Why are WASP so elite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least 2 US Senators are SLAC grads. Murphy of Ct is Willams and Welch of Vermont is Holy Cross. Susan Collins is St Lawrence not sure that is a SLAC.

Chris Coons of DE attended Amherst

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

This is an odd and ignorant take. The kids at the top SLACs certainly are not lazy. They are highly qualified and very motivated. Just as much or maybe even more than the uni's. You can't disappear and cut class at a SLAC where there are only 20 students in each class. The prof is going to notice. If your kid is lazy they would go to a larger school where there are huge lectures and no one will know if they cut classes.

[Anonymous]

NP: speaking from the perspective of a parent whose DC will likely ED one of the WASP next year…

I don’t think the general public has heard of these schools. They are nowhere as prestigious as Ivies in the real world. What may upset some of you is that I don’t think Williams is even as prestigious as say Virginia Tech or Tulane to most people. I think WASP likely attract a higher achieving applicant pool (GPA, SAT, etc.), but your individual learning experience could be better at a school like Pitt if you happen upon the right professors and opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

This is an odd and ignorant take. The kids at the top SLACs certainly are not lazy. They are highly qualified and very motivated. Just as much or maybe even more than the uni's. You can't disappear and cut class at a SLAC where there are only 20 students in each class. The prof is going to notice. If your kid is lazy they would go to a larger school where there are huge lectures and no one will know if they cut classes.

these are MAGA people who hate Fauci and never heard of Williams before joining this board. OF course it's an odd and ignorant take!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

They are not “lazy rich”. lol

You should be happy if your Asian grandchildren are going to these lacs. The “smart kids or real ambition” Asian kids you raised and so proud of will not raise your grandchildren the same way you did. They won’t be drilling APOS math at age of 3. They also won’t do AMIE starting 8th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

This is an odd and ignorant take. The kids at the top SLACs certainly are not lazy. They are highly qualified and very motivated. Just as much or maybe even more than the uni's. You can't disappear and cut class at a SLAC where there are only 20 students in each class. The prof is going to notice. If your kid is lazy they would go to a larger school where there are huge lectures and no one will know if they cut classes.

is that why 50% are test optional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

This is an odd and ignorant take. The kids at the top SLACs certainly are not lazy. They are highly qualified and very motivated. Just as much or maybe even more than the uni's. You can't disappear and cut class at a SLAC where there are only 20 students in each class. The prof is going to notice. If your kid is lazy they would go to a larger school where there are huge lectures and no one will know if they cut classes.

is that why 50% are test optional?

Clearly, if you don’t sit 5x for that superscored SAT in order to crack 1500, you are lazy — or insufficiently conformist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of anyone choose middlebury over cornell.

A kid in our town received offers to play football at Cornell, U Chicago, JHU, Wesleyan, and Carleton this fall and just committed to Middlebury. I don't want to post his name here, but he goes to St. Ignatius and you can find it on social media.

There is a girl at Middlebury (athletic recruit) from our school who turned down MIT support along with Williams, Amherst, and many others including three schools in the above list. She also multiple D1 offers (no Ivies that I am aware of). She was also in teh top 10 in her class and had the academics to be competitive anywhere. Her parents are PE type so I would bet that academics were a priority.

MIT support doesn't mean you're getting in

It means a 50-66% chance which is a huge boost and much better than a 3% chance. That makes athletics as good of a hook as any at MIT so getting it is a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least 2 US Senators are SLAC grads. Murphy of Ct is Willams and Welch of Vermont is Holy Cross. Susan Collins is St Lawrence not sure that is a SLAC.

St. Lawrence is a SLAC in upstate NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

You might want to work on your sense of 'sense' as you are mistaking understanding for laziness. And, it is very doubtful that you actually have any anecdotal observations about these families because you're very likely a poster child for the last sentence of the PPs post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They are not “lazy rich”. lol

You should be happy if your Asian grandchildren are going to these lacs. The “smart kids or real ambition” Asian kids you raised and so proud of will not raise your grandchildren the same way you did. They won’t be drilling APOS math at age of 3. They also won’t do AMIE starting 8th grade.

That is what U Chicago, NYU, and Northeastern for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

This is an odd and ignorant take. The kids at the top SLACs certainly are not lazy. They are highly qualified and very motivated. Just as much or maybe even more than the uni's. You can't disappear and cut class at a SLAC where there are only 20 students in each class. The prof is going to notice. If your kid is lazy they would go to a larger school where there are huge lectures and no one will know if they cut classes.

is that why 50% are test optional?

Same reason that the Ivy league was TO up until the past year. The whole TO trope is just weak and foolish. All of these schools went TO at teh same time. I'd like to see everyone revert back to testing but the idea that being TO is hurting them is dim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

They are not “lazy rich”. lol

You should be happy if your Asian grandchildren are going to these lacs. The “smart kids or real ambition” Asian kids you raised and so proud of will not raise your grandchildren the same way you did. They won’t be drilling APOS math at age of 3. They also won’t do AMIE starting 8th grade.

Let's not respond to stupidity with racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they don't want to give out Ivy-tier signaling.

Most of these second tier LACs are where wealthy Americans would send their kids generation after generation. They care about education quality, kids get great education at these places but at the same time is not cutthroat.

The kids will go to great med schools law schools and PhD after graduation, and become good doctors, lawyers, and scholars. Quietly raise their next generation of kids.

Then repeat the cycle.

Immigrant parents don't care about these schools. American wealthy don't want them to care either.

Fascinating take. My sense from this is that SLACs are where lazy rich kids go because they have the connections and inheritances to drift through life and don't want to be encumbered by smart kids or real ambition. And that matches my anecdotal observations about the families that choose these schools. Which is fine. It's sheltered families that have no desire or need to participate in the real world. But for any bright kid that wants to do things, this sounds like banishment and a destiny for a very boring life.

They are not “lazy rich”. lol

You should be happy if your Asian grandchildren are going to these lacs. The “smart kids or real ambition” Asian kids you raised and so proud of will not raise your grandchildren the same way you did. They won’t be drilling APOS math at age of 3. They also won’t do AMIE starting 8th grade.

Let's not respond to stupidity with racism.

Asian-American LAC grad. Most of the AA LAC grads I know have kids who are interested in T-50/SEC/ACC/Big Ten schools. Kids’ interests have changed (across all races) and they want different things from their college experience.