Overrated schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who went to one of the "top five" for grad school, I would have to say they are all replaceable for undergrad. God I loved flunking out all those wannabe pre-meds as a TA for Introductory Chemistry. For all the difficulty getting into this school, the freshmen didn't seem that bright to me.

Certainly, but the point of my post was about prestige/name recognition of the college, not the undergraduate student quality. think everyone knows that Ivies and Stanford admit a bunch of undeserving legacy, donor, etc. kids who tend to make up the lower 25-50% of the admitted class's spectrum.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that the Ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT get the best of the best. So even the somewhat under-qualified URMs, legacies, rich kids are the best of the best. And they have a nose for potential. Kushner is an idiot, was bribed into Harvard ... yet he's essentially de facto POTUS right now making $100M a year.

The snapchat billionaire kid Evan seems to have had some string pulled to get him into Stanford (rich dad). He's worth $5 billion. Carly Fiorina's dad obviously got her into Stanford ... yet she still became top exec at AT&T and then CEO of HP.

A verifiable dumb as a brick URM student-athlete from our neighborhood went to an HYPS. 10 years later he's making big bucks in some vague "community outreach" role at a Fortune 100 company.

Our oldest son graduated from an Ivy. His college girlfriend was an awful engineering student; totally clueless. She shamelessly cheated her way all through the major and had him (and other boys) literally do her work. She's now a tech exec in SV making millions a year.

Most of these connected people you are quoting as Ivy+ grads would have been successful whether or not they attended Ivy+. Kushner, for example, has the family connection for that. He didn’t need Harvard to get to where he is today.

The question is, do Ivy+ people become successful because of Ivy+, or do they become successful irrespective of Ivy+? If the latter, Ivy+ grads’ success is independent of their ivy+ connections. If they already come from power and influence, its their existing connections that’s propelling them to power and influence, not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who went to one of the "top five" for grad school, I would have to say they are all replaceable for undergrad. God I loved flunking out all those wannabe pre-meds as a TA for Introductory Chemistry. For all the difficulty getting into this school, the freshmen didn't seem that bright to me.

Certainly, but the point of my post was about prestige/name recognition of the college, not the undergraduate student quality. think everyone knows that Ivies and Stanford admit a bunch of undeserving legacy, donor, etc. kids who tend to make up the lower 25-50% of the admitted class's spectrum.

Excuse me, but did I say that just the rich whiteys were being flunked? Such idiocy. Must be DCUM.

They make a large portion of those that get in undeserved, certainly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who went to one of the "top five" for grad school, I would have to say they are all replaceable for undergrad. God I loved flunking out all those wannabe pre-meds as a TA for Introductory Chemistry. For all the difficulty getting into this school, the freshmen didn't seem that bright to me.

Certainly, but the point of my post was about prestige/name recognition of the college, not the undergraduate student quality. think everyone knows that Ivies and Stanford admit a bunch of undeserving legacy, donor, etc. kids who tend to make up the lower 25-50% of the admitted class's spectrum.

The “prestige” and “name recognition” you associate with H’s URMs, legacies, donors, and meathead jocks exist only in your thick skull.

Ironic considering you can't get it past your thick skull that I'm talking about the college's prestige and reputation, not the students', idiot. Learn to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who went to one of the "top five" for grad school, I would have to say they are all replaceable for undergrad. God I loved flunking out all those wannabe pre-meds as a TA for Introductory Chemistry. For all the difficulty getting into this school, the freshmen didn't seem that bright to me.

Certainly, but the point of my post was about prestige/name recognition of the college, not the undergraduate student quality. think everyone knows that Ivies and Stanford admit a bunch of undeserving legacy, donor, etc. kids who tend to make up the lower 25-50% of the admitted class's spectrum.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that the Ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT get the best of the best. So even the somewhat under-qualified URMs, legacies, rich kids are the best of the best. And they have a nose for potential. Kushner is an idiot, was bribed into Harvard ... yet he's essentially de facto POTUS right now making $100M a year.

The snapchat billionaire kid Evan seems to have had some string pulled to get him into Stanford (rich dad). He's worth $5 billion. Carly Fiorina's dad obviously got her into Stanford ... yet she still became top exec at AT&T and then CEO of HP.

A verifiable dumb as a brick URM student-athlete from our neighborhood went to an HYPS. 10 years later he's making big bucks in some vague "community outreach" role at a Fortune 100 company.

Our oldest son graduated from an Ivy. His college girlfriend was an awful engineering student; totally clueless. She shamelessly cheated her way all through the major and had him (and other boys) literally do her work. She's now a tech exec in SV making millions a year.

Depends on what you mean by 'best of the best'. Best of the best in terms of academic merit, definitely not.
Best of the best in terms of getting success later in life? Sure, but its a closed feedback loop where them having rich parents gets them into top schools, having attended top schools gives them (unearned) plaudits and career climbing and networks which gives them top executive positions, which makes them successful and wealthy, etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

I think what is overrated is overspending. There are a few schools that may distinguish graduates for life as being especially bright. The top tier there is Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton. There are a few that are below that, bit still differentiating. But below those relatively few schools, the differences between say 18 and 29 or so really don't make much difference (for someone who could have been admitted to both) during a lifetime, so people should focus on finances and fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what is overrated is overspending. There are a few schools that may distinguish graduates for life as being especially bright. The top tier there is Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton. There are a few that are below that, bit still differentiating. But below those relatively few schools, the differences between say 18 and 29 or so really don't make much difference (for someone who could have been admitted to both) during a lifetime, so people should focus on finances and fit.

No school - not even Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Columbia - are worth $100,000 in student loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what is overrated is overspending. There are a few schools that may distinguish graduates for life as being especially bright. The top tier there is Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton. There are a few that are below that, bit still differentiating. But below those relatively few schools, the differences between say 18 and 29 or so really don't make much difference (for someone who could have been admitted to both) during a lifetime, so people should focus on finances and fit.

No school - not even Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Columbia - are worth $100,000 in student loans.

IMO those schools can be worth $100,000 in student loans given that the student is capable, is not aiming for medical/law/business school immediately after college, and is aiming for the top investment banking, consulting, or tech jobs and willing to spend several years of their 20's paying back those loans while everyone else is living it up.

[Anonymous]

The posters on this particular thread are objectively amongst the least intelligent people I’ve come across on a site positively crawling with imbeciles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The posters on this particular thread are objectively amongst the least intelligent people I’ve come across on a site positively crawling with imbeciles.

I'll point out the obvious -- you posted on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The posters on this particular thread are objectively amongst the least intelligent people I’ve come across on a site positively crawling with imbeciles.

OP actually said this is a troll thread he created (in the time of coronavirus lockdown).

We actually have an Ivy Dumpy coming on here spouting nonsense. This thread keeps Dumpy busy, keeping him or her away from the street rioting and looting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what is overrated is overspending. There are a few schools that may distinguish graduates for life as being especially bright. The top tier there is Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton. There are a few that are below that, bit still differentiating. But below those relatively few schools, the differences between say 18 and 29 or so really don't make much difference (for someone who could have been admitted to both) during a lifetime, so people should focus on finances and fit.

No school - not even Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Columbia - are worth $100,000 in student loans.

I agree with you but you are a little asleep at the switch. A lot of SLACs are now 80K+ a year x 4 or 5 years, that's $320,000 to $400K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what is overrated is overspending. There are a few schools that may distinguish graduates for life as being especially bright. The top tier there is Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton. There are a few that are below that, bit still differentiating. But below those relatively few schools, the differences between say 18 and 29 or so really don't make much difference (for someone who could have been admitted to both) during a lifetime, so people should focus on finances and fit.

No school - not even Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Columbia - are worth $100,000 in student loans.

I agree with you but you are a little asleep at the switch. A lot of SLACs are now 80K+ a year x 4 or 5 years, that's $320,000 to $400K.

A lot? No. And most LACs offer tons of FA.

[Anonymous]

In this thread: Broke middle class who clearly don't know what it's like to have real money. Being able to send your children to their favorite college is one of lives greatest joys. The way you all talk about "worth" as it relates to education is such a low-class outlook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: Broke middle class who clearly don't know what it's like to have real money. Being able to send your children to their favorite college is one of lives greatest joys. The way you all talk about "worth" as it relates to education is such a low-class outlook.

Broke middle class does fine. For those broke middle class kids who get into an Ivy, FA such that it makes no sense to go elsewhere. (Cornell is a possible exception to this rule.) From experience, Ivy FA is significantly better than some of the 10-20 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: Broke middle class who clearly don't know what it's like to have real money. Being able to send your children to their favorite college is one of lives greatest joys. The way you all talk about "worth" as it relates to education is such a low-class outlook.

Broke middle class does fine. For those broke middle class kids who get into an Ivy, FA such that it makes no sense to go elsewhere. (Cornell is a possible exception to this rule.) From experience, Ivy FA is significantly better than some of the 10-20 schools.

incorrect. The cut-off for guaranteed loans is so low that Mose families reading here will not get any aid. We’re MC and d Ed oerstely needed assistance due to other extraneous costs but HYP ( actually every school) gave us zero. Fill out the FAFSA first to fine out where you really stabs. And don’t believe the bull about 65 percent getting aid. First if all there is no “average “ student. Most pay full fright OR are on significant Sid. When you add that up and divide I. Hal’s you get a weird statistic that college administrators use to be able to say @ rmthe average student gets $$ per year. The other truck colleges use is to say 80 percent of our students get aid but included in that number us the routine !5500 loan which everyone gets if their files the FAFSA. So the marketing figures do not reflect reality. Finally, even if FAFSA indicates your income is less than $100K a year and you are entitled to significant aid, that amount subtracted from the 80k still comes up with a number that cannot be beat by in-state tuition. That happened to us -even with $26K merit scholarship, instate was still less prestigious and less expensive.