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

[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

[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.

Wow, you're an idiot.

[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.

Wow, you're an idiot.

you must be a college consultant

[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”.

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

They very well may but it doesn’t stop many of them from the trying to make silly stack ranking arguments or crowing about HYPSM or WASP being superior when they know that there are 20 other schools with similar resources populated by similar students who just didn’t win the lucky ticket. There are no real differences between the schools or the students but they are desperate to claim that there are.

[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”.

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

I agree with that. I acknowledge a lot of equally worthy didn’t get the lucky ticket. However, I do think there is a difference and I know that will make some people annoyed. When we attended admit days for two schools that were ranked around 20, they did not have the same feeling of intensity the higher ranked schools did. It could be a pro or a con based on personal opinions.

[Anonymous]

You can live that status obsessed free life on the east coast too. Many millions do. There are a whole bunch of excellent colleges and universities all up and down the east coast that are sneered at and dismissed by the top-30 crowd. They provide great educations to bright, curious students who go on to live rich, rewarding lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can live that status obsessed free life on the east coast too. Many millions do. There are a whole bunch of excellent colleges and universities all up and down the east coast that are sneered at and dismissed by the top-30 crowd. They provide great educations to bright, curious students who go on to live rich, rewarding lives.

True.

[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”.

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

I agree with that. I acknowledge a lot of equally worthy didn’t get the lucky ticket. However, I do think there is a difference and I know that will make some people annoyed. When we attended admit days for two schools that were ranked around 20, they did not have the same feeling of intensity the higher ranked schools did. It could be a pro or a con based on personal opinions.

There is no difference, it does annoy me because it is absolutely incorrect. I say that as someone who attended one of the HYPSM and has a child at a WASP. I have another child at a different school with single digit acceptance rates and the education that they are getting gives no ground to mine or their siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can live that status obsessed free life on the east coast too. Many millions do. There are a whole bunch of excellent colleges and universities all up and down the east coast that are sneered at and dismissed by the top-30 crowd. They provide great educations to bright, curious students who go on to live rich, rewarding lives.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A tiny percentage of athletes make the Olympics, why do people fight to make it? A tiny percentage of musicians get record contracts, why do people fight for them? Some people are strongly motivated to be very successful. You don't need to share that mindset to understand it, it's all around you.

Well said

[Anonymous]

A few posters have extolled the virtues of an ultra-competitive environment, yet they’re probably the same parents driving their kids insane about the need to “go Ivy” and get a well-paying treadmill job in tech, finance or consulting. Then, they tell everyone else that any other way is the road to serfdom. I feel sorry for these lost and myopic souls. What they’ve encouraged their children to pursue is not a good life.