What an Ivy league education gets you - the Atlantic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

They're test required now. All is well.

If you believe that test required is going to give anyone a better chance you are naive. They are still admitting the class that they want to build, it the one that you believe they should build.

Test scores are definitely changing who they are admitting.

Only at the margins which means they are still admitting who they want to admit. There will never be a system in the US where top schools admit by exam. It completely goes against their ethos.

We will see how long that survives the death of affirmative action.

Affirmative action was carrying a loit of water for admissions preferences. It provided a shield to other admissions preferences. Now that it is gone, you see a lot of liberals suddenly discovering how unfair legacy admissions are. It was an unholy bargain struck between colleges and leftists. you get affirmative action and we get legacy et al.

They have found a new shield for the rich and incompetent. We are seeing stronger emphasis on fgli this year.

FGLI will not get them the racial diversity they want. It will simply give them more first generation and low income asians and more asians just makes them look stupid for pushing racial policies for 50 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

Disagree. Ivy leagues are all test required now. Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores. The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities.

These tests are meaningless when we all know that the little Larlos of the world studied with tutors for years AND had to take the tests multiple times to achieve their “superior” scores.

These tests are the single most valid and predictive indicators of everything from future college performance to likelihood of publishing research that will be cited.

Again, correlation =/= causation.

Yes, the privileged kids who benefit from private tutors and infinite chances end up being privileged adults.

Honestly, the level of discourse in this thread (and the complete lack of understanding of statistics and to be blunt, how the world works) just reinforces the point that the average Ivy admit is NOT the best and the brightest, but just another privileged spawn of striving, prestige obsessed parents who couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag…

OMFG

"correlation =/= causation" is not a substitute for reading comprehension or thinking.

Test scores are not causing these results, tests are MEASURING the thing that is causing these results.

Tests measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability improved outcomes. It doesn't matter that Larlo has higher cognitive ability because Larlo had the ability to develop their cognitive ability because mommy and daddy invested a crap ton into his human capital, the end result is that Larlo has better cognitive ability. And, that higher cognitive ability means that Larlo is going to have better lifetime outcomes.

But the population of people with high cognitive ability is not limited to wealthy Larlos. It also includes the children of immigrant families that believe in education and are willing to make smart investments in their own children. And a tiny number of kids that are so talented that they would have blossomed in almost any environment.

I understand that some kids have advantages in achieving high cognitive ability because they have parents that are rich or parents that are willing to make sacrifices, but ultimately that is what test scores measure.

You are correct that test scores are indeed measuring “the thing” that causes these results. And that “thing” is PRIVILEGE (be it wealth and/or resources).

The rest of your post is laughable. The fact that Larlo needed to take the test six times to achieve a marginally higher score than Susie achieved the first time proves that he WORSE cognitive ability than she does. I also dispute your premise that these tests even measure cognitive ability in the first place. In the current landscape they ultimately measure a student’s aptitude for… taking these particular tests. Which brings us full circle to privilege.

[Anonymous]

Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

bingo.

Parent of a current Ivy student who describes all of his classmates as "cracked" and says it has made him better.

Same. It can cause angst but boy does it push them all.

If you aspire for your child to be a societal and environmental menace, by all means these schools with a statistically higher concentration of sociopaths will push them.

Some people aspire to more than that, however.

A disproportionate number of medical breakthroughs come from their grads, a disproportionate number of NGOs are run by their grads.

Doesn’t disprove what I said.

Also, LOL to your naivete if you think there isn’t a significant amount of personal financial gain in these alleged medical breakthroughs and NGOs.

Your criticism want that these kids had successful careers (that would be a very strange criticism). Your criticism was that their success was at the expense of our environment and society.

Again, your point doesn’t disprove what I said. For example: Leonardo DiCaprio does all sorts of activism on behalf of the environment, but he is actually an environmental menace.

And let’s talk about the medical problems these little angels first CAUSE before we laud them for their alleged medical breakthroughs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

Do you have a point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

Disagree. Ivy leagues are all test required now. Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores. The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities.

These tests are meaningless when we all know that the little Larlos of the world studied with tutors for years AND had to take the tests multiple times to achieve their “superior” scores.

These tests are the single most valid and predictive indicators of everything from future college performance to likelihood of publishing research that will be cited.

Again, correlation =/= causation.

Yes, the privileged kids who benefit from private tutors and infinite chances end up being privileged adults.

Honestly, the level of discourse in this thread (and the complete lack of understanding of statistics and to be blunt, how the world works) just reinforces the point that the average Ivy admit is NOT the best and the brightest, but just another privileged spawn of striving, prestige obsessed parents who couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag…

OMFG

"correlation =/= causation" is not a substitute for reading comprehension or thinking.

Test scores are not causing these results, tests are MEASURING the thing that is causing these results.

Tests measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability improved outcomes. It doesn't matter that Larlo has higher cognitive ability because Larlo had the ability to develop their cognitive ability because mommy and daddy invested a crap ton into his human capital, the end result is that Larlo has better cognitive ability. And, that higher cognitive ability means that Larlo is going to have better lifetime outcomes.

But the population of people with high cognitive ability is not limited to wealthy Larlos. It also includes the children of immigrant families that believe in education and are willing to make smart investments in their own children. And a tiny number of kids that are so talented that they would have blossomed in almost any environment.

I understand that some kids have advantages in achieving high cognitive ability because they have parents that are rich or parents that are willing to make sacrifices, but ultimately that is what test scores measure.

You are correct that test scores are indeed measuring “the thing” that causes these results. And that “thing” is PRIVILEGE (be it wealth and/or resources).

The rest of your post is laughable. The fact that Larlo needed to take the test six times to achieve a marginally higher score than Susie achieved the first time proves that he WORSE cognitive ability than she does. I also dispute your premise that these tests even measure cognitive ability in the first place. In the current landscape they ultimately measure a student’s aptitude for… taking these particular tests. Which brings us full circle to privilege.

Doing well on tests is not a marker of cognitive abilities.

But working hard to get a better score demonstrates strong work ethic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

[Anonymous]

My Exeter to Ivy sister got a MRS Degree and is a SAHM with a husband that amassed generational wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My Exeter to Ivy sister got a MRS Degree and is a SAHM with a husband that amassed generational wealth.

As it ever was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only real information I glean from this study is how opportunity and inequality work at the very top of higher education and that these schools do not admit students based purely on merit. Nothing surprising.

Define merit?

They all admit on merit. Their definition of merit may not align with yours but the do not admit unqualified students.

DP

I think when people say merit in the academic context, they mean academic merit or sometimes mere IQ. They usually don't think it includes skin color or where your parents went to school.

OR what social circles your paents run in, or how famous your mom is, or how many generations of your family attended the fine institution after great-great-Grandpa's generous donation, or who signed your letters, or whose list you got on through favors, and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivy helps you get into Old Money oriented clubs.

No. Entry into a very selective school will never really get you into Old Money clubs. It's all based on who your parents are. Now if you become a social climber who marries into an old money family and for the years until your divorce and they remarry, you will get to wear the name and be inside the club. But a divorce puts you firmly on the outer circle again.

You can't get into Old Money circles just by going to the same schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

Bolded is not 100% wrong but heavily outdated by about 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

Disagree. Ivy leagues are all test required now. Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores. The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities.

These tests are meaningless when we all know that the little Larlos of the world studied with tutors for years AND had to take the tests multiple times to achieve their “superior” scores.

These tests are the single most valid and predictive indicators of everything from future college performance to likelihood of publishing research that will be cited.

Again, correlation =/= causation.

Yes, the privileged kids who benefit from private tutors and infinite chances end up being privileged adults.

Honestly, the level of discourse in this thread (and the complete lack of understanding of statistics and to be blunt, how the world works) just reinforces the point that the average Ivy admit is NOT the best and the brightest, but just another privileged spawn of striving, prestige obsessed parents who couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag…

OMFG

"correlation =/= causation" is not a substitute for reading comprehension or thinking.

Test scores are not causing these results, tests are MEASURING the thing that is causing these results.

Tests measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability improved outcomes. It doesn't matter that Larlo has higher cognitive ability because Larlo had the ability to develop their cognitive ability because mommy and daddy invested a crap ton into his human capital, the end result is that Larlo has better cognitive ability. And, that higher cognitive ability means that Larlo is going to have better lifetime outcomes.

But the population of people with high cognitive ability is not limited to wealthy Larlos. It also includes the children of immigrant families that believe in education and are willing to make smart investments in their own children. And a tiny number of kids that are so talented that they would have blossomed in almost any environment.

I understand that some kids have advantages in achieving high cognitive ability because they have parents that are rich or parents that are willing to make sacrifices, but ultimately that is what test scores measure.

You are correct that test scores are indeed measuring “the thing” that causes these results. And that “thing” is PRIVILEGE (be it wealth and/or resources).

The rest of your post is laughable. The fact that Larlo needed to take the test six times to achieve a marginally higher score than Susie achieved the first time proves that he WORSE cognitive ability than she does. I also dispute your premise that these tests even measure cognitive ability in the first place. In the current landscape they ultimately measure a student’s aptitude for… taking these particular tests. Which brings us full circle to privilege.

The function of testing has been studied by psychologists since at least WWII. The amount of research that confirms that standardized training measures cognitive ability is so well established that there is no dissent. The controversy is around things like nature vs nurture not whether testing is a valid measure of ability.

Despite what Princeton Review wants you to believe, the SAT does a lot more than test how will you can do on the SATs.

I know you desperately want to believe that test score disparities are the result of some privilege but its not, not at the high end. There, at the high end, it does a pretty good job of measuring ability without regard to wealth or income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

Disagree. Ivy leagues are all test required now. Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores. The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities.

These tests are meaningless when we all know that the little Larlos of the world studied with tutors for years AND had to take the tests multiple times to achieve their “superior” scores.

These tests are the single most valid and predictive indicators of everything from future college performance to likelihood of publishing research that will be cited.

Again, correlation =/= causation.

Yes, the privileged kids who benefit from private tutors and infinite chances end up being privileged adults.

Honestly, the level of discourse in this thread (and the complete lack of understanding of statistics and to be blunt, how the world works) just reinforces the point that the average Ivy admit is NOT the best and the brightest, but just another privileged spawn of striving, prestige obsessed parents who couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag…

OMFG

"correlation =/= causation" is not a substitute for reading comprehension or thinking.

Test scores are not causing these results, tests are MEASURING the thing that is causing these results.

Tests measure cognitive ability and cognitive ability improved outcomes. It doesn't matter that Larlo has higher cognitive ability because Larlo had the ability to develop their cognitive ability because mommy and daddy invested a crap ton into his human capital, the end result is that Larlo has better cognitive ability. And, that higher cognitive ability means that Larlo is going to have better lifetime outcomes.

But the population of people with high cognitive ability is not limited to wealthy Larlos. It also includes the children of immigrant families that believe in education and are willing to make smart investments in their own children. And a tiny number of kids that are so talented that they would have blossomed in almost any environment.

I understand that some kids have advantages in achieving high cognitive ability because they have parents that are rich or parents that are willing to make sacrifices, but ultimately that is what test scores measure.

You are correct that test scores are indeed measuring “the thing” that causes these results. And that “thing” is PRIVILEGE (be it wealth and/or resources).

The rest of your post is laughable. The fact that Larlo needed to take the test six times to achieve a marginally higher score than Susie achieved the first time proves that he WORSE cognitive ability than she does. I also dispute your premise that these tests even measure cognitive ability in the first place. In the current landscape they ultimately measure a student’s aptitude for… taking these particular tests. Which brings us full circle to privilege.

Doing well on tests is not a marker of cognitive abilities.

But working hard to get a better score demonstrates strong work ethic.

A century of research would disagree. Sure hard work helps but it measures more than effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Numerous studies have shown over and over again that test scores are superior predictors of college performance and career success.

If one measures success by reaching the c-suite or becoming an executive the largest correlation is not found in test scores but found in "did the person in question go to an elite school and play a college sport?" i.e. were they an athlete. The Chetty study is correct but opaque because they didn't isolate and write about the correct factors. The increased chance for the 1% is driven by gatekeeping in IB, MBB consulting, top law, top med school. Entry to those careers (outside of medicine which is a bit wider) is largely limited to graduates from the Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs. And, within some of those careers (IB, MBB especially) athletes have big recruiting advantages. Remove these careers from the dataset and the Ivy+ schools look like all of the other top schools which is why there is no additional bump into the top 25% but a large one into the top 1%.

In the end the path looks like this:

wealthy families -> access to organized sports (especially lax, hockey, and volleyball for women) -> recruited athlete admission to elite colleges -> elite college networks and credential -> entry into prestigious firms and graduate schools -> executive pipeline -> top 1% income

It's really not hard to see and the research backs it up.

So a wealthy short kid is screwed?? LOL