Are students outside of the top 20 or so universities more interesting people?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would say that my friends who went to top 10 schools are definitely less fun. Not that they are all stick in the muds, but just not as likely to be really silly or let life get a bit messy.


I agree, and I'm an HYPS alum. My college friends are good people and have a sense of humor, but aren't as spontaneous as some of the friends I made post-grad.


I agree with this too. I think OP is getting at the fact that a lot of people into studies are not as social and fun loving. This is very true. But they are usually more creative. Just not as spontaneous. Many are extraverted and conversational but the conversations are different.

Honestly many of the lower level colleges have kids that are more fun bu4 they all say the same things. I have high school and college friends who weren't into school and their posts even have the same exact wording from friend to friend and post to post. They are fun in that they like to laugh but I wouldn't say creative or more interesting.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would say that my friends who went to top 10 schools are definitely less fun. Not that they are all stick in the muds, but just not as likely to be really silly or let life get a bit messy.


I agree, and I'm an HYPS alum. My college friends are good people and have a sense of humor, but aren't as spontaneous as some of the friends I made post-grad.


I agree with this too. I think OP is getting at the fact that a lot of people into studies are not as social and fun loving. This is very true. But they are usually more creative. Just not as spontaneous. Many are extraverted and conversational but the conversations are different.

Honestly many of the lower level colleges have kids that are more fun bu4 they all say the same things. I have high school and college friends who weren't into school and their posts even have the same exact wording from friend to friend and post to post. They are fun in that they like to laugh but I wouldn't say creative or more interesting.


+1000



Anonymous
This conversation makes me think of the movie Booksmart, where two high school friends realize at the end of senior year that they haven’t had any fun at all because they’ve worked so hard to get into top colleges. There’s a funny scene where they realize that a bunch of goof-offs who they assume are heading to community college actually have impressive plans of their own, and one of the characters says “we care about school, it’s just not the only thing we care about.”
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would say that my friends who went to top 10 schools are definitely less fun. Not that they are all stick in the muds, but just not as likely to be really silly or let life get a bit messy.


Just learned tonight that a lot of the “top” kids in DC class (senior) are all on anti-depressants. Many many kids. All going to T20, mostly Ivy.
wtf

(And my kid is also going to an Ivy so it’s not that…) what is going on?


I am not surprised. My daughter is also a senior, but hangs out with “losers” like herself who aren’t going to Ivies. Many of them are also on antidepressants. So I think it’s a more general problem with this generation, not a top schools thing.

Or maybe it’s that her friends are depressed because they are not getting in and the top kids are depressed because of what they have to do to get in…


This is sad for the kids. They haven’t even had the stress of the career workforce yet.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.


Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.


DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.


Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n
Anonymous
There are interesting, curious, kind, fun people. And then there are types like OP.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.


Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.


DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.


Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n


I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Yes, but don’t you see: these are the conformists who have allowed themselves to be so packaged. By definition, they are not as brilliant and interesting as the non-conformists you never interview.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.


Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.


DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.


Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n


Whether they liked it is irrelevant. Question is whether they are interesting people.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would say that my friends who went to top 10 schools are definitely less fun. Not that they are all stick in the muds, but just not as likely to be really silly or let life get a bit messy.


Just learned tonight that a lot of the “top” kids in DC class (senior) are all on anti-depressants. Many many kids. All going to T20, mostly Ivy.
wtf

(And my kid is also going to an Ivy so it’s not that…) what is going on?


iPhones/SM. Read “the anxious generation” eye-opening the damage they have done to a generation.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.



I think it's the opposite. Top schools look for future leaders, innovators, peopel who will shake things up.

I have never met more interesting people than in my four years at HYP.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.



Maybe the kids you meet on school tours are tired of meeting judgmental asses like you.


+ 1,000


^
THIS


lol you guys get so mad if anyone suggests something slightly negative about your elite private universities.


yeah i do if ppl make ignorant comments based on taking a quick tour. so clueless.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.



Maybe the kids you meet on school tours are tired of meeting judgmental asses like you.


Yup. Sounds pretty lame to me. If OP's kids think these students are "boring," it sounds like her kids just don't have much intellectual curiosity. So, more likely it's kids like OP's that "embrace dullness."
Also, OP really thinks she got a handle on all the students from just browsing the campus? Yes, it sounds like these schools are not the best fit.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.



I think it's the opposite. Top schools look for future leaders, innovators, peopel who will shake things up.

I have never met more interesting people than in my four years at HYP.


Yeah, my kid is at Brown, and her friends are so creative, intelligent and motivated. And, so diverse in talents and experiences. It's been a fantastic educational experience.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I was reading "Excellent Sheep" the other day, and while this post isn't about his book, and while I think his viewpoint has many faults, I've been thinking a lot about whether there's a great deal of truth to the idea that elite universities select for people who are good at embracing the dullness and conformity of corporate culture, people who think that seeking "leadership positions" in various meaningless student-run clubs is a good use of time, people who need structured activity for at least 16 hours a day, people who lack some sort of spirit which is hard to identify and name but which is important. This is not to suggest that other universities are some sort of utopia, but there is some sense of excitement and even creativity there that just feels different from the lifeless hierarchy-obsession of more elite places.

In the last couple of years, I have gone with my kids to visit a number of top universities, including several top ivy leagues, Duke, and Stanford, and my kids, to my surprise, seem less than enthused. They say the students seem generally boring and rigid. I think they're right and suspect that this has been true for decades and that it is an enduring aspect of the admissions process, a process which students who are genuinely funny, fun, interesting, or creative will generally not have the willingness to endure. The point is not these universities need to change, because it is likely they can't change their admissions process to bring these types of people in without becoming significantly less selective, and it isn't clear that they even want to.



I think to excel in the current education model and get into top tier colleges the process is skewed to the female skill set….

Girls generally have an easier time with: endless monotone, leadership rules, deadlines for submitting written materials for publication, contacting admissions officers and lastly to show demonstrated interest by clicking on links, endlessly, to show demonstrated interest, creating the résumé that may lack soul but has all the pieces.

The criteria is heavily swayed to the female lens..


"Endless monotone?" Huh? You clearly don't know these colleges (hint, they are all different), their admissions criteria, or even girls!
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: