Why is it so hard to accept that the students at better colleges are simply better students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked with too many unimpressive yet simultaneously arrogant top 20 grads over the years.

….to complete a sentence??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked with too many unimpressive yet simultaneously arrogant top 20 grads over the years.

….to complete a sentence??

Would you like us to diagram it for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of people like Olivia Jade, Lori Loughlin's crap kid. Or my friends kid who had a 2.0 GPA and got into a "public ivy" because daddy knew someone.

This. They are either good students or their parents have a lot of money. Lots of people aren't that smart but have rich parents.

Where’d your rich parents get you in??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before you accuse me of being a snob or an elitist, I will start by saying that I went to a pretty bad college; one that accepts students with C minus averages and whose 4-year-graduation rate is less than 20 percent. The first piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the obvious fact that we got into colleges like this in the first place. In my case, you don't even need to look at where I went to college in order to know that I was a bad student in high school; just the fact that I graduated with a B average and 6 AP credits is proof enough.

The next piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the fact that the 4-year-graduate rates at these colleges are much lower. This seems like it should also be pretty self-explanatory, in that they failed to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they couldn't get into a better college. Notice that I've switched the tense to "third-person" because this doesn't apply to me; I was in the <20 percent of students who graduated in 4 years. And yet, I constantly hear excuses made for these students, namely that they have to work. Well, I had a job in college even though I didn't have to, and I still graduated on time. Also, I visited the campus of a top-ranked college with a >99% graduation rate, and saw that there was a tutoring center there where students could work and tutor other students, which means that there are plenty of students at the college who also work and graduate on time.

Also, it's much easier to graduate from these worse colleges in 4 years or less because they take all your AP credits. So the fact that students who go to worse colleges generally have a harder time graduating in 4 years even though the road to graduating on time is easier at said colleges really proves that they are worse students.

What in God's name is the purpose of your post? Are you bored? If this is the burning issue on your mind, you need a hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is disputing that top colleges have better students than ones like the college you describe. But I DO question whether there is any meaningful difference between students at a, say, top 15 vs the students at somewhere 50-75. If there is, it’s not nearly as much as people on here seem to think.

This. If the president of Harvard has said that about 85 percent of applicants ( pre COVID at least) would be able to do well there, but they only have space to take 7 percent of applicants, clearly those other highly able applicants who are not accepted are getting in at other schools and are highly able students. This applies to many highly rejective schools.

Exactly. And the quality of the education they get at those other schools is strong enough to lead their students to the same outcomes they would have had if they'd been admitted to one of the highly rejective schools. It's the individual that matters, not where they went to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A bad student was 6 APs and a B average? SMH You obsessed people are sick and need professional help. I am so sorry for your kids.

Was just going to post this. Absolutely absurd.

[Anonymous]

Students at "better" colleges are, on average, better students than those at less competitive schools.

But the thing people like OP don't get is that there are many excellent students at less competitive schools. Some of them are on par with students at the most competitive schools.

Talk to any admissions officer at a top college or university and they will tell you that the number of qualified applicants far exceeds the number of spots. In addition, many of these schools would require most students to borrow large amounts of money to attend (not all, I know some of the top schools give very generous need-based grants and scholarships, but these are also the hardest to get into). So many highly qualified applicants (yes, many) choose to go to less competitive schools where they are likely to receive significantly more generous aid packages because of their excellent qualifications, which might place them in the middle at a highly competitive school but at the tippy-top of a less competitive institution.

Other excellent students selects schools on the basis of location or availability of very specific programs. I know a student gained admission to a top university (HYSP) but chose a (very good, but significantly less competitive, especially for students from the DMV) state university because she is focused on a specific scientific area of study and that school is considered to have the very best program for that area.

And it's also important to acknowledge that there are, in fact, students at elite institutions who are not superior students, but are given admission thanks to legacy or donor status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay but why should I, as an employer, GAF who is the best student? I don’t have any jobs for studying and taking tests. I need to know who is the best project manager and best salesperson and best communicator. Mind you, I do think student quality has some overlap with the skills I’m looking for, but you’re the one talking about the “best students.”

I find the obsession over where a person spends 4 years of their life really odd. Especially in the DMV, people seem to take more about predictors of success than actual… success.

And before you accuse me of being a naive populist, I went to Northwestern.

The easiest way for you, as an employer, to determine who is the best manager / salesperson / communicator would be to administer some type of IQ or aptitude test to job applicants. But you're not allowed to do that thanks to Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Therefore, you, like all employers, are forced to use proxies to achieve the same effect. The leading proxy for ability to do the job is, of course, "what degree do you have and where did you get it from". That may not be optimal from an employer's perspective but here we are.

LOL!!!!!!!!

You don't like it, but degrees are pretty much the only thing employers have to judge qualities that make for good employees, eg, conscientiousness.

Not true. First off, no one cares about the degree once you have five years of work experience under your belt. Second, even for first jobs fresh out of college, many students are able to offer letters of recommendation from professors or employers. They can also have national certifications that matter, research publications, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before you accuse me of being a snob or an elitist, I will start by saying that I went to a pretty bad college; one that accepts students with C minus averages and whose 4-year-graduation rate is less than 20 percent. The first piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the obvious fact that we got into colleges like this in the first place. In my case, you don't even need to look at where I went to college in order to know that I was a bad student in high school; just the fact that I graduated with a B average and 6 AP credits is proof enough.

The next piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the fact that the 4-year-graduate rates at these colleges are much lower. This seems like it should also be pretty self-explanatory, in that they failed to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they couldn't get into a better college. Notice that I've switched the tense to "third-person" because this doesn't apply to me; I was in the <20 percent of students who graduated in 4 years. And yet, I constantly hear excuses made for these students, namely that they have to work. Well, I had a job in college even though I didn't have to, and I still graduated on time. Also, I visited the campus of a top-ranked college with a >99% graduation rate, and saw that there was a tutoring center there where students could work and tutor other students, which means that there are plenty of students at the college who also work and graduate on time.

Also, it's much easier to graduate from these worse colleges in 4 years or less because they take all your AP credits. So the fact that students who go to worse colleges generally have a harder time graduating in 4 years even though the road to graduating on time is easier at said colleges really proves that they are worse students.

Because nobody wants to admit they and the person they procreated with low watt genetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is simply so out of touch with reality. Most people don’t care. I don’t care. I’ve worked with people from ivies and I’ve worked with people from unimpressive party schools. Their educational background has almost no correlation with how good of a coworker (or, in general, how good of an employee) they are.

Do people really feel the way OP does? Caring that much about pedigree just sounds exhausting.

Only low ambition folks don’t care and people trying to cope with they or their kids landing at degree mills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before you accuse me of being a snob or an elitist, I will start by saying that I went to a pretty bad college; one that accepts students with C minus averages and whose 4-year-graduation rate is less than 20 percent. The first piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the obvious fact that we got into colleges like this in the first place. In my case, you don't even need to look at where I went to college in order to know that I was a bad student in high school; just the fact that I graduated with a B average and 6 AP credits is proof enough.

The next piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the fact that the 4-year-graduate rates at these colleges are much lower. This seems like it should also be pretty self-explanatory, in that they failed to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they couldn't get into a better college. Notice that I've switched the tense to "third-person" because this doesn't apply to me; I was in the <20 percent of students who graduated in 4 years. And yet, I constantly hear excuses made for these students, namely that they have to work. Well, I had a job in college even though I didn't have to, and I still graduated on time. Also, I visited the campus of a top-ranked college with a >99% graduation rate, and saw that there was a tutoring center there where students could work and tutor other students, which means that there are plenty of students at the college who also work and graduate on time.

Also, it's much easier to graduate from these worse colleges in 4 years or less because they take all your AP credits. So the fact that students who go to worse colleges generally have a harder time graduating in 4 years even though the road to graduating on time is easier at said colleges really proves that they are worse students.

Because nobody wants to admit they and the person they procreated with low watt genetics.

may have* low watt. The old saying, nobody calls their baby ugly — or in this case dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is simply so out of touch with reality. Most people don’t care. I don’t care. I’ve worked with people from ivies and I’ve worked with people from unimpressive party schools. Their educational background has almost no correlation with how good of a coworker (or, in general, how good of an employee) they are.

Do people really feel the way OP does? Caring that much about pedigree just sounds exhausting.

Only low ambition folks don’t care and people trying to cope with they or their kids landing at degree mills.

Eh. I’m the PP and I’m definitely ambitious, as are my children. We just have different goals, and a top university isn’t the only way to get there.

I guess we don’t care too much about “prestige” and impressing others. To each their own! If this race to… ???… makes you happy, then have at it.

[Anonymous]

Yawn, stupid thread.

If top tier schools were about the "best" students, it wouldn't be so skewed toward income. I know some many dummies who went to Ivies because they went to the 'right' highschools; it's why there's a forum on DCUM about private schools and essentially using wealth to game the system. If Mummy can pay for tennis lessons, horseback riding, and a house in the "right" neighborhood, you are pretty much halfway there.

I went to a top tier school; during my winter break I found out my cousin - who was going to a "lower" tier school - was using the same text books as I! It's all the same knowledge at the end of the day. Then there is also life experiences, self growth, etc., that help us grow and contribute to society.

The purpose of college is to receive an education, obviously OP did not, if she's still hung up on this bs...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is simply so out of touch with reality. Most people don’t care. I don’t care. I’ve worked with people from ivies and I’ve worked with people from unimpressive party schools. Their educational background has almost no correlation with how good of a coworker (or, in general, how good of an employee) they are.

Do people really feel the way OP does? Caring that much about pedigree just sounds exhausting.

But this thread is about college years, not post college.

But doesn’t one have to do with the other? Isn’t the point of college… getting a job? If I’m working with (and making similar salaries as) people from prestigious universities, then what’s the point of this conversation? Ultimately, so many of us end up in the same fields, with the same titles, doing similar work. I spend very little time worrying about where my colleagues went to college.

Spend more time with the super nerds. Education has value for it's own sake for some of these geeks

[Anonymous]

Many drop out because they run out if money. Are people with more money better than poor people?

I think it is a little more complicated than your offensive take on things.