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

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I've noticed a few posters indicating that they side eye or give extra scrutiny to resumes from elite school graduates. While this may be true, it's also not relevant, because they likely don't work at places that most elite school graduates want to work. The occasional washout drifts your way, no big deal.


FAANG is full of people who don’t just side-eye elite school graduates, they put them at the bottom of the pile (the exceptions being MIT/CMU, etc.). Sorry to break it to you.


What is OCR and why does FAANG do it at elite schools.


On-campus recruiting is done more often at elite schools because it's more efficient (higher concentration of skilled workers), but they're smart enough to realize that the total number of desirable applicants at non-elite colleges far outweighs the number at elite schools. The former may need to be more proactive in their job searches, although there's plenty of OCR happening at non-elites, too.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I've noticed a few posters indicating that they side eye or give extra scrutiny to resumes from elite school graduates. While this may be true, it's also not relevant, because they likely don't work at places that most elite school graduates want to work. The occasional washout drifts your way, no big deal.


FAANG is full of people who don’t just side-eye elite school graduates, they put them at the bottom of the pile (the exceptions being MIT/CMU, etc.). Sorry to break it to you.


What is OCR and why does FAANG do it at elite schools.


Oh, you only understand the entry-level job market.

This thread suddenly makes a lot more sense. It’s filled with people who haven’t ever had anything more than basic, entry-level jobs. Now I understand the lack of realism.


It's the college forum, of course entry level jobs are going to be most relevant. Anyway, I'm going out to volunteer for all those poor Harvard students who go homeless because one FAANG manager you allegedly know hires GMU grads over them. GMU, which famously has a higher average salary than Princeton.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I've noticed a few posters indicating that they side eye or give extra scrutiny to resumes from elite school graduates. While this may be true, it's also not relevant, because they likely don't work at places that most elite school graduates want to work. The occasional washout drifts your way, no big deal.


FAANG is full of people who don’t just side-eye elite school graduates, they put them at the bottom of the pile (the exceptions being MIT/CMU, etc.). Sorry to break it to you.


What is OCR and why does FAANG do it at elite schools.


Oh, you only understand the entry-level job market.

This thread suddenly makes a lot more sense. It’s filled with people who haven’t ever had anything more than basic, entry-level jobs. Now I understand the lack of realism.


Is there a reason you couldn’t answer pp’s question?


Fine. OCR is on-campus recruiting. It’s done by FAANG at a variety of universities, both elite and non-elite, though FAANG has been quietly slashing their OCR programs for years, so it’s less and less relevant. At the undergraduate level, it is used to fill entry-level jobs. Many if not most of those jobs are dead-end. For instance, Google used to (and maybe still does) use OCR to fill their entry-level administrative assistant jobs because they could get large batches of students at once, so it was an efficient way to get a lot of people interviewed. The exception is as originally noted: CMU, MIT, and I would add Stanford CS to that list. But for the most part, the person who asked about OCR clearly knows very little about either FAANG or the reality of OCR.

OCR at the graduate level is entirely different than undergraduate OCR, but graduate level OCR is targeted to specific departments known to produce the skills that FAANG wants. Undergrad degree is largely irrelevant to graduate OCR. Graduate OCR is focused on internships and those jobs are not dead-end or low-skill.

In all cases, for actual engineering and non-dead-end jobs at FAANG, you have to typically show code or technical expertise. That’s done online, and increasingly outside of the OCR process entirely.

This thread makes a lot more sense when you realize that it’s filled with people who only have entry-level job experience and no FAANG experience. They don’t understand the reality of hiring.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I've noticed a few posters indicating that they side eye or give extra scrutiny to resumes from elite school graduates. While this may be true, it's also not relevant, because they likely don't work at places that most elite school graduates want to work. The occasional washout drifts your way, no big deal.


FAANG is full of people who don’t just side-eye elite school graduates, they put them at the bottom of the pile (the exceptions being MIT/CMU, etc.). Sorry to break it to you.


What is OCR and why does FAANG do it at elite schools.


On-campus recruiting is done more often at elite schools because it's more efficient (higher concentration of skilled workers), but they're smart enough to realize that the total number of desirable applicants at non-elite colleges far outweighs the number at elite schools. The former may need to be more proactive in their job searches, although there's plenty of OCR happening at non-elites, too.


Did you know the majority of Harvard students come from public s high chools? It's true, something like 63%. It's also misleading, because way more than 63% of the potential applicant pool goes to public schools. Similarly, are most FAANG hires from state schools? I would guess so! But the elites (including both Harvard/Princeton and MIT/Caltech type schools) are overrepresented. Are elite engineering schools like MIT more favored than elite liberal arts schools like Yale? Probably! But there are a lot of spots two go around. This isn't boutique finance, these are large mass companies.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Who does not accept this? I think the caliber of people at better schools is also a reason to go there. There are some iffy folks at some of the large state schools some of my kids' friends plan to go to (we live in the South). Not interested. They will go to liberal arts schools with prep school kids. Sorry not sorry.


Some of the best students go to state flagships for financial reasons. The top ranked colleges are filled with the best students whose parents can afford tuition. That’s a pretty important qualifier

+1. Duh. Except top-ranked schools also have a significant percentage of low-income students who attend at low or no cost. The poor and the wealthy can afford elite schools; it's the people in between who balk at the cost.


And if they are smart, they will continue to balk and choose to attend somewhere affordable. No school is worth going into major debt for. Top students can find a great school that is affordable---and when they are 25 and have no/minimal student loans they will be thankful.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:1. Not ADD: While others may have been better students because they were neurotypical, that doesn't mean they are smarter. If a school only wants neurotypical students, then they can keep accepting 4.7 kids with 1700 SAT scores.

2. Cheating: My child spent four hours on a project when others spent 15 minutes cheating. So there's another reason. Some of the so-called "better students" are cheating.

3. Rich AF: Some of the "better students" are merely rich. Jared Kushner. George Bush (C Student at Yale) Do you think Ivanka Trump (Penn) could have been a "better student"? LOL!

4. Zero Support for College: My parents knew zilch about applying to schools and didn't help me at all. With zero support and an undiagnosed learning disability, I got decent grades, placed into gifted classes, and accepted into a state flagship.


I'm surprised you couldn't think of the reasons yourself, OP.


You really think kids are ‘cheating’ themselves into top colleges? You think you know they are cheating and their teachers, guidance counselors and the admissions officers do not?

OP has his point slightly wrong. They may not be ‘better students’ because that is subjective and for everyone. They are ‘better candidates’ because that is objective and set by the colleges and their admissions departments, and totally whatever they think that means. As it should be.


Actually, there is a lot more cheating going on than when we were in high school, especially since the pandemic. We who work in the schools are aware of it and doing what we can to stop it/convince them they're not helping themselves any in the long run. It's not easy when they feel such ridiculous pressure to have as high a GPA as possible and aren't focused on learning the skills as much as they should be.


That’s irrelevant to the PPs claim kids were cheating themselves into top schools.


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


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

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


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


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

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


It’s not a “bad thing”. It’s a fake thing. I think I made that clear.

I love your story, but I have one too. Despite an otherwise glowing transcript in every way complete with recs, I know a kid whose explanation for that one imperfect semester was that his dad committed suicide. More than one elite school didn’t think that mattered. You sound very nice and honestly a little innocent. It’s sweet (I’m not being snarky.) I have seen the inside of both competitive publics and privates - the lying, dishonesty, and embellishing that’s acceptable to many kids and their parents is disgusting. Colleges don’t seem motivated to do anything about it. They don’t even verify awards, jobs, non profits etc.


For what it's worth (not much), he likely would have been rejected even if that semester was perfect as well.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: