Why are "elite schools" still a thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are on their way out: cost, high profile stupid alumni like Trump, DeSantis and Vance, idiotic protesters and bad leadership in the news...People are waking up to it all.

You forgot the war criminal.

That's every recent US president

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

So much BS. Please. You are trying to make sweeping generalizations out of your anecdata. Nice try, but no.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Exactly. The PP has been drinking the Kool-Aid and actually believes his own nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they are on their way out: cost, high profile stupid alumni like Trump, DeSantis and Vance, idiotic protesters and bad leadership in the news...People are waking up to it all.

I bet I can guess your political alignment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We like to say it’s a lottery, but it’s not completely, and the difference matters. Kids who go to elite schools are pretty smart and ambitious, which typically yields great results. Of course, someone with the same qualities can go to community college and also succeed, but they do so against the odds. It’s a lot easier to succeed when everyone around you is pushing you to be your best self, when the best employers want you to work for them, and the best graduate programs are happy to have you. Sure, anyone can own 10 pizza joints, but many don’t want that type of success. It is what it is.

Owning 10 pizza joints is a lot harder than going to an elite school.

The barrier to entry is very low. Just about anyone can own one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard and Yale are less and less of a thing, if you’ve been paying attention.

Harvard will always be a thing.

Among a certain crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

So, you took intro classes at one school, then transferred to another. Did you fail when you got there? Or were you prepared? Did you take the intro classes at the new school? Or are you comparing intro classes to upper level classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

+1 Scary that PP thinks they are better educated when the whole rambling paragraph lacks basic critical thinking.

[Anonymous]

I guess it's still a thing, especially for certain groups.
However, the real thing is that there are plenty of elite students in even less prestigious schools as well, given the current environment.

[Anonymous]

US copied UK model

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

DP: So are you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be pretty common knowledge that for the vast majority of applicants, getting accepted to a school like Harvard or Yale is pretty much a lottery. So why are these insanely selective schools still considered better than all of the others? Why haven't we let the idea of "prestigious" colleges go? Many students get equal or better educations at their state school.

Because they don't get an equal or better education at a state school. As one who started at one then transferred to another...the difference is vast. The middle-50s state school with good engineering was not anywhere close to the pace and depth of classes, and without professor guided research opportunities at the elite private school with amazing engineering. The peers from the better school have gone far and wide, with startups or into academia or high up in industry. The midlevel state peers have midlevel tech-type jobs that are closer to IT jobs than innovative engineering. They make 70-100k in their 40s and hit their ceiling long ago. Their bosses are almost all top engineering program grads. Professors, who are great at both, will be the first to admit they have to dumb down for the state schools, and do not have the resources to take on and pay undergraduates for research. Fast forward 25 yrs and sophomore history kid and peers at a top10 uni had to explain primary sources and tips on keeping up with reading to a junior transfer from a LAC ranked in the 20s. The lac kid was completely unprepared for the transfer. Yet had a 4.0 from the prior school. They said the workload was almost double, in the humanities no less, which dcum often mocks and does not understand is also much more rigorous at elite schools.

Cool, here’s my anecdote. I went to a state school and I work with a bunch of people that went to ivies and I keep getting promoted over them. Don’t worry, it’s not because I went to a state school, it’s that no one cares where anyone went to undergrad and undergrad education has such little impact on our work. Life is not a series of exams.

Where do you work and what is your job?

Sounds like you are just one of thousands of posters with an unnamed person and unnamed position claiming something.

The verifiable most successful people in the world are heavily concentrated in top schools.

So, I guess you lose the anecdote contest?

DP: So are you.

One what? Go look at the Forbes 400 and where they went to school and the concentration in a small group of schools.

Hence, the verifiable successful people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are on their way out: cost, high profile stupid alumni like Trump, DeSantis and Vance, idiotic protesters and bad leadership in the news...People are waking up to it all.

You forgot the war criminal.

That's every recent US president

I meant foreign heads of state.