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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, my kid is at Brown, and her friends are so creative, intelligent and motivated. And, so diverse in talents and experiences. It's been a fantastic educational experience.

Brown has more students from the top 1% than the bottom 60% of the income spectrum. There’s no way you can call a bunch of UMC and wealthy kids “diverse in experiences.”

Socioeconomic background is only one of many forms of diversity. One can be struck by the diverse experiences of peers even if they fall into similar income brackets.

[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.

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

Except read their stories…you could replace pop music for banking and it’s almost identical. They wanted to be stars…not just pursue an artistic passion…but to become rich and famous doing it.

They would identify more with successful business people than failed artists sticking to their artistic purity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, my kid is at Brown, and her friends are so creative, intelligent and motivated. And, so diverse in talents and experiences. It's been a fantastic educational experience.

The Brown mom on DCUM is such a try-hard.

[Anonymous]

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.

Can people not have questions based on their observations of the world around him? Honestly, you can flip this around and say that T20 grads are increasingly pissed off about the decline of their precious credential and won't tolerate anyone questioning it.

Oh, have at it. Just know that your “observations” are correctly interpreted as tinged with a heavy shade of green.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say that my friends who went to top 10 schools are definitely less fun. Not that they are all stick in the muds, but just not as likely to be really silly or let life get a bit messy.

Just learned tonight that a lot of the “top” kids in DC class (senior) are all on anti-depressants. Many many kids. All going to T20, mostly Ivy.
wtf

(And my kid is also going to an Ivy so it’s not that…) what is going on?

iPhones/SM. Read “the anxious generation” eye-opening the damage they have done to a generation.

So true.

[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.

Can people not have questions based on their observations of the world around him? Honestly, you can flip this around and say that T20 grads are increasingly pissed off about the decline of their precious credential and won't tolerate anyone questioning it.

Oh, have at it. Just know that your “observations” are correctly interpreted as tinged with a heavy shade of green.

In other words, you can't have any negative opinions of "elite universities" without it being jealousy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, my kid is at Brown, and her friends are so creative, intelligent and motivated. And, so diverse in talents and experiences. It's been a fantastic educational experience.

The Brown mom on DCUM is such a try-hard.

Someone seems to have a serious case of sour grapes. All it took was sharing an observation for you to pounce, claws out.

[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.

I guess that would make OP the drone as they are the one needing reassurance for their insecurity.

[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.

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

Except read their stories…you could replace pop music for banking and it’s almost identical. They wanted to be stars…not just pursue an artistic passion…but to become rich and famous doing it.

They would identify more with successful business people than failed artists sticking to their artistic purity.

The admission process of top schools seems to select for students who are the sleaziest and the best at PR. It's rare to see state university students who have created fake charities that actually accomplish nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Except read their stories…you could replace pop music for banking and it’s almost identical. They wanted to be stars…not just pursue an artistic passion…but to become rich and famous doing it.

They would identify more with successful business people than failed artists sticking to their artistic purity.

The admission process of top schools seems to select for students who are the sleaziest and the best at PR. It's rare to see state university students who have created fake charities that actually accomplish nothing.

It’s nice that DCUm provides a safe environment for petty bourgeois types whose lives are defined largely by envy and resentment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Except read their stories…you could replace pop music for banking and it’s almost identical. They wanted to be stars…not just pursue an artistic passion…but to become rich and famous doing it.

They would identify more with successful business people than failed artists sticking to their artistic purity.

The admission process of top schools seems to select for students who are the sleaziest and the best at PR. It's rare to see state university students who have created fake charities that actually accomplish nothing.

And who have the sharpest elbows.

[Anonymous]

The Fox & the Grapes

A Fox one day spied a beautiful bunch of ripe grapes hanging from a vine trained along the branches of a tree. The grapes seemed ready to burst with juice, and the Fox's mouth watered as he gazed longingly at them.

The bunch hung from a high branch, and the Fox had to jump for it. The first time he jumped he missed it by a long way. So he walked off a short distance and took a running leap at it, only to fall short once more. Again and again he tried, but in vain.

Now he sat down and looked at the grapes in disgust.

"What a fool I am," he said. "Here I am wearing myself out to get a bunch of sour grapes that are not worth gaping for."

And off he walked very, very scornfully.

There are many who pretend to despise and belittle that which is beyond their reach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Fox & the Grapes

A Fox one day spied a beautiful bunch of ripe grapes hanging from a vine trained along the branches of a tree. The grapes seemed ready to burst with juice, and the Fox's mouth watered as he gazed longingly at them.

The bunch hung from a high branch, and the Fox had to jump for it. The first time he jumped he missed it by a long way. So he walked off a short distance and took a running leap at it, only to fall short once more. Again and again he tried, but in vain.

Now he sat down and looked at the grapes in disgust.

"What a fool I am," he said. "Here I am wearing myself out to get a bunch of sour grapes that are not worth gaping for."

And off he walked very, very scornfully.

There are many who pretend to despise and belittle that which is beyond their reach.

Now do "The Emperor Has No Clothes"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Except read their stories…you could replace pop music for banking and it’s almost identical. They wanted to be stars…not just pursue an artistic passion…but to become rich and famous doing it.

They would identify more with successful business people than failed artists sticking to their artistic purity.

The admission process of top schools seems to select for students who are the sleaziest and the best at PR. It's rare to see state university students who have created fake charities that actually accomplish nothing.

Hahahahaha. You've got some serious delusions. Just embrace what you have and run with it. No need to denigrate other kids just because your kid didn't get the admit.

[Anonymous]

a lot of insecurity on here by people who did not get into said schools