“I’d rather have a happy kid at UMD than a miserable one at Harvard”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ives are actually easier to graduate. It’s the large flagship state schools that are cutthroat.

To some extent, IMO, this is true. Ivies won't let you fail because it makes their overall GPA look bad. They will do everything they can, including let you withdraw a week before finals and take an incomplete, and retake the class numerous times until you pass.

Publics won't let you do that. You either sink or swim.

Schools do not care about their "overall GPA." What they care about is "overall graduation rate."

well, if you fail a class, you might withdraw, so it ends up being the same thing. Regardless, they won't let you fail. It makes them look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IDK.. I have a friend who went to Harvard and hated every minute of it. They hated the people, and I think the weather made them unhappy, too. They were also originally from CA.

They transferred to Cal and was much happier.

Obviously, Cal is pretty prestigious, too, but I do think certain personalities wouldn't like certain types of schools.

Cal is more of a pressure cooker and the weather isn’t great either…bay area is pretty gray

? I lived in the Bay Area for over 10 years. You might be thinking of SF proper. Cal is not in SF proper. The weather in the Bay Area is gorgeous. Clearly, you have never lived there.

And yes, people do transfer out of Harvard. Granted this was many decades ago.

I've never lived in the Bay Area? Sweetie, I attended Berkeley and lived in SF after graduation. Berkeley does not have "gorgeous" weather. You might have mixed it up with Los Angeles?

Well, I lived in both the Bay Area and LA, and the Bay Area weather is much nicer. SF weather is not great, but Berkley is much nicer. Maybe you inhaled too much pot at Berkley and SF.

"Gorgeous" is subjective. I prefer Bay Area weather to LA weather (and I lived there for 25 years).

Not sure how this thread turned to the weather...but unless you hate high 70s, no humidity and constant sun (except for the rainy/marine layer season in December and January), then not sure if there is any area with better weather than Southern CA. Need little A/C and little heat.

Now...you need to live close enough to the ocean to get the pacific breezes. I am not sure what the dividing line may be, but once you travel further East it becomes oppressively hot and smoggy...but living in Santa Monica, Beach cities, Laguna, Huntington, Mission Beach...hard to beat it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you may have missed the point of that thread you cited. It seems very unlikely that anyone was trying to say that everyone who works hard enough to get into Harvard is going to be miserable.

But what's undeniable is that the assumption by many parents, students, high schools, etc. that one needs to be admitted to an elite college like Harvard in order to have a successful and happy life is steering a lot of kids toward misery. Many, many kids sacrifice sleep, healthy eating, friends, fun, etc. in pursuit of being one of the 5% who will be admitted, and they end up in poor physical and mental health when they enter whichever college they end up attending. They'll be miserable if they get into Harvard or if they end up at Maryland.

Yes, the intensity is a positive for academic and professional success, but kids need to learn the important skill of recognizing when they've reached their limits. Research is showing that 50% of kids are highly stressed out on a daily basis, and 25% have medically diagnosable depression. And that almost always follows them to college and the workforce. Is that who we want in leadership positions in the coming decades?

This NYU study might help in understanding what's going on:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01028/full

This, this, this! You are missing the nuance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VERY, VERY few people are ever going to have those two options to choose from lmaof. Harvard has a 3% acceptance rate. And very, very few DMV kids are admitted any given year. Most public DMV high schools have ZERO Harvard admits, and even those that do and the privates are usually athletes or legacy.

So this is a very funny hypothetical.

It has nothing to do with kids having a choice between those two schools. It is what comes for the years before they are even applying. The point was pushing kids too hard and prohibiting doing anything with their free time other than studying or some Ivy-approved extracurricular MAY lead to that child being miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s about the size and culture of the school. It’s Alonso about being prepared and finding a good fit with academic peers. I chose a small private school over a large public one. When I struggled freshman year, people noticed and intervened. I was around academic peers so I was challenged, but not overwhelmed and intimidated.

It is unlikely that a child who gets into a very competitive and rigorous school is going to completely burn out or flounder. All of the work they did to gain entry should have prepared them - unless it was actually the parent propping them up and doing some of the work. If a child ends up isolated and burned out, it is likely a mental health issue. I would argue that small, selective schools that naturally attract high achieving students are better prepared to monitor and intervene when students are in crisis or heading there.

This is a bizarre take. Plenty of people burn out and flounder in high intensity environments. Does it ruin their lives forever? Generally, no. But it definitely happens. I was at an elite school and just off the top of my head, I have friends who:
- burnt out/started failing classes and drinking too much and took a semester off for mental health reasons (he came back as a different major, was able to graduate on time, seems fine now)
- developed severe mental health problems and had to struggle through misdiagnosis (probably due just to age range -- she had bipolar that was incorrectly diagnosed as depression at first and that went really poorly) and eventually left the school and came back to finish her degree part time while also working over about 9 years
- suffered through severe depression in STEM grad school to eventually give up and move home with her parents for a few years to heal (she's a lawyer now)
- got into grad school but was dealing with so much diagnosed/untreated ADHD she wasn't able to complete the paperwork to actually attend the school in time and lost her place (now a high school teacher)

Those are some of the more extreme cases. I think most of us made some pretty unhealthy choices and burnt out to some degree or another. I think part of the issue was that everyone at that school was used to being top of their class and suddenly half of us were below average. We all had to find new self-identities that weren't "the smart kid" because that applied to literally everyone. We all had to learn how to work hard and study in ways we may not have done when we were younger, especially those of us coming from more rural/less competitive high schools. Most of us were able to figure it out and most of us were mostly happy but it's disingenuous to say that rigorous and competitive schools don't cause burnout.

Thanks for sharing. The PP you are responding to, along with others, seem to conflate academic skills with emotional resilence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s about the size and culture of the school. It’s Alonso about being prepared and finding a good fit with academic peers. I chose a small private school over a large public one. When I struggled freshman year, people noticed and intervened. I was around academic peers so I was challenged, but not overwhelmed and intimidated.

It is unlikely that a child who gets into a very competitive and rigorous school is going to completely burn out or flounder. All of the work they did to gain entry should have prepared them - unless it was actually the parent propping them up and doing some of the work. If a child ends up isolated and burned out, it is likely a mental health issue. I would argue that small, selective schools that naturally attract high achieving students are better prepared to monitor and intervene when students are in crisis or heading there.

This is a bizarre take. Plenty of people burn out and flounder in high intensity environments. Does it ruin their lives forever? Generally, no. But it definitely happens. I was at an elite school and just off the top of my head, I have friends who:
- burnt out/started failing classes and drinking too much and took a semester off for mental health reasons (he came back as a different major, was able to graduate on time, seems fine now)
- developed severe mental health problems and had to struggle through misdiagnosis (probably due just to age range -- she had bipolar that was incorrectly diagnosed as depression at first and that went really poorly) and eventually left the school and came back to finish her degree part time while also working over about 9 years
- suffered through severe depression in STEM grad school to eventually give up and move home with her parents for a few years to heal (she's a lawyer now)
- got into grad school but was dealing with so much diagnosed/untreated ADHD she wasn't able to complete the paperwork to actually attend the school in time and lost her place (now a high school teacher)

Those are some of the more extreme cases. I think most of us made some pretty unhealthy choices and burnt out to some degree or another. I think part of the issue was that everyone at that school was used to being top of their class and suddenly half of us were below average. We all had to find new self-identities that weren't "the smart kid" because that applied to literally everyone. We all had to learn how to work hard and study in ways we may not have done when we were younger, especially those of us coming from more rural/less competitive high schools. Most of us were able to figure it out and most of us were mostly happy but it's disingenuous to say that rigorous and competitive schools don't cause burnout.

Thanks for sharing. The PP you are responding to, along with others, seem to conflate academic skills with emotional resilence.

These posts resonate with me. I went to HYP and was happy and fine but saw a lot of people who were not. There was a thrilling feeling the first year when all the "smart kids" found each other and a community (finally!) that quickly showed a negative side: we were all just one in a sea of normal now. The kids that stood out were crazy brilliant. I wasn't and I knew it, but for whatever reason that didn't cause me to have a nervous breakdown. Maybe it's because I had already gone to a competitive high school? Or because my parents never really pushed me or any specific goal? I don't know but I didn't go through the slump that my three roommates experienced our freshman year. Most people got over it but lots of people have real crises of confidence.

If my kids have the luxury to choose, I would actually prefer that they go to small liberal arts colleges. Generalization, but I prefer the atmosphere and the community at SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s about the size and culture of the school. It’s Alonso about being prepared and finding a good fit with academic peers. I chose a small private school over a large public one. When I struggled freshman year, people noticed and intervened. I was around academic peers so I was challenged, but not overwhelmed and intimidated.

It is unlikely that a child who gets into a very competitive and rigorous school is going to completely burn out or flounder. All of the work they did to gain entry should have prepared them - unless it was actually the parent propping them up and doing some of the work. If a child ends up isolated and burned out, it is likely a mental health issue. I would argue that small, selective schools that naturally attract high achieving students are better prepared to monitor and intervene when students are in crisis or heading there.

This is a bizarre take. Plenty of people burn out and flounder in high intensity environments. Does it ruin their lives forever? Generally, no. But it definitely happens. I was at an elite school and just off the top of my head, I have friends who:
- burnt out/started failing classes and drinking too much and took a semester off for mental health reasons (he came back as a different major, was able to graduate on time, seems fine now)
- developed severe mental health problems and had to struggle through misdiagnosis (probably due just to age range -- she had bipolar that was incorrectly diagnosed as depression at first and that went really poorly) and eventually left the school and came back to finish her degree part time while also working over about 9 years
- suffered through severe depression in STEM grad school to eventually give up and move home with her parents for a few years to heal (she's a lawyer now)
- got into grad school but was dealing with so much diagnosed/untreated ADHD she wasn't able to complete the paperwork to actually attend the school in time and lost her place (now a high school teacher)

Those are some of the more extreme cases. I think most of us made some pretty unhealthy choices and burnt out to some degree or another. I think part of the issue was that everyone at that school was used to being top of their class and suddenly half of us were below average. We all had to find new self-identities that weren't "the smart kid" because that applied to literally everyone. We all had to learn how to work hard and study in ways we may not have done when we were younger, especially those of us coming from more rural/less competitive high schools. Most of us were able to figure it out and most of us were mostly happy but it's disingenuous to say that rigorous and competitive schools don't cause burnout.

Thanks for sharing. The PP you are responding to, along with others, seem to conflate academic skills with emotional resilence.

These posts resonate with me. I went to HYP and was happy and fine but saw a lot of people who were not. There was a thrilling feeling the first year when all the "smart kids" found each other and a community (finally!) that quickly showed a negative side: we were all just one in a sea of normal now. The kids that stood out were crazy brilliant. I wasn't and I knew it, but for whatever reason that didn't cause me to have a nervous breakdown. Maybe it's because I had already gone to a competitive high school? Or because my parents never really pushed me or any specific goal? I don't know but I didn't go through the slump that my three roommates experienced our freshman year. Most people got over it but lots of people have real crises of confidence.

If my kids have the luxury to choose, I would actually prefer that they go to small liberal arts colleges. Generalization, but I prefer the atmosphere and the community at SLACs.

I was happy too but I too knew at an early age I wasn't a genius. I have a bunch of siblings, all accomplished, but one of my older siblings was/is a true genius and has been mentioned by people in the field as a possible future Nobel prize winner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you may have missed the point of that thread you cited. It seems very unlikely that anyone was trying to say that everyone who works hard enough to get into Harvard is going to be miserable.

But what's undeniable is that the assumption by many parents, students, high schools, etc. that one needs to be admitted to an elite college like Harvard in order to have a successful and happy life is steering a lot of kids toward misery. Many, many kids sacrifice sleep, healthy eating, friends, fun, etc. in pursuit of being one of the 5% who will be admitted, and they end up in poor physical and mental health when they enter whichever college they end up attending. They'll be miserable if they get into Harvard or if they end up at Maryland.

Yes, the intensity is a positive for academic and professional success, but kids need to learn the important skill of recognizing when they've reached their limits. Research is showing that 50% of kids are highly stressed out on a daily basis, and 25% have medically diagnosable depression. And that almost always follows them to college and the workforce. Is that who we want in leadership positions in the coming decades?

This NYU study might help in understanding what's going on:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01028/full

The kid would be happier if they were allowed to be a normal HS student, pick their courses and ECs that they like/want, and then they can be happier at whatever school they end up at. The miserable kids are that way because of the intense pressure they have been under during MS/HS from their parents---the mentality that it's Ivy or bust and if you don't make T20 you are worthless. Can't imagine growing up with that or doing that to my kids

[Anonymous]

I have not read the thread (and will not), but I think it's a good idea to disregard any of OP's opinions about higher education after "false fallacy."

[Anonymous]

I went to HYP in the 90s. Half the kids were super smart - got there purely on academic merit - half the kids were not. I don’t know how much has changed. I suspect not that much. Given that in half the cases the kids were not quite dumb but actually in some cases were kinda dumb (I am thinking of an athlete who lived across from me who could barely write a sentence), it’s hard for me to believe any bright kid would be unable to cope at these schools (obviously they shouldn’t pursue a STEM major). With the emphasis on URM and FGLI, I am skeptical the academic caliber of students overall has improved that much. Everyone basically managed, even the kids who I felt didn’t deserve to be there academically, many of whom were my friends!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to HYP in the 90s. Half the kids were super smart - got there purely on academic merit - half the kids were not. I don’t know how much has changed. I suspect not that much. Given that in half the cases the kids were not quite dumb but actually in some cases were kinda dumb (I am thinking of an athlete who lived across from me who could barely write a sentence), it’s hard for me to believe any bright kid would be unable to cope at these schools (obviously they shouldn’t pursue a STEM major). With the emphasis on URM and FGLI, I am skeptical the academic caliber of students overall has improved that much. Everyone basically managed, even the kids who I felt didn’t deserve to be there academically, many of whom were my friends!

This…the academic merit kids tended to load up on double majors and research with professors and the other kids did the easiest majors with the least requirements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IDK.. I have a friend who went to Harvard and hated every minute of it. They hated the people, and I think the weather made them unhappy, too. They were also originally from CA.

They transferred to Cal and was much happier.

Obviously, Cal is pretty prestigious, too, but I do think certain personalities wouldn't like certain types of schools.

I hated every minute of Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class (summer between junior and senior year) when in college. I loved the attention I received senior year from the opposite sex. I hated the Basic School and the Marine Infantry Officer School -- every minute. I loved leading a Platoon and a Company. I know that this helped me get into a top 14 law school as my LSAT was on the lower end of the range. I know it helped me have my choice of biglaw firms. And I know it resonates with certain clients even today. My point is that sometimes you have to do something that you hate or at least do not like because good stuff is on the other side.

I went to a top 30 undergrad that I loved and love. Would I have rather gone to Harvard ---- yes. Did not going ruin my life ---- not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nah, this was my exact experience. I wasn’t ready for my elite university and I was a mess at graduation.

Would’ve been true even if you went to Towson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to HYP in the 90s. Half the kids were super smart - got there purely on academic merit - half the kids were not. I don’t know how much has changed. I suspect not that much. Given that in half the cases the kids were not quite dumb but actually in some cases were kinda dumb (I am thinking of an athlete who lived across from me who could barely write a sentence), it’s hard for me to believe any bright kid would be unable to cope at these schools (obviously they shouldn’t pursue a STEM major). With the emphasis on URM and FGLI, I am skeptical the academic caliber of students overall has improved that much. Everyone basically managed, even the kids who I felt didn’t deserve to be there academically, many of whom were my friends!

This…the academic merit kids tended to load up on double majors and research with professors and the other kids did the easiest majors with the least requirements

Brother got in HYP as the #1 high school track athlete in his event in the country, with 1500 SAT's to boot. He wanted a big time athletic experience along with a coach that didn't demand high mileage (needless to say, he was very talented). So he went to UNC - back when it was not as competitive as it is now. Found the academic terrain to his liking, and while diligent, did not do that much work in his math major. Phi Beta Kappa - 4.0 GPA. Ironically the prof who encouraged him in math was a visiting professor from Dartmouth. All American in his sport, he knew he had to move on from sports pretty quickly. His teammate a world class athlete went on to get a Phd and became a university chancellor at one of the largest universities in the nation (and then later a college president). It was easy for him to find the right group to hang with. Received fellowships for econ Phd - from a poor single mother home - never paid a dime of tuition in his life. Very well known investment manager today and economist. Freely admits that he would not have done as well academically at an Ivy League school or even at the school I attended (his wife went there). I went to one of the high ranking so-called prestige schools (one of two ranked in the top 10 that gives scholarships) on athletic scholarship, and while I did well, regretted not going to one of the Big 10 schools to which I was offered.I did well, but would have found a better fit socially and academically at one of those schools. The focus on prestige really is harmful. I was too immature to know better. Value and affordability matter above all else today, so perhaps things have changed.

[Anonymous]

I don't see the issue here. Someone who loves Harvard would be miserable in UMD. Kids who don't care about prestige won't apply to Harvard.