Why is it so hard to accept that the students at better colleges are simply better students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know this isn’t true. Look at the Harvard and UNC lawsuits. Look at TJ’s new admissions standards. Look at the criminal spotlight on rich people buying their kids spots at schools. If it was purely based on a kid being a better student, first generation, minorities, legacies, sports, etc. wouldn’t matter. They do and it means often the smartest kids are excluded somewhere because another student with non academic pros beats him out.

And…that is life. Life is not fair.

OK then we should get rid of any form of race-based preference, right? Life Is Not Fair and we should just accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know this isn’t true. Look at the Harvard and UNC lawsuits. Look at TJ’s new admissions standards. Look at the criminal spotlight on rich people buying their kids spots at schools. If it was purely based on a kid being a better student, first generation, minorities, legacies, sports, etc. wouldn’t matter. They do and it means often the smartest kids are excluded somewhere because another student with non academic pros beats him out.

And…that is life. Life is not fair.

It depends on how you define fair. No one is losing out on a great education by being turned down by an elite college. The only thing lost is bragging rights in crowds who care about that sort of stuff. I guess it's unfair if those rights are the ultimate goal, but I feel sad for anyone for whom it is.

[Anonymous]

For all the quibbling, it is accurate to say that the AVERAGE student at a highly-ranked school is better academically than the AVERAGE student at a significantly lower-ranked school. While there are students at the higher-ranked school who might have lower test scores than the top student at a lower-ranked school, that is comparing apples and oranges. If one wants to complain about legacy, URM, and athletes at better schools, one must compare them to legacy, URM, and athletes at lower-ranked schools. Again, compare apples to apples. Finally, for those students who turn down Yale for a full ride at a much lower-rated school, the case doesn’t dispute that the AVERAGE student at Yale is better academically than at the alternative institution. Instead, it just means that they’re is some, perhaps little, overlap between the best students at lower-ranked schools and the low-end of the best schools. Even then, the education at the two schools is very different.

[Anonymous]

* PP - there, not they’re.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay but why should I, as an employer, GAF who is the best student? I don’t have any jobs for studying and taking tests. I need to know who is the best project manager and best salesperson and best communicator. Mind you, I do think student quality has some overlap with the skills I’m looking for, but you’re the one talking about the “best students.”

I find the obsession over where a person spends 4 years of their life really odd. Especially in the DMV, people seem to take more about predictors of success than actual… success.

And before you accuse me of being a naive populist, I went to Northwestern.

This post nailed it. the most productive employees I have hired are all hungry. BTW sorry your football team sucked this year.

[Anonymous]

I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

[Anonymous]

The posters disputing OP’s thesis are not really addressing it. Instead, they’re mentioning one-off cases of smart kids at lower-ranked schools or someone who chose a lower-ranked school for merit aid. But, the biggest fallacy is to confuse OP’s best ACADEMIC student with the most MATERIALLY SUCCESSFUL student. Posters seem to revel in the notion that kids attending lower-ranked schools might someday “own” the smarter kids. Maybe some will, but, again, that’s a different argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The posters disputing OP’s thesis are not really addressing it. Instead, they’re mentioning one-off cases of smart kids at lower-ranked schools or someone who chose a lower-ranked school for merit aid. But, the biggest fallacy is to confuse OP’s best ACADEMIC student with the most MATERIALLY SUCCESSFUL student. Posters seem to revel in the notion that kids attending lower-ranked schools might someday “own” the smarter kids. Maybe some will, but, again, that’s a different argument.

Smart kids at lower ranked schools are not a one-off. That is the point of the dispute. Acceptance rates at the 40 or so top ranked schools are very low, and they take a lot of kids who aren't top students (no disputing this). Many more qualified students apply than are accepted. All of those tens of thousands of academically qualified kids who didn't win the lottery have to go somewhere. Also, no one applies to all 20 top schools or all 40 top schools. They try one or two in the top 20, 3 or 4 in the top 40, and then also apply to lower raked schools with higher acceptance rates so they get in somewhere. So most qualified kids do not get into the one or two top 20 schools they try, and all of them go somewhere lower ranked. So those lower ranked schools have lots and lots of kids who are just as academically qualified at the kids who did get the nod.

[Anonymous]

Maybe there is an argument to be made - but not off of how well they performed in high school.

How about measuring the results of GRE, MCAT, LSAT, PE exams?

That argument might hold water a little better.

But to answer you question directly it is because your premise so so plainly flawed that sensible people won't consider it for more than 30 seconds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before you accuse me of being a snob or an elitist, I will start by saying that I went to a pretty bad college; one that accepts students with C minus averages and whose 4-year-graduation rate is less than 20 percent. The first piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the obvious fact that we got into colleges like this in the first place. In my case, you don't even need to look at where I went to college in order to know that I was a bad student in high school; just the fact that I graduated with a B average and 6 AP credits is proof enough.

The next piece of evidence that students at worse colleges are generally worse students is the fact that the 4-year-graduate rates at these colleges are much lower. This seems like it should also be pretty self-explanatory, in that they failed to graduate in 4 years for the same reason they couldn't get into a better college. Notice that I've switched the tense to "third-person" because this doesn't apply to me; I was in the <20 percent of students who graduated in 4 years. And yet, I constantly hear excuses made for these students, namely that they have to work. Well, I had a job in college even though I didn't have to, and I still graduated on time. Also, I visited the campus of a top-ranked college with a >99% graduation rate, and saw that there was a tutoring center there where students could work and tutor other students, which means that there are plenty of students at the college who also work and graduate on time.

Also, it's much easier to graduate from these worse colleges in 4 years or less because they take all your AP credits. So the fact that students who go to worse colleges generally have a harder time graduating in 4 years even though the road to graduating on time is easier at said colleges really proves that they are worse students.

Maybe because you went to what you call " a pretty bad college" you haven't experienced that the "better colleges" accept a wide range of students. As you probably have seen is that there were highly capable students who went to your college too. So, sure, there are superstars at the better colleges but not everyone is a superstar there and frankly, I've been told by more than one person - that when they hire from those universities, the students often come with attitudes that either result in not being a fit or need to be remolded to remove entitlement. Meanwhile the stars from the solid schools at a lower rank are ready to go and ready to learn more.

[Anonymous]

Because at my state school there were students who could have gone to "better" schools but could not afford the tuition.

Being able to pay or finance a "better" school does not make you a better student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay but why should I, as an employer, GAF who is the best student? I don’t have any jobs for studying and taking tests. I need to know who is the best project manager and best salesperson and best communicator. Mind you, I do think student quality has some overlap with the skills I’m looking for, but you’re the one talking about the “best students.”

I find the obsession over where a person spends 4 years of their life really odd. Especially in the DMV, people seem to take more about predictors of success than actual… success.

And before you accuse me of being a naive populist, I went to Northwestern.

I LOVE you!!!!
THIS is exactly right on, signed T20 grad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to agree - the best employees are those who WANT to be there - not those hand picked, escorted in, and have their hands held each step of the way.

Regardless of school, those who have been handed what they have are usually less motivated and unappreciative. Interesting, huh OP?

The assumption that kids who got into the best schools are not "hungry" and have somehow been "coddled" is pretty stupid. Do you imagine every kid who attends a T20 today is like the pre-1950 stereotype "rich kid who coasted through college with a gentleman's C in every course"? The kids who get into those schools are highly motivated, aggressive strivers - i.e., exactly the kinds of people you should want to hire.

There are also highly motivated, aggressive strivers at state schools and state satellite campuses.

When I’m looking to hire, the university from which a person graduated is one of the last things I consider. I’m more interested in how a person conducts themselves during an interview. I’m also interested in relevant experiences or skills that person may have, which can come from any school.

I’m sure there are people who care about this, but I’m not one of them. You came from a top school? Great. Show me what you can do. You came from a state school? Great. Show me what you can do.

[Anonymous]

For every student at Harvard there are 8 or 9 equally qualified students who were not admitted. The schools that are 11-50 are full of students who are just as talented and accomplished and qualified. Ivy students aren’t better just luckier.

The average quality of student between the elite schools and Tier 3 schools or community colleges is obviously different, but even then there are always some very high quality students in those lower schools who would qualify for an elite level school if their circumstances were different. I clawed my way from community college to a T14 law school and a successful career. Lots of family in prison, my mom was in drugs. I was in rugs starting at age 12 (mom gave them to me), domestic violence, a history of bipolar in the family, homeless at age 23…. most students at elite schools wouldn’t survive what I survived, much less succeed. I’m tougher and more resilient and no less talented, intelligent or accomplished. Please do tell me that those lucky students are “better” than me.