Intellectual peers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the rest of the student body is super smart, I care if they are motivated and enjoy having discussions on various levels. My teens go to a lower performing public school and get frustrated when there are kids who just don’t care, don’t participate, lag during group projects. How do we find a place for our kids that have people who care about learning?

Outside of highly competitive universities (and even there slackers can exist), I’d consider Honors Colleges or other programs that require special applicatIons &/or to maintain high GPA to be in.

The problem with those is that the honors kids do not take all classes separate from the rest, nor do they have dorms,clubs, ECs separate from regular students. The overall motivation and talent pool of the entire undergrad is what matters. In addition some honors programs are very easy to get accepted to. Some from our private who were the bottom third of the high school as far as course rigor got into "honors" at non-top-5 publics but known Top-30-publics. They were the ones who struggled a lot to keep up in high school. If your kid is near the top at such a high school they will not find their people in that kind of "honors" program.

How did your kid manage to thrive at a school where a full third of their classmates were apparently struggling to keep up? If these students are truly UC Merced quality as you seem to suggest, it raises some questions about either the school's admissions standards or your assessment of student quality. After all, if you're paying premium tuition for what you describe as an excellent institution, shouldn't all the students meet a certain standard? The fact that your child succeeded despite being surrounded by these supposedly inadequate peers suggests that these bottom third students weren't quite the academic dead weight you're portraying them as. It's interesting how the same students can simultaneously validate your school's rigor when it comes to your child's achievements, yet be dismissed as unworthy peers when evaluating college rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference is confidence. For smart UMC kids getting into the best or their dream school is the culmination of everything they have worked for in their young lives. So many high stat kids pushed themselves, did extracurricular to get into college and focused on that goal. When they succeed, they have a surge of confidence, feel they will do great things and it shows in their engagement. They are thrilled to be there, they believe they deserve to be there and they are happy to be there. They will ignore shortcomings at their university because they are happy to be there.

If they fail to get into what they consider a top school and in this world most of these kids do feel they failed, it’s a blow to their confidence. If they were sure they would get into a particular college it’s a blow to their identity. Some really can set this pain aside and move on quickly but for others they mask their suffering. They loose confidence in themselves, no longer feel they can conquer the world, and may have trouble adjusting to the college they did get into and choose. If they see others less qualified going to better schools, they will wonder what is the point, they can’t win. Any shortcoming will be magnified. It seems to take a year or two for many kids to process and heal from this.

The biggest peer difference in terms of intellectual stimulation will be with peers who aren’t secretly devastated they are there.

This is definitely part of what makes it so different and I have a kid that “won” and one that didn’t in their mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse and I went to TT schools. Because the vast majority of others there were also top students, our lifelong friends who we both made in college are smart, curious, highly motivated. Most have done very well in their chosen careers. They are people for whom education is a top priority.

You will find plenty of people like this at a lower tier school. But they are not as common.

I am sure I will now get a flurry of responses telling me I am a pedigree snob. And perhaps I am. I have plenty of close friends who didn't go to these schools. I remain very close to childhood friends, all of whom went to good but not great state schools.

For me, college was a truly formative four years. I hope it is the same for my children.

you are simply wrong that there are not many smart, talented, motivated, interesting people at other schools.

The intellectual profile is basically identical at pretty much any T25 university or T15 SLAC. None are really any better than any of the others.

No

Sorry if it hurts but it’s true.

It absolutely is. If you the only differences between the populations is at the edges. The vast majority of the student bodies overlap academically and are the same. You are delusional if you believe otherwise. 60,000 kids apply to Harvard and the vast majority are qualified. Where do you think that the 58000+ who aren't admitted go to school. Wash, rinse, repeast.....the student bodies are virtually identical.
Hurts what? It’s absolutely not the same.

[Anonymous]

I am pondering all of these things for my very high stats DD. If she feels an honors college at a “lesser” school would be a great fit …even if the overall peer composition is not nearly as good as at an ivy or T10…as long as the desired courses are offered, maybe it wouldn’t be all bad to be the big fish in a small pond? After all, bc tenured positions are so hard to come by, generally the pedigree of the professor is much much higher than the actual school s/he teaches at (so professor will be ivy-league/top school super smart person that will gravitate towards super smart students).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference is confidence. For smart UMC kids getting into the best or their dream school is the culmination of everything they have worked for in their young lives. So many high stat kids pushed themselves, did extracurricular to get into college and focused on that goal. When they succeed, they have a surge of confidence, feel they will do great things and it shows in their engagement. They are thrilled to be there, they believe they deserve to be there and they are happy to be there. They will ignore shortcomings at their university because they are happy to be there.

If they fail to get into what they consider a top school and in this world most of these kids do feel they failed, it’s a blow to their confidence. If they were sure they would get into a particular college it’s a blow to their identity. Some really can set this pain aside and move on quickly but for others they mask their suffering. They loose confidence in themselves, no longer feel they can conquer the world, and may have trouble adjusting to the college they did get into and choose. If they see others less qualified going to better schools, they will wonder what is the point, they can’t win. Any shortcoming will be magnified. It seems to take a year or two for many kids to process and heal from this.

The biggest peer difference in terms of intellectual stimulation will be with peers who aren’t secretly devastated they are there.

This is why LACs with high ED rates are the secret sauce among private high school kids. When most kids chose to go there are their first and only choice, you have a group of high flying, intelligent, motivated, happy students in a small environment with low professor to student ratios.

[Anonymous]

My kids friends that are at highly selective SLACs are really dull. They might sharpen other kid’s irons but they have no sense of adventure or well-rounded perspective on life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference is confidence. For smart UMC kids getting into the best or their dream school is the culmination of everything they have worked for in their young lives. So many high stat kids pushed themselves, did extracurricular to get into college and focused on that goal. When they succeed, they have a surge of confidence, feel they will do great things and it shows in their engagement. They are thrilled to be there, they believe they deserve to be there and they are happy to be there. They will ignore shortcomings at their university because they are happy to be there.

If they fail to get into what they consider a top school and in this world most of these kids do feel they failed, it’s a blow to their confidence. If they were sure they would get into a particular college it’s a blow to their identity. Some really can set this pain aside and move on quickly but for others they mask their suffering. They loose confidence in themselves, no longer feel they can conquer the world, and may have trouble adjusting to the college they did get into and choose. If they see others less qualified going to better schools, they will wonder what is the point, they can’t win. Any shortcoming will be magnified. It seems to take a year or two for many kids to process and heal from this.

The biggest peer difference in terms of intellectual stimulation will be with peers who aren’t secretly devastated they are there.

This is definitely part of what makes it so different and I have a kid that “won” and one that didn’t in their mind.

In the 80s, when I went to a flagship I chose and I asked my friend what it was like to be at Penn, she told me that she was sick of all the people complaining about not getting into Harvard and Yale. Times have changed and people are probably more grateful now but that was my first little peek at the maladjustment that comes with being focused on exclusivity.

[Anonymous]

I swear half the people here never went to college. It’s like they read about it in a book.

[Anonymous]

There’s something to be said about the positive vibe that comes from self-selecting student bodies at flagships, larger Catholic universities and SLAC’s. My kid is at a school that seen as a “back up” for kids who aspired to the Ivies, but for my kid, the back up school was a top choice, a reach, and an unexpected happy surprise. (They did not apply to any Ivies and mostly limited their application to schools ranked below the T-15). It’s on the kid and the parents to maintain perspective and stop deriding any school as a “back up”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids friends that are at highly selective SLACs are really dull. They might sharpen other kid’s irons but they have no sense of adventure or well-rounded perspective on life.

Highly doubtful, think of all of the athletes. The dull kids are trying to get into T10s to please their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the rest of the student body is super smart, I care if they are motivated and enjoy having discussions on various levels. My teens go to a lower performing public school and get frustrated when there are kids who just don’t care, don’t participate, lag during group projects. How do we find a place for our kids that have people who care about learning?

This happens at elite schools and allegedly high-performing workplaces too.

We had an intern from MIT who ran a con on my F500 employer. Didn't do jack for six weeks. When confronted tried to blame senior employees in other departments. Stole his intern roommate's food and left town with no notice after getting a talking to from HR.

...did you even verify that they went to MIT? If not, then you 100% deserved to get fleeced considering you still think he went to MIT just because he said so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people have book sense but no common sense. I plan to send my kid to a school that has people from all walks of life - one that mimics how the real-world workplace is.

Different workplaces have different mix of people. Did your common sense tell you that?

The Ivy grads in my workplaces were no smarter or better performing than state school grads. They just thought they were. Often, they lacked the “street smarts” that other employees had.

Were they worse? If so, that proves the Ivy premium - the Ivy students who were as hard and talented workers as your state school employees ended up going somewhere better thanks to the Ivy brand, while even a full, lazy student can end up at your company thanks to the Ivy brand, whereas state school students need to be much better to get the same job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

This is so important. I went to a highly selective school, think along the lines of MIT, a very long time ago and was miserable. I can only admit this here but it was filled with grinder nerds that I didn’t fit in with. For us, we are definitely trying to find a good fit socially as well as academically for our kids.

Besides Caltech, the grinder nerds are shut out these days in favor of the quirky kids who also have strong (1550+) academics. So your kids would likely find your alma mater to be less grindy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the rest of the student body is super smart, I care if they are motivated and enjoy having discussions on various levels. My teens go to a lower performing public school and get frustrated when there are kids who just don’t care, don’t participate, lag during group projects. How do we find a place for our kids that have people who care about learning?

This happens at elite schools and allegedly high-performing workplaces too.

We had an intern from MIT who ran a con on my F500 employer. Didn't do jack for six weeks. When confronted tried to blame senior employees in other departments. Stole his intern roommate's food and left town with no notice after getting a talking to from HR.

...did you even verify that they went to MIT? If not, then you 100% deserved to get fleeced considering you still think he went to MIT just because he said so.

LOL, I believe the MIT recruiting team found him on campus during on-campus recruiting. That's how interns of that grade were usually hired. I did not personally fact check his backstory.

I'm sure he was just a smart, manipulative, pissed off and unethical person. There are plenty of those at all schools, lol. But we were shocked.

I have other stories. Like the ex-Goldman Sachs analyst MBA intern candidate who lied to my face about why he wanted a summer internship at our company. He told me personally that his mother was suffering from cancer and he wanted to stay local for the summer. We offered him the job, as he was the best qualified on paper and very personable. He went to a brand management company in Chicago instead. To this day, I wonder if his mother was really suffering from cancer...should I have fact checked that also?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the rest of the student body is super smart, I care if they are motivated and enjoy having discussions on various levels. My teens go to a lower performing public school and get frustrated when there are kids who just don’t care, don’t participate, lag during group projects. How do we find a place for our kids that have people who care about learning?

Go to a prestigious top school or a top SLAC or Reed or St. John's. Generally the students at top schools are selected for "intellectual vitality" which is exactly the trait you're looking for. You could also let them take courses at a four year uni now via DE or as a nondegree seeking student.