To you, what's the bottom of the "elite" colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This question is a lot like asking someone their definition of rich. It’s both a relative and absolute thing. For the average person, a NW of $1+ million may be rich, yet it is “only” the 90th percentile. The Top 1% in NW is around $10 million. Even still, it’s mostly the 600+ billionaires that grab the headlines. And, within the billionaires, there are differences. Before Musk hit it big, Bezos, Buffet, and Gates (BBG) were a separate club. In sum, perceptions of rich depend on one’s awareness and life opportunities, but there are also the cold facts that define exclusivity.

Now, apply that same logic to colleges. Each year, about 5 million kids start a four-year school. The top 1% or 99th percentile, includes 50k kids. If the average freshman class at an upper-tier school is 2000, that’s 25 schools or the Top 25. In the analogy to “what is rich,” these kids are very rich. However, the Top 0.1% of kids, or 5000, go to the Top 3 schools. Traditionally, the well-educated considered those to be HPY. But, like BBG, there’s been one extra-special club, which is Harvard. As in wealth, distinctions other than these are mostly noise.

I agree broadly with your point, but I think it's become clear in the last several decades that entrance into HYPS is not a merit-driven enterprise. On top of the randomness, there are so many other extraneous details and variables that affect admissions, such as race, legacy, wealth, donor status, etc. It's really become more of a lottery at this point and not exactly a measure of merit/performance/smarts alone.

Right. So, maybe the Top 25 or Top 1% is an appropriate distinction. In other words, the best students should be able to gain admission to one of these schools, even in the randomness of today’s admissions process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This question is a lot like asking someone their definition of rich. It’s both a relative and absolute thing. For the average person, a NW of $1+ million may be rich, yet it is “only” the 90th percentile. The Top 1% in NW is around $10 million. Even still, it’s mostly the 600+ billionaires that grab the headlines. And, within the billionaires, there are differences. Before Musk hit it big, Bezos, Buffet, and Gates (BBG) were a separate club. In sum, perceptions of rich depend on one’s awareness and life opportunities, but there are also the cold facts that define exclusivity.

Now, apply that same logic to colleges. Each year, about 5 million kids start a four-year school. The top 1% or 99th percentile, includes 50k kids. If the average freshman class at an upper-tier school is 2000, that’s 25 schools or the Top 25. In the analogy to “what is rich,” these kids are very rich. However, the Top 0.1% of kids, or 5000, go to the Top 3 schools. Traditionally, the well-educated considered those to be HPY. But, like BBG, there’s been one extra-special club, which is Harvard. As in wealth, distinctions other than these are mostly noise.

I agree broadly with your point, but I think it's become clear in the last several decades that entrance into HYPS is not a merit-driven enterprise. On top of the randomness, there are so many other extraneous details and variables that affect admissions, such as race, legacy, wealth, donor status, etc. It's really become more of a lottery at this point and not exactly a measure of merit/performance/smarts alone.

Right. So, maybe the Top 25 or Top 1% is an appropriate distinction. In other words, the best students should be able to gain admission to one of these schools, even in the randomness of today’s admissions process.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UChicago and Northwestern are fine colleges but they're no kid's first choice, which by definition does NOT make them elite. If you offered 12th graders the choice between: Northwestern, UChicago, Columbia or Penn. 99% would choose Penn or Columbia. Therefore, not elite -- and their flyover geography certainly doesn't help.

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago and Northwestern are fine colleges but they're no kid's first choice, which by definition does NOT make them elite. If you offered 12th graders the choice between: Northwestern, UChicago, Columbia or Penn. 99% would choose Penn or Columbia. Therefore, not elite -- and their flyover geography certainly doesn't help.

Bingo!

No, that's just not true. No matter how hard you try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago and Northwestern are fine colleges but they're no kid's first choice, which by definition does NOT make them elite. If you offered 12th graders the choice between: Northwestern, UChicago, Columbia or Penn. 99% would choose Penn or Columbia. Therefore, not elite -- and their flyover geography certainly doesn't help.

Bingo!

No, that's just not true. No matter how hard you try.

+1. So thirsty yet so wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This question is a lot like asking someone their definition of rich. It’s both a relative and absolute thing. For the average person, a NW of $1+ million may be rich, yet it is “only” the 90th percentile. The Top 1% in NW is around $10 million. Even still, it’s mostly the 600+ billionaires that grab the headlines. And, within the billionaires, there are differences. Before Musk hit it big, Bezos, Buffet, and Gates (BBG) were a separate club. In sum, perceptions of rich depend on one’s awareness and life opportunities, but there are also the cold facts that define exclusivity.

Now, apply that same logic to colleges. Each year, about 5 million kids start a four-year school. The top 1% or 99th percentile, includes 50k kids. If the average freshman class at an upper-tier school is 2000, that’s 25 schools or the Top 25. In the analogy to “what is rich,” these kids are very rich. However, the Top 0.1% of kids, or 5000, go to the Top 3 schools. Traditionally, the well-educated considered those to be HPY. But, like BBG, there’s been one extra-special club, which is Harvard. As in wealth, distinctions other than these are mostly noise.

I agree broadly with your point, but I think it's become clear in the last several decades that entrance into HYPS is not a merit-driven enterprise. On top of the randomness, there are so many other extraneous details and variables that affect admissions, such as race, legacy, wealth, donor status, etc. It's really become more of a lottery at this point and not exactly a measure of merit/performance/smarts alone.

Right. So, maybe the Top 25 or Top 1% is an appropriate distinction. In other words, the best students should be able to gain admission to one of these schools, even in the randomness of today’s admissions process.

I posted a few days ago that essentially the top 30 national universities and the top 5 SLACs should be considered elite. Despite all the subsequent wrangling over Columbia or Princeton, I stand by that. It is clear that many of the Ivy's are bastions of legacy and athletes and not as much actual merit. Ergo, top students are going to the best schools for them, which in some cases are state flagships, and in other cases a regional school. Either way, I think USNWR has it generally right, even if one can quibble about the order.

[Anonymous]

Top 15, not 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This question is a lot like asking someone their definition of rich. It’s both a relative and absolute thing. For the average person, a NW of $1+ million may be rich, yet it is “only” the 90th percentile. The Top 1% in NW is around $10 million. Even still, it’s mostly the 600+ billionaires that grab the headlines. And, within the billionaires, there are differences. Before Musk hit it big, Bezos, Buffet, and Gates (BBG) were a separate club. In sum, perceptions of rich depend on one’s awareness and life opportunities, but there are also the cold facts that define exclusivity.

Now, apply that same logic to colleges. Each year, about 5 million kids start a four-year school. The top 1% or 99th percentile, includes 50k kids. If the average freshman class at an upper-tier school is 2000, that’s 25 schools or the Top 25. In the analogy to “what is rich,” these kids are very rich. However, the Top 0.1% of kids, or 5000, go to the Top 3 schools. Traditionally, the well-educated considered those to be HPY. But, like BBG, there’s been one extra-special club, which is Harvard. As in wealth, distinctions other than these are mostly noise.

I agree broadly with your point, but I think it's become clear in the last several decades that entrance into HYPS is not a merit-driven enterprise. On top of the randomness, there are so many other extraneous details and variables that affect admissions, such as race, legacy, wealth, donor status, etc. It's really become more of a lottery at this point and not exactly a measure of merit/performance/smarts alone.

Right. So, maybe the Top 25 or Top 1% is an appropriate distinction. In other words, the best students should be able to gain admission to one of these schools, even in the randomness of today’s admissions process.

I posted a few days ago that essentially the top 30 national universities and the top 5 SLACs should be considered elite. Despite all the subsequent wrangling over Columbia or Princeton, I stand by that. It is clear that many of the Ivy's are bastions of legacy and athletes and not as much actual merit. Ergo, top students are going to the best schools for them, which in some cases are state flagships, and in other cases a regional school. Either way, I think USNWR has it generally right, even if one can quibble about the order.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago and Northwestern are fine colleges but they're no kid's first choice, which by definition does NOT make them elite. If you offered 12th graders the choice between: Northwestern, UChicago, Columbia or Penn. 99% would choose Penn or Columbia. Therefore, not elite -- and their flyover geography certainly doesn't help.

Bingo!

Funny, I actually personally know two different kids who chose Northwestern over Columbia, and several UChicago kids who chose it over UPenn. They must be part of the 1%. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This question is a lot like asking someone their definition of rich. It’s both a relative and absolute thing. For the average person, a NW of $1+ million may be rich, yet it is “only” the 90th percentile. The Top 1% in NW is around $10 million. Even still, it’s mostly the 600+ billionaires that grab the headlines. And, within the billionaires, there are differences. Before Musk hit it big, Bezos, Buffet, and Gates (BBG) were a separate club. In sum, perceptions of rich depend on one’s awareness and life opportunities, but there are also the cold facts that define exclusivity.

Now, apply that same logic to colleges. Each year, about 5 million kids start a four-year school. The top 1% or 99th percentile, includes 50k kids. If the average freshman class at an upper-tier school is 2000, that’s 25 schools or the Top 25. In the analogy to “what is rich,” these kids are very rich. However, the Top 0.1% of kids, or 5000, go to the Top 3 schools. Traditionally, the well-educated considered those to be HPY. But, like BBG, there’s been one extra-special club, which is Harvard. As in wealth, distinctions other than these are mostly noise.

Oh Harvard....you were doing so great with your analysis until you had to ruin it at the very end. Did they forget to teach you voting yourself "extra-special" is not " extra-special" behavior? As for the "extra-special" BBG club......none of them sent their kids to study at your " extra-special" club. Strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago and Northwestern are fine colleges but they're no kid's first choice, which by definition does NOT make them elite. If you offered 12th graders the choice between: Northwestern, UChicago, Columbia or Penn. 99% would choose Penn or Columbia. Therefore, not elite -- and their flyover geography certainly doesn't help.

Bingo!

Funny, I actually personally know two different kids who chose Northwestern over Columbia, and several UChicago kids who chose it over UPenn. They must be part of the 1%. /s

There's always going to to be some who choose NW over Cokumbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton. And this is NEWS precisely because it's unexpected. Once you look, it's probably a financial issue. No FA from HYPC - full-ride merit from NW, etc.

NW is a fine school. Its boosters are rightfully to be proud of their alma mater. And there's a place for schools like NW, RICE, Vandy, Wash, USC, BU, BC... Ivies are lottery schools. Schools just below them, less so. Even then, I’d need a back up to back ups as nothing is guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

This thread has become meaningless because of many boosters insistence their alma belongs to the club.

How do you know when a woman is beautiful? When men say the woman is beautiful, that's nice. When women sees the same woman and says she's fine - she’s beautiful - that validation is on a different level. When NW boosters say NW is elite, that's expected. That's nice - it shows school spirits. That's not a true validation, though. Until people outside NW begin to recognize as such, it hasn't yet arrived.

[Anonymous]

Ivies are a characature of themselves. They are lottery yes, because they are good schools, but the prestige and mystique is just that.

They use the same books and teach the same facts as all the other schools. And they aren't the only ones with single digit admissions rates.

And frankly a lot of coastal kids simply want to be in a different part of the county, which is why the top schools in the midwest get a lot of play. Huge demand from kids in DC/NY/Boston/LA/SF to go to Chicago or St Louis to top schools.

This is such a stupid exercise because every kid is different, and to suggest that all "top" kids only want to go to Ivies is just plain ignorant. Particularly kids going top public and independent schools who may want a different experience than the one they had in high school.

[Anonymous]

Yeah cosmopolitan genius kids are just clamoring for the provincial rust belt. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivies are a characature of themselves. They are lottery yes, because they are good schools, but the prestige and mystique is just that.

They use the same books and teach the same facts as all the other schools. And they aren't the only ones with single digit admissions rates.

And frankly a lot of coastal kids simply want to be in a different part of the county, which is why the top schools in the midwest get a lot of play. Huge demand from kids in DC/NY/Boston/LA/SF to go to Chicago or St Louis to top schools.

This is such a stupid exercise because every kid is different, and to suggest that all "top" kids only want to go to Ivies is just plain ignorant. Particularly kids going top public and independent schools who may want a different experience than the one they had in high school.

I think this thread is trafficked by people like the PP who likely never attended college and yet somehow have latched onto college rankings as a hobby.