In Minnesota we love the University of Minnesota, Carlton, St. Thomas and St. Olaf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Tons of rich Californians at SMU and TCU"

-yep. SMU & TCU seem to be taking the spot of the old USC as a landing spot for a certain type of kid. ASU & U of A to some extent as well.

SMU and TCU take most kids from our CA high school. They are not particularly selective and they offer merit.

So wealthy and not competitive. Per the OP. Understood the assignment.

Anonymous wrote:"Tons of rich Californians at SMU and TCU"

-yep. SMU & TCU seem to be taking the spot of the old USC as a landing spot for a certain type of kid. ASU & U of A to some extent as well.

SMU and TCU take most kids from our CA high school. They are not particularly selective and they offer merit.

Anonymous wrote:We live in a really wealthy area and it’s surprisingly not that competitive about college admissions. Top ranked public school, average house now over 2.5m in our district and people just want their kids to get into state schools. A small handful go on to more prestigious universities but for the most part people go to middle of the road schools and don’t stress about it. Top 5 % kids go to Georgia or Michigan. Duke and UCLA would be considered elite.

Some regions in America prioritize less the education of their children, and focus more on their house/neighborhood/lifestyle. Think Real Housewives of Orange County. I recall one of the wives doing college tours with their kids (Heather Dubrow) and she was hoping for schools like Loyola Marymount and Syracuse as goals. Their house cost over 10 million, they were focused on prestige neighborhoods, trips and handbags, but could care less about the name brand of the school. I guess they know they'll just pass on generational wealth and don't need college to open doors.

"Tons of rich Californians at SMU and TCU"

-yep. SMU & TCU seem to be taking the spot of the old USC as a landing spot for a certain type of kid. ASU & U of A to some extent as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol so many people triggered by the implication that the top schools might not be the absolute greatest in every aspect, or that some people may have had a better impression of those schools in the past than now. Calm down, these schools aren’t your identity or personality, nor do you owe them anything.

having drunken parties every weekend is not everyone's idea of greatness. this thread actually got me interested in top schools.

That’s not what we are talking about but you are exactly the type of person I’m talking about.

Me too. I went to college to contemplate the best that civilization has to offer and have fun, thought provoking conversations, not to be dirty dancing with randoms and vomiting on the regular.

Ha! I went to college looking for both, and I definitely got both! (Duke ‘92)

No regrets. I learned so much about myself, others, and the world. Those four years were high-growth on all fronts:

-intellectual (rigorous multi-disciplinary course load, far-ranging exploration of ideas, and deep, thought-provoking conversations with my peers);

-professional (discipline, stronger work habits, proven writing skills, and the start of a rewarding career);

-social (vibrant campus community, strong life-long friendships, wide group of acquaintances, and a handful romantic relationships, both serious and casual);

- mindset (greater resilience as a result of bouncing back from failures, humility, curiosity, and an increased willingness to experiment with reasonable (and occasionally less reasonable) risks - which at times included quite a bit of partying (and yes, some vomiting 😂) via Greek life, independent social events, and big time sports.)

I know this was 30+ years ago, but my guess is that motivated and socially adept kids will be able to find or create this type of an experience most anywhere. Even at the grindiest Ivy or the less overtly intellectual school. We all can find our people if we try. True?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what happens when you migrate from a lur mediocre rich privileged white guy system toward a meritocratic equity system.

When being the "top" takes work not birth, you end up with the hard workers.

YES. Smart is the new Rich.

Top .1% is still the most overrepresented group at ivies and elite schools in general

Much of this over representation is because these kids are smarter than average. The average IQ of people in the top .1% is significantly higher than the population average so this is reflected in their kids test scores. Obviously donor, sports and legacy is a component too though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine LA is like this.

It is. It’s not nearly as brand name conscious as DMV or NY ‘burbs. USC is the big enchilada here.

wtf are you talking about? Harvard Westlake and other LA prep schools send tons of kids to East Coast schools.

Also, kids don’t want to stay in their hometown for college…so USC isn’t the big enchilada for LA kids.

LA kids rather want to go to USC than UCLA.
That's for sure.

Grew up in L.A. in the 80s and 90s. It was the case then (and still the case now) that USC is for kids who couldn't get into UCLA. UCLA is way cheaper, has a nicer and safer campus, and is more diverse. The only reason to go to the University of Spoiled Children is for football and a decent film school and Marshall School of Business. The smart kids will go away to college to Cal or UCSD.

UCLA has really tarnished its reputation by eliminating standardized tests in undergrad college admissions. They are admitting many students that have no business attending this school who cannot succeed there. A perfect GPA at a terrible high school is a meaningless signal of college readiness without test scores.

Anonymous wrote:Scottsdale AZ. Great school and everyone ends up at U of A or ASU.

ASU has become a diploma mill. They have no admissions standards and anyone with a pulse can enroll at this school now.