The T-20 obsession comes down to class, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. I know I should just go outside and pull some weeds or do something else more useful than participate in yet another pissing match on this board, but I'll bite.

Hard working immigrants and other disadvantaged folks can actually benefit more from a top 20 than others because going to one of them moves them up from first base to third, where most of the others who attend those schools started on third base in the first place. Study after study confirms this.

But if you're ALREADY on third base, as most DCUM families and private school families are, then no it doesn't matter in the slightest.

It would depend on what the kid wants to do. Even for those born on third base, going to a T20 matters if they want to go into finance, consulting or increasingly tech. And that typically is where a majority of graduates end up from the top 20 schools. That degree opens doors on Wall Street, FAANG and so on that are largely closed to everyone else.

Also, as others have noted, the top 20 universities are often the most affordable option for bright and accomplished MC and UMC students. The cost is often substantially lower than going to the state flagship. Add in the peer group and generally a great education and you can see why so many want to attend.

Yeah, fine, I guess. But I can't imagine raising a kid who wants to "go into finance, consulting or increasingly tech." Kids who want to do that are all about making money. If I had a 16-year-old who thought that was I'd be really disappointed. So, ok, you can have the top 20 if that's what they're about.

Do you have any kids or a teenager? I mean...Tech is a massive industry and it's ubiquitous. You don't hear about kids all that much talking about how much they want to work for an airline or any heavy industry company, but why would those be better than Tech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this seems primarily an East Coast obsession.

If you have spent time in the bay area immigrant community you wouldn't say that. Among the non-immigrant upper class private school crowd on the West Coast things seem to be a bit more chill. Very good schools or better are expected but the T20 obsession definitely isn't as strong.

My experience is that once it is basically accepted the kid has no shot at an Ivy+ or U Chicago or JHU, then the T20 obsession fades.

Maybe parents a bit more chill in accepting that it just isn't going to happen, so now let's focus on Tulane or Wake or whatever (they still tend to heavily skew towards private colleges).

Agree with this. Those at privates know where their kid generally fall and they are ok with less than T20, but still will only look at privates like Villanova, Tulane, Wake, Lehigh or LACs like Midd, Bucknell, etc. The unspoken thought is that they will not mix with those public school kids. It's definitely a bubble thing! Gosh forbid their kid exists outside of the bubble. My dd entered a private at HS and she said she's glad for her public school experience because the K-12 private lifers are too sheltered, from her observation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're setting up a strawman with 'foreclose.' For STEM careers, where you did your undergrad does matter. Georgia Tech, UT Cockrell, Caltech, Rice, MIT aren't just names on the back of your SUV. The research pipelines, faculty connections, peer networks, and venture capital ecosystems (looking at you, Stanford and MIT) shape outcomes in concrete ways, especially for students headed toward PhD programs, elite research positions, or startups.
The law school analogy isn't quite right. A strong LSAT and GPA can get you from Arizona into a T-14, and from there the law school prestige and targeted recruiting does the heavy lifting for clerkships, the academy, big law. PhD admissions, research opportunities, faculty recommendations, the institutional reputation (prestige) runs through all of it in STEM in ways the law school pipeline simply doesn't.

You are correct...but there has to be a reason when you see the undergrads at say Yale or Harvard law school, you may only see 2-3 kids who attended Arizona, but you will see literally hundreds that attended an Ivy or other Top 20 undergrad. Both Yale and Harvard law schools alone will have like 100+ kids who attended Yale undergrad and a 100+ kids who attended Harvard undergrad.

Perhaps it's because Arizona undergrads for the most part just want to practice law in Phoenix or Tucson...I don't know. I would imagine the University of Arizona law school has 100+ kids who went to University of Arizona undergrad.

+1

All of my undergraduate classmates went to law schools in that state.

All of my graduate school classmates went to law schools in that state, and the lawyers I worked with graduated from law schools in that state.

Why would someone go to Harvard Law if they want to practice in Indianapolis? They are better off an IU because of the connections.

I attended law school where I wanted to eventually practice, which was far away.

School selection is often based on geography, not credentials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this seems primarily an East Coast obsession.

If you have spent time in the bay area immigrant community you wouldn't say that. Among the non-immigrant upper class private school crowd on the West Coast things seem to be a bit more chill. Very good schools or better are expected but the T20 obsession definitely isn't as strong.

My experience is that once it is basically accepted the kid has no shot at an Ivy+ or U Chicago or JHU, then the T20 obsession fades.

Maybe parents a bit more chill in accepting that it just isn't going to happen, so now let's focus on Tulane or Wake or whatever (they still tend to heavily skew towards private colleges).

This is so true! I don’t believe many of the people that complain would be any more grounded or chill if they had a kid that was competitive for a T20. It’s easy to be that way when it’s not an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're setting up a strawman with 'foreclose.' For STEM careers, where you did your undergrad does matter. Georgia Tech, UT Cockrell, Caltech, Rice, MIT aren't just names on the back of your SUV. The research pipelines, faculty connections, peer networks, and venture capital ecosystems (looking at you, Stanford and MIT) shape outcomes in concrete ways, especially for students headed toward PhD programs, elite research positions, or startups.
The law school analogy isn't quite right. A strong LSAT and GPA can get you from Arizona into a T-14, and from there the law school prestige and targeted recruiting does the heavy lifting for clerkships, the academy, big law. PhD admissions, research opportunities, faculty recommendations, the institutional reputation (prestige) runs through all of it in STEM in ways the law school pipeline simply doesn't.

You are correct...but there has to be a reason when you see the undergrads at say Yale or Harvard law school, you may only see 2-3 kids who attended Arizona, but you will see literally hundreds that attended an Ivy or other Top 20 undergrad. Both Yale and Harvard law schools alone will have like 100+ kids who attended Yale undergrad and a 100+ kids who attended Harvard undergrad.

Perhaps it's because Arizona undergrads for the most part just want to practice law in Phoenix or Tucson...I don't know. I would imagine the University of Arizona law school has 100+ kids who went to University of Arizona undergrad.

Yale Law doesn't even have 200 total students in an entire class.

[Anonymous]

The question is really for those who couldn’t get in. If you’re good and smart enough to get in, then why not? What’s the downside?
The entire thread really reflects the jealousy and insecurity of those less competent people.

[Anonymous]

Only HYPMS matter. The rest of T20 are no different from NYU or USC. Or UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's also about anxiety about downward mobility.

Which is a defining element of being MC to UMC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only HYPMS matter. The rest of T20 are no different from NYU or USC. Or UVA.

Hello to the booster, making it clear you didn’t go to a HYPSM or any Ivy+ with this take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is really for those who couldn’t get in. If you’re good and smart enough to get in, then why not? What’s the downside?
The entire thread really reflects the jealousy and insecurity of those less competent people.

Nope. That's not the question at all. Rather, the question is just because you can get in, should you necessarily go? There are plenty of reasons not to. One, for example, is that you'll be surrounding yourself with people who forever will be obsessed with this kind of thing, and there are many people who don't want that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me this seems primarily an East Coast obsession.

If you have spent time in the bay area immigrant community you wouldn't say that. Among the non-immigrant upper class private school crowd on the West Coast things seem to be a bit more chill. Very good schools or better are expected but the T20 obsession definitely isn't as strong.

My experience is that once it is basically accepted the kid has no shot at an Ivy+ or U Chicago or JHU, then the T20 obsession fades.

Maybe parents a bit more chill in accepting that it just isn't going to happen, so now let's focus on Tulane or Wake or whatever (they still tend to heavily skew towards private colleges).

This is so true! I don’t believe many of the people that complain would be any more grounded or chill if they had a kid that was competitive for a T20. It’s easy to be that way when it’s not an option.

This. Every year it plays out, the kid wearing top-school clothing in 9th and 10th grade, parents talking about T20s or our T5 flagship public, then suddenly mid junior year after the counseling meeting it completely shifts, "Larlo would not fit at X elite or Y flagship ...we are looking for fit"...names a bunch of T50 privates and below-T20 LACs, or names a bunch of mediocre SEC schools and starts describing them as really selective for this and that nonsense niche major that no one really needs at the undergrad level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only HYPMS matter. The rest of T20 are no different from NYU or USC. Or UVA.

Hello to the booster, making it clear you didn’t go to a HYPSM or any Ivy+ with this take.

one hundred percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is really for those who couldn’t get in. If you’re good and smart enough to get in, then why not? What’s the downside?
The entire thread really reflects the jealousy and insecurity of those less competent people.

Nope. That's not the question at all. Rather, the question is just because you can get in, should you necessarily go? There are plenty of reasons not to. One, for example, is that you'll be surrounding yourself with people who forever will be obsessed with this kind of thing, and there are many people who don't want that.

I don’t think that’s true at all, plenty of Ivy alums on here have suggested better fit options for their kids. Also, awhile ago there was a long thread where people listed parent colleges and all kids. Very few Ivy alums had kids also attending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nephew had a 1500 (or higher) on the SAT, incredible grades in STEM classes, and he's an Eagle Scout. He lives in Arizona. He went to Arizona because he got a full-scholarship. One parent works for a non-profit and the other is a government scientist. He also loves to mountain bike. He has no connection to the Northeast or Northern California. Arizona made the most sense.

There are lots of students like my nephew who have the stats to enroll in the T-20, but don't, for a variety of financial and personal reasons. Many of my colleagues started at state flagships, graduated from top law schools, and won federal clerkships. None of them grew up in wealthy households. Solid middle class. It doesn't seem that not going to a T-20 for undergrad forecloses opportunities later.

Is this T-20 obsession a 1 percenter thing? Is it about impressing the law firm partners? Or the ladies at the country club? Or is it about replenishing those who think of themselves as elites?

I just started reading this board, and the sturm and drang over admission to this small set of schools is BANANAS.

There are 4000 colleges in the US alone, so I suspect the obsession with high rankings is just a lazy way to filter down the number to a more manageable amount to prioritize. Rankings are also an incorrect proxy for quality or outcomes.

Finally, there is no agreed-upon "T20". I believe that if you asked everyone what schools they mean, they are usually talking about 45 or so schools that they think have "T20" quality, regardless of the latest ranking or which ranking they consult. And some include LACs and some don't. Keep in mind the USNWR has been changing criteria based on what they care about, not what students and parents prioritize. They don't give extra points for a great location, or close proximity to a convenient city that college students enjoy being in or that enriches their learning. USNWR does not give any points whatsoever for reducing class size. They used to and so many studies suggest having classes closer to 16 students is ideal learning format. When they eliminated class size from criteria, big state colleges like the UCs (which sometimes have lectures of 500+ or even 1000+) started to rise. But my kids weren't interested in learning in monster-size lectures. They were ok with 1-3 intro classes of roughly 100-ish students, but much preferred schools with average class sizes of 20.

Everyone is different. Fit > generic and sometimes nonsensical rankings.

Right, the focus on rankings is just a shorthand lazy proxy for quality ...

I do hate the way USNWR has been ranking lately. My kid cares more about class size and access to professors than social mobility as defined by USNWR at a macro level ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is really for those who couldn’t get in. If you’re good and smart enough to get in, then why not? What’s the downside?
The entire thread really reflects the jealousy and insecurity of those less competent people.

Nope. That's not the question at all. Rather, the question is just because you can get in, should you necessarily go? There are plenty of reasons not to. One, for example, is that you'll be surrounding yourself with people who forever will be obsessed with this kind of thing, and there are many people who don't want that.

I don’t think that’s true at all, plenty of Ivy alums on here have suggested better fit options for their kids. Also, awhile ago there was a long thread where people listed parent colleges and all kids. Very few Ivy alums had kids also attending.

Of course, now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. They're not attending only because times have changed and they're not getting in, so their parents are now talking about "fit."

Be consistent at least.