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

[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!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My honest impression is that people like OP who start threads like this are rather insecure and need regular reassurance that their lives or those of their kids will not be permanently compromised for not having attended a T10 or T20 university. It seems so obvious that there are many paths to a good life but they need a chorus of others weighing in that those attending the top schools are unimaginative drones.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. I'm in my 40s, and everyone I know who has done something really incredible as an adult -- founded companies, wrote books that sold well, designed something, etc -- all went to top 10 colleges. They are not sheep! They forged a path of their own, thought of a totally original idea, and they had the work ethic to complete it.

I think the OP is making observations about current students. Admissions is much more competitive now and the students are different.

OP needs to meet and get to know dozens from T10 schools. With kids at different ivy/T10s and friends at other ones, we know many current students. Almost all are fun and creative yet also serious driven students who pursue many things at once, and set high goals for themselves. Yet they also belong to arts and performance groups, volunteer on and off campus, and have some of the most interesting discussions. We found the majority of tour guides to be interesting students you would want to have lunch with and get to know better over deep discussion. To each their own.
We went to ivy/T10 and know many fun creative smart people from those schools as well as from many other schools that are not elite. There are creative students at many schools, all the way to the top.

You might relate more to the tour guides because you are an extremely rule oriented person yourself who puts a high value you on appealing to other’s ideas of success. Being involved in arts and music does not make you a creative out of the box thinker by the way. Some people who do those things are still thinking they are supposed to do it a certain way that has been taught by others and care deeply about doing it the “right” way. This isn’t something you can name really but I get what OP is saying. The kids I know who are headed to ivys and the like aren’t as “full of life” as some of the others I know. Not everyone but most. Some seem robotic like checking off the boxes is how life is lived.

DP. You seem to think you know alot about PP. I doubt clairvoyance is in your skill set.

[Anonymous]

Many would point out that elite schools are filled with creative people, since these schools have a very rich pipeline into the culture and entertainment industries.

Of course, the counterargument is that whatever our culture and entertainment industries appear to be producing is absolute garbage. Harvard seems to attract a lot of comedians and so on, and yet none of them are actually funny.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Brown has more students from the top 1% than the bottom 60% of the income spectrum. There’s no way you can call a bunch of UMC and wealthy kids “diverse in experiences.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many would point out that elite schools are filled with creative people, since these schools have a very rich pipeline into the culture and entertainment industries.

Of course, the counterargument is that whatever our culture and entertainment industries appear to be producing is absolute garbage. Harvard seems to attract a lot of comedians and so on, and yet none of them are actually funny.

You sound like a joy to be around…you don’t like any popular movies or tv shows and even the comedians that have enough of a national following such that they are known…you don’t find funny.

You must be the life of the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many would point out that elite schools are filled with creative people, since these schools have a very rich pipeline into the culture and entertainment industries.

Of course, the counterargument is that whatever our culture and entertainment industries appear to be producing is absolute garbage. Harvard seems to attract a lot of comedians and so on, and yet none of them are actually funny.

You sound like a joy to be around…you don’t like any popular movies or tv shows and even the comedians that have enough of a national following such that they are known…you don’t find funny.

You must be the life of the party.

You like Conan O'Brien?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many would point out that elite schools are filled with creative people, since these schools have a very rich pipeline into the culture and entertainment industries.

Of course, the counterargument is that whatever our culture and entertainment industries appear to be producing is absolute garbage. Harvard seems to attract a lot of comedians and so on, and yet none of them are actually funny.

You sound like a joy to be around…you don’t like any popular movies or tv shows and even the comedians that have enough of a national following such that they are known…you don’t find funny.

You must be the life of the party.

You like Conan O'Brien?

I think his podcasts are entertaining and his show had many funny skits.

I mean…he is one of only like 20-30 people that has ever lived on the planet since the late night talk show was invented, to get his own show…and it ran for over 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My honest impression is that people like OP who start threads like this are rather insecure and need regular reassurance that their lives or those of their kids will not be permanently compromised for not having attended a T10 or T20 university. It seems so obvious that there are many paths to a good life but they need a chorus of others weighing in that those attending the top schools are unimaginative drones.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest impression is that people like OP who start threads like this are rather insecure and need regular reassurance that their lives or those of their kids will not be permanently compromised for not having attended a T10 or T20 university. It seems so obvious that there are many paths to a good life but they need a chorus of others weighing in that those attending the top schools are unimaginative drones.

+1000

My honest impression is that parent of unimaginative drones (who are usually unimaginative drones themselves) are rather insecure and need regular reassurance that they are not unimaginative drones. It seems so obvious that all kinds of schools have pluses and minuses but they need a chorus of others weighing in that top schools are better in every way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many would point out that elite schools are filled with creative people, since these schools have a very rich pipeline into the culture and entertainment industries.

Of course, the counterargument is that whatever our culture and entertainment industries appear to be producing is absolute garbage. Harvard seems to attract a lot of comedians and so on, and yet none of them are actually funny.

You sound like a joy to be around…you don’t like any popular movies or tv shows and even the comedians that have enough of a national following such that they are known…you don’t find funny.

You must be the life of the party.

You like Conan O'Brien?

DP. I'm pretty sure Conan O'Brien went to Harvard in the 80s, back when the Harvard Lampoon was basically a feeder program for SNL and other late night shows. The Harvard of today does not have anywhere near the chaotic energy of the 80s and 90s. Stanford is the same way. It was once the fun school for nerds. And now it's a desultory pit stop for those yearning for a job at a VC firm on Sand Hill Road. Both schools made decisions to really clamp down on anything that might be remotely considered offensive or non-inclusive. And as a consequence, both schools are very lame and boring today.

I don't think that holds true of all T20s though. But Harvard and Stanford in particular no longer encourage risk-takers or unconventional thinkers. They are safe spaces for a certain kind of conformity. I'm sure other selective colleges are more interesting. I'd imagine Brown, Rice, UCLA, MIT, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Chicago are all pretty good places for bright, interesting people. And probably much better overall than lower tier schools.