ARE elite colleges worth all the stress and striving and scandal?

[Anonymous]

Finance not France

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with the poster that they want to continue tradition and have their kids do better. I grew up MC and we are definitely UMC/UP with mild connections. UP by income but not lifestyle. Not enough to buy in or definite jobs but enough to be ahead of the average curve. I want my kids to get the 1% lifestyle. Not over anything, but better than ourselves.

Why?

I would also like to hear this answer. Having worked in an industry with a lot of 1% clients, I cannot confirm that they are any likelier than the rest of us to be content, happily married, healthy, or psychologically stable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t Walsh’s mission supposed to be public service? There are significant numbers of graduates who go into private industry?
If there are so many high-flying France people, why does GU have such a small endowment?

SFS alum here. I can't remember exact numbers as I graduated several years ago, but I would say at least 60% of my class went into private industry after graduation. Finance and consulting employers recruited from the MSB (the business school), the SFS, and the College - I'd say mostly the MSB and the SFS, though. In my house of six (3 SFS, one MSB, one College, and one in the nursing school), two of us went into banking/finance, two into the biglaw paralegal/law school track, one to a non-finance private employer, and one to medical school. I think part of it is that DC is such a competitive market for think tank/government/international relations type positions that many entry level positions (at least when I was looking) required a master's degree and/or qualifications beyond the basic BSFS we were all getting.

I have no idea why the endowment is still so small; I would guess that maybe there aren't many alums in finance/other fields who are making enough to donate millions to the school. Georgetown's explanation, at least while I was there, was that they only started actively building the endowment in the '70s, as the Jesuit administrators prior to then weren't as focused on money as other similar schools were at the time. I do get emails from the alumni association and I think they did quite well in the most recent development campaign, which ended in 2016 or 2017.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with the poster that they want to continue tradition and have their kids do better. I grew up MC and we are definitely UMC/UP with mild connections. UP by income but not lifestyle. Not enough to buy in or definite jobs but enough to be ahead of the average curve. I want my kids to get the 1% lifestyle. Not over anything, but better than ourselves.

Why?

I would also like to hear this answer. Having worked in an industry with a lot of 1% clients, I cannot confirm that they are any likelier than the rest of us to be content, happily married, healthy, or psychologically stable.

Because life is easier. There's a saying my mom use to tell me growing up that life is hard, but easier in a Mercedes Benz. They may not be more content, but when someone treats you like crap, or you get fired, it's nice not to worry about money. UMC isn't what it use to be. Also connections are everything, networking is what it's called today, but it's about being in the inner circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with the poster that they want to continue tradition and have their kids do better. I grew up MC and we are definitely UMC/UP with mild connections. UP by income but not lifestyle. Not enough to buy in or definite jobs but enough to be ahead of the average curve. I want my kids to get the 1% lifestyle. Not over anything, but better than ourselves.

Why?

I would also like to hear this answer. Having worked in an industry with a lot of 1% clients, I cannot confirm that they are any likelier than the rest of us to be content, happily married, healthy, or psychologically stable.

Because life is easier. There's a saying my mom use to tell me growing up that life is hard, but easier in a Mercedes Benz. They may not be more content, but when someone treats you like crap, or you get fired, it's nice not to worry about money. UMC isn't what it use to be. Also connections are everything, networking is what it's called today, but it's about being in the inner circle.

I agree. It’s like the difference between sitting in economy vs first-class on a long-haul flight. Everyone will get to the same place no matter where they sit, but one person will have a much more enjoyable experience and look great and relaxed the minute they step off the plane.

[Anonymous]

Selective colleges are worth it for extremely bright people who are unlikely to meet equally bright people anywhere else, and for other bright people who love learning alongside other people who like learning.

For kids who aren’t that bright or aren’t that interested in learning, going to an elite school is pointless. Those kids miss out on great keggers at less selective schools and crowd out kids who would have a lot of fun meeting the general education requirements.

Parents who jam kids into those schools are ruining both their own kids’ lives and the lives of the kids who really need those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with the poster that they want to continue tradition and have their kids do better. I grew up MC and we are definitely UMC/UP with mild connections. UP by income but not lifestyle. Not enough to buy in or definite jobs but enough to be ahead of the average curve. I want my kids to get the 1% lifestyle. Not over anything, but better than ourselves.

Why?

I would also like to hear this answer. Having worked in an industry with a lot of 1% clients, I cannot confirm that they are any likelier than the rest of us to be content, happily married, healthy, or psychologically stable.

Because life is easier. There's a saying my mom use to tell me growing up that life is hard, but easier in a Mercedes Benz. They may not be more content, but when someone treats you like crap, or you get fired, it's nice not to worry about money. UMC isn't what it use to be. Also connections are everything, networking is what it's called today, but it's about being in the inner circle.

Life is easier if you are UMC, yes. But why the 1%? It carries its own burdens.

Is the top e.g. 5 or 7% not sufficient? If not, why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with the poster that they want to continue tradition and have their kids do better. I grew up MC and we are definitely UMC/UP with mild connections. UP by income but not lifestyle. Not enough to buy in or definite jobs but enough to be ahead of the average curve. I want my kids to get the 1% lifestyle. Not over anything, but better than ourselves.

Why?

I would also like to hear this answer. Having worked in an industry with a lot of 1% clients, I cannot confirm that they are any likelier than the rest of us to be content, happily married, healthy, or psychologically stable.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Selective colleges are worth it for extremely bright people who are unlikely to meet equally bright people anywhere else, and for other bright people who love learning alongside other people who like learning.

For kids who aren’t that bright or aren’t that interested in learning, going to an elite school is pointless. Those kids miss out on great keggers at less selective schools and crowd out kids who would have a lot of fun meeting the general education requirements.

Parents who jam kids into those schools are ruining both their own kids’ lives and the lives of the kids who really need those schools.

Except that due to rising college costs, many extremely bright people are at schools that are now selective but didn't used to be. UMD-CP Honors College, for example, is heavily populated by Blair math/science magnet graduates - half the class each year matriculates at UMD, and it's not because they are not qualified to attend elite schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Selective colleges are worth it for extremely bright people who are unlikely to meet equally bright people anywhere else, and for other bright people who love learning alongside other people who like learning.

For kids who aren’t that bright or aren’t that interested in learning, going to an elite school is pointless. Those kids miss out on great keggers at less selective schools and crowd out kids who would have a lot of fun meeting the general education requirements.

Parents who jam kids into those schools are ruining both their own kids’ lives and the lives of the kids who really need those schools.

It's not pointless, they are in an enviroment where they will make lifelong friends with people who are likely to be succesful. Most people want their kids to be part of a peer group like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selective colleges are worth it for extremely bright people who are unlikely to meet equally bright people anywhere else, and for other bright people who love learning alongside other people who like learning.

For kids who aren’t that bright or aren’t that interested in learning, going to an elite school is pointless. Those kids miss out on great keggers at less selective schools and crowd out kids who would have a lot of fun meeting the general education requirements.

Parents who jam kids into those schools are ruining both their own kids’ lives and the lives of the kids who really need those schools.

It's not pointless, they are in an enviroment where they will make lifelong friends with people who are likely to be succesful. Most people want their kids to be part of a peer group like this.

But the kids who aren’t actually that interested in learning are going to wreck the peer group. They may get a good Choate prep
school argyle sox and country homes peer group, but they’re not going to get a rocket scientist peer group. They chased the rocket scientists over to the University of Maryland College Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selective colleges are worth it for extremely bright people who are unlikely to meet equally bright people anywhere else, and for other bright people who love learning alongside other people who like learning.

For kids who aren’t that bright or aren’t that interested in learning, going to an elite school is pointless. Those kids miss out on great keggers at less selective schools and crowd out kids who would have a lot of fun meeting the general education requirements.

Parents who jam kids into those schools are ruining both their own kids’ lives and the lives of the kids who really need those schools.

Except that due to rising college costs, many extremely bright people are at schools that are now selective but didn't used to be. UMD-CP Honors College, for example, is heavily populated by Blair math/science magnet graduates - half the class each year matriculates at UMD, and it's not because they are not qualified to attend elite schools.

If this is true, then forward-looking parents who want their kids to rub shoulders with the best kids ought to be sending them
to the University of Maryland College Park, not Tufts.

Maybe Cal Tech, Princeton and Harvard will still get a lot of rocket scientist sharks because they have such great aid, but the extracurricular requirements the Top 30 schools are setting effectively shut out bright, dreamy kids who are reading, writing and creating on their own. Those are great kids, and they’re going to be flowing to the state flagships. The schools ranked about 8 through 30 looks as if they’re on track to enroll rich kids plus obedient little admissions robots who think they’re all going to be tech company founder billionaires. They’re planting the seeds for their own decay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe Cal Tech, Princeton and Harvard will still get a lot of rocket scientist sharks because they have such great aid, but the extracurricular requirements the Top 30 schools are setting effectively shut out bright, dreamy kids who are reading, writing and creating on their own. Those are great kids, and they’re going to be flowing to the state flagships. The schools ranked about 8 through 30 looks as if they’re on track to enroll rich kids plus obedient little admissions robots who think they’re all going to be tech company founder billionaires. They’re planting the seeds for their own decay.

So much ignorance combined with hyperbole and misplaced scorn. Why denigrate the science kids as “rocket scientist sharks”? And weren’t you aware that the “creative kids” have Cooper Union, Pratt, RISD, Julliard, Curtis, Oberlin, and some more (and some of these are pretty cheap, if hard to get into). That said, the schools 8-30 that you scorn include such havens for creative types as Oberlin, Reed and Vassar.

I have no dog in this fight. My kids are at Columbia and UMD’s computer science program (with his Blair classmates).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe Cal Tech, Princeton and Harvard will still get a lot of rocket scientist sharks because they have such great aid, but the extracurricular requirements the Top 30 schools are setting effectively shut out bright, dreamy kids who are reading, writing and creating on their own. Those are great kids, and they’re going to be flowing to the state flagships. The schools ranked about 8 through 30 looks as if they’re on track to enroll rich kids plus obedient little admissions robots who think they’re all going to be tech company founder billionaires. They’re planting the seeds for their own decay.

So much ignorance combined with hyperbole and misplaced scorn. Why denigrate the science kids as “rocket scientist sharks”? And weren’t you aware that the “creative kids” have Cooper Union, Pratt, RISD, Julliard, Curtis, Oberlin, and some more (and some of these are pretty cheap, if hard to get into). That said, the schools 8-30 that you scorn include such havens for creative types as Oberlin, Reed and Vassar.

I have no dog in this fight. My kids are at Columbia and UMD’s computer science program (with his Blair classmates).

Also: any kid with ECs is rich or an “admissions robot”? Where does all that bitterness come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe Cal Tech, Princeton and Harvard will still get a lot of rocket scientist sharks because they have such great aid, but the extracurricular requirements the Top 30 schools are setting effectively shut out bright, dreamy kids who are reading, writing and creating on their own. Those are great kids, and they’re going to be flowing to the state flagships. The schools ranked about 8 through 30 looks as if they’re on track to enroll rich kids plus obedient little admissions robots who think they’re all going to be tech company founder billionaires. They’re planting the seeds for their own decay.

So much ignorance combined with hyperbole and misplaced scorn. Why denigrate the science kids as “rocket scientist sharks”? And weren’t you aware that the “creative kids” have Cooper Union, Pratt, RISD, Julliard, Curtis, Oberlin, and some more (and some of these are pretty cheap, if hard to get into). That said, the schools 8-30 that you scorn include such havens for creative types as Oberlin, Reed and Vassar.

I have no dog in this fight. My kids are at Columbia and UMD’s computer science program (with his Blair classmates).

Also: any kid with ECs is rich or an “admissions robot”? Where does all that bitterness come from?

PP thinks top universities should take her “dreamy,” solitary kid based on, what, her say-so? You actually do need to prove you have talent. What’s so hard about joining the school literature magazine, or a local teen orchestra? For art school you need a portfolio—so do it.

Scratching my head.