Why does college prestige matter to you? Rank these reasons.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just happy that people aren’t putting 3 at the top. There’s too many PhDs coming out of the Ivy league, let alone the rest of the T50, to even begin suggesting that there’s some extreme difference in education. Unless your kid is on the bounds and is highly highly intelligent (like top 0.001%) where they need specialized/accelerated instruction to the level of grad school near freshman year, you’re probably receiving a very similar education to others.

Even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities

Cite?

https://math.cornell.edu/lower-level-courses (scroll to bottom)

https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~allenk/courses/14/2230/

Compre this to the freshman math options at most other lower ranked schools (e.g. any VA school besides UVA)

I don't think this is true.

DP. Why do you doubt it? The most elite schools are known for having more challenging coursework, stem and humanities. Any professor will tell you that. Professors have written about it. Not cornell, but one student of ours takes second semester calculus at a different ivy versus one taking the equivalent at a non-flagship in VA: they are night and day. They both are equivalent to BC calc, are the “regular “ versions (the ivy has an even more difficult proof based version) and they cover almost the same topics, yet the ivy has several topics not in the state school curriculum, and the psets /quizzes/exams are much different, with the ivy much more difficult . For people who study math or are in mathematics-heavy fields, it is not subtle how much harder the ivy is. I do not have one at UVA to know where uva falls on the spectrum of difficulty.

Where is the actual evidence?

The commonness of extremely rigorous proof-based math courses intended for first semester students at top universities, compared to their rarity elsewhere. Just about every T20 has one.

You can also look at the finals for the lowest level, easiest math courses (which are often several levels below the most rigorous freshman classes):

Precalc final at Princeton: https://exams.math.princeton.edu/syllabus/mat103/precalculus

One-semester combined calc 1 and 2 final at MIT: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-01sc-single-variable-calculus-fall-2010/pages/final-exam/

Calc 2 final at Princeton: https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/104/F02ans.pdf

DP. We reviewed syllabi when our first was applying to colleges, at the urging of our college professor family member who has taught at T10s and T55-60. The course offerings are more rigorous, indeed as pointed out by other posters above and on other threads , at almost all T20s. Not sure why this is surprising to anyone. The student body makeup skews much further to the top-1% students; these students are the future of intellectual thought in whatever fields they choose. Of course the top schools need these courses, and their “regular “ intro courses are also more rigorous. The vast majority of professors are about the same—it is the student level that determines how hard the professors can push the pace and depth of coursework

You'd be surprised by how underwhelming the math talent is at most T20s. It's just that Princeton swallows all the students interested in math academia and MIT the competitive math students. Harvard has math geniuses, but they're 2% of the math students. The rest are very very average.

surprise!!! Many students aren't going into math or stem. My son scored 5s on all science and math AP exams and does equally as well in STEM--but zero desire to major in it. T10s definitely provide an advantage in his program.

Agree the stem obsession is strange on Dcum. Many brilliant top1% kids pick other fields. And end up in great careers and/or top professional schools.
T10s provide a large advantage to all majors.

My take as a 50+ year old woman with undergrad and grad degrees in STEM- working in the field for over 50 years is it’s a bunch of liberal arts/lawyers/lobbyists/comm majors just so astounded that their kids can do well in STEM, especially girl parents. It’s like they never could do high math and science and think their kids are geniuses.

Our public school system —starting in elementary is very STEM focused. It did get most kids interested in (which is good)- but they did sacrifice a lot of reasoning, verbal, social sciences, arts, etc.

IMO, a truly educated person is well-read and strong in all areas—not just a computer or stem nerd.

My kids are strong in STEM like me, and very strong in all subjects. They have zero desire for computer science or engineering and it seems every single kid in their class is headed for those areas.

There are many very lucrative as well as high paying outside of STEM. It’s getting hard to get jobs now with a CS degree given the glut of CS graduates.

DC's faculty at a top LAC had a recent conversation about the overabundance of STEM applicants and difficulties with finding good humanities students, because so many are falling between the cracks of schools trying to push STEM coursework and being punished for being "bad" or mediocre students. The faculty are consideringn adding a creative writing supplement and ignoring math SAT scores if it means having students who can write out of a tin hat.

[Anonymous]

It matters for my child's future. UVA has nothing to offer for real UMC families. It is great if you want to go into menial careers like engineering or accounting. DC needs a fulfilling career that doesn't just run you stir crazy to make money for others. It has been successful for his siblings who are at Yale and Stanford. I recognize the importance of public education for the lower class and social mobility purposes and that's wonderful for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) Status symbol that reflects intellect and ambition

2) Networking opportunities for graduate school, jobs, and more

3) Quality of education that includes instruction from noted academics

4) Recruiting opportunities, including Wall Street and high-end consulting companies

5) Family tradition to go to a particular school or type of school

6) Student quality, including smarts, wealth, celebrity, and more

Priority number one peer fit

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just happy that people aren’t putting 3 at the top. There’s too many PhDs coming out of the Ivy league, let alone the rest of the T50, to even begin suggesting that there’s some extreme difference in education. Unless your kid is on the bounds and is highly highly intelligent (like top 0.001%) where they need specialized/accelerated instruction to the level of grad school near freshman year, you’re probably receiving a very similar education to others.

Even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities

Cite?

https://math.cornell.edu/lower-level-courses (scroll to bottom)

https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~allenk/courses/14/2230/

Compre this to the freshman math options at most other lower ranked schools (e.g. any VA school besides UVA)

I don't think this is true.

DP. Why do you doubt it? The most elite schools are known for having more challenging coursework, stem and humanities. Any professor will tell you that. Professors have written about it. Not cornell, but one student of ours takes second semester calculus at a different ivy versus one taking the equivalent at a non-flagship in VA: they are night and day. They both are equivalent to BC calc, are the “regular “ versions (the ivy has an even more difficult proof based version) and they cover almost the same topics, yet the ivy has several topics not in the state school curriculum, and the psets /quizzes/exams are much different, with the ivy much more difficult . For people who study math or are in mathematics-heavy fields, it is not subtle how much harder the ivy is. I do not have one at UVA to know where uva falls on the spectrum of difficulty.

Where is the actual evidence?

The commonness of extremely rigorous proof-based math courses intended for first semester students at top universities, compared to their rarity elsewhere. Just about every T20 has one.

You can also look at the finals for the lowest level, easiest math courses (which are often several levels below the most rigorous freshman classes):

Precalc final at Princeton: https://exams.math.princeton.edu/syllabus/mat103/precalculus

One-semester combined calc 1 and 2 final at MIT: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-01sc-single-variable-calculus-fall-2010/pages/final-exam/

Calc 2 final at Princeton: https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/104/F02ans.pdf

DP. We reviewed syllabi when our first was applying to colleges, at the urging of our college professor family member who has taught at T10s and T55-60. The course offerings are more rigorous, indeed as pointed out by other posters above and on other threads , at almost all T20s. Not sure why this is surprising to anyone. The student body makeup skews much further to the top-1% students; these students are the future of intellectual thought in whatever fields they choose. Of course the top schools need these courses, and their “regular “ intro courses are also more rigorous. The vast majority of professors are about the same—it is the student level that determines how hard the professors can push the pace and depth of coursework

You'd be surprised by how underwhelming the math talent is at most T20s. It's just that Princeton swallows all the students interested in math academia and MIT the competitive math students. Harvard has math geniuses, but they're 2% of the math students. The rest are very very average.

surprise!!! Many students aren't going into math or stem. My son scored 5s on all science and math AP exams and does equally as well in STEM--but zero desire to major in it. T10s definitely provide an advantage in his program.

Agree the stem obsession is strange on Dcum. Many brilliant top1% kids pick other fields. And end up in great careers and/or top professional schools.
T10s provide a large advantage to all majors.

My take as a 50+ year old woman with undergrad and grad degrees in STEM- working in the field for over 50 years is it’s a bunch of liberal arts/lawyers/lobbyists/comm majors just so astounded that their kids can do well in STEM, especially girl parents. It’s like they never could do high math and science and think their kids are geniuses.

Our public school system —starting in elementary is very STEM focused. It did get most kids interested in (which is good)- but they did sacrifice a lot of reasoning, verbal, social sciences, arts, etc.

IMO, a truly educated person is well-read and strong in all areas—not just a computer or stem nerd.

My kids are strong in STEM like me, and very strong in all subjects. They have zero desire for computer science or engineering and it seems every single kid in their class is headed for those areas.

There are many very lucrative as well as high paying outside of STEM. It’s getting hard to get jobs now with a CS degree given the glut of CS graduates.

DC's faculty at a top LAC had a recent conversation about the overabundance of STEM applicants and difficulties with finding good humanities students, because so many are falling between the cracks of schools trying to push STEM coursework and being punished for being "bad" or mediocre students. The faculty are consideringn adding a creative writing supplement and ignoring math SAT scores if it means having students who can write out of a tin hat.

There is no shortage of STEM centric kids who can write extremely well yet choose a stem field, and humanities/writing superstars who aced all the hardest stem APs and did post-calcBC math in HS and yet, chose humanities. And wow I met these people when I was in professional school too. There are plenty. The highest concentration of these great at almost everything students are at T15s and such, and many have intense ECs in unrelated areas. The pool os deep. Ivies and the like can choose all. None of the top schools have to lower math SAT bars to get “good writers”. Please. That is as ridiculous as the posters who say kids at the top with straight As and straight 5s are academic drones. You can tell these posters do not have experience in highly academic high schools or colleges, and they do not have (unhooked) children who are in the rarified pool ivies seek.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just happy that people aren’t putting 3 at the top. There’s too many PhDs coming out of the Ivy league, let alone the rest of the T50, to even begin suggesting that there’s some extreme difference in education. Unless your kid is on the bounds and is highly highly intelligent (like top 0.001%) where they need specialized/accelerated instruction to the level of grad school near freshman year, you’re probably receiving a very similar education to others.

Even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities

Cite?

https://math.cornell.edu/lower-level-courses (scroll to bottom)

https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~allenk/courses/14/2230/

Compre this to the freshman math options at most other lower ranked schools (e.g. any VA school besides UVA)

I don't think this is true.

DP. Why do you doubt it? The most elite schools are known for having more challenging coursework, stem and humanities. Any professor will tell you that. Professors have written about it. Not cornell, but one student of ours takes second semester calculus at a different ivy versus one taking the equivalent at a non-flagship in VA: they are night and day. They both are equivalent to BC calc, are the “regular “ versions (the ivy has an even more difficult proof based version) and they cover almost the same topics, yet the ivy has several topics not in the state school curriculum, and the psets /quizzes/exams are much different, with the ivy much more difficult . For people who study math or are in mathematics-heavy fields, it is not subtle how much harder the ivy is. I do not have one at UVA to know where uva falls on the spectrum of difficulty.

Where is the actual evidence?

The commonness of extremely rigorous proof-based math courses intended for first semester students at top universities, compared to their rarity elsewhere. Just about every T20 has one.

You can also look at the finals for the lowest level, easiest math courses (which are often several levels below the most rigorous freshman classes):

Precalc final at Princeton: https://exams.math.princeton.edu/syllabus/mat103/precalculus

One-semester combined calc 1 and 2 final at MIT: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-01sc-single-variable-calculus-fall-2010/pages/final-exam/

Calc 2 final at Princeton: https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/104/F02ans.pdf

DP. We reviewed syllabi when our first was applying to colleges, at the urging of our college professor family member who has taught at T10s and T55-60. The course offerings are more rigorous, indeed as pointed out by other posters above and on other threads , at almost all T20s. Not sure why this is surprising to anyone. The student body makeup skews much further to the top-1% students; these students are the future of intellectual thought in whatever fields they choose. Of course the top schools need these courses, and their “regular “ intro courses are also more rigorous. The vast majority of professors are about the same—it is the student level that determines how hard the professors can push the pace and depth of coursework

You'd be surprised by how underwhelming the math talent is at most T20s. It's just that Princeton swallows all the students interested in math academia and MIT the competitive math students. Harvard has math geniuses, but they're 2% of the math students. The rest are very very average.

surprise!!! Many students aren't going into math or stem. My son scored 5s on all science and math AP exams and does equally as well in STEM--but zero desire to major in it. T10s definitely provide an advantage in his program.

Agree the stem obsession is strange on Dcum. Many brilliant top1% kids pick other fields. And end up in great careers and/or top professional schools.
T10s provide a large advantage to all majors.

My take as a 50+ year old woman with undergrad and grad degrees in STEM- working in the field for over 50 years is it’s a bunch of liberal arts/lawyers/lobbyists/comm majors just so astounded that their kids can do well in STEM, especially girl parents. It’s like they never could do high math and science and think their kids are geniuses.

Our public school system —starting in elementary is very STEM focused. It did get most kids interested in (which is good)- but they did sacrifice a lot of reasoning, verbal, social sciences, arts, etc.

IMO, a truly educated person is well-read and strong in all areas—not just a computer or stem nerd.

My kids are strong in STEM like me, and very strong in all subjects. They have zero desire for computer science or engineering and it seems every single kid in their class is headed for those areas.

There are many very lucrative as well as high paying outside of STEM. It’s getting hard to get jobs now with a CS degree given the glut of CS graduates.

DC's faculty at a top LAC had a recent conversation about the overabundance of STEM applicants and difficulties with finding good humanities students, because so many are falling between the cracks of schools trying to push STEM coursework and being punished for being "bad" or mediocre students. The faculty are consideringn adding a creative writing supplement and ignoring math SAT scores if it means having students who can write out of a tin hat.

There is no shortage of STEM centric kids who can write extremely well yet choose a stem field, and humanities/writing superstars who aced all the hardest stem APs and did post-calcBC math in HS and yet, chose humanities. And wow I met these people when I was in professional school too. There are plenty. The highest concentration of these great at almost everything students are at T15s and such, and many have intense ECs in unrelated areas. The pool os deep. Ivies and the like can choose all. None of the top schools have to lower math SAT bars to get “good writers”. Please. That is as ridiculous as the posters who say kids at the top with straight As and straight 5s are academic drones. You can tell these posters do not have experience in highly academic high schools or colleges, and they do not have (unhooked) children who are in the rarified pool ivies seek.

Please direct this data you have to the faculty and admissions department of a major LAC, whose recent pull had 80% stem applicants. It's easy to have this take when you don't know any of the facts and just make DCUM assumptions, as per usual.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just happy that people aren’t putting 3 at the top. There’s too many PhDs coming out of the Ivy league, let alone the rest of the T50, to even begin suggesting that there’s some extreme difference in education. Unless your kid is on the bounds and is highly highly intelligent (like top 0.001%) where they need specialized/accelerated instruction to the level of grad school near freshman year, you’re probably receiving a very similar education to others.

Even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities

Cite?

https://math.cornell.edu/lower-level-courses (scroll to bottom)

https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~allenk/courses/14/2230/

Compre this to the freshman math options at most other lower ranked schools (e.g. any VA school besides UVA)

I don't think this is true.

DP. Why do you doubt it? The most elite schools are known for having more challenging coursework, stem and humanities. Any professor will tell you that. Professors have written about it. Not cornell, but one student of ours takes second semester calculus at a different ivy versus one taking the equivalent at a non-flagship in VA: they are night and day. They both are equivalent to BC calc, are the “regular “ versions (the ivy has an even more difficult proof based version) and they cover almost the same topics, yet the ivy has several topics not in the state school curriculum, and the psets /quizzes/exams are much different, with the ivy much more difficult . For people who study math or are in mathematics-heavy fields, it is not subtle how much harder the ivy is. I do not have one at UVA to know where uva falls on the spectrum of difficulty.

Where is the actual evidence?

The commonness of extremely rigorous proof-based math courses intended for first semester students at top universities, compared to their rarity elsewhere. Just about every T20 has one.

You can also look at the finals for the lowest level, easiest math courses (which are often several levels below the most rigorous freshman classes):

Precalc final at Princeton: https://exams.math.princeton.edu/syllabus/mat103/precalculus

One-semester combined calc 1 and 2 final at MIT: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-01sc-single-variable-calculus-fall-2010/pages/final-exam/

Calc 2 final at Princeton: https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/104/F02ans.pdf

DP. We reviewed syllabi when our first was applying to colleges, at the urging of our college professor family member who has taught at T10s and T55-60. The course offerings are more rigorous, indeed as pointed out by other posters above and on other threads , at almost all T20s. Not sure why this is surprising to anyone. The student body makeup skews much further to the top-1% students; these students are the future of intellectual thought in whatever fields they choose. Of course the top schools need these courses, and their “regular “ intro courses are also more rigorous. The vast majority of professors are about the same—it is the student level that determines how hard the professors can push the pace and depth of coursework

You'd be surprised by how underwhelming the math talent is at most T20s. It's just that Princeton swallows all the students interested in math academia and MIT the competitive math students. Harvard has math geniuses, but they're 2% of the math students. The rest are very very average.

surprise!!! Many students aren't going into math or stem. My son scored 5s on all science and math AP exams and does equally as well in STEM--but zero desire to major in it. T10s definitely provide an advantage in his program.

Agree the stem obsession is strange on Dcum. Many brilliant top1% kids pick other fields. And end up in great careers and/or top professional schools.
T10s provide a large advantage to all majors.

My take as a 50+ year old woman with undergrad and grad degrees in STEM- working in the field for over 50 years is it’s a bunch of liberal arts/lawyers/lobbyists/comm majors just so astounded that their kids can do well in STEM, especially girl parents. It’s like they never could do high math and science and think their kids are geniuses.

Our public school system —starting in elementary is very STEM focused. It did get most kids interested in (which is good)- but they did sacrifice a lot of reasoning, verbal, social sciences, arts, etc.

IMO, a truly educated person is well-read and strong in all areas—not just a computer or stem nerd.

My kids are strong in STEM like me, and very strong in all subjects. They have zero desire for computer science or engineering and it seems every single kid in their class is headed for those areas.

There are many very lucrative as well as high paying outside of STEM. It’s getting hard to get jobs now with a CS degree given the glut of CS graduates.

DC's faculty at a top LAC had a recent conversation about the overabundance of STEM applicants and difficulties with finding good humanities students, because so many are falling between the cracks of schools trying to push STEM coursework and being punished for being "bad" or mediocre students. The faculty are consideringn adding a creative writing supplement and ignoring math SAT scores if it means having students who can write out of a tin hat.

There is no shortage of STEM centric kids who can write extremely well yet choose a stem field, and humanities/writing superstars who aced all the hardest stem APs and did post-calcBC math in HS and yet, chose humanities. And wow I met these people when I was in professional school too. There are plenty. The highest concentration of these great at almost everything students are at T15s and such, and many have intense ECs in unrelated areas. The pool os deep. Ivies and the like can choose all. None of the top schools have to lower math SAT bars to get “good writers”. Please. That is as ridiculous as the posters who say kids at the top with straight As and straight 5s are academic drones. You can tell these posters do not have experience in highly academic high schools or colleges, and they do not have (unhooked) children who are in the rarified pool ivies seek.

STEM drones everywhere in h3ll hole California though

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just happy that people aren’t putting 3 at the top. There’s too many PhDs coming out of the Ivy league, let alone the rest of the T50, to even begin suggesting that there’s some extreme difference in education. Unless your kid is on the bounds and is highly highly intelligent (like top 0.001%) where they need specialized/accelerated instruction to the level of grad school near freshman year, you’re probably receiving a very similar education to others.

Even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities

Cite?

https://math.cornell.edu/lower-level-courses (scroll to bottom)

https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~allenk/courses/14/2230/

Compre this to the freshman math options at most other lower ranked schools (e.g. any VA school besides UVA)

I don't think this is true.

DP. Why do you doubt it? The most elite schools are known for having more challenging coursework, stem and humanities. Any professor will tell you that. Professors have written about it. Not cornell, but one student of ours takes second semester calculus at a different ivy versus one taking the equivalent at a non-flagship in VA: they are night and day. They both are equivalent to BC calc, are the “regular “ versions (the ivy has an even more difficult proof based version) and they cover almost the same topics, yet the ivy has several topics not in the state school curriculum, and the psets /quizzes/exams are much different, with the ivy much more difficult . For people who study math or are in mathematics-heavy fields, it is not subtle how much harder the ivy is. I do not have one at UVA to know where uva falls on the spectrum of difficulty.

Where is the actual evidence?

The commonness of extremely rigorous proof-based math courses intended for first semester students at top universities, compared to their rarity elsewhere. Just about every T20 has one.

You can also look at the finals for the lowest level, easiest math courses (which are often several levels below the most rigorous freshman classes):

Precalc final at Princeton: https://exams.math.princeton.edu/syllabus/mat103/precalculus

One-semester combined calc 1 and 2 final at MIT: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-01sc-single-variable-calculus-fall-2010/pages/final-exam/

Calc 2 final at Princeton: https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/104/F02ans.pdf

DP. We reviewed syllabi when our first was applying to colleges, at the urging of our college professor family member who has taught at T10s and T55-60. The course offerings are more rigorous, indeed as pointed out by other posters above and on other threads , at almost all T20s. Not sure why this is surprising to anyone. The student body makeup skews much further to the top-1% students; these students are the future of intellectual thought in whatever fields they choose. Of course the top schools need these courses, and their “regular “ intro courses are also more rigorous. The vast majority of professors are about the same—it is the student level that determines how hard the professors can push the pace and depth of coursework

You'd be surprised by how underwhelming the math talent is at most T20s. It's just that Princeton swallows all the students interested in math academia and MIT the competitive math students. Harvard has math geniuses, but they're 2% of the math students. The rest are very very average.

surprise!!! Many students aren't going into math or stem. My son scored 5s on all science and math AP exams and does equally as well in STEM--but zero desire to major in it. T10s definitely provide an advantage in his program.

Agree the stem obsession is strange on Dcum. Many brilliant top1% kids pick other fields. And end up in great careers and/or top professional schools.
T10s provide a large advantage to all majors.

My take as a 50+ year old woman with undergrad and grad degrees in STEM- working in the field for over 50 years is it’s a bunch of liberal arts/lawyers/lobbyists/comm majors just so astounded that their kids can do well in STEM, especially girl parents. It’s like they never could do high math and science and think their kids are geniuses.

Our public school system —starting in elementary is very STEM focused. It did get most kids interested in (which is good)- but they did sacrifice a lot of reasoning, verbal, social sciences, arts, etc.

IMO, a truly educated person is well-read and strong in all areas—not just a computer or stem nerd.

My kids are strong in STEM like me, and very strong in all subjects. They have zero desire for computer science or engineering and it seems every single kid in their class is headed for those areas.

There are many very lucrative as well as high paying outside of STEM. It’s getting hard to get jobs now with a CS degree given the glut of CS graduates.

DC's faculty at a top LAC had a recent conversation about the overabundance of STEM applicants and difficulties with finding good humanities students, because so many are falling between the cracks of schools trying to push STEM coursework and being punished for being "bad" or mediocre students. The faculty are consideringn adding a creative writing supplement and ignoring math SAT scores if it means having students who can write out of a tin hat.

There is no shortage of STEM centric kids who can write extremely well yet choose a stem field, and humanities/writing superstars who aced all the hardest stem APs and did post-calcBC math in HS and yet, chose humanities. And wow I met these people when I was in professional school too. There are plenty. The highest concentration of these great at almost everything students are at T15s and such, and many have intense ECs in unrelated areas. The pool os deep. Ivies and the like can choose all. None of the top schools have to lower math SAT bars to get “good writers”. Please. That is as ridiculous as the posters who say kids at the top with straight As and straight 5s are academic drones. You can tell these posters do not have experience in highly academic high schools or colleges, and they do not have (unhooked) children who are in the rarified pool ivies seek.

Oh great another sanctimonious racist who wants to tell us all about their "unhooked" kids. GTFO you pig

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prestige does not matter to me as a parent. Just want a great education that leads to a good job.

+2. I also have not seen "prestige" really result in any of these "reasons" listed. What does matter? Wealth and connections of the student's families.

I went to an ivy with no weakth and no connections, and met many who were from similar backgrounds. Trust me that it was the school’s premiere reputation that landed me at a top law school and my pellgrant friend at a top med school. It is a completely different world. My 18 year old self had no idea the doors that would fly open just because of where I was. Faculty made calls for me. My kid is at a different ivy and entering a niche field and faculty are fostering connections to summer internships. The advantage cannot be overstated. Truly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It matters for my child's future. UVA has nothing to offer for real UMC families. It is great if you want to go into menial careers like engineering or accounting. DC needs a fulfilling career that doesn't just run you stir crazy to make money for others. It has been successful for his siblings who are at Yale and Stanford. I recognize the importance of public education for the lower class and social mobility purposes and that's wonderful for them.

wtf? What is the fulfilling career of which you speak?

Why does your kid need to attend college at all if you are a “real” UMC family?

[Anonymous]

This forum is going down the drain..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This forum is going down the drain..

The initial premise is not great. People care about prestige, because they like impressing others. How people go about justifying that are diverse, but this is ultimately the reason why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It matters for my child's future. UVA has nothing to offer for real UMC families. It is great if you want to go into menial careers like engineering or accounting. DC needs a fulfilling career that doesn't just run you stir crazy to make money for others. It has been successful for his siblings who are at Yale and Stanford. I recognize the importance of public education for the lower class and social mobility purposes and that's wonderful for them.

What in the actual heck? I do not have one at UVA but come on it is not “menial” careers only? Just under half of my medical group went to UVA undergrad. The rest of the MDs went to other T25s. We all have the same 250k contract with bonus options to cross 300k. UVA has excellent outcomes. You are clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prestige does not matter to me as a parent. Just want a great education that leads to a good job.

+2. I also have not seen "prestige" really result in any of these "reasons" listed. What does matter? Wealth and connections of the student's families.

I went to an ivy with no weakth and no connections, and met many who were from similar backgrounds. Trust me that it was the school’s premiere reputation that landed me at a top law school and my pellgrant friend at a top med school. It is a completely different world. My 18 year old self had no idea the doors that would fly open just because of where I was. Faculty made calls for me. My kid is at a different ivy and entering a niche field and faculty are fostering connections to summer internships. The advantage cannot be overstated. Truly.

Ok probably true but hopefully you agree T25 including Uva are not significantly different from T10

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just happy that people aren’t putting 3 at the top. There’s too many PhDs coming out of the Ivy league, let alone the rest of the T50, to even begin suggesting that there’s some extreme difference in education. Unless your kid is on the bounds and is highly highly intelligent (like top 0.001%) where they need specialized/accelerated instruction to the level of grad school near freshman year, you’re probably receiving a very similar education to others.

Even a standard freshman course like math 2230 at Cornell will exceed the level of rigor of any freshman math course at most lower ranked universities

Cite?

https://math.cornell.edu/lower-level-courses (scroll to bottom)

https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~allenk/courses/14/2230/

Compre this to the freshman math options at most other lower ranked schools (e.g. any VA school besides UVA)

I don't think this is true.

DP. Why do you doubt it? The most elite schools are known for having more challenging coursework, stem and humanities. Any professor will tell you that. Professors have written about it. Not cornell, but one student of ours takes second semester calculus at a different ivy versus one taking the equivalent at a non-flagship in VA: they are night and day. They both are equivalent to BC calc, are the “regular “ versions (the ivy has an even more difficult proof based version) and they cover almost the same topics, yet the ivy has several topics not in the state school curriculum, and the psets /quizzes/exams are much different, with the ivy much more difficult . For people who study math or are in mathematics-heavy fields, it is not subtle how much harder the ivy is. I do not have one at UVA to know where uva falls on the spectrum of difficulty.

Where is the actual evidence?

The commonness of extremely rigorous proof-based math courses intended for first semester students at top universities, compared to their rarity elsewhere. Just about every T20 has one.

You can also look at the finals for the lowest level, easiest math courses (which are often several levels below the most rigorous freshman classes):

Precalc final at Princeton: https://exams.math.princeton.edu/syllabus/mat103/precalculus

One-semester combined calc 1 and 2 final at MIT: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-01sc-single-variable-calculus-fall-2010/pages/final-exam/

Calc 2 final at Princeton: https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/104/F02ans.pdf

DP. We reviewed syllabi when our first was applying to colleges, at the urging of our college professor family member who has taught at T10s and T55-60. The course offerings are more rigorous, indeed as pointed out by other posters above and on other threads , at almost all T20s. Not sure why this is surprising to anyone. The student body makeup skews much further to the top-1% students; these students are the future of intellectual thought in whatever fields they choose. Of course the top schools need these courses, and their “regular “ intro courses are also more rigorous. The vast majority of professors are about the same—it is the student level that determines how hard the professors can push the pace and depth of coursework

You'd be surprised by how underwhelming the math talent is at most T20s. It's just that Princeton swallows all the students interested in math academia and MIT the competitive math students. Harvard has math geniuses, but they're 2% of the math students. The rest are very very average.

surprise!!! Many students aren't going into math or stem. My son scored 5s on all science and math AP exams and does equally as well in STEM--but zero desire to major in it. T10s definitely provide an advantage in his program.

Agree the stem obsession is strange on Dcum. Many brilliant top1% kids pick other fields. And end up in great careers and/or top professional schools.
T10s provide a large advantage to all majors.

My take as a 50+ year old woman with undergrad and grad degrees in STEM- working in the field for over 50 years is it’s a bunch of liberal arts/lawyers/lobbyists/comm majors just so astounded that their kids can do well in STEM, especially girl parents. It’s like they never could do high math and science and think their kids are geniuses.

Our public school system —starting in elementary is very STEM focused. It did get most kids interested in (which is good)- but they did sacrifice a lot of reasoning, verbal, social sciences, arts, etc.

IMO, a truly educated person is well-read and strong in all areas—not just a computer or stem nerd.

My kids are strong in STEM like me, and very strong in all subjects. They have zero desire for computer science or engineering and it seems every single kid in their class is headed for those areas.

There are many very lucrative as well as high paying outside of STEM. It’s getting hard to get jobs now with a CS degree given the glut of CS graduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College prestige does not matter to me as a parent. Just want a great education that leads to a good job.

+2. I also have not seen "prestige" really result in any of these "reasons" listed. What does matter? Wealth and connections of the student's families.

I went to an ivy with no weakth and no connections, and met many who were from similar backgrounds. Trust me that it was the school’s premiere reputation that landed me at a top law school and my pellgrant friend at a top med school. It is a completely different world. My 18 year old self had no idea the doors that would fly open just because of where I was. Faculty made calls for me. My kid is at a different ivy and entering a niche field and faculty are fostering connections to summer internships. The advantage cannot be overstated. Truly.

Ok probably true but hopefully you agree T25 including Uva are not significantly different from T10

UVA is a commoner school and should be nowhere near Princeton Harvard uchicago, etc. that’s a Virginia brain issue