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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed, but do you really think this was a result of the administration attempting to crack down on anything offensive or non-inclusive? My sense is that these institutions are simply tracking larger changes in the capitalist western societies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.

DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).
Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n

I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.

DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).

I can tell many here did not actually go to HYPS despite claiming to be from said schools.


Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n

I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.

DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).

I can tell many here did not actually go to HYPS despite claiming to be from said schools.


Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n

I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).

[Anonymous]

Based on the responses on here, I question if those who went to HYPS actually went there. A lot of poorly reasoned superficial shit takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed, but do you really think this was a result of the administration attempting to crack down on anything offensive or non-inclusive? My sense is that these institutions are simply tracking larger changes in the capitalist western societies.

I think money is the big driver of Harvard and Stanford's embrace of the lame and boring. Since the 90s, finance and tech have been extremely lucrative career choices. And Harvard and Stanford are the brass rings for those choosing that path. Roughly 60 percent of Harvard grads go into finance, consulting or tech. I'm sure Stanford is similar. And that attracts a certain kind of 18 year old, a teenager that really values money and conventional measures of success. Not future comedy writers or other disrupters. The young Conan O'Briens of today are not going to Harvard or Stanford.

But there was also a top-down mandate to get rid of all that once made these schools interesting. Stanford for instance banished the Outdoor House because it didn't attract enough people of color. They also got rid of the Italian House, the French House, and other theme residences explicitly because DEI and all that. In the end, it led to an oppressive environment where everyone is walking on egg shells and fearful of committing micro aggressions. So... not an interesting place anymore. Everyone is very, very timid now. Anyone looking for late night discussions about philosophy or religion or politics or art should not go to Harvard or Stanford. And I say that as someone with a long family history at Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed, but do you really think this was a result of the administration attempting to crack down on anything offensive or non-inclusive? My sense is that these institutions are simply tracking larger changes in the capitalist western societies.

I think money is the big driver of Harvard and Stanford's embrace of the lame and boring. Since the 90s, finance and tech have been extremely lucrative career choices. And Harvard and Stanford are the brass rings for those choosing that path. Roughly 60 percent of Harvard grads go into finance, consulting or tech. I'm sure Stanford is similar. And that attracts a certain kind of 18 year old, a teenager that really values money and conventional measures of success. Not future comedy writers or other disrupters. The young Conan O'Briens of today are not going to Harvard or Stanford.

But there was also a top-down mandate to get rid of all that once made these schools interesting. Stanford for instance banished the Outdoor House because it didn't attract enough people of color. They also got rid of the Italian House, the French House, and other theme residences explicitly because DEI and all that. In the end, it led to an oppressive environment where everyone is walking on egg shells and fearful of committing micro aggressions. So... not an interesting place anymore. Everyone is very, very timid now. Anyone looking for late night discussions about philosophy or religion or politics or art should not go to Harvard or Stanford. And I say that as someone with a long family history at Stanford.

NP here but I agree that these changes just track larger trends in society. I think nearly every college, from Stanford to community college, has seen reduced intellectual curiosity. Now college kids are more likely to view school as a way to make money (makes sense given the exorbitant cost of college, even at state schools) and spend their free time scrolling through their phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.

DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).
Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n

I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.

Every successful person is a grinder type…including people like Taylor Swift, Dave Grohl, The Beatles…heck, read the Motley Crue book…they were grinders as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. A thread about how kids at state schools were dullards would be equally wrong. Deciding that a whole class of people are boring based on where they went to school is going to be wrong in all cases in my experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.

DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).
Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n

I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.

Every successful person is a grinder type…including people like Taylor Swift, Dave Grohl, The Beatles…heck, read the Motley Crue book…they were grinders as well.

But what are they grinding toward? That’s really the question.

[Anonymous]

so much envy here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.

DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).
Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n

I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.

Every successful person is a grinder type…including people like Taylor Swift, Dave Grohl, The Beatles…heck, read the Motley Crue book…they were grinders as well.

But what are they grinding toward? That’s really the question.

Does it matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.

DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).
Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n

I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.

Every successful person is a grinder type…including people like Taylor Swift, Dave Grohl, The Beatles…heck, read the Motley Crue book…they were grinders as well.

Inspiration and hard work to pursue an artistic passion vs. extrinsically motivated conformists packaging themselves to be societal machine cogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HYPS alum as well and have conducted admissions interviews. I think part of the problem is so many of these kids ARE brilliant and interesting but have been told that they must excel at a sport, volunteer, lead a club, start a charity, know what they want to study. Of course kids who are packaged for success as if it’s a formula aren’t always as passionate or interesting because they’ve never felt completely free to just explore and figure out what their interests really are. This isn’t true for every kid but it certainly is for some.

Since this is anonymous, why don't people just say where they went to school? I went to stanford and I have to say my classmates and recent freshmen were all well rounded. California vibe probably helps.

DD graduated from Stanford two years ago and did not have the same experience. Found that many of her classmates were uber-competitive grinder types. Very heavily focused on STEM, and many of her classmates looked down on her for wanting to pursue a career in the arts. I wish she went somewhere like Brown or Wesleyan.

Of course, Stanford is a great school for many students. Just not a good fit for certain folks.

Bizarre take. If a school is full of competitive people, no the atmosphere is high pressure not enjoyable (unless you are a sadist).
Your daughter is likely the exception. Majority like it:

https://tableau.stanford.edu/t/IRDS/views/SeniorSurveyPublicDashboards/SeniorSurveyResults?%3Aembed=y&%3Atoolbar=n

I think this supports that poster's point. If most students are uber-competitive grinder types, then it follows that they would like their school if that's the dominant ethos.

Every successful person is a grinder type…including people like Taylor Swift, Dave Grohl, The Beatles…heck, read the Motley Crue book…they were grinders as well.

But what are they grinding toward? That’s really the question.

Does it matter?

I think so. It’s true that success in anything requires hard work. But hard work can mean lots of different things, be approached in disparate ways, and have varied effects on the people around you.

[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.

+1