Which colleges have majority student body of very bright kids but not brainiacs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

+1. Top schools take a lot of average students to fill their institutional buckets. The successful ones make a lot of news but 90% of top 20 students have nice, comfortable, but not distinguished lives.

[Anonymous]

UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

I am sorta fascinated by the UChicago hater. S/he has a level of personal vendetta that goes above and beyond. Truly curious to understand this person's motivation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

The more detrimental problem is that they are taking in kids with gpa lower than 3.5. Other peer schools have standards for ED admits.

[Anonymous]

“We know she doesn't belong in a MIT, Caltech, Chicago type genius schools full of high scoring geniuses…”

How do you “know” this? I would suggest state school. They have a wide range of kids and she is sure to find her place with such a diversity of test aptitudes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago needs to scrap its ED and go back to its original status as a niche school for kids who enjoy that level of academic/intellectual intensity.

No, they need the $95k private school kids and the top ones aren't applying.

Honest question: why do you hate UChicago so much?

My top 10 percent, NMSF, 1590 SAT kid is excited about attending. UChicago was always the top choice. Loved writing the quirky essay. Their older friends, who are at UChicago now, went there with similar stats and love it. It’s a hard school for non-business Econ majors. No grade inflation.

I am sorta fascinated by the UChicago hater. S/he has a level of personal vendetta that goes above and beyond. Truly curious to understand this person's motivation.

DP. The so-called “Chicago hater” is correct that Chicago does not have enough money to drop ED. Or to revert to test-mandatory, for that matter.

They’re wrong when they imply that top private-school students don’t apply. The whole situation works because the kids who are “top students” from Chicago’s POV don't have the hooks to be “top students” from the POV of other T10 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so much talk about colleges that TO, even Dartmouths with only 1/3 submitting as the rest likely scoring under 1450 if they had submitted...which colleges have a majority student body of say 1540 SAT without heavy prepping?

Our DC got 1540 with some self prep and no tutoring. We know she doesn't belong in a MIT, Caltech, Chicago type genius schools full of high scoring geniuses, but so many T30 seem to have at least 1/2 scoring under 1500. Which colleges have majority who could score in mid-1500 without tutoring and superscoring?

There’s another thread on this: absolute number of students with scores 1530+. The schools with the most are MIT Caltech Penn and Hopkins. Thats where the most brainiacs are these days. Stanford Yale Harvard Princeton were close behind.

1530 means smart, relatively quick, willing to work at the SAT's quirks, and cool under test pressure. The SAT does not test for "braniac" at all.

You are deluding yourselves if you think a T20 college wants a whole freshman class of these kids. I've gone through this process back-to-back for two years, hired several big-name college consultants, and learned what they really want.
Yes, stats at the baseline. But it's so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

+1. Top schools take a lot of average students to fill their institutional buckets. The successful ones make a lot of news but 90% of top 20 students have nice, comfortable, but not distinguished lives.

100%
Or legacy, and they'll be happy to take "average" if the family is making a seven-figure donation. Esp now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are assigning value to the SAT that isn’t true. Lots of brainiacs at many schools.

I don’t think you can tell the difference between a kid scoring a 1540 and 1400 if you meet them on the street.

OP here. Please no flame, but at our school, DD and 2 close friends who are similarly smart but not genius types scored 1530-1540 first try, minimal prep. While a true brainiac kid who has been brilliant since 1st grade scored 1600 first try, no one was surprised. Other friends told us their kids scored in the 1300s and need tutors to get up to 1450-ish. Those are the kids who always needed tutors and consistently performed a band under the 1540 kids (bc the school have different tracks for core subjects since middle school) and def under the 1600 kid. We have known all these kids since K and it's been very consistent. I disagree you can't tell the difference between a 1540 and 1400 kid, just as I can tell the difference between my 1540 kid and the 1600 kid. I have also seen kids who were happy in normal courses and got pushed by parents to get tutored into the advanced track math and chem classes and ended up having to drop back down to non-advanced track the following year.

I truly think kids do well in the track they naturally excel in but all have a chance to be very successful when they grow up if they learned in an environment where learn with peers with similar aptitudes and build confidence.

So I’m going to tell you a story about my Ivy kid.

1400 first try no prep. With a few attempts, up to 1540. It’s test prep. Whatever. Private HS.

Now at Ivy - their “brainiac” friends are in the library nonstop. Devastated they don’t get into the right business club. Devastated with choices with Greek life. Devastated by not getting the next “rung” (internships, coffee chats, etc).

Then there are other kids that are really low-key and easy-going that end up rolling with the punches. None of this makes or breaks them. Now those low-key kids (including mine) are in the ultimate student leadership positions of the Ivy and no one knows how it happened. The PE internships are just falling in their lap.

Strange tbh. Those other kids - my kids friends - intuitively have perfect stats, perfect scores, perfect college grades (which mine definitely doesn’t have) perfect everything. But they are frankly just overwhelmed by constantly seeking perfection. They almost can’t cope or deal with the fast balls that come their way.

What you think is the perfect environment for your kid may actually not be. We have been so surprised.

My kid always said they were bottom 50% of the class when they matriculated. But now? Leading everything. President of uni knows on first name basis on speed dial.

I wouldn’t over rotate on your kids perceived strengths. What you think of is a strength man being a weakness and vice versa.

You can’t over engineer this. Cream rises. Let your kid figure it out.

It all come down to EQ. The 1580, grinder, 4 research papers in high school types can find their way into the Ivies but they're not they're not the people anyone wants to spend 50 hours a week with. Smart enough, high EQ, person you want to go out with for drinks after work individual will get the job every time.

This is really last century. GenZ would never put up with this crap.

Well it's accurate. Those with EQ, those who are team players and go above and beyond and people like go far in life. Sure you need a certain level of smarts to get there but beyond that you have to be able to work well with others.

My 1220/3.5Uw/no AP kid went to a t100 struggled and found their way, graduated with 3 W and a 3.4 gpa. Had a great job immediately upon graduation and is doing well. We always knew that because everywhere they worked/volunteered always loved them and promoted them/gave them more responsibilities, because they could be counted upon. Meanwhile some of their "smarter friends" are still struggling because they are looking for the "right job" . Smarts is only a small part, the rest comes from your work ethic and what you actually do!

OK but taking a yesr or two to find a much better job pays back the cost very quickly.

Not really. Several ended up eventually with a job just like the first they were offered, except they had a 1+ year without real work experience and no pay.

Working a good job as a CS/Engineer is always better than "just waiting for the perfect job". You build and get experience at that first job. And we are talking taking a job for $85K (in WI let's say) versus wanting the $120K job in Chicago. 1 year later, I'd rather see the adult with the $85K job working their ass off and then applies to the 120K job in Chicago....that's who I'm hiring. Not the 25 yo who hasn't held a real job in their field since graduating at age 22.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

So, no one has answered. What is "doing better" post-college? Is it net worth at age 50? Lifetime W-2 income? Salary at age 30?

This whole discussion is misguided - speaking as someone who has retired from a Wall Street career at age 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

So, no one has answered. What is "doing better" post-college? Is it net worth at age 50? Lifetime W-2 income? Salary at age 30?

This whole discussion is misguided - speaking as someone who has retired from a Wall Street career at age 50.

It could mean for example their graduate school destination. Haverford top 10 may go to Harvard law school or Harvard medical school. Harvard bottom 50% may end up at lower ranked graduate schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top 10% of any school will be full of brainiacs.

Take a look at the research. Someone in the top 10% of Haverford will do better than someone in the bottom 25% at Harvard...

So, no one has answered. What is "doing better" post-college? Is it net worth at age 50? Lifetime W-2 income? Salary at age 30?

This whole discussion is misguided - speaking as someone who has retired from a Wall Street career at age 50.

It could mean for example their graduate school destination. Haverford top 10 may go to Harvard law school or Harvard medical school. Harvard bottom 50% may end up at lower ranked graduate schools.

Right, but it's so subjective. This whole discussion is pointless because there's not a standardized way of "doing better".

Example 1: I might say becoming a SWE at Google is "doing worse" than becoming an MD at Goldman in their Dallas, TX office. You might, rightly, disagree.

Example 2: So, Haverford's top 10 might go to Harvard Law, but Harvard's bottom 50% might go to KKR. No MBA needed. Right? Then the Haverford Biglaw (Latham, Kirkland) partner ends up working for the Harvard KKR MD - who is his top client and he's at his beck and call. So Haverford Biglaw makes $6MM a year and Harvard KKR MD makes $16M.

Do you see how this analysis simply fails? Obviously, the opposite could be true. But there's no guarantee. And I know people in all of the examples above. Replace Haverford with Colgate or Midd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so much talk about colleges that TO, even Dartmouths with only 1/3 submitting as the rest likely scoring under 1450 if they had submitted...which colleges have a majority student body of say 1540 SAT without heavy prepping?

Our DC got 1540 with some self prep and no tutoring. We know she doesn't belong in a MIT, Caltech, Chicago type genius schools full of high scoring geniuses, but so many T30 seem to have at least 1/2 scoring under 1500. Which colleges have majority who could score in mid-1500 without tutoring and superscoring?

Chicago is not like that anymore. It is 75% ED kids who did not have a realistic chance at ivies. Naviance shows the scores are lower than the kids who get in ivies. HW school shows the same pattern, and Groton, and many other top privates

+1 it’s because they are test optional and started gaming the system for rankings. THREE rounds of ED (0, 1 and 2). Other than Hopkins, I don’t think any of the other T10s or Ivies have more than 1 round of ED (or are SCEA).

chicago should not be t10 anymore, nor should JHU. Give it to columbia or brown or both.

Personally I think Cornell is a lot more superior than Columbia and Brown. A solid T10. All three are far better than Chicago.