What really differentiates HYPSM from other elite schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting twist to this story. Three or more decades ago, Harvard was largely white and wealthy. There were very few poor or foreign students (less than 5% each). Today, the real family median income of new students at Harvard has halved since the 1990s. Pell Grant students now makeup 20% of entering students and over 50% of kids are getting substantial financial aid.

When Harvard admitted the white and wealthy, public service was considered a duty and a giveback to society while creating an honorable legacy for oneself. Those kids - at least the white and wealthy - have now shifted to other schools. Checkout Opportunity Insight data and you’ll see that WSTL leads the pack. Right there with them are Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and many liberal arts colleges.

Thus, Harvard has become a bastion for poor, non-white, smart kids who are eager to score big. Their focus is not giving back to society in some noblesse oblige way, but to hack the system to wealth.

Maybe all the hate for WSTL, Vanderbilt, and the like is from Harvard strivers who see the rich, white kids heading to these other schools as a legacy of the past, and in some way, their enemy.

How can you put white and noble in the same sentence? I guess slavery and mass murdering native Americans are noble things to do?

Sounds like you need a better education and a bigger picture. There’s not a population anywhere who hasn’t done some good things and some bad things. On the whole, white people have made a lot of positive contributions to the world.

Flexing your white supremacy. I guess I was not wrong about you.

It’s not supremacy, it’s a more balanced viewpoint.

You sound angry. You should reconsider the opportunities you have in this country and recognize that you’ll go further if you can be constructive.

What balanced viewpoint when you ignore slavery and mass murdring Indians?
It’s actually constructive to point out you’re a wannabe and an ivy reject.

Do you have a reading comprehension or a mental problem? I have already acknowledged that white people have a mixed past - both contributions and transgressions - but also pointed out that every society and race does too. Can you name a country or race that has never committed an atrocity? I hope you’re not an Ivy graduate or admit because you sound limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting twist to this story. Three or more decades ago, Harvard was largely white and wealthy. There were very few poor or foreign students (less than 5% each). Today, the real family median income of new students at Harvard has halved since the 1990s. Pell Grant students now makeup 20% of entering students and over 50% of kids are getting substantial financial aid.

When Harvard admitted the white and wealthy, public service was considered a duty and a giveback to society while creating an honorable legacy for oneself. Those kids - at least the white and wealthy - have now shifted to other schools. Checkout Opportunity Insight data and you’ll see that WSTL leads the pack. Right there with them are Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and many liberal arts colleges.

Thus, Harvard has become a bastion for poor, non-white, smart kids who are eager to score big. Their focus is not giving back to society in some noblesse oblige way, but to hack the system to wealth.

Maybe all the hate for WSTL, Vanderbilt, and the like is from Harvard strivers who see the rich, white kids heading to these other schools as a legacy of the past, and in some way, their enemy.

How can you put white and noble in the same sentence? I guess slavery and mass murdering native Americans are noble things to do?

Educate yourself, and you will be less resentful. Ninety percent of the Native Americans died from disease. Also, all races throughout history have owned slaves. Defeated peoples were either enslaved or put to death. Black Africans were the ones who sold their fellow black Africans to European slave traders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting twist to this story. Three or more decades ago, Harvard was largely white and wealthy. There were very few poor or foreign students (less than 5% each). Today, the real family median income of new students at Harvard has halved since the 1990s. Pell Grant students now makeup 20% of entering students and over 50% of kids are getting substantial financial aid.

When Harvard admitted the white and wealthy, public service was considered a duty and a giveback to society while creating an honorable legacy for oneself. Those kids - at least the white and wealthy - have now shifted to other schools. Checkout Opportunity Insight data and you’ll see that WSTL leads the pack. Right there with them are Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and many liberal arts colleges.

Thus, Harvard has become a bastion for poor, non-white, smart kids who are eager to score big. Their focus is not giving back to society in some noblesse oblige way, but to hack the system to wealth.

Maybe all the hate for WSTL, Vanderbilt, and the like is from Harvard strivers who see the rich, white kids heading to these other schools as a legacy of the past, and in some way, their enemy.

How can you put white and noble in the same sentence? I guess slavery and mass murdering native Americans are noble things to do?

Sounds like you need a better education and a bigger picture. There’s not a population anywhere who hasn’t done some good things and some bad things. On the whole, white people have made a lot of positive contributions to the world.

Flexing your white supremacy. I guess I was not wrong about you.

It’s not supremacy, it’s a more balanced viewpoint.

You sound angry. You should reconsider the opportunities you have in this country and recognize that you’ll go further if you can be constructive.

What balanced viewpoint when you ignore slavery and mass murdring Indians?
It’s actually constructive to point out you’re a wannabe and an ivy reject.

Do you have a reading comprehension or a mental problem? I have already acknowledged that white people have a mixed past - both contributions and transgressions - but also pointed out that every society and race does too. Can you name a country or race that has never committed an atrocity? I hope you’re not an Ivy graduate or admit because you sound limited.

Then your conclusion was white people attend top colleges only for noble causes while others do it for wealth striving? Typical white racist who pretends to provide a balanced view. I’ve seen too many racists like you. Again, you’re no more than an Ivy rejected wannabe. Go troll with your racist views elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting twist to this story. Three or more decades ago, Harvard was largely white and wealthy. There were very few poor or foreign students (less than 5% each). Today, the real family median income of new students at Harvard has halved since the 1990s. Pell Grant students now makeup 20% of entering students and over 50% of kids are getting substantial financial aid.

When Harvard admitted the white and wealthy, public service was considered a duty and a giveback to society while creating an honorable legacy for oneself. Those kids - at least the white and wealthy - have now shifted to other schools. Checkout Opportunity Insight data and you’ll see that WSTL leads the pack. Right there with them are Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and many liberal arts colleges.

Thus, Harvard has become a bastion for poor, non-white, smart kids who are eager to score big. Their focus is not giving back to society in some noblesse oblige way, but to hack the system to wealth.

Maybe all the hate for WSTL, Vanderbilt, and the like is from Harvard strivers who see the rich, white kids heading to these other schools as a legacy of the past, and in some way, their enemy.

How can you put white and noble in the same sentence? I guess slavery and mass murdering native Americans are noble things to do?

Educate yourself, and you will be less resentful. Ninety percent of the Native Americans died from disease. Also, all races throughout history have owned slaves. Defeated peoples were either enslaved or put to death. Black Africans were the ones who sold their fellow black Africans to European slave traders.

In recent history? You have a low standard for yourself indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting twist to this story. Three or more decades ago, Harvard was largely white and wealthy. There were very few poor or foreign students (less than 5% each). Today, the real family median income of new students at Harvard has halved since the 1990s. Pell Grant students now makeup 20% of entering students and over 50% of kids are getting substantial financial aid.

When Harvard admitted the white and wealthy, public service was considered a duty and a giveback to society while creating an honorable legacy for oneself. Those kids - at least the white and wealthy - have now shifted to other schools. Checkout Opportunity Insight data and you’ll see that WSTL leads the pack. Right there with them are Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and many liberal arts colleges.

Thus, Harvard has become a bastion for poor, non-white, smart kids who are eager to score big. Their focus is not giving back to society in some noblesse oblige way, but to hack the system to wealth.

Maybe all the hate for WSTL, Vanderbilt, and the like is from Harvard strivers who see the rich, white kids heading to these other schools as a legacy of the past, and in some way, their enemy.

How can you put white and noble in the same sentence? I guess slavery and mass murdering native Americans are noble things to do?

Educate yourself, and you will be less resentful. Ninety percent of the Native Americans died from disease. Also, all races throughout history have owned slaves. Defeated peoples were either enslaved or put to death. Black Africans were the ones who sold their fellow black Africans to European slave traders.

In recent history? You have a low standard for yourself indeed.

Get off your high horse. Slavery still exists in Africa and the Middle East.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody in their right mind tries to differentiate between kids who attend an ivy or a top non-ivy. In south, so many kids decline ivies for similar schools in warm climates.

That ranks right up there with the Civil War being about States rights

[Anonymous]

Well, considering athletes, donor kids etc all graduate, academics can't be too difficult to pass even though shining in top 10% is really difficult due to tough competitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of threads in this forum that tout HYPSM and denigrate other elite schools as “Ivy rejects,” much to the protest of parents and students at other elite schools. What’s going on here?

First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.

It is about two other variables:

1) dispositional intensity - HYPSM are looking for hyper-driven, highly competitive people who believe that worldly success/legacy is existential. Other elite schools, particularly those outside the NE, are looking for more balanced students that value Midwestern Southern or non-tech/SV Western values of hospitality, humility, and enjoyment of life.

2) regional cultural differences - HYPSM
draws heavily from the Northeast, elite private high schools and global strivers. Amongst these groups, prestige awareness and achievement stacking is essential for external validation. For other elite schools that draw heavily from the South, Midwest, or non-tech West, ambition is more subtle, relational and not existential.

When the Ivy-or-bust group deride your kid’s choice as an “Ivy reject,” what they’re really saying is that you’re soft, not hardcore, like them. They want to be a Supreme Court justice; you want to be a local trust and estate lawyer. They want to create Facebook; you want to work at Facebook and get a stock grant.

While many would be tempted to applaud the world-changing desire of HYPSM, I’m not always impressed. First, much of what’s counted as an “advancement” is just incremental improvements on existing human habits. Second, much of this worldly success is privatized (think hedge funds and their ilk). Third, in the worst cases, crazy ambition leads to the breaking of social and institutional norms where society shoulders the consequences. In contrast, hometown doctors, lawyers, educators, and small business leaders almost always benefit their communities.

Only you and your kid can decide what’s right for them. Not all smart kids belong at or will thrive at HPYSM. And, that’s a good thing. If everyone in society acted like the most ambitious, we’d kill each other for scraps.

“ First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.”

You nailed this part. Looking at the rest of your comment through the eyes of someone who attended the ‘M’ in HYPSM it doesn’t hold there at all.

As to the other schools, the eastern three do seem to attract an abundance of narcissists and strivers.

Again misuse of striver. Being a striver is a good thing not a bad thing. I think you mean some other word.

I get your point but it is right on with the colloquial meaning of "striver" here on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting twist to this story. Three or more decades ago, Harvard was largely white and wealthy. There were very few poor or foreign students (less than 5% each). Today, the real family median income of new students at Harvard has halved since the 1990s. Pell Grant students now makeup 20% of entering students and over 50% of kids are getting substantial financial aid.

When Harvard admitted the white and wealthy, public service was considered a duty and a giveback to society while creating an honorable legacy for oneself. Those kids - at least the white and wealthy - have now shifted to other schools. Checkout Opportunity Insight data and you’ll see that WSTL leads the pack. Right there with them are Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and many liberal arts colleges.

Thus, Harvard has become a bastion for poor, non-white, smart kids who are eager to score big. Their focus is not giving back to society in some noblesse oblige way, but to hack the system to wealth.

Maybe all the hate for WSTL, Vanderbilt, and the like is from Harvard strivers who see the rich, white kids heading to these other schools as a legacy of the past, and in some way, their enemy.

How can you put white and noble in the same sentence? I guess slavery and mass murdering native Americans are noble things to do?

Educate yourself, and you will be less resentful. Ninety percent of the Native Americans died from disease. Also, all races throughout history have owned slaves. Defeated peoples were either enslaved or put to death. Black Africans were the ones who sold their fellow black Africans to European slave traders.

So it justifies the mass murdering of the rest 1.5 million of them? WOW a genocide of 1.5 million human lives is nothing to you. I get it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of threads in this forum that tout HYPSM and denigrate other elite schools as “Ivy rejects,” much to the protest of parents and students at other elite schools. What’s going on here?

First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.

It is about two other variables:

1) dispositional intensity - HYPSM are looking for hyper-driven, highly competitive people who believe that worldly success/legacy is existential. Other elite schools, particularly those outside the NE, are looking for more balanced students that value Midwestern Southern or non-tech/SV Western values of hospitality, humility, and enjoyment of life.

2) regional cultural differences - HYPSM
draws heavily from the Northeast, elite private high schools and global strivers. Amongst these groups, prestige awareness and achievement stacking is essential for external validation. For other elite schools that draw heavily from the South, Midwest, or non-tech West, ambition is more subtle, relational and not existential.

When the Ivy-or-bust group deride your kid’s choice as an “Ivy reject,” what they’re really saying is that you’re soft, not hardcore, like them. They want to be a Supreme Court justice; you want to be a local trust and estate lawyer. They want to create Facebook; you want to work at Facebook and get a stock grant.

While many would be tempted to applaud the world-changing desire of HYPSM, I’m not always impressed. First, much of what’s counted as an “advancement” is just incremental improvements on existing human habits. Second, much of this worldly success is privatized (think hedge funds and their ilk). Third, in the worst cases, crazy ambition leads to the breaking of social and institutional norms where society shoulders the consequences. In contrast, hometown doctors, lawyers, educators, and small business leaders almost always benefit their communities.

Only you and your kid can decide what’s right for them. Not all smart kids belong at or will thrive at HPYSM. And, that’s a good thing. If everyone in society acted like the most ambitious, we’d kill each other for scraps.

[Anonymous]

Alumni and Brand.

[Anonymous]

Duke, Rice and Vanderbilt are no joke.

[Anonymous]

One wonders why they don't do aggressive marketing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of threads in this forum that tout HYPSM and denigrate other elite schools as “Ivy rejects,” much to the protest of parents and students at other elite schools. What’s going on here?

First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.

It is about two other variables:

1) dispositional intensity - HYPSM are looking for hyper-driven, highly competitive people who believe that worldly success/legacy is existential. Other elite schools, particularly those outside the NE, are looking for more balanced students that value Midwestern Southern or non-tech/SV Western values of hospitality, humility, and enjoyment of life.

2) regional cultural differences - HYPSM
draws heavily from the Northeast, elite private high schools and global strivers. Amongst these groups, prestige awareness and achievement stacking is essential for external validation. For other elite schools that draw heavily from the South, Midwest, or non-tech West, ambition is more subtle, relational and not existential.

When the Ivy-or-bust group deride your kid’s choice as an “Ivy reject,” what they’re really saying is that you’re soft, not hardcore, like them. They want to be a Supreme Court justice; you want to be a local trust and estate lawyer. They want to create Facebook; you want to work at Facebook and get a stock grant.

While many would be tempted to applaud the world-changing desire of HYPSM, I’m not always impressed. First, much of what’s counted as an “advancement” is just incremental improvements on existing human habits. Second, much of this worldly success is privatized (think hedge funds and their ilk). Third, in the worst cases, crazy ambition leads to the breaking of social and institutional norms where society shoulders the consequences. In contrast, hometown doctors, lawyers, educators, and small business leaders almost always benefit their communities.

Only you and your kid can decide what’s right for them. Not all smart kids belong at or will thrive at HPYSM. And, that’s a good thing. If everyone in society acted like the most ambitious, we’d kill each other for scraps.

“ First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.”

You nailed this part. Looking at the rest of your comment through the eyes of someone who attended the ‘M’ in HYPSM it doesn’t hold there at all.

As to the other schools, the eastern three do seem to attract an abundance of narcissists and strivers.

Thank you so much for saying that-- my kid will start at 'M' this fall and reading the OP got me worried! My kid really does not match up with the picture the OP is painting.

'M' stands for MIT, right? My kid is more hyper collaborative than hyper competitive and was under the impression that MIT wants that kind of kid.

You are welcome. It was long ago for me and I was a prototypical nerd. The work was hard, the workload heavy but everyone did their PSets together. I loved it.

My D got in but didn't go. As much as I would loved her to she just didn't feel the fit and ended up at a NESCAC because she really wanted a smaller school the SLAC model ended up being very attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s an interesting twist to this story. Three or more decades ago, Harvard was largely white and wealthy. There were very few poor or foreign students (less than 5% each). Today, the real family median income of new students at Harvard has halved since the 1990s. Pell Grant students now makeup 20% of entering students and over 50% of kids are getting substantial financial aid.

When Harvard admitted the white and wealthy, public service was considered a duty and a giveback to society while creating an honorable legacy for oneself. Those kids - at least the white and wealthy - have now shifted to other schools. Checkout Opportunity Insight data and you’ll see that WSTL leads the pack. Right there with them are Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and many liberal arts colleges.

Thus, Harvard has become a bastion for poor, non-white, smart kids who are eager to score big. Their focus is not giving back to society in some noblesse oblige way, but to hack the system to wealth.

Maybe all the hate for WSTL, Vanderbilt, and the like is from Harvard strivers who see the rich, white kids heading to these other schools as a legacy of the past, and in some way, their enemy.

How can you put white and noble in the same sentence? I guess slavery and mass murdering native Americans are noble things to do?

Sounds like you need a better education and a bigger picture. There’s not a population anywhere who hasn’t done some good things and some bad things. On the whole, white people have made a lot of positive contributions to the world.

Flexing your white supremacy. I guess I was not wrong about you.

It’s not supremacy, it’s a more balanced viewpoint.

You sound angry. You should reconsider the opportunities you have in this country and recognize that you’ll go further if you can be constructive.

What balanced viewpoint when you ignore slavery and mass murdring Indians?
It’s actually constructive to point out you’re a wannabe and an ivy reject.

Do you have a reading comprehension or a mental problem? I have already acknowledged that white people have a mixed past - both contributions and transgressions - but also pointed out that every society and race does too. Can you name a country or race that has never committed an atrocity? I hope you’re not an Ivy graduate or admit because you sound limited.

Then your conclusion was white people attend top colleges only for noble causes while others do it for wealth striving? Typical white racist who pretends to provide a balanced view. I’ve seen too many racists like you. Again, you’re no more than an Ivy rejected wannabe. Go troll with your racist views elsewhere.

Again, you have a comprehension problem. Or, maybe you need to quell your anger long enough to actually read what was written.

I said that wealthy families of old used to see an Ivy education as a capstone and service to country as a duty. Why? Because they didn’t need to make more money at a regular job, but they wanted to be helpful to their country and honor their family and themselves. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Today, Harvard is admitting a different type of student - perhaps a smart and accomplished one, but oftentimes a poor one. Because these kids don’t have family money, they are not in a position to not think about the practical aspects of wealth creation. That’s fine, but it changes the focus of Harvard students and their interests on campus and beyond.