Fighting for Fractions .. roughly 2% of college students go to a "top 30" school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD found her people at her school. She is surrounded by fun, social kids who are smart and hard-working. They are at a rigorous school, so they all understand that people have to grind, and they’ll often study together in between meals and social activities. It has made it much easier to balance social life and studying because everyone understands and is in the same boat.

And yet she and her peers are going to be working alongside, and probably even managed by, the kids who are content to study a reasonable amount at a lower ranked school, and who also actually HAVE hobbies, interests, and a social life.

Hopefully their reading comprehension will be better than yours.

Stating that someone is able to balance studying with the social life contradicts everything else in your post which indicates these kids don’t have a social life. i.e. it’s easy to manage your social life when you don’t actually have one because mommy wants you to “grind” so she can get internet bragging points.
Any other notes on my comprehension?

These kids won’t just feel pressured to grind to make their parents proud—they’ll also be expected to marry the same kind, raise children in the same relentless cycle, and keep living in a perpetual bubble of achievements for others. See where the root of the problems? Those people who value extrinsic values would never understand what authentic success and originality mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone fighting so hard to get their kids into a "top 30-ish" school?

Less than 5% of college students attend a top 50 college. About 2.4% of college students in the US attend a top 30 college. Roughly 1% attend a "top 20" college. What is the point in fighting to be such a tiny fraction of college students.

Because in this day and age, and with the access to information being widely democratized thanks to the internet, you can learn almost anywhere. Most college classes are available for free online. So it’s not exactly the content of the class that matters. I bet you an Econ 101 class will be pretty much the same at Harvard as it is in Penn State.
What you get at Harvard is the connections and a HUGE jump start to your career.
Case in point: the admin assistant at my small business has a business degree from George mason and well.. is an admin assistant at a small business making $27 an hour.

My son’s friend who graduated with an economics degree from Harvard had an offer at Goldman Sachs right after graduation, thanks to an alumni connection and is pretty much set for life.

THAT’s why you go to a top 20 college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD found her people at her school. She is surrounded by fun, social kids who are smart and hard-working. They are at a rigorous school, so they all understand that people have to grind, and they’ll often study together in between meals and social activities. It has made it much easier to balance social life and studying because everyone understands and is in the same boat.

And yet she and her peers are going to be working alongside, and probably even managed by, the kids who are content to study a reasonable amount at a lower ranked school, and who also actually HAVE hobbies, interests, and a social life.

Hopefully their reading comprehension will be better than yours.

Stating that someone is able to balance studying with the social life contradicts everything else in your post which indicates these kids don’t have a social life. i.e. it’s easy to manage your social life when you don’t actually have one because mommy wants you to “grind” so she can get internet bragging points.
Any other notes on my comprehension?

These kids won’t just feel pressured to grind to make their parents proud—they’ll also be expected to marry the same kind, raise children in the same relentless cycle, and keep living in a perpetual bubble of achievements for others. See where the root of the problems? Those people who value extrinsic values would never understand what authentic success and originality mean.

Spot on. These people simply do not share my values. They’re welcome to their T30 schools - some of us truly aren’t impressed by this type of person’s worldview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone fighting so hard to get their kids into a "top 30-ish" school?

Less than 5% of college students attend a top 50 college. About 2.4% of college students in the US attend a top 30 college. Roughly 1% attend a "top 20" college. What is the point in fighting to be such a tiny fraction of college students.

Because in this day and age, and with the access to information being widely democratized thanks to the internet, you can learn almost anywhere. Most college classes are available for free online. So it’s not exactly the content of the class that matters. I bet you an Econ 101 class will be pretty much the same at Harvard as it is in Penn State.
What you get at Harvard is the connections and a HUGE jump start to your career.
Case in point: the admin assistant at my small business has a business degree from George mason and well.. is an admin assistant at a small business making $27 an hour.

My son’s friend who graduated with an economics degree from Harvard had an offer at Goldman Sachs right after graduation, thanks to an alumni connection and is pretty much set for life.

THAT’s why you go to a top 20 college.

Your son’s friend will succeed in his career regardless of which college he attends. Companies don’t hire based on connections or who someone knows—everyone has to go through the same interview process. In highly regulated industries, hiring based on internal connections is essentially impossible and compliance issues.

Please stop spreading rumors that imply school rankings determine success—especially when it’s based solely on what you’ve heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone fighting so hard to get their kids into a "top 30-ish" school?

Less than 5% of college students attend a top 50 college. About 2.4% of college students in the US attend a top 30 college. Roughly 1% attend a "top 20" college. What is the point in fighting to be such a tiny fraction of college students.

I often wonder where people get these stats and how do you know how trustworthy it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone fighting so hard to get their kids into a "top 30-ish" school?

Less than 5% of college students attend a top 50 college. About 2.4% of college students in the US attend a top 30 college. Roughly 1% attend a "top 20" college. What is the point in fighting to be such a tiny fraction of college students.

Because in this day and age, and with the access to information being widely democratized thanks to the internet, you can learn almost anywhere. Most college classes are available for free online. So it’s not exactly the content of the class that matters. I bet you an Econ 101 class will be pretty much the same at Harvard as it is in Penn State.
What you get at Harvard is the connections and a HUGE jump start to your career.
Case in point: the admin assistant at my small business has a business degree from George mason and well.. is an admin assistant at a small business making $27 an hour.

My son’s friend who graduated with an economics degree from Harvard had an offer at Goldman Sachs right after graduation, thanks to an alumni connection and is pretty much set for life.

THAT’s why you go to a top 20 college.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone fighting so hard to get their kids into a "top 30-ish" school?

Less than 5% of college students attend a top 50 college. About 2.4% of college students in the US attend a top 30 college. Roughly 1% attend a "top 20" college. What is the point in fighting to be such a tiny fraction of college students.

Because in this day and age, and with the access to information being widely democratized thanks to the internet, you can learn almost anywhere. Most college classes are available for free online. So it’s not exactly the content of the class that matters. I bet you an Econ 101 class will be pretty much the same at Harvard as it is in Penn State.
What you get at Harvard is the connections and a HUGE jump start to your career.
Case in point: the admin assistant at my small business has a business degree from George mason and well.. is an admin assistant at a small business making $27 an hour.

My son’s friend who graduated with an economics degree from Harvard had an offer at Goldman Sachs right after graduation, thanks to an alumni connection and is pretty much set for life.

THAT’s why you go to a top 20 college.

Your son’s friend will succeed in his career regardless of which college he attends. Companies don’t hire based on connections or who someone knows—everyone has to go through the same interview process. In highly regulated industries, hiring based on internal connections is essentially impossible and compliance issues.

Please stop spreading rumors that imply school rankings determine success—especially when it’s based solely on what you’ve heard.

You are out of your mind if you think this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone fighting so hard to get their kids into a "top 30-ish" school?

Less than 5% of college students attend a top 50 college. About 2.4% of college students in the US attend a top 30 college. Roughly 1% attend a "top 20" college. What is the point in fighting to be such a tiny fraction of college students.

I often wonder where people get these stats and how do you know how trustworthy it is.

Some other posts have noted that many posts here are basically SP. Lot of them probably come from consulting businesses, and some outsiders lack a genuine understanding of the lifestyles of American elites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone fighting so hard to get their kids into a "top 30-ish" school?

Less than 5% of college students attend a top 50 college. About 2.4% of college students in the US attend a top 30 college. Roughly 1% attend a "top 20" college. What is the point in fighting to be such a tiny fraction of college students.

Because in this day and age, and with the access to information being widely democratized thanks to the internet, you can learn almost anywhere. Most college classes are available for free online. So it’s not exactly the content of the class that matters. I bet you an Econ 101 class will be pretty much the same at Harvard as it is in Penn State.
What you get at Harvard is the connections and a HUGE jump start to your career.
Case in point: the admin assistant at my small business has a business degree from George mason and well.. is an admin assistant at a small business making $27 an hour.

My son’s friend who graduated with an economics degree from Harvard had an offer at Goldman Sachs right after graduation, thanks to an alumni connection and is pretty much set for life.

THAT’s why you go to a top 20 college.

Your son’s friend will succeed in his career regardless of which college he attends. Companies don’t hire based on connections or who someone knows—everyone has to go through the same interview process. In highly regulated industries, hiring based on internal connections is essentially impossible and compliance issues.

Please stop spreading rumors that imply school rankings determine success—especially when it’s based solely on what you’ve heard.

You are out of your mind if you think this.

Suit your need. Continue to dream on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US is designed around the idea of competition and freedom to compete. Everyone gets a chance to wrestle to the top of the heap, instead of being forced to stay lower class or upper class.

That’s not true. Most Ivy League schools and other top colleges are disproportionately filled with wealthy students, which shows how wealth and power tend to remain concentrated among those who already have them. Many high-achieving students are denied admission not because of a lack of merit, but because they lack advantages such as influence, legacy status, or institutional “hooks.” The admissions system is not fair, nor is it a level playing field.

It is true that many high-achieving kids are denied admission. But, they are denied admission because of a lack of space, not a lack of fairness. Your implication that those with hooks don’t merit admission is incorrect. The playing field isn’t always level but those who do are not qualified for admission rarely get in.

There are far more high-achieving applicants than spaces which is why you cannot really stack rank top schools. The student body and resources are more similar than different. This vexes those who gain admission because they need to crow about their “win”.

Nope. Not everyone gets in based on merit. You get in based on a whole bunch of things. Between 3 kids we have seen mediocre students who lied about a bunch of things on their college apps get in. Others got in because of legacy or race. None of them were admitted on merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US is designed around the idea of competition and freedom to compete. Everyone gets a chance to wrestle to the top of the heap, instead of being forced to stay lower class or upper class.

That’s not true. Most Ivy League schools and other top colleges are disproportionately filled with wealthy students, which shows how wealth and power tend to remain concentrated among those who already have them. Many high-achieving students are denied admission not because of a lack of merit, but because they lack advantages such as influence, legacy status, or institutional “hooks.” The admissions system is not fair, nor is it a level playing field.

It is true that many high-achieving kids are denied admission. But, they are denied admission because of a lack of space, not a lack of fairness. Your implication that those with hooks don’t merit admission is incorrect. The playing field isn’t always level but those who do are not qualified for admission rarely get in.

There are far more high-achieving applicants than spaces which is why you cannot really stack rank top schools. The student body and resources are more similar than different. This vexes those who gain admission because they need to crow about their “win”.

Nope. Not everyone gets in based on merit. You get in based on a whole bunch of things. Between 3 kids we have seen mediocre students who lied about a bunch of things on their college apps get in. Others got in because of legacy or race. None of them were admitted on merit.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about what merits really are. If you’re the type who equates grades with merit, you should know by now that schools—not you—define what counts as merit. Before criticizing how holistic review works, have you considered whether you could do a better job of “measuring” others—or even yourself?

Calling admitted students liars, cheaters, or saying they got in because of race may protect your pride if all you have are grades. But remember: you are not the one who defines merit. Sooner or later with AI, grinding hard to get high grades will be irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US is designed around the idea of competition and freedom to compete. Everyone gets a chance to wrestle to the top of the heap, instead of being forced to stay lower class or upper class.

That’s not true. Most Ivy League schools and other top colleges are disproportionately filled with wealthy students, which shows how wealth and power tend to remain concentrated among those who already have them. Many high-achieving students are denied admission not because of a lack of merit, but because they lack advantages such as influence, legacy status, or institutional “hooks.” The admissions system is not fair, nor is it a level playing field.

It is true that many high-achieving kids are denied admission. But, they are denied admission because of a lack of space, not a lack of fairness. Your implication that those with hooks don’t merit admission is incorrect. The playing field isn’t always level but those who do are not qualified for admission rarely get in.

There are far more high-achieving applicants than spaces which is why you cannot really stack rank top schools. The student body and resources are more similar than different. This vexes those who gain admission because they need to crow about their “win”.

Nope. Not everyone gets in based on merit. You get in based on a whole bunch of things. Between 3 kids we have seen mediocre students who lied about a bunch of things on their college apps get in. Others got in because of legacy or race. None of them were admitted on merit.

Yep, you have a limited view of what constitutes merit. Merit is I the eye of the one doing the admitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US is designed around the idea of competition and freedom to compete. Everyone gets a chance to wrestle to the top of the heap, instead of being forced to stay lower class or upper class.

That’s not true. Most Ivy League schools and other top colleges are disproportionately filled with wealthy students, which shows how wealth and power tend to remain concentrated among those who already have them. Many high-achieving students are denied admission not because of a lack of merit, but because they lack advantages such as influence, legacy status, or institutional “hooks.” The admissions system is not fair, nor is it a level playing field.

It is true that many high-achieving kids are denied admission. But, they are denied admission because of a lack of space, not a lack of fairness. Your implication that those with hooks don’t merit admission is incorrect. The playing field isn’t always level but those who do are not qualified for admission rarely get in.

There are far more high-achieving applicants than spaces which is why you cannot really stack rank top schools. The student body and resources are more similar than different. This vexes those who gain admission because they need to crow about their “win”.

Nope. Not everyone gets in based on merit. You get in based on a whole bunch of things. Between 3 kids we have seen mediocre students who lied about a bunch of things on their college apps get in. Others got in because of legacy or race. None of them were admitted on merit.

Yep, you have a limited view of what constitutes merit. Merit is I the eye of the one doing the admitting.

True, but undercuts the argument that your 1% kid should apply to a 1% school because they will encounter similar students there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone fighting so hard to get their kids into a "top 30-ish" school?

Less than 5% of college students attend a top 50 college. About 2.4% of college students in the US attend a top 30 college. Roughly 1% attend a "top 20" college. What is the point in fighting to be such a tiny fraction of college students.

People like to be with their peers. 1% like to be with 1%, 5% be with 5%. 50%tile kids in a 1%tile environment would not be happy, and vis versa.

Bullshit. Some time in general pop would do the 1% well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US is designed around the idea of competition and freedom to compete. Everyone gets a chance to wrestle to the top of the heap, instead of being forced to stay lower class or upper class.

That’s not true. Most Ivy League schools and other top colleges are disproportionately filled with wealthy students, which shows how wealth and power tend to remain concentrated among those who already have them. Many high-achieving students are denied admission not because of a lack of merit, but because they lack advantages such as influence, legacy status, or institutional “hooks.” The admissions system is not fair, nor is it a level playing field.

It is true that many high-achieving kids are denied admission. But, they are denied admission because of a lack of space, not a lack of fairness. Your implication that those with hooks don’t merit admission is incorrect. The playing field isn’t always level but those who do are not qualified for admission rarely get in.

There are far more high-achieving applicants than spaces which is why you cannot really stack rank top schools. The student body and resources are more similar than different. This vexes those who gain admission because they need to crow about their “win”.

I agree with this in part. The vast majority of the kids in the Ivy+ (and mine is one of them) are high achieving and earned their spots (including the athletes and legacies). It's really only the donor ones that are potentially exempted from being at the same level of GPA, test score etc. The problem is indeed that there are multiples of equally qualified students for whom there aren't enough spots.
What I disagree with is the idea that the kids/parents who did get lucky and get a spot don't recognize that. Believe me they do. They are fully aware that many of their equally talented and qualified siblings, friends and peers simply didn't win the random chance lottery that is highly rejective admissions