Are Ivy League Schools Becoming More or Less Popular?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended one of the Ivies and now work at a FAANG. Twelve of my college friends and current coworkers have children currently attending University of Florida. UF is definitely rising in popularity now.

Let’s not kid ourselves. They’re attending UF because they all got rejected from an Ivy League school or knew they couldn’t get admitted.

You all can kid yourself that they’re less popular or less “meritocratic” for whatever stupid reason you want to invent. You’re all in denial.

They are decidedly less meritocratic than they used to be, and it’s fine that people recognize that and celebrate the alternatives.

Some of the Ivies are basically hedge funds now with a side gig as universities. They discriminate in favor of URMs, athletes, legacies, and the children of big donors, and the types of kids who were their bread and butter in prior decades are looking elsewhere.

strong vibe of “I wouldn’t want to join that club anyway”

Live with your rejection. No one is looking elsewhere voluntarily. They’re forced to look elsewhere. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

Bingo. Attending an Ivy now is nice but it really isn’t all that any longer. I know that’s a hard pill for some to swallow but it’s reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yogi Berra would love this discussion.

Is interest in the Ivies fading? Sure, monody applies to them any more because they are too hard to get into.

The Ivies had cachet when they were waspy elite clubby institutions. Then they had cachet when they were meritocracies. When they were no longer waspy nor meritocracies, they are not so interesting.

Bingo.

it was never a meritocracy. This is so nuts. I agree about the racist and sexist clubby phase. Then there was the "important to a certain kind of people, mostly UMC white and northeastern types who send their kids private schools or very very white and resourced high schools and can afford the 18k tuition fees bcs 100% of colleges took pay into account then" phase. And now we're in the "open to the ROW phase, need blind". You have to be a lot smarter and a lot more accomplished now than in our day. That's merit.

Eh, you need to check certain boxes and in you go to hang out for four years with other people who checked the boxes. Why would I hire for that over people with actual grit? I’m not on Wall Street or in Hollywood, so those connections won’t further my business.

One of those boxes is being insanely smart. So go ahead and hire dumb kids who have grit. Which mostly seems to involve going to football games and getting wasted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

I am aghast that any of us who went to HYP in the 90s think we were the "smartest kids" - I mean .. I thought this at 19, but at some point didn't you guys have careers, meet people from all over the United States and the world and reconsider this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

[Anonymous]

the ivies are still white and rich. sorry that your white and rich didn't get in. but sure, let's say it's because one of those "check the box" took their place. sure, jan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

I am aghast that any of us who went to HYP in the 90s think we were the "smartest kids" - I mean .. I thought this at 19, but at some point didn't you guys have careers, meet people from all over the United States and the world and reconsider this?

The opposite. Went to HYP. Then went to top grad school. Then had career which took me around the world. Most intellectually impressive people I ever met were from undergrad. Certainly not everyone (athletes, rich kids, etc), and this didn’t necessarily translate into success. But in terms of brains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the ivies are still white and rich. sorry that your white and rich didn't get in. but sure, let's say it's because one of those "check the box" took their place. sure, jan.

Meritocratic is the new white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

The argument is that a kid who went to say Bowdoin or Michigan OOS 30 years ago was not usually of the same caliber academically as a kid who went to Yale. Now that difference has become much smaller. It’s a supply demand thing. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers, there used to be 1000 elite students (basically similar aptitude) applying to colleges and the Ivies etc had 1000 seats. Now there are 2000 elite students and 1100 seats. So there is more overflow into the other schools. The difference between a Hamilton kid and a Brown kid was big in 1995. Now there really isn’t one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the ivies are still white and rich. sorry that your white and rich didn't get in. but sure, let's say it's because one of those "check the box" took their place. sure, jan.

Yet 2/3 of students are receiving on average nearly full rides via need based aid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

The argument is that a kid who went to say Bowdoin or Michigan OOS 30 years ago was not usually of the same caliber academically as a kid who went to Yale. Now that difference has become much smaller. It’s a supply demand thing. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers, there used to be 1000 elite students (basically similar aptitude) applying to colleges and the Ivies etc had 1000 seats. Now there are 2000 elite students and 1100 seats. So there is more overflow into the other schools. The difference between a Hamilton kid and a Brown kid was big in 1995. Now there really isn’t one.

No that wasn’t the argument. The argument is that Ivy League students are being dumbed down. That’s the explanation for the lack of a gap.

Your take might be true a limited number of SLACs. But hey if it makes you feel better about your Grinnell or Hamilton kid by all means stay in your fantasyland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

The argument is that a kid who went to say Bowdoin or Michigan OOS 30 years ago was not usually of the same caliber academically as a kid who went to Yale. Now that difference has become much smaller. It’s a supply demand thing. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers, there used to be 1000 elite students (basically similar aptitude) applying to colleges and the Ivies etc had 1000 seats. Now there are 2000 elite students and 1100 seats. So there is more overflow into the other schools. The difference between a Hamilton kid and a Brown kid was big in 1995. Now there really isn’t one.

No that wasn’t the argument. The argument is that Ivy League students are being dumbed down. That’s the explanation for the lack of a gap.

Your take might be true a limited number of SLACs. But hey if it makes you feel better about your Grinnell or Hamilton kid by all means stay in your fantasyland.

It was a combination. Due to affluence and demographics, we have more supply of “elite” students. Due to DEI, we have more seats (half?) at Ivy League and all top schools allocated to kids for non-meritocratic reasons. So it’s like musical chairs. More kids are playing and there are fewer seats. The result is the Ivies cannot absorb all the elite students and they flow down to schools historically seen as second tier. As a result the difference in the quality of the student body at second tier now is pretty minor if it exists at all. 30 years ago the kid who got 1500 would get into Yale and the kid who got 1240 would get into Colby. Today it is the kid who got 1540 gets into Yale and the kid who got 1500 gets into Colby. Do you understand?

Anyone who has been through this process realizes this when you see which kids land where and why. For the most part the kids from high income backgrounds going to ivies as opposed to the next level down are athletes, legacies or otherwise hooked.

[Anonymous]

CS major is getting more popular

[Anonymous]

Ivy grads are still thought of as smart, but they have also earned a reputation of being unable to exist side by side with people who don’t have similar views. Whether or not they actually are unable to work with a variety of people is irrelevant. That’s the image they portray with their protests, trigger alarms, & safe spaces. Think I’m exaggerating? Halloween is approaching—it’s only a matter of time until an Ivy campus has a collective meltdown because someone wore sombrero to a party.

Some employers don’t mind that. Others don’t want to hire someone who they think might faint or whip out a bullhorn if a co-worker mentions they are in favor of something like voters should be American citizens with an ID card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivy grads are still thought of as smart, but they have also earned a reputation of being unable to exist side by side with people who don’t have similar views. Whether or not they actually are unable to work with a variety of people is irrelevant. That’s the image they portray with their protests, trigger alarms, & safe spaces. Think I’m exaggerating? Halloween is approaching—it’s only a matter of time until an Ivy campus has a collective meltdown because someone wore sombrero to a party.

Some employers don’t mind that. Others don’t want to hire someone who they think might faint or whip out a bullhorn if a co-worker mentions they are in favor of something like voters should be American citizens with an ID card.

The traditional Ivy snobbishness and arrogance, while off putting to some, now manifests as woke intolerance, which is much worse.