Are Ivy League Schools Becoming More or Less Popular?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why attend Penn where you have so many neurotic people from Long Island, tri state or Florida when you can attend CU boulder where there is fresh mountain air, healthy sporty attractive students in an effortless manner, ski, chillaxing etc?

This is such BS, you don’t even buy it yourself. Let’s assume your kid gets into Harvard and CU Boulder and the cost is the same. No parent in their right mind would pick CU Boulder for the fresh air…

But that’s not really an option for your kid so hence your comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those grapes were sour anyway.

Nailed it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:less popular -

the word is out that select flagship publics offer the best blend of academics and lifestyle with a large enough student body for fun.

The ivies are seen as woke and/or grindy

People who are looking for that never seriously considered Ivy League schools. Not now. Not 30 years ago.

Exactly! State schools are for MC + poor kids and kids who go to public HS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:less popular -

the word is out that select flagship publics offer the best blend of academics and lifestyle with a large enough student body for fun.

The ivies are seen as woke and/or grindy

People who are looking for that never seriously considered Ivy League schools. Not now. Not 30 years ago.

Exactly! State schools are for MC + poor kids and kids who go to public HS

LACS are the new Ivies. They skew wealthy like Ivies used to before endowments went to the moon and they needed to bring in financially needy students. Educationally and socially, they are most similar to Ivies, which are generally themselves just large LACs. All the kids from top schools who used to be able to get into Ivies (but can’t because of all the seats now allocated to URM and FG) are now absorbed by LACs. I don’t see how one can compare state schools to Ivy League schools of years past. There is nothing that resembles an Ivy League school when 50-90 pct of the class hails from one state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

The argument is that a kid who went to say Bowdoin or Michigan OOS 30 years ago was not usually of the same caliber academically as a kid who went to Yale. Now that difference has become much smaller. It’s a supply demand thing. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers, there used to be 1000 elite students (basically similar aptitude) applying to colleges and the Ivies etc had 1000 seats. Now there are 2000 elite students and 1100 seats. So there is more overflow into the other schools. The difference between a Hamilton kid and a Brown kid was big in 1995. Now there really isn’t one.

No that wasn’t the argument. The argument is that Ivy League students are being dumbed down. That’s the explanation for the lack of a gap.

Your take might be true a limited number of SLACs. But hey if it makes you feel better about your Grinnell or Hamilton kid by all means stay in your fantasyland.

It was a combination. Due to affluence and demographics, we have more supply of “elite” students. Due to DEI, we have more seats (half?) at Ivy League and all top schools allocated to kids for non-meritocratic reasons. So it’s like musical chairs. More kids are playing and there are fewer seats. The result is the Ivies cannot absorb all the elite students and they flow down to schools historically seen as second tier. As a result the difference in the quality of the student body at second tier now is pretty minor if it exists at all. 30 years ago the kid who got 1500 would get into Yale and the kid who got 1240 would get into Colby. Today it is the kid who got 1540 gets into Yale and the kid who got 1500 gets into Colby. Do you understand?

Anyone who has been through this process realizes this when you see which kids land where and why. For the most part the kids from high income backgrounds going to ivies as opposed to the next level down are athletes, legacies or otherwise hooked.

You assume your kid is elite because they’re upper middle class and white. The fact that your kid attends Hamilton doesn’t make it true.

I literally know these kids. The ones who got into Ivies this year, the ones who landed at “second tier.” The difference isn’t huge, largely a function of the usual bs (sports, hooks, legacy, etc). They are all excellent students with high scores.

Oh that changes everything. You “know” these kids.

Your kids attend some other kids safety school. Live with it.

Pretty nasty…. Yeah I have known these kids since they were in diapers. Some made it into Ivies, some excellent schools a notch below in selectivity. Do I think that the kid who was considered the best student and got 1600 but didn’t make Ivy (no hooks) and is going to T30 school is no longer an “elite” student who now has reduced prospects on a bright future? No I don’t.

What is messed up is that their are actually people out there, like you, who view success in college admissions as the definitive judgment on a person’s worth.

For the most part I believe the kids who did make it into Ivy schools worked extremely hard to make that possible (music, sports, plus grades) and deserved it. Their work ethic will continue to propel them so long as they don’t burn out, which is a thing

it would be interesting to see what the delta is between

white Ivy acceptances vs the t30 acceptances

Asian Ivy acceptences vs t30 cohort

Black and Latino Ivy vs black and Latino t30

Jewish Ivy acceptances vs wustl/Emory/Tulane

Which group has the largest observable gaps between cohorts and which has the smallest

So nice of you to make explicit what all these other posters are dancing around

The popularity and meritocratic nature of a college is inversely related to the number of brown people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why attend Penn where you have so many neurotic people from Long Island, tri state or Florida when you can attend CU boulder where there is fresh mountain air, healthy sporty attractive students in an effortless manner, ski, chillaxing etc?

Tell me you’re an anti-Semite without saying you’re an anti-Semite.

I didn’t know trump was Jewish. Everything i wrote described trump (penn alum) and trump types.

You are the antisemite for jumping to conclusions

Who mentioned Trump?

You said neurotic, Long Island, Tri-state and Florida. Gee what can that mean? And you picked the most Jewish Ivy.

Then you contrasted it with a Coors commercial by randomly comparing it to Boulder, evoking images of healthy Aryans at play in the mountains.

We may be neurotic and non-sporty but we ain’t stupid!

Those are all trump descriptors

He literally is Long Island (queens is on Long Island), from the tri state and now from Florida and he went to Penn!

More like Woody Allen descriptors

Woody Allen is a Penn alum and has Florida ties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why attend Penn where you have so many neurotic people from Long Island, tri state or Florida when you can attend CU boulder where there is fresh mountain air, healthy sporty attractive students in an effortless manner, ski, chillaxing etc?

Tell me you’re an anti-Semite without saying you’re an anti-Semite.

I didn’t know trump was Jewish. Everything i wrote described trump (penn alum) and trump types.

You are the antisemite for jumping to conclusions

Who mentioned Trump?

You said neurotic, Long Island, Tri-state and Florida. Gee what can that mean? And you picked the most Jewish Ivy.

Then you contrasted it with a Coors commercial by randomly comparing it to Boulder, evoking images of healthy Aryans at play in the mountains.

We may be neurotic and non-sporty but we ain’t stupid!

Those are all trump descriptors

He literally is Long Island (queens is on Long Island), from the tri state and now from Florida and he went to Penn!

More like Woody Allen descriptors

Woody Allen is a Penn alum and has Florida ties?

Neurotic, Long Island, NY area, Florida, Penn are all Jewish indicators

I have heard Trump called many things but never neurotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

The argument is that a kid who went to say Bowdoin or Michigan OOS 30 years ago was not usually of the same caliber academically as a kid who went to Yale. Now that difference has become much smaller. It’s a supply demand thing. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers, there used to be 1000 elite students (basically similar aptitude) applying to colleges and the Ivies etc had 1000 seats. Now there are 2000 elite students and 1100 seats. So there is more overflow into the other schools. The difference between a Hamilton kid and a Brown kid was big in 1995. Now there really isn’t one.

No that wasn’t the argument. The argument is that Ivy League students are being dumbed down. That’s the explanation for the lack of a gap.

Your take might be true a limited number of SLACs. But hey if it makes you feel better about your Grinnell or Hamilton kid by all means stay in your fantasyland.

It was a combination. Due to affluence and demographics, we have more supply of “elite” students. Due to DEI, we have more seats (half?) at Ivy League and all top schools allocated to kids for non-meritocratic reasons. So it’s like musical chairs. More kids are playing and there are fewer seats. The result is the Ivies cannot absorb all the elite students and they flow down to schools historically seen as second tier. As a result the difference in the quality of the student body at second tier now is pretty minor if it exists at all. 30 years ago the kid who got 1500 would get into Yale and the kid who got 1240 would get into Colby. Today it is the kid who got 1540 gets into Yale and the kid who got 1500 gets into Colby. Do you understand?

Anyone who has been through this process realizes this when you see which kids land where and why. For the most part the kids from high income backgrounds going to ivies as opposed to the next level down are athletes, legacies or otherwise hooked.

You assume your kid is elite because they’re upper middle class and white. The fact that your kid attends Hamilton doesn’t make it true.

I literally know these kids. The ones who got into Ivies this year, the ones who landed at “second tier.” The difference isn’t huge, largely a function of the usual bs (sports, hooks, legacy, etc). They are all excellent students with high scores.

Oh that changes everything. You “know” these kids.

Your kids attend some other kids safety school. Live with it.

Pretty nasty…. Yeah I have known these kids since they were in diapers. Some made it into Ivies, some excellent schools a notch below in selectivity. Do I think that the kid who was considered the best student and got 1600 but didn’t make Ivy (no hooks) and is going to T30 school is no longer an “elite” student who now has reduced prospects on a bright future? No I don’t.

What is messed up is that their are actually people out there, like you, who view success in college admissions as the definitive judgment on a person’s worth.

For the most part I believe the kids who did make it into Ivy schools worked extremely hard to make that possible (music, sports, plus grades) and deserved it. Their work ethic will continue to propel them so long as they don’t burn out, which is a thing

it would be interesting to see what the delta is between

white Ivy acceptances vs the t30 acceptances

Asian Ivy acceptences vs t30 cohort

Black and Latino Ivy vs black and Latino t30

Jewish Ivy acceptances vs wustl/Emory/Tulane

Which group has the largest observable gaps between cohorts and which has the smallest

So nice of you to make explicit what all these other posters are dancing around

The popularity and meritocratic nature of a college is inversely related to the number of brown people.

Dumb it down for me. Is the idea that kids now don’t really even want Ivy because they don’t want to be surrounded by angry URMs and FGs (steeped in privilege and oppression narratives) who don’t really deserve to be there in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

The argument is that a kid who went to say Bowdoin or Michigan OOS 30 years ago was not usually of the same caliber academically as a kid who went to Yale. Now that difference has become much smaller. It’s a supply demand thing. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers, there used to be 1000 elite students (basically similar aptitude) applying to colleges and the Ivies etc had 1000 seats. Now there are 2000 elite students and 1100 seats. So there is more overflow into the other schools. The difference between a Hamilton kid and a Brown kid was big in 1995. Now there really isn’t one.

No that wasn’t the argument. The argument is that Ivy League students are being dumbed down. That’s the explanation for the lack of a gap.

Your take might be true a limited number of SLACs. But hey if it makes you feel better about your Grinnell or Hamilton kid by all means stay in your fantasyland.

It was a combination. Due to affluence and demographics, we have more supply of “elite” students. Due to DEI, we have more seats (half?) at Ivy League and all top schools allocated to kids for non-meritocratic reasons. So it’s like musical chairs. More kids are playing and there are fewer seats. The result is the Ivies cannot absorb all the elite students and they flow down to schools historically seen as second tier. As a result the difference in the quality of the student body at second tier now is pretty minor if it exists at all. 30 years ago the kid who got 1500 would get into Yale and the kid who got 1240 would get into Colby. Today it is the kid who got 1540 gets into Yale and the kid who got 1500 gets into Colby. Do you understand?

Anyone who has been through this process realizes this when you see which kids land where and why. For the most part the kids from high income backgrounds going to ivies as opposed to the next level down are athletes, legacies or otherwise hooked.

You assume your kid is elite because they’re upper middle class and white. The fact that your kid attends Hamilton doesn’t make it true.

I literally know these kids. The ones who got into Ivies this year, the ones who landed at “second tier.” The difference isn’t huge, largely a function of the usual bs (sports, hooks, legacy, etc). They are all excellent students with high scores.

Oh that changes everything. You “know” these kids.

Your kids attend some other kids safety school. Live with it.

Pretty nasty…. Yeah I have known these kids since they were in diapers. Some made it into Ivies, some excellent schools a notch below in selectivity. Do I think that the kid who was considered the best student and got 1600 but didn’t make Ivy (no hooks) and is going to T30 school is no longer an “elite” student who now has reduced prospects on a bright future? No I don’t.

What is messed up is that their are actually people out there, like you, who view success in college admissions as the definitive judgment on a person’s worth.

For the most part I believe the kids who did make it into Ivy schools worked extremely hard to make that possible (music, sports, plus grades) and deserved it. Their work ethic will continue to propel them so long as they don’t burn out, which is a thing

it would be interesting to see what the delta is between

white Ivy acceptances vs the t30 acceptances

Asian Ivy acceptences vs t30 cohort

Black and Latino Ivy vs black and Latino t30

Jewish Ivy acceptances vs wustl/Emory/Tulane

Which group has the largest observable gaps between cohorts and which has the smallest

So nice of you to make explicit what all these other posters are dancing around

The popularity and meritocratic nature of a college is inversely related to the number of brown people.

Dumb it down for me. Is the idea that kids now don’t really even want Ivy because they don’t want to be surrounded by angry URMs and FGs (steeped in privilege and oppression narratives) who don’t really deserve to be there in the first place?

Seems like you’ve got the dumb part down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

The argument is that a kid who went to say Bowdoin or Michigan OOS 30 years ago was not usually of the same caliber academically as a kid who went to Yale. Now that difference has become much smaller. It’s a supply demand thing. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers, there used to be 1000 elite students (basically similar aptitude) applying to colleges and the Ivies etc had 1000 seats. Now there are 2000 elite students and 1100 seats. So there is more overflow into the other schools. The difference between a Hamilton kid and a Brown kid was big in 1995. Now there really isn’t one.

No that wasn’t the argument. The argument is that Ivy League students are being dumbed down. That’s the explanation for the lack of a gap.

Your take might be true a limited number of SLACs. But hey if it makes you feel better about your Grinnell or Hamilton kid by all means stay in your fantasyland.

It was a combination. Due to affluence and demographics, we have more supply of “elite” students. Due to DEI, we have more seats (half?) at Ivy League and all top schools allocated to kids for non-meritocratic reasons. So it’s like musical chairs. More kids are playing and there are fewer seats. The result is the Ivies cannot absorb all the elite students and they flow down to schools historically seen as second tier. As a result the difference in the quality of the student body at second tier now is pretty minor if it exists at all. 30 years ago the kid who got 1500 would get into Yale and the kid who got 1240 would get into Colby. Today it is the kid who got 1540 gets into Yale and the kid who got 1500 gets into Colby. Do you understand?

Anyone who has been through this process realizes this when you see which kids land where and why. For the most part the kids from high income backgrounds going to ivies as opposed to the next level down are athletes, legacies or otherwise hooked.

This is a very good interpretation of the current elite college landscape.

Do you think there are any changes trickling down to the t75-t50 level colleges? What is the impact amongst the rest of the field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

The argument is that a kid who went to say Bowdoin or Michigan OOS 30 years ago was not usually of the same caliber academically as a kid who went to Yale. Now that difference has become much smaller. It’s a supply demand thing. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers, there used to be 1000 elite students (basically similar aptitude) applying to colleges and the Ivies etc had 1000 seats. Now there are 2000 elite students and 1100 seats. So there is more overflow into the other schools. The difference between a Hamilton kid and a Brown kid was big in 1995. Now there really isn’t one.

No that wasn’t the argument. The argument is that Ivy League students are being dumbed down. That’s the explanation for the lack of a gap.

Your take might be true a limited number of SLACs. But hey if it makes you feel better about your Grinnell or Hamilton kid by all means stay in your fantasyland.

It was a combination. Due to affluence and demographics, we have more supply of “elite” students. Due to DEI, we have more seats (half?) at Ivy League and all top schools allocated to kids for non-meritocratic reasons. So it’s like musical chairs. More kids are playing and there are fewer seats. The result is the Ivies cannot absorb all the elite students and they flow down to schools historically seen as second tier. As a result the difference in the quality of the student body at second tier now is pretty minor if it exists at all. 30 years ago the kid who got 1500 would get into Yale and the kid who got 1240 would get into Colby. Today it is the kid who got 1540 gets into Yale and the kid who got 1500 gets into Colby. Do you understand?

Anyone who has been through this process realizes this when you see which kids land where and why. For the most part the kids from high income backgrounds going to ivies as opposed to the next level down are athletes, legacies or otherwise hooked.

This is a very good interpretation of the current elite college landscape.

Do you think there are any changes trickling down to the t75-t50 level colleges? What is the impact amongst the rest of the field?

Thanks. It’s really just economics 101. There is a compression of talent at the top now. Yes I think 50-75 definitely affected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:less popular -

the word is out that select flagship publics offer the best blend of academics and lifestyle with a large enough student body for fun.

The ivies are seen as woke and/or grindy

People who are looking for that never seriously considered Ivy League schools. Not now. Not 30 years ago.

Exactly! State schools are for MC + poor kids and kids who go to public HS

LACS are the new Ivies. They skew wealthy like Ivies used to before endowments went to the moon and they needed to bring in financially needy students. Educationally and socially, they are most similar to Ivies, which are generally themselves just large LACs. All the kids from top schools who used to be able to get into Ivies (but can’t because of all the seats now allocated to URM and FG) are now absorbed by LACs. I don’t see how one can compare state schools to Ivy League schools of years past. There is nothing that resembles an Ivy League school when 50-90 pct of the class hails from one state.

I don't think so. Everyone knows what Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are. The percentage of people, both here and globally, who have heard of Pomona, Carleton, and Grinnell is tiny. And you can say whatever about the undergrads who go to HYP, but no one doubts that their graduate and professional schools are among the best in the world. HYP do have an academic reputation that will never be touched by LACS. To be genuinely regarded as elite, there has to be substance. No one is getting a PhD or a medical degree from Middlebury or other LACS. They're specialized little old-timey clubs. And beyond the top 5 or so, they're pretty easy to get into, particularly for those applying ED. Applicants aren't competing with the best and brightest from around the world.

As others have noted, there are far more smart and very accomplished students today than there were thirty years ago. And many students want to study engineering. Or CS. Ivy League schools, with the exception of Cornell, are typically not strong in STEM fields. So there's both bigger absolute demand and demand for different things. The smart science kid that might have gone to Yale thirty years ago is today more likely to be interested in Michigan or Carnegie Mellon. Higher numbers of smart kids with more varied interests have simply expanded the list of schools people regard as elite from the Ivies to something much bigger - MIT, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, Notre Dame, Michigan, CMU, UCLA, Hopkins.

And that list will continue to expand as bright, ambitious students are dispersed through more and more schools. Student quality is ultimately what matters. And there are good students at Georgetown, USC, UVA, UNC, Emory, Texas, Georgia Tech and others. And some are going to Canada like McGill and U of Toronto. And some are going to the UK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:less popular -

the word is out that select flagship publics offer the best blend of academics and lifestyle with a large enough student body for fun.

The ivies are seen as woke and/or grindy

People who are looking for that never seriously considered Ivy League schools. Not now. Not 30 years ago.

Exactly! State schools are for MC + poor kids and kids who go to public HS

LACS are the new Ivies. They skew wealthy like Ivies used to before endowments went to the moon and they needed to bring in financially needy students. Educationally and socially, they are most similar to Ivies, which are generally themselves just large LACs. All the kids from top schools who used to be able to get into Ivies (but can’t because of all the seats now allocated to URM and FG) are now absorbed by LACs. I don’t see how one can compare state schools to Ivy League schools of years past. There is nothing that resembles an Ivy League school when 50-90 pct of the class hails from one state.

I don't think so. Everyone knows what Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are. The percentage of people, both here and globally, who have heard of Pomona, Carleton, and Grinnell is tiny. And you can say whatever about the undergrads who go to HYP, but no one doubts that their graduate and professional schools are among the best in the world. HYP do have an academic reputation that will never be touched by LACS. To be genuinely regarded as elite, there has to be substance. No one is getting a PhD or a medical degree from Middlebury or other LACS. They're specialized little old-timey clubs. And beyond the top 5 or so, they're pretty easy to get into, particularly for those applying ED. Applicants aren't competing with the best and brightest from around the world.

As others have noted, there are far more smart and very accomplished students today than there were thirty years ago. And many students want to study engineering. Or CS. Ivy League schools, with the exception of Cornell, are typically not strong in STEM fields. So there's both bigger absolute demand and demand for different things. The smart science kid that might have gone to Yale thirty years ago is today more likely to be interested in Michigan or Carnegie Mellon. Higher numbers of smart kids with more varied interests have simply expanded the list of schools people regard as elite from the Ivies to something much bigger - MIT, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, Notre Dame, Michigan, CMU, UCLA, Hopkins.

And that list will continue to expand as bright, ambitious students are dispersed through more and more schools. Student quality is ultimately what matters. And there are good students at Georgetown, USC, UVA, UNC, Emory, Texas, Georgia Tech and others. And some are going to Canada like McGill and U of Toronto. And some are going to the UK

I think that is the point. Ivy League schools at the undergraduate level are at their core not big stem research universities. They are liberal arts schools with some engineering and professional stuff at the larger ones. They have always been kind of finishing schools for upper middle class and wealthy kids. Now that they are broadening their audience (DEI) and things are generally more competitive, the original clientele is getting squeezed out and finding a home in the LACs. Collectively the top 30 LACs are about the size of the Ivy League (maybe not counting some of the Penn and Cornell professional schools)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivies used to have a monopoly or close to it in the smartest kids, so it was a useful signal, but nowadays the gap between these elite schools and so called second tier schools is very narrow. Just look at standardized test data. Plus there is the recognition that while half the class at Ivies are top notch students, the other half are hooked, beneficiaries of woke policies, etc.

For example, the intellectual gap between the average Ivy League student and the average SLAC student is minor at this point. Thirty years ago it was more significant.

How stupid are you? Do you know how many recruited athletes are at SLACs? You think they don’t have DEI? I mean make an argument but try one that isn’t so dumb.

The argument is that a kid who went to say Bowdoin or Michigan OOS 30 years ago was not usually of the same caliber academically as a kid who went to Yale. Now that difference has become much smaller. It’s a supply demand thing. To illustrate with hypothetical numbers, there used to be 1000 elite students (basically similar aptitude) applying to colleges and the Ivies etc had 1000 seats. Now there are 2000 elite students and 1100 seats. So there is more overflow into the other schools. The difference between a Hamilton kid and a Brown kid was big in 1995. Now there really isn’t one.

No that wasn’t the argument. The argument is that Ivy League students are being dumbed down. That’s the explanation for the lack of a gap.

Your take might be true a limited number of SLACs. But hey if it makes you feel better about your Grinnell or Hamilton kid by all means stay in your fantasyland.

It was a combination. Due to affluence and demographics, we have more supply of “elite” students. Due to DEI, we have more seats (half?) at Ivy League and all top schools allocated to kids for non-meritocratic reasons. So it’s like musical chairs. More kids are playing and there are fewer seats. The result is the Ivies cannot absorb all the elite students and they flow down to schools historically seen as second tier. As a result the difference in the quality of the student body at second tier now is pretty minor if it exists at all. 30 years ago the kid who got 1500 would get into Yale and the kid who got 1240 would get into Colby. Today it is the kid who got 1540 gets into Yale and the kid who got 1500 gets into Colby. Do you understand?

Anyone who has been through this process realizes this when you see which kids land where and why. For the most part the kids from high income backgrounds going to ivies as opposed to the next level down are athletes, legacies or otherwise hooked.

This is a very good interpretation of the current elite college landscape.

Do you think there are any changes trickling down to the t75-t50 level colleges? What is the impact amongst the rest of the field?

Thanks. It’s really just economics 101. There is a compression of talent at the top now. Yes I think 50-75 definitely affected.

“ Anyone who has been through this process realizes this when you see which kids land where and why. For the most part the kids from high income backgrounds going to ivies as opposed to the next level down are athletes, legacies or otherwise hooked.”

Anybody who has been through the college process knows that LACs have a huge percentage of athletes, legacies and hooked kids. What they don’t really have is non-white kids, so that’s really your point - that’s why you think all these kids are smart and talented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to MIT 30 years ago and took a couple classes at Harvard. I didn't think the Harvard kids were especially impressive. I think MIT admission rate was in the 35% range, so not especially impressive although IME more self selecting for a mathy brain, not just a rich-ish brain.

In the 30 years since that time, I've met a million smart people and the idea that the smartest people are from HYP is laughable. Maybe you work in an industry that doesn't attract smart people

I had people like you in our class. And we thought you were dumb.

Tell me you didn't go to Harvard without telling me you didn't go to Harvard

Tell me you’re incredibly insecure without telling me you’re incredibly insecure.