Most intellectual colleges?

[Anonymous]

Swarthmore, UChicago, CalTech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore, UChicago, CalTech

CalTech is in a class all by itself, probably with MIT. No comparison with wannabes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore, UChicago, CalTech

CalTech is in a class all by itself, probably with MIT. No comparison with wannabes.

No one but CalTech wants to be CalTech, lol. And CalTech as a paradigm would represent a very odd/skewed model of intellectual life. (True of St John’s as well).

[Anonymous]

Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

Good point. Musicians generally don’t have a high income, especially in this gig economy. The problem with Chicago is that it desperately tries too hard. It’s dedinitely not like Reed or St. John’s who don’t give a hoot about the ranking game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

Good point. Musicians generally don’t have a high income, especially in this gig economy. The problem with Chicago is that it desperately tries too hard. It’s dedinitely not like Reed or St. John’s who don’t give a hoot about the ranking game.

Disagree.

Chicago has trained (and hires) amazing minds. https://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/nobel_laureates/ It is a full university. Reed, St. Johns are fine undergraduate institutions with some distinguished alums. But they have generally not made the same mark on the world, for better or worse (thinking of the UC atom bomb developers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

True of every elite school in the US, lol! We’re a culture that raises/prizes high achievers rather than intellectuals (and our college admissions process reflects that). Not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

Good point. Musicians generally don’t have a high income, especially in this gig economy. The problem with Chicago is that it desperately tries too hard. It’s dedinitely not like Reed or St. John’s who don’t give a hoot about the ranking game.

St. John’s is primarily an undergrad institution with the population of approximately 400. Pound for pound, it does very well. Its grads would be disadvantaged among scientists as it doesn’t produce science majors. But I doubt any of them would lightly go in to building atom bombs designed to destroy the humanity.

Disagree.

Chicago has trained (and hires) amazing minds. https://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/nobel_laureates/ It is a full university. Reed, St. Johns are fine undergraduate institutions with some distinguished alums. But they have generally not made the same mark on the world, for better or worse (thinking of the UC atom bomb developers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on our experience with UChicago and MIT, and that of my kids' friends and relatives, MIT and UChicago are more for high achievers than intellectuals.

That “high achiever” label is more illusion created by PR than fact. Without the Chicago PR machine, they would just return to the 50% admit rate it used to be. No one would label a school with 40-50% admit rate high hitters. They can manipulate their admit rate - but they can’t manipulate their mediocre ROI.

ROI is already a measure inversely correlated with intellectual culture. The best way to increase ROI is to send more kids to Wall Street, Business Consulting, and Law school as well as engineering. Schools sending kids for PhDs in history or philosophy or physics will always have a lower ROI.

Good point. Musicians generally don’t have a high income, especially in this gig economy. The problem with Chicago is that it desperately tries too hard. It’s dedinitely not like Reed or St. John’s who don’t give a hoot about the ranking game.

Disagree.

Chicago has trained (and hires) amazing minds. https://www.uchicago.edu/about/accolades/nobel_laureates/ It is a full university. Reed, St. Johns are fine undergraduate institutions with some distinguished alums. But they have generally not made the same mark on the world, for better or worse (thinking of the UC atom bomb developers).

St. John’s is primarily an undergrad institution with the population of approximately 400. Pound for pound, it does very well. Its grads would be disadvantaged among scientists, whether natural, physicial, or social, as it doesn’t produce majors. But I doubt any of them would lightly go in to building atom bombs designed to destroy the humanity.

[Anonymous]

Wesleyan.

[Anonymous]

Pomona

[Anonymous]

Which St. John’s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which St. John’s?

St. John’s College
Annapolis, MD
Sante Fe, NM