Is it crazy to choose a non-ivy over an ivy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two different posters who talked about the weird mix of students at Ivies… I wonder if that’s true at other highly rated/hard to get into schools as well.. like Williams, Haverford, etc. I imagine MIT and CMU and other stem focused schools might be different, but maybe the schools that prestige-chasing students/families attend are all that same weird mix. Is it a uniquely Ivy thing?

Any of these top schools have 25% of the students with test scores lower than 1450. 50% lower than 1520. That's where the "weird mix" comes from. Then there are test optional schools where at least 30% did not submit scores.

Really there is only about one third of the students who are competent.

Test scores have nothing to do with whether students are competent. Seriously?

NP. Of course test scores do. Assuming even split, a 1400 kid with 700 in math understands most high school math concepts and can solve math problems correctly with reasonably high frequency. But the fact that they managed to only make a 700 after a few sittings means there are three to four "harder" questions they seemingly always missed. That's the mental ability part they don't have. This often translates into them performing slightly below average in challenging STEM subjects at top ranked schools. Kids with near 800 math will continue to outperform these 700 math kids on these subjects.

Do you really think like this in every day life? Where is your data that a 700 math kid will perform weaker than an 800 math kid in STEM subjects? A lot of SAT is pure luck based on the questions you get that day. There's also brain development and maturity. Even Harvard says each year kids come into Harvard without Calculus and end up very successful in STEM majors. There is learning that happens in college.

DP Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't rationally deny that as a group, kids who scored 800 math would be stronger STEM students than those who scored 700. If you don't believe in that, then you shouldn't be on this college board because you probably also don't believe that as a group, people with a college education will have better employment and financial opportunities than those without. Not sure if you are one of them but I find parents whose kids scored lower in assessment tests tend to be the ones who say the tests mean nothing. Typically it's only the parents who think so irrationally about this. If your kids are honest, they will tell you at their school, the stronger students are the ones who scored highest in tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two different posters who talked about the weird mix of students at Ivies… I wonder if that’s true at other highly rated/hard to get into schools as well.. like Williams, Haverford, etc. I imagine MIT and CMU and other stem focused schools might be different, but maybe the schools that prestige-chasing students/families attend are all that same weird mix. Is it a uniquely Ivy thing?

Any of these top schools have 25% of the students with test scores lower than 1450. 50% lower than 1520. That's where the "weird mix" comes from. Then there are test optional schools where at least 30% did not submit scores.

Really there is only about one third of the students who are competent.

Test scores have nothing to do with whether students are competent. Seriously?

NP. Of course test scores do. Assuming even split, a 1400 kid with 700 in math understands most high school math concepts and can solve math problems correctly with reasonably high frequency. But the fact that they managed to only make a 700 after a few sittings means there are three to four "harder" questions they seemingly always missed. That's the mental ability part they don't have. This often translates into them performing slightly below average in challenging STEM subjects at top ranked schools. Kids with near 800 math will continue to outperform these 700 math kids on these subjects.

Do you really think like this in every day life? Where is your data that a 700 math kid will perform weaker than an 800 math kid in STEM subjects? A lot of SAT is pure luck based on the questions you get that day. There's also brain development and maturity. Even Harvard says each year kids come into Harvard without Calculus and end up very successful in STEM majors. There is learning that happens in college.

DP Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't rationally deny that as a group, kids who scored 800 math would be stronger STEM students than those who scored 700. If you don't believe in that, then you shouldn't be on this college board because you probably also don't believe that as a group, people with a college education will have better employment and financial opportunities than those without. Not sure if you are one of them but I find parents whose kids scored lower in assessment tests tend to be the ones who say the tests mean nothing. Typically it's only the parents who think so irrationally about this. If your kids are honest, they will tell you at their school, the stronger students are the ones who scored highest in tests.

Ok, sorry so much of your thinking is off. Of course college education helps with employment, but that is very different from saying a kid with 700 math will categorically perform weaker than a kid with 800 math. Also, my kids don't know the exact SAT scores of all their friends. That is just weird. You must be part of a subset of parents who walk around talking about SAT scores and think that a kid with 1600 makes them more qualified than a kid with a 1550. FWIW, DC1 scored well on tests and is headed to HYP, but it wasn't his scores that got him in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two different posters who talked about the weird mix of students at Ivies… I wonder if that’s true at other highly rated/hard to get into schools as well.. like Williams, Haverford, etc. I imagine MIT and CMU and other stem focused schools might be different, but maybe the schools that prestige-chasing students/families attend are all that same weird mix. Is it a uniquely Ivy thing?

Any of these top schools have 25% of the students with test scores lower than 1450. 50% lower than 1520. That's where the "weird mix" comes from. Then there are test optional schools where at least 30% did not submit scores.

Really there is only about one third of the students who are competent.

Test scores have nothing to do with whether students are competent. Seriously?

NP. Of course test scores do. Assuming even split, a 1400 kid with 700 in math understands most high school math concepts and can solve math problems correctly with reasonably high frequency. But the fact that they managed to only make a 700 after a few sittings means there are three to four "harder" questions they seemingly always missed. That's the mental ability part they don't have. This often translates into them performing slightly below average in challenging STEM subjects at top ranked schools. Kids with near 800 math will continue to outperform these 700 math kids on these subjects.

Do you really think like this in every day life? Where is your data that a 700 math kid will perform weaker than an 800 math kid in STEM subjects? A lot of SAT is pure luck based on the questions you get that day. There's also brain development and maturity. Even Harvard says each year kids come into Harvard without Calculus and end up very successful in STEM majors. There is learning that happens in college.

DP Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't rationally deny that as a group, kids who scored 800 math would be stronger STEM students than those who scored 700. If you don't believe in that, then you shouldn't be on this college board because you probably also don't believe that as a group, people with a college education will have better employment and financial opportunities than those without. Not sure if you are one of them but I find parents whose kids scored lower in assessment tests tend to be the ones who say the tests mean nothing. Typically it's only the parents who think so irrationally about this. If your kids are honest, they will tell you at their school, the stronger students are the ones who scored highest in tests.

Test score is not everything for sure. It's the minimum threshold. But if someone can't even perform well on a test, their ceiling is going to be low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two different posters who talked about the weird mix of students at Ivies… I wonder if that’s true at other highly rated/hard to get into schools as well.. like Williams, Haverford, etc. I imagine MIT and CMU and other stem focused schools might be different, but maybe the schools that prestige-chasing students/families attend are all that same weird mix. Is it a uniquely Ivy thing?

Any of these top schools have 25% of the students with test scores lower than 1450. 50% lower than 1520. That's where the "weird mix" comes from. Then there are test optional schools where at least 30% did not submit scores.

Really there is only about one third of the students who are competent.

Test scores have nothing to do with whether students are competent. Seriously?

NP. Of course test scores do. Assuming even split, a 1400 kid with 700 in math understands most high school math concepts and can solve math problems correctly with reasonably high frequency. But the fact that they managed to only make a 700 after a few sittings means there are three to four "harder" questions they seemingly always missed. That's the mental ability part they don't have. This often translates into them performing slightly below average in challenging STEM subjects at top ranked schools. Kids with near 800 math will continue to outperform these 700 math kids on these subjects.

Do you really think like this in every day life? Where is your data that a 700 math kid will perform weaker than an 800 math kid in STEM subjects? A lot of SAT is pure luck based on the questions you get that day. There's also brain development and maturity. Even Harvard says each year kids come into Harvard without Calculus and end up very successful in STEM majors. There is learning that happens in college.

DP Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't rationally deny that as a group, kids who scored 800 math would be stronger STEM students than those who scored 700. If you don't believe in that, then you shouldn't be on this college board because you probably also don't believe that as a group, people with a college education will have better employment and financial opportunities than those without. Not sure if you are one of them but I find parents whose kids scored lower in assessment tests tend to be the ones who say the tests mean nothing. Typically it's only the parents who think so irrationally about this. If your kids are honest, they will tell you at their school, the stronger students are the ones who scored highest in tests.

Mine got 790/780 but I’m not assuming that they are better at all STEM subjects than a lower scoring kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two different posters who talked about the weird mix of students at Ivies… I wonder if that’s true at other highly rated/hard to get into schools as well.. like Williams, Haverford, etc. I imagine MIT and CMU and other stem focused schools might be different, but maybe the schools that prestige-chasing students/families attend are all that same weird mix. Is it a uniquely Ivy thing?

Any of these top schools have 25% of the students with test scores lower than 1450. 50% lower than 1520. That's where the "weird mix" comes from. Then there are test optional schools where at least 30% did not submit scores.

Really there is only about one third of the students who are competent.

Test scores have nothing to do with whether students are competent. Seriously?

NP. Of course test scores do. Assuming even split, a 1400 kid with 700 in math understands most high school math concepts and can solve math problems correctly with reasonably high frequency. But the fact that they managed to only make a 700 after a few sittings means there are three to four "harder" questions they seemingly always missed. That's the mental ability part they don't have. This often translates into them performing slightly below average in challenging STEM subjects at top ranked schools. Kids with near 800 math will continue to outperform these 700 math kids on these subjects.

Do you really think like this in every day life? Where is your data that a 700 math kid will perform weaker than an 800 math kid in STEM subjects? A lot of SAT is pure luck based on the questions you get that day. There's also brain development and maturity. Even Harvard says each year kids come into Harvard without Calculus and end up very successful in STEM majors. There is learning that happens in college.

DP Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't rationally deny that as a group, kids who scored 800 math would be stronger STEM students than those who scored 700. If you don't believe in that, then you shouldn't be on this college board because you probably also don't believe that as a group, people with a college education will have better employment and financial opportunities than those without. Not sure if you are one of them but I find parents whose kids scored lower in assessment tests tend to be the ones who say the tests mean nothing. Typically it's only the parents who think so irrationally about this. If your kids are honest, they will tell you at their school, the stronger students are the ones who scored highest in tests.

Test score is not everything for sure. It's the minimum threshold. But if someone can't even perform well on a test, their ceiling is going to be low.

Performing well is completely subjective. Relative to what exactly?

[Anonymous]

Turned down Cornell in favor of UT Austin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People choose non-Ivies over Ivies all the time, just by the fact that they have top-tier stats (etc.) but don't apply to all (or any) of the Ivies, and decide to go elsewhere.

This. DC chose a non-ivy by not applying (despite private counselor pushing DC to do so).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two different posters who talked about the weird mix of students at Ivies… I wonder if that’s true at other highly rated/hard to get into schools as well.. like Williams, Haverford, etc. I imagine MIT and CMU and other stem focused schools might be different, but maybe the schools that prestige-chasing students/families attend are all that same weird mix. Is it a uniquely Ivy thing?

Any of these top schools have 25% of the students with test scores lower than 1450. 50% lower than 1520. That's where the "weird mix" comes from. Then there are test optional schools where at least 30% did not submit scores.

Really there is only about one third of the students who are competent.

Test scores have nothing to do with whether students are competent. Seriously?

NP. Of course test scores do. Assuming even split, a 1400 kid with 700 in math understands most high school math concepts and can solve math problems correctly with reasonably high frequency. But the fact that they managed to only make a 700 after a few sittings means there are three to four "harder" questions they seemingly always missed. That's the mental ability part they don't have. This often translates into them performing slightly below average in challenging STEM subjects at top ranked schools. Kids with near 800 math will continue to outperform these 700 math kids on these subjects.

Do you really think like this in every day life? Where is your data that a 700 math kid will perform weaker than an 800 math kid in STEM subjects? A lot of SAT is pure luck based on the questions you get that day. There's also brain development and maturity. Even Harvard says each year kids come into Harvard without Calculus and end up very successful in STEM majors. There is learning that happens in college.

DP Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't rationally deny that as a group, kids who scored 800 math would be stronger STEM students than those who scored 700. If you don't believe in that, then you shouldn't be on this college board because you probably also don't believe that as a group, people with a college education will have better employment and financial opportunities than those without. Not sure if you are one of them but I find parents whose kids scored lower in assessment tests tend to be the ones who say the tests mean nothing. Typically it's only the parents who think so irrationally about this. If your kids are honest, they will tell you at their school, the stronger students are the ones who scored highest in tests.

Mine got 790/780 but I’m not assuming that they are better at all STEM subjects than a lower scoring kid.

Do you not understand what “as a group” means when comparing two cohorts in a population? Have you ever conducted research in college and had to present your findings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two different posters who talked about the weird mix of students at Ivies… I wonder if that’s true at other highly rated/hard to get into schools as well.. like Williams, Haverford, etc. I imagine MIT and CMU and other stem focused schools might be different, but maybe the schools that prestige-chasing students/families attend are all that same weird mix. Is it a uniquely Ivy thing?

Any of these top schools have 25% of the students with test scores lower than 1450. 50% lower than 1520. That's where the "weird mix" comes from. Then there are test optional schools where at least 30% did not submit scores.

Really there is only about one third of the students who are competent.

Test scores have nothing to do with whether students are competent. Seriously?

NP. Of course test scores do. Assuming even split, a 1400 kid with 700 in math understands most high school math concepts and can solve math problems correctly with reasonably high frequency. But the fact that they managed to only make a 700 after a few sittings means there are three to four "harder" questions they seemingly always missed. That's the mental ability part they don't have. This often translates into them performing slightly below average in challenging STEM subjects at top ranked schools. Kids with near 800 math will continue to outperform these 700 math kids on these subjects.

Do you really think like this in every day life? Where is your data that a 700 math kid will perform weaker than an 800 math kid in STEM subjects? A lot of SAT is pure luck based on the questions you get that day. There's also brain development and maturity. Even Harvard says each year kids come into Harvard without Calculus and end up very successful in STEM majors. There is learning that happens in college.

DP Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't rationally deny that as a group, kids who scored 800 math would be stronger STEM students than those who scored 700. If you don't believe in that, then you shouldn't be on this college board because you probably also don't believe that as a group, people with a college education will have better employment and financial opportunities than those without. Not sure if you are one of them but I find parents whose kids scored lower in assessment tests tend to be the ones who say the tests mean nothing. Typically it's only the parents who think so irrationally about this. If your kids are honest, they will tell you at their school, the stronger students are the ones who scored highest in tests.

Mine got 790/780 but I’m not assuming that they are better at all STEM subjects than a lower scoring kid.

Do you not understand what “as a group” means when comparing two cohorts in a population? Have you ever conducted research in college and had to present your findings?

THe comment isn't about ability, it is about assuming. And, given the type of math needed for Bio and Chem as a group would be suspect as well unless you are tyring to make a blanket statement about testing and test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two different posters who talked about the weird mix of students at Ivies… I wonder if that’s true at other highly rated/hard to get into schools as well.. like Williams, Haverford, etc. I imagine MIT and CMU and other stem focused schools might be different, but maybe the schools that prestige-chasing students/families attend are all that same weird mix. Is it a uniquely Ivy thing?

Any of these top schools have 25% of the students with test scores lower than 1450. 50% lower than 1520. That's where the "weird mix" comes from. Then there are test optional schools where at least 30% did not submit scores.

Really there is only about one third of the students who are competent.

Test scores have nothing to do with whether students are competent. Seriously?

NP. Of course test scores do. Assuming even split, a 1400 kid with 700 in math understands most high school math concepts and can solve math problems correctly with reasonably high frequency. But the fact that they managed to only make a 700 after a few sittings means there are three to four "harder" questions they seemingly always missed. That's the mental ability part they don't have. This often translates into them performing slightly below average in challenging STEM subjects at top ranked schools. Kids with near 800 math will continue to outperform these 700 math kids on these subjects.

Do you really think like this in every day life? Where is your data that a 700 math kid will perform weaker than an 800 math kid in STEM subjects? A lot of SAT is pure luck based on the questions you get that day. There's also brain development and maturity. Even Harvard says each year kids come into Harvard without Calculus and end up very successful in STEM majors. There is learning that happens in college.

DP Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't rationally deny that as a group, kids who scored 800 math would be stronger STEM students than those who scored 700. If you don't believe in that, then you shouldn't be on this college board because you probably also don't believe that as a group, people with a college education will have better employment and financial opportunities than those without. Not sure if you are one of them but I find parents whose kids scored lower in assessment tests tend to be the ones who say the tests mean nothing. Typically it's only the parents who think so irrationally about this. If your kids are honest, they will tell you at their school, the stronger students are the ones who scored highest in tests.

Ok, sorry so much of your thinking is off. Of course college education helps with employment, but that is very different from saying a kid with 700 math will categorically perform weaker than a kid with 800 math. Also, my kids don't know the exact SAT scores of all their friends. That is just weird. You must be part of a subset of parents who walk around talking about SAT scores and think that a kid with 1600 makes them more qualified than a kid with a 1550. FWIW, DC1 scored well on tests and is headed to HYP, but it wasn't his scores that got him in.

No. I believe there is a noise component to standardized tests. 1600 and 1550 are close enough that the difference may simply be due to noise (carelessness on a given Saturday, pure luck, etc.), but the gap between 800 and 700 in math is too large to attribute it to noise. There are a few fundamental math concepts the 700 kid doesn't get (or has yet to grasp). Whether it is due to innate lack of ability or to insufficient practice, it's hard to say, and I don't claim to know the true reasons. But it's not noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Turned down Cornell in favor of UT Austin.

Bad, bad idea.

[Anonymous]

DC turned down Brown and Penn for Amherst. Fit is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two different posters who talked about the weird mix of students at Ivies… I wonder if that’s true at other highly rated/hard to get into schools as well.. like Williams, Haverford, etc. I imagine MIT and CMU and other stem focused schools might be different, but maybe the schools that prestige-chasing students/families attend are all that same weird mix. Is it a uniquely Ivy thing?

Any of these top schools have 25% of the students with test scores lower than 1450. 50% lower than 1520. That's where the "weird mix" comes from. Then there are test optional schools where at least 30% did not submit scores.

Really there is only about one third of the students who are competent.

Test scores have nothing to do with whether students are competent. Seriously?

NP. Of course test scores do. Assuming even split, a 1400 kid with 700 in math understands most high school math concepts and can solve math problems correctly with reasonably high frequency. But the fact that they managed to only make a 700 after a few sittings means there are three to four "harder" questions they seemingly always missed. That's the mental ability part they don't have. This often translates into them performing slightly below average in challenging STEM subjects at top ranked schools. Kids with near 800 math will continue to outperform these 700 math kids on these subjects.

Do you really think like this in every day life? Where is your data that a 700 math kid will perform weaker than an 800 math kid in STEM subjects? A lot of SAT is pure luck based on the questions you get that day. There's also brain development and maturity. Even Harvard says each year kids come into Harvard without Calculus and end up very successful in STEM majors. There is learning that happens in college.

DP Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but you can't rationally deny that as a group, kids who scored 800 math would be stronger STEM students than those who scored 700. If you don't believe in that, then you shouldn't be on this college board because you probably also don't believe that as a group, people with a college education will have better employment and financial opportunities than those without. Not sure if you are one of them but I find parents whose kids scored lower in assessment tests tend to be the ones who say the tests mean nothing. Typically it's only the parents who think so irrationally about this. If your kids are honest, they will tell you at their school, the stronger students are the ones who scored highest in tests.

Ok, sorry so much of your thinking is off. Of course college education helps with employment, but that is very different from saying a kid with 700 math will categorically perform weaker than a kid with 800 math. Also, my kids don't know the exact SAT scores of all their friends. That is just weird. You must be part of a subset of parents who walk around talking about SAT scores and think that a kid with 1600 makes them more qualified than a kid with a 1550. FWIW, DC1 scored well on tests and is headed to HYP, but it wasn't his scores that got him in.

No. I believe there is a noise component to standardized tests. 1600 and 1550 are close enough that the difference may simply be due to noise (carelessness on a given Saturday, pure luck, etc.), but the gap between 800 and 700 in math is too large to attribute it to noise. There are a few fundamental math concepts the 700 kid doesn't get (or has yet to grasp). Whether it is due to innate lack of ability or to insufficient practice, it's hard to say, and I don't claim to know the true reasons. But it's not noise.

NP to this thread. Of course agree with all of this. It is not up for debate not sure why PP is arguing.
Any college professor who has taught in an E school where the average math SAT is 780 (ivy) will tell you it is a vastly different situation than teaching in VT Engineering where average math is 700. It matters for physics calc and chem, less so Bio but there is a correlation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Turned down Cornell in favor of UT Austin.

Smart for Engineering. Even better if you are in-state Texas.

[Anonymous]

It makes sense to pick up a non-ivy (Ivy plus or "New Ivy") over some of the schools in the Ivy League: like Cornell, Dartmouth and Brown. They're not great for all areas and Cornell and Dartmouth are not in great locations IMO.