What an Ivy league education gets you - the Atlantic

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I am familiar with the opportunity insights article by chetty et al. Is that the one you are talking about?
You've gained yourself a lot of credibility in my book by caveating your sources the way you did. It's a good habit, you should continue to do it.

A lot of your sources seem to revolve around women and sports.
The E&Y survey said that 94% of female executives played competitive sports only about half played college sports.
I don't dismiss the value of sports, I have always insisted on sports or a job for my kid.
But I am skeptical of the notion that wealth is a barrier to sports that can yield these benefits
I am skeptical of the notion that elite colleges (other than slacs) are generally able to recruit athletes that are at the same academic level as their other students.
I am skeptical that playing sport in college allows you to bypass the initial barrier and get you on track to the C suite.

[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.

That is not how it works at either of DC's ivies. MBB recruits on campus and often targets certain majors for certain events, others are open to all undergrads. There are direct contacts the students can follow up with. Physics, Engineering, Math get a lot of love from MBB. Almost none are athletes in these concentrations/majors. Finance and consulting clubs are 100% not needed.

Come back in a couple of years and let us know how that works out. There are many threads on DCUM and articles in other places about the stress of getting into top clubs at the Ivies to have a decent shot at IB and MBB. I am sure that some make it through because some make it through from non-targets as well but it isn't the norm. Tell yourself otherwise if you would like but then take a good look at who gets the spots in the end.

I have a kids at ivies. These clubs are not needed there. Just because the parents stress about it does not make it necessary. the PP who posted about McKinsey upping the on campous "high touch" recruiting has it right. Over the past four years MBB recruiting and theliek has stepped way up at these schools. They want certain programs and majors (engineering, math, physicis) some visits and other times it is different(econ).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a bunch of new ivies including Emory, Vandy, Rice. They can simulate a similar environment.

lol

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I am familiar with the opportunity insights article by chetty et al. Is that the one you are talking about?
You've gained yourself a lot of credibility in my book by caveating your sources the way you did. It's a good habit, you should continue to do it.

A lot of your sources seem to revolve around women and sports.
The E&Y survey said that 94% of female executives played competitive sports only about half played college sports.
I don't dismiss the value of sports, I have always insisted on sports or a job for my kid.
But I am skeptical of the notion that wealth is a barrier to sports that can yield these benefits
I am skeptical of the notion that elite colleges (other than slacs) are generally able to recruit athletes that are at the same academic level as their other students.
I am skeptical that playing sport in college allows you to bypass the initial barrier and get you on track to the C suite.

NP. Cynically, perhaps the women are getting ahead not for playing sports themselves but for being able to socialize with men by engaging in what my DH calls "sports yap".

I am not a sporty person and have spent very little time watching games. I never learned the rules of men's pro sports beyond the most obvious.

The Gen-X men who have taken over from Boomers at my workplace love to make all our social events about drinking and sports. Also a lot of the chitchat that goes beyond "How was your weekend" and comments about the weather requires sports knowledge.

I have tried. I have really tried. But everything about watching other people do sports bores me. I've even tried to do a noteworthy job of completing March Madness brackets. I came in 2nd once and I don't care at all about basketball.

Going to games, sports bars, happy hours, golfing, bragging about coaching kids, all of it...that's a big part of getting ahead in some circles.

[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:

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?

How can you continue to miss the point so repeatedly and so completely? It’s truly mind-boggling.

[Anonymous]

Quoting the NY Times journalist figure is funny. More indicative of the bubble they live than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

[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:

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?

How can you continue to miss the point so repeatedly and so completely? It’s truly mind-boggling.

Why doesn't the paper that the PP linked undermine your basic premise that tests only measure privilege?

Unless you have a very weird definition privilege.

BTW, I didn't see a link to the study that reached a different conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Ivy and peers are where the high caliber students are concentrated. It's the same thing. Did you even read the article? and understand it? Seems like you did not.

DP

Did you read the actual research article? What you are describing is a theory developed by Harvard alums and described as facts by an Atlantic troll.

What was in the research article is that going to an Ivy League school does increase the probability of being a 1%er. If making obscene amounts of money by working for grifters like McKinsey doesn't appeal to you, then going to an Ivy League school doesn't help you.

My household and most of my adult friends' households are in the top 1 or 2% of income. We are a mix of doctor-doctor, doc-lawyer, doc-professor(ivy) and doc--tech-industry families. Not a single mckinsey or IB in the bunch, and half of us were lower income when we met at ivy med school. All of us went to ivy+ or Berkeley or williams/amherst for undergrad. We all credit our undergrad experience for playing a large role in getting us into medical school and helping us be successful there. None of us had trouble paying off 150-350k loans.
My multi-specialty practice has a large variety of med schools but the majority went to T25 undergrad, and all of us who have working spouses are in the top 1 or 2%. None of us were chasing money, we were called to the profession. Residency is too grueling if it is not a calling. The money is a huge benefit and helped those of us formerly poor elevate our kids: private schools or afford houses in top public districts, able to be full pay for college.
Say what you want about the study and all of the similar ivy+ Chetty research, but the description of the peer-group experience is what we all felt, at different top places, and what my DC's are experiencing at their top schools. They are full pay yet they see a large benefit in being around the peers if their schools compared with the less-varied, less intellectual peers at their fancy private day school.
The major flaw in the article is they did not add about 6 more top unis/2-3 lacs to the mix. The 12 schools they studied are not the only ones that would score significantly higher compared to flagships.

You are correct that it is a major flaw. There are 10 or so other schools which would demonstrate the same impact in getting to the 1%. They are the non T10+ schools which send significant numbers to IB and MBB because the while they are correlating with the schools the causation is access to IB and MBB jobs.

I forget who wrote the paper but they drew the line at 34 schools.

[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:

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?

How can you continue to miss the point so repeatedly and so completely? It’s truly mind-boggling.

Why doesn't the paper that the PP linked undermine your basic premise that tests only measure privilege?

Unless you have a very weird definition privilege.

BTW, I didn't see a link to the study that reached a different conclusion.

That was not my basic premise. Again, your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills leave much to be desired.

[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:

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?

How can you continue to miss the point so repeatedly and so completely? It’s truly mind-boggling.

Why doesn't the paper that the PP linked undermine your basic premise that tests only measure privilege?

Unless you have a very weird definition privilege.

BTW, I didn't see a link to the study that reached a different conclusion.

That was not my basic premise. Again, your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills leave much to be desired.

I thought you were going to explain the study ACTUALLY means to me.
Where is all that enlightenment you promised?

This was what you said at 19:49 on 4/4

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.

Then you said

Again, correlation =/= causation.

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

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 ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

This is in addition to a bunch of insults. This is all visible on the chain if you click the "show earlier quotes" button

Then you ask me to link some of the research I am relying on in this post

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.

So I link the opportunity insights study on SAT scores 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/up...AT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And you just continue to offer insults rather than "explain the study actually means" to me

You are just the latest in a long line of envious parents who wants their cake after having already eaten it. You wanted your kids to maximize fun during childhood and also go to top schools despite bad test scores. The greatest lesson parents like me teach their kids is deferred gratification, discipline and self control. The worst thing you have done to your kids is convince them that they deserve things they have not earned.ard.

The fact that you think that test prep takes years shows your ignorance. The fact that you think taking the test half a dozen times is an effective method of achieving good results is shows your ignorance. And you are passing that ignorance on to your kids. And in 20 years they will sit in their cubicle grumbling about how some larlo has stolen the life they deserves by prepping for ta test for years and taking the test half a dozen times.

[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:

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?

How can you continue to miss the point so repeatedly and so completely? It’s truly mind-boggling.

Why doesn't the paper that the PP linked undermine your basic premise that tests only measure privilege?

Unless you have a very weird definition privilege.

BTW, I didn't see a link to the study that reached a different conclusion.

That was not my basic premise. Again, your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills leave much to be desired.

I thought you were going to explain the study ACTUALLY means to me.
Where is all that enlightenment you promised?

This was what you said at 19:49 on 4/4

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.

Then you said

Again, correlation =/= causation.

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

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 ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

This is in addition to a bunch of insults. This is all visible on the chain if you click the "show earlier quotes" button

Then you ask me to link some of the research I am relying on in this post

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.

So I link the opportunity insights study on SAT scores 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/up...AT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And you just continue to offer insults rather than "explain the study actually means" to me

You are just the latest in a long line of envious parents who wants their cake after having already eaten it. You wanted your kids to maximize fun during childhood and also go to top schools despite bad test scores. The greatest lesson parents like me teach their kids is deferred gratification, discipline and self control. The worst thing you have done to your kids is convince them that they deserve things they have not earned.ard.

The fact that you think that test prep takes years shows your ignorance. The fact that you think taking the test half a dozen times is an effective method of achieving good results is shows your ignorance. And you are passing that ignorance on to your kids. And in 20 years they will sit in their cubicle grumbling about how some larlo has stolen the life they deserves by prepping for ta test for years and taking the test half a dozen times.

At no point has anyone ever claimed that there is no correlation between test scores and grades.

You don’t even understand the premise of the argument you are very passionately participating in. The “study” you posted is irrelevant to the claims I have made.

In your above screed, you have also made points that are in direct conflict with one another.

Did you do well on your standardized tests? What were your grades like in college? And do you think you’re particularly bright?

[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:

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?

How can you continue to miss the point so repeatedly and so completely? It’s truly mind-boggling.

Why doesn't the paper that the PP linked undermine your basic premise that tests only measure privilege?

Unless you have a very weird definition privilege.

BTW, I didn't see a link to the study that reached a different conclusion.

That was not my basic premise. Again, your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills leave much to be desired.

I thought you were going to explain the study ACTUALLY means to me.
Where is all that enlightenment you promised?

This was what you said at 19:49 on 4/4

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.

Then you said

Again, correlation =/= causation.

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

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 ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

This is in addition to a bunch of insults. This is all visible on the chain if you click the "show earlier quotes" button

Then you ask me to link some of the research I am relying on in this post

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.

So I link the opportunity insights study on SAT scores 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/up...AT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And you just continue to offer insults rather than "explain the study actually means" to me

You are just the latest in a long line of envious parents who wants their cake after having already eaten it. You wanted your kids to maximize fun during childhood and also go to top schools despite bad test scores. The greatest lesson parents like me teach their kids is deferred gratification, discipline and self control. The worst thing you have done to your kids is convince them that they deserve things they have not earned.ard.

The fact that you think that test prep takes years shows your ignorance. The fact that you think taking the test half a dozen times is an effective method of achieving good results is shows your ignorance. And you are passing that ignorance on to your kids. And in 20 years they will sit in their cubicle grumbling about how some larlo has stolen the life they deserves by prepping for ta test for years and taking the test half a dozen times.[/quote
]

Amen

[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:

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?

How can you continue to miss the point so repeatedly and so completely? It’s truly mind-boggling.

Why doesn't the paper that the PP linked undermine your basic premise that tests only measure privilege?

Unless you have a very weird definition privilege.

BTW, I didn't see a link to the study that reached a different conclusion.

That was not my basic premise. Again, your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills leave much to be desired.

I thought you were going to explain the study ACTUALLY means to me.
Where is all that enlightenment you promised?

This was what you said at 19:49 on 4/4

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.

Then you said

Again, correlation =/= causation.

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

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 ONLY aspect of cognitive ability that improved for him was memorization.

This is in addition to a bunch of insults. This is all visible on the chain if you click the "show earlier quotes" button

Then you ask me to link some of the research I am relying on in this post

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.

So I link the opportunity insights study on SAT scores 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/up...AT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf

And you just continue to offer insults rather than "explain the study actually means" to me

You are just the latest in a long line of envious parents who wants their cake after having already eaten it. You wanted your kids to maximize fun during childhood and also go to top schools despite bad test scores. The greatest lesson parents like me teach their kids is deferred gratification, discipline and self control. The worst thing you have done to your kids is convince them that they deserve things they have not earned.ard.

The fact that you think that test prep takes years shows your ignorance. The fact that you think taking the test half a dozen times is an effective method of achieving good results is shows your ignorance. And you are passing that ignorance on to your kids. And in 20 years they will sit in their cubicle grumbling about how some larlo has stolen the life they deserves by prepping for ta test for years and taking the test half a dozen times.

At no point has anyone ever claimed that there is no correlation between test scores and grades.

You don’t even understand the premise of the argument you are very passionately participating in. The “study” you posted is irrelevant to the claims I have made.

In your above screed, you have also made points that are in direct conflict with one another.

Did you do well on your standardized tests? What were your grades like in college? And do you think you’re particularly bright?

You literally say that test scores are meaningless because "we all know" it only measure years of test prep and multiple attempts with superscoring.
You also say it measures privilege in the form of private tutors and infinite chances at superscoring.

The venn diagram of wealth and privilege are not a perfect circle but it's a pretty good proxy.
I linked you a study showing that test scores are not associated with wealth but with academic ability in the form of grades so you could explain to me how I was getting everything wrong and still all you have are insults.

Are you saying that grades are also a result of privilege?
Is there nothing at all that measures actual ability except perhaps oppression and race?