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:

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 It's a very outdated metric.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.

And yet… there IS dissent. Obviously.

Listen, I appreciate that you snowplowed Larlo’s way to a 1580 on his SAT (years of tutoring and it only took him four tries!) and your personal self esteem hinges on everyone else recognizing his genius, BUT - the ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

That’s not nothing, to be sure, but it certainly has no bearing on his overall reasoning or problem solving abilities. That lower middle class kid who took the SAT without ever once having seen a practice problem and pulled a 1450 is actually much smarter than Larlo. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a testament to the corruption in academia and our media industry that three researchers can be funded to conduct "research" that finds that the researchers' own employers are the best at making their customers (students) rich, and the media doesn't even mention the conflict of interest or ask questions about the study (like why the data show an advantage for reaching the 1% but not the 25%.

Because that study has already been done

Feel free to provide a link

It's a google search away. I thought this was common knowledge.

https://thecollegesolution.com/looking-beyond-ivy-league-hype/#:~:text=2002%20and%202011:-,No.,3:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What research?

There is none. This is all conjecture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a testament to the corruption in academia and our media industry that three researchers can be funded to conduct "research" that finds that the researchers' own employers are the best at making their customers (students) rich, and the media doesn't even mention the conflict of interest or ask questions about the study (like why the data show an advantage for reaching the 1% but not the 25%.

Because that study has already been done

Feel free to provide a link

It's a google search away. I thought this was common knowledge.

https://thecollegesolution.com/looking-beyond-ivy-league-hype/#:~:text=2002%20and%202011:-,No.,3:

That’s the Dale & Krueger study…Google that because just like the Atlantic article the results are more nuanced.

Also, it’s now at least 15 years old.

The one caveat to Dale & Krueger not mentioned in the link but in the study is that the kid accepted to Yale but ended up going to Penn State (one actual example) finished top of the class at Penn State and had the same outcome as the average Yale grad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

And yet… there IS dissent. Obviously.

Listen, I appreciate that you snowplowed Larlo’s way to a 1580 on his SAT (years of tutoring and it only took him four tries!) and your personal self esteem hinges on everyone else recognizing his genius, BUT - the ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

That’s not nothing, to be sure, but it certainly has no bearing on his overall reasoning or problem solving abilities. That lower middle class kid who took the SAT without ever once having seen a practice problem and pulled a 1450 is actually much smarter than Larlo. Sorry.

No, there is no dissent within psychology. The fact that YOU disagree does not indicate dissent. But feel free to cite refereed research indicating that you are correct.

I appreciate that your worldview relies on ignoring the almost unanimous conclusion among psychologists that study intelligence and learning that these tests measure an objective thing that affects lifetime outcomes.
But this is an anonymous board and your posts sound ideologically driven.
So on the one hand we have almost a century of peer reviewed research and the ENTIRE FIELD OF PSYCHOMETRICS saying that these standardized tests are valid and on the other hand we have your reassurances that the only reason anyone would take that stance is because their Larlo did well on a test.

If that lower middle class kid that pulled a 1450 was smarter than a Larlo that got a 1590, you would expect the lower middle class kid that got a 1590 to outperform the Larlo that got a 1590; or the Larlo with a 1590 to underperform the lower middle class kid with the 1590. But the two kids with the same SAT score do almost exactly the same academically regardless of wealth or income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a testament to the corruption in academia and our media industry that three researchers can be funded to conduct "research" that finds that the researchers' own employers are the best at making their customers (students) rich, and the media doesn't even mention the conflict of interest or ask questions about the study (like why the data show an advantage for reaching the 1% but not the 25%.

Because that study has already been done

Feel free to provide a link

It's a google search away. I thought this was common knowledge.

https://thecollegesolution.com/looking-beyond-ivy-league-hype/#:~:text=2002%20and%202011:-,No.,3:

That’s the Dale & Krueger study…Google that because just like the Atlantic article the results are more nuanced.

Also, it’s now at least 15 years old.

The one caveat to Dale & Krueger not mentioned in the link but in the study is that the kid accepted to Yale but ended up going to Penn State (one actual example) finished top of the class at Penn State and had the same outcome as the average Yale grad.

Sure, there is some nuance but it supports the general conclusion that otherwise similar students that go to different schools have similar lifetime outcomes. I am trying to address the accusation of shananigans and bias in the atlantic article that seems to make attending elite schools seem valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a testament to the corruption in academia and our media industry that three researchers can be funded to conduct "research" that finds that the researchers' own employers are the best at making their customers (students) rich, and the media doesn't even mention the conflict of interest or ask questions about the study (like why the data show an advantage for reaching the 1% but not the 25%.

Because that study has already been done

Feel free to provide a link

It's a google search away. I thought this was common knowledge.

https://thecollegesolution.com/looking-beyond-ivy-league-hype/#:~:text=2002%20and%202011:-,No.,3:

That’s the Dale & Krueger study…Google that because just like the Atlantic article the results are more nuanced.

Also, it’s now at least 15 years old.

The one caveat to Dale & Krueger not mentioned in the link but in the study is that the kid accepted to Yale but ended up going to Penn State (one actual example) finished top of the class at Penn State and had the same outcome as the average Yale grad.

Sure, there is some nuance but it supports the general conclusion that otherwise similar students that go to different schools have similar lifetime outcomes. I am trying to address the accusation of shananigans and bias in the atlantic article that seems to make attending elite schools seem valuable.

The nuance though is that you need to finish top of your class at Penn State. Not saying that person wouldn’t and they are probably more likely to do so, but it’s far easier to finish average at Yale vs top of the class at Penn State.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

And yet… there IS dissent. Obviously.

Listen, I appreciate that you snowplowed Larlo’s way to a 1580 on his SAT (years of tutoring and it only took him four tries!) and your personal self esteem hinges on everyone else recognizing his genius, BUT - the ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

That’s not nothing, to be sure, but it certainly has no bearing on his overall reasoning or problem solving abilities. That lower middle class kid who took the SAT without ever once having seen a practice problem and pulled a 1450 is actually much smarter than Larlo. Sorry.

No, there is no dissent within psychology. The fact that YOU disagree does not indicate dissent. But feel free to cite refereed research indicating that you are correct.

I appreciate that your worldview relies on ignoring the almost unanimous conclusion among psychologists that study intelligence and learning that these tests measure an objective thing that affects lifetime outcomes.
But this is an anonymous board and your posts sound ideologically driven.
So on the one hand we have almost a century of peer reviewed research and the ENTIRE FIELD OF PSYCHOMETRICS saying that these standardized tests are valid and on the other hand we have your reassurances that the only reason anyone would take that stance is because their Larlo did well on a test.

If that lower middle class kid that pulled a 1450 was smarter than a Larlo that got a 1590, you would expect the lower middle class kid that got a 1590 to outperform the Larlo that got a 1590; or the Larlo with a 1590 to underperform the lower middle class kid with the 1590. But the two kids with the same SAT score do almost exactly the same academically regardless of wealth or income.

Please post links to all of the studies that have informed your opinion. I’ll read them and explain what they actually mean, as you undoubtedly need some help. The bolded conclusion indicates you lack critical thinking skills and or basic reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What research?

There is none. This is all conjecture.

Sorry but no, it isn't conjecture at all.

There is the Opportunity Insights paper on elites to the 1% which kicked this off. That one doesn't refer to athletes.
There is a Fordham Institute piece on who gets to elite schools which calls out athletics
IZA study on Athletes outperforming in terms of wages but it is broader and doesn't solely focus on elite schools
There is a paper by Long and Caudill on the subject
There is a piece on the success of Athletes from Cornell's Johnson school
There is research from EY showing that 94% of women in the C-suite are former athletes and 80% of execs overall
There is a Deloitte survey showing that 93% of women in top earning roles played sports
There is a Wharton piece on measuring the return of Title IX which provides evidence

Quite a bit of the research is getting old but it is there.

[Anonymous]

I used to be impressed when I heard so and so got in to a great school. Then I found out that almost always one of the parents was an alum. Sorry, now I think it is a great accomplishment by the parent.

[Anonymous]

Every other year the Ivies sponsor a study to show that going there is life changing. Its part of their brand management. A motivated kid can do well at many schools in the US, the institutions here are truly amazing. I went to an Ivy but stopped trying too hard in my mid thirties, my friends who went to non-ivies continued to push themselves and are doing very well. So are my Ivy friends who kept working hard. The key is to keep working hard if you want that kind of success.

[Anonymous]

I did not read through this entire thread(!) but this analogy from one of the study authors (who is now the Dean of Harvard College) is helpful I think and really shows both sides are right. Going to an Ivy helps in some ways but for most people it will not end up mattering when compared to other very good schools.

"Think of it like winning the lottery. Suppose I told you and 9 of your closest friends that one of your group of 10 was going to win a prize - let’s say $1 million. But I don’t divide the tickets evenly. Since you attended an Ivy-Plus college, you get 2 tickets. Friends who attended a selective public university get one ticket, and those who didn’t go to college get none. Your odds are double anyone else’s, but you still probably won’t win. I increased your expected earnings. Going to an Ivy-Plus college gives you more chances to hit the jackpot. But among non-jackpot winners, things look pretty similar regardless of where you went to college."
https://forklightning.substack.com/p/the-lottery-for-high-paying-jobs?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did not read through this entire thread(!) but this analogy from one of the study authors (who is now the Dean of Harvard College) is helpful I think and really shows both sides are right. Going to an Ivy helps in some ways but for most people it will not end up mattering when compared to other very good schools.

"Think of it like winning the lottery. Suppose I told you and 9 of your closest friends that one of your group of 10 was going to win a prize - let’s say $1 million. But I don’t divide the tickets evenly. Since you attended an Ivy-Plus college, you get 2 tickets. Friends who attended a selective public university get one ticket, and those who didn’t go to college get none. Your odds are double anyone else’s, but you still probably won’t win. I increased your expected earnings. Going to an Ivy-Plus college gives you more chances to hit the jackpot. But among non-jackpot winners, things look pretty similar regardless of where you went to college."
https://forklightning.substack.com/p/the-lottery-for-high-paying-jobs?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Pretty accurate description of this research paper too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The thing is that it isn't.

You might wish it were different but that is still how it works. There is a bit more room for other profiles but not as much room as you want to believe there is. The difference today is that the athletes academically look very similar to the student body especially for "elite sports" and especially at the top SLACs. Having a strong profile for entry into IB and MBB at the Ivies requires membership in the right Investment clubs and consulting clubs which are very hard to get into (the mere idea that a 21 yr old club officer has any control over your career is ridiculous but that is another conversation) and not getting in really hurts your chances. Smart athletes move from the Ivies move into IB and MBB without needing the clubs. Sometimes they join them but the sports connection completely bypasses that first gate if necessary. Clubs at top SLACs are far less stressful but very helpful in the recruiting cycle but the athlete network is far tighter and again a direct path. As I said, you may not like it but this is how it works. I see it year after year.

You really don’t see it though, or at least you see it through a very myopic lens.

There was an article from almost 10 years ago in the WSJ calling college athletes on Wall Street an endangered species. Computerizing and quanting everything has changed the make up of trading floors and banking divisions. Athletes are increasingly pushed into wealth management and private banking, a distinction which is of course not understood on DCUM.

You sound like you’ve never heard of on-campus recruiting. It’s how most of these people are getting hired these days. Clubs can help with this but they rarely monopolize it. And these days these firms recruit at large publics, privates outside of Ivy Plus, etc. Not everywhere but that list is probably 30 or so schools long, not “Ivy+ schools and a small set of elite SLACs.”

Again, a heavily out of date view.

Thank you for actually proving the point. Ivy+ along with a small set of Elite SLACs is about 20 schools. Add in NYU, Fordham, CMC, regionals like BYU, SMU, UT, USC, etc. and the top publics and you are done. There are 4000 schools in the country. On campus recruiting is critical but its not an open cattle call. On site recruiting is a huge advantage for kids at Williams, Middlebury, CMC, Amherst. Far less competition for spots, much easier to get attention at recruiting events. Resumes are screened and kids invited, if the clubs didn't matter kids wouldn't be so stressed about gaining admission.

You might think my view is out of date, but it isn't. I'm downstream form this stuff (PE on the West Coast) but I see many kids who are going through or went through including one of my own and in the end I'm pretty confident of my POV.

So you agree that the list is much bigger than just Ivy Plus, which on this thread very specifically means Ivies plus four schools. Great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

And yet… there IS dissent. Obviously.

Listen, I appreciate that you snowplowed Larlo’s way to a 1580 on his SAT (years of tutoring and it only took him four tries!) and your personal self esteem hinges on everyone else recognizing his genius, BUT - the ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

That’s not nothing, to be sure, but it certainly has no bearing on his overall reasoning or problem solving abilities. That lower middle class kid who took the SAT without ever once having seen a practice problem and pulled a 1450 is actually much smarter than Larlo. Sorry.

No, there is no dissent within psychology. The fact that YOU disagree does not indicate dissent. But feel free to cite refereed research indicating that you are correct.

I appreciate that your worldview relies on ignoring the almost unanimous conclusion among psychologists that study intelligence and learning that these tests measure an objective thing that affects lifetime outcomes.
But this is an anonymous board and your posts sound ideologically driven.
So on the one hand we have almost a century of peer reviewed research and the ENTIRE FIELD OF PSYCHOMETRICS saying that these standardized tests are valid and on the other hand we have your reassurances that the only reason anyone would take that stance is because their Larlo did well on a test.

If that lower middle class kid that pulled a 1450 was smarter than a Larlo that got a 1590, you would expect the lower middle class kid that got a 1590 to outperform the Larlo that got a 1590; or the Larlo with a 1590 to underperform the lower middle class kid with the 1590. But the two kids with the same SAT score do almost exactly the same academically regardless of wealth or income.

Please post links to all of the studies that have informed your opinion. I’ll read them and explain what they actually mean, as you undoubtedly need some help. The bolded conclusion indicates you lack critical thinking skills and or basic reading comprehension.

Here is a study from opportunity insights that shows that:
1. Students with higher SAT/ACT scores are more likely to have higher college GPAs; and
2. Students from different socioeconomic backgrounds who have comparable SAT/ACT scores receive similar grades in college.

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

There is actually a discipline within psychology that studies how to measure intellect and learning called psychometrics and you are acting like your opinion is as good as their science. How is that any better than trump?