks. Just hard work.

Exactly. Many many stories like this every year. I know a guy who recently graduated from a university ranked in the 125-150 range after turning down Penn and Carnegie Mellon. He finished in 4 years with both a bachelor's and a master's, and like you he did research every year. He had a job as a researcher at one of the most desirable places for people in his field locked down before graduation.

Another recent grad chose a not-elite state university over Princeton, published two papers as an undergrad, graduated in 3 years, and is now at an Ivy pursuing his PhD.

No hooks for either. Just worked hard like you did.

That kind of proves my point. He probably graduated in 3 years for the same reason he got accepted into Princeton. But most people belong at the universities they're attending. I deserved fair-and-square to go to a bad college, but I clearly overcame whatever intelligence barrier I had had in high school by graduating before all of my classmates, many of whom never graduated at all.

Okay, I think this also shows that plenty of high-performing HS students end up at "lower ranked" colleges for some reason or another. Not everyone can get into T20s or afford them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents want their kids in the most elite orbits in high school to college because that’s likely where they’ll meet a spouse. You want your kids being orbited by flunkies and drunks with low ambition, be my guest. Take the bribe (merit money) to attend some tier 4 school. In all likelihood it will work out fine for your kid - - or maybe it won’t. And maybe it seems fine at first but doesn’t 10 years out.

Are you from the 1960’s? People no longer go to college to meet their spouse. Most people I know don’t even get married until they’re 30’s. They want to establish their professional careers first.

hugely to the divorce rate.

Actually, people still do.
You need to expand your world a little beyond the workplace and dating apps.

They probably contribute hugely to the divorce rate

[Anonymous]

I think the consulting poster meant MBB (McKinsey, Bain, BCG) not Big 4 (Deloitte, EY, PwC, KPMG).
I agree that for MBB the elite schools are feeders. For the Big 4 accounting firms, not so much; even though they also have consulting arms, they hire from everywhere.