Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

If academic peer group isn't important to your kid, that's fine. But why disparage those that value it?

DP: I think the disparagement is aimed at those who believe all the smart kids only go to 10 colleges, and that if you don't go there you will have no worthy academic peers. If you value academic peers, you can go to any of about 200 schools and find plenty of them. Just look at where your own kid's brightest high school peers are -- my kids peers are all over the place from top 3 to 103, each for their own reasons. The friends at Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago are not heads and tails above the other kids, and the peers of the kids at schools in the 80s are no dummies. Don't buy the hype.

For the record, as someone that posted it differs, I don’t think that at all. I am well aware very smart kids go to a wide range of schools for a myriad of reasons. I think most are just pointing out the experience is different when the campus is comprised of all strong motivated students.

And if you don't want that constant intense environment, that's okay. But there's nothing wrong with pursuing an education at a highly competitive college if that's what you want.

Exactly, both a perfectly fine choice pending the student. My issue was people claiming it’s the same and I strongly disagree with that. It’s better it’s not, no one size fits all college experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

If academic peer group isn't important to your kid, that's fine. But why disparage those that value it?

DP: I think the disparagement is aimed at those who believe all the smart kids only go to 10 colleges, and that if you don't go there you will have no worthy academic peers. If you value academic peers, you can go to any of about 200 schools and find plenty of them. Just look at where your own kid's brightest high school peers are -- my kids peers are all over the place from top 3 to 103, each for their own reasons. The friends at Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago are not heads and tails above the other kids, and the peers of the kids at schools in the 80s are no dummies. Don't buy the hype.

For the record, as someone that posted it differs, I don’t think that at all. I am well aware very smart kids go to a wide range of schools for a myriad of reasons. I think most are just pointing out the experience is different when the campus is comprised of all strong motivated students.

And if you don't want that constant intense environment, that's okay. But there's nothing wrong with pursuing an education at a highly competitive college if that's what you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

If academic peer group isn't important to your kid, that's fine. But why disparage those that value it?

DP: I think the disparagement is aimed at those who believe all the smart kids only go to 10 colleges, and that if you don't go there you will have no worthy academic peers. If you value academic peers, you can go to any of about 200 schools and find plenty of them. Just look at where your own kid's brightest high school peers are -- my kids peers are all over the place from top 3 to 103, each for their own reasons. The friends at Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago are not heads and tails above the other kids, and the peers of the kids at schools in the 80s are no dummies. Don't buy the hype.

For the record, as someone that posted it differs, I don’t think that at all. I am well aware very smart kids go to a wide range of schools for a myriad of reasons. I think most are just pointing out the experience is different when the campus is comprised of all strong motivated students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

If academic peer group isn't important to your kid, that's fine. But why disparage those that value it?

DP: I think the disparagement is aimed at those who believe all the smart kids only go to 10 colleges, and that if you don't go there you will have no worthy academic peers. If you value academic peers, you can go to any of about 200 schools and find plenty of them. Just look at where your own kid's brightest high school peers are -- my kids peers are all over the place from top 3 to 103, each for their own reasons. The friends at Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago are not heads and tails above the other kids, and the peers of the kids at schools in the 80s are no dummies. Don't buy the hype.

+100

Sometimes I feel like the only one willing to admit their kid is above average, but has typical teenage conversations about inane things and mediocre drive. This is the majority of their college peer group and they are in an honors type program at their university. It’s okay that it’s different and I understand why others would want to be surrounded by different kids. Hopefully their likability and charm will land them okay in the end, we’ll see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

If academic peer group isn't important to your kid, that's fine. But why disparage those that value it?

DP: I think the disparagement is aimed at those who believe all the smart kids only go to 10 colleges, and that if you don't go there you will have no worthy academic peers. If you value academic peers, you can go to any of about 200 schools and find plenty of them. Just look at where your own kid's brightest high school peers are -- my kids peers are all over the place from top 3 to 103, each for their own reasons. The friends at Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago are not heads and tails above the other kids, and the peers of the kids at schools in the 80s are no dummies. Don't buy the hype.

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

If academic peer group isn't important to your kid, that's fine. But why disparage those that value it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

Well stated!!

As long as you attend a school in the T200 or so, there will be plenty of "intellectual peers" for your kid. Sure, it won't be 100% like a T25 school, but there will be plenty.

And yes, in the real world you will need to function with people who did not attend a T20 university, because that is most likely who 85%+ of the colleagues will be, including the management chain.
Plenty of smart people attend their State University because it's affordable and they are smart to know you don't need to go into massive debt.

Myself, my spouse and all of our siblings work as physicians, lawyers, professor, startup small engineering company, tech division at google and engineering consulting firm. A high percentage, over 50% of day to day colleagues went to T25 or better for at least one degree. There are very few people with degrees outside the T75 or so and those people could have gotten into more academic schools. There is no working with “the masses” or whatever.
Sure we have to function with ancillary staff and nurse assistants with minimal education (GED for some) thats not hard we are all kind helpful people, but the meat of the work we all do is done with more or less mental peers that are very bright. College is a time to push yourself academically. For some that can only be achieved at top schools. For other bright kids they would be better off going somewhere they would be at the very top.

I don't know about the others but for the person in the "tech division at Google" (whatever that is) this is flat out false, I worked there. Google cares about how smart you are and what you can get done. They could care less about where you went to school and the population reflects that. Most are probably T100 schools but not all by any menas. And far less T20 than most people believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

Well stated!!

As long as you attend a school in the T200 or so, there will be plenty of "intellectual peers" for your kid. Sure, it won't be 100% like a T25 school, but there will be plenty.

And yes, in the real world you will need to function with people who did not attend a T20 university, because that is most likely who 85%+ of the colleagues will be, including the management chain.
Plenty of smart people attend their State University because it's affordable and they are smart to know you don't need to go into massive debt.

Myself, my spouse and all of our siblings work as physicians, lawyers, professor, startup small engineering company, tech division at google and engineering consulting firm. A high percentage, over 50% of day to day colleagues went to T25 or better for at least one degree. There are very few people with degrees outside the T75 or so and those people could have gotten into more academic schools. There is no working with “the masses” or whatever.
Sure we have to function with ancillary staff and nurse assistants with minimal education (GED for some) thats not hard we are all kind helpful people, but the meat of the work we all do is done with more or less mental peers that are very bright. College is a time to push yourself academically. For some that can only be achieved at top schools. For other bright kids they would be better off going somewhere they would be at the very top.

This is simply untrue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

Well stated!!

As long as you attend a school in the T200 or so, there will be plenty of "intellectual peers" for your kid. Sure, it won't be 100% like a T25 school, but there will be plenty.

And yes, in the real world you will need to function with people who did not attend a T20 university, because that is most likely who 85%+ of the colleagues will be, including the management chain.
Plenty of smart people attend their State University because it's affordable and they are smart to know you don't need to go into massive debt.

Myself, my spouse and all of our siblings work as physicians, lawyers, professor, startup small engineering company, tech division at google and engineering consulting firm. A high percentage, over 50% of day to day colleagues went to T25 or better for at least one degree. There are very few people with degrees outside the T75 or so and those people could have gotten into more academic schools. There is no working with “the masses” or whatever.
Sure we have to function with ancillary staff and nurse assistants with minimal education (GED for some) thats not hard we are all kind helpful people, but the meat of the work we all do is done with more or less mental peers that are very bright. College is a time to push yourself academically. For some that can only be achieved at top schools. For other bright kids they would be better off going somewhere they would be at the very top.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will tell you what happened to my kid.
He was at a Private t50, athlete. Good but not amazing stats. 1500 SAT, 3.7/4 UW GPA.
He transferred to Harvard (former coach).

At the Private t50, he was coming along, 3.4 GPA first year…..his first year at Harvard he picked up speed pretty quickly…..no matter what anybody says, iron sharpens iron. Kid is excelling in the classroom. He was pushed by his peers.

My 1500, 3.96UW, 8 AP kid is at a T30-40 school. They are pushed plenty by their peers. Of their 15-20 person close friend group, literally ALL of them had a WL/Spring Start/Soph start at 1 or more T25 schools. Most had that for 2+ T25 schools. My kid is in the hardest Engineering major and has a 3.8GPA after 3 years, doing research on top projects and thriving. They are surrounded by really smart motivated kids. There are plenty of those outside the T25 schools.

No doubt, but if you want to go to Harvard, there's nothing wrong with going to Harvard. There are lots of opportunities at Harvard and you can get a lot of very generous aid at Harvard as well.

Anonymous wrote:This kind of conversation comes up every other week on this forum. No one is right or wrong. There are plenty of bad public high schools and universities. There are plenty that are amazing. Couple private school kids couldn’t cope with the rigor at our magnet program and went back to private school sophomore year. You hear from many Ivy League professionals who say that while they enjoyed the experience they would have landed at the same place with a degree from a state flagship. Just because you’re paying more doesn’t guarantee extraordinary outcomes. There is so much of a grey area in both public and private education that no one can ever recommend one over the over with 100% certainty. If you can ‘comfortably’ afford the private education go for it, but no need to say all public education is low quality because it isn’t. In the same vein not all the private universities are going to provide you the best possible outcomes. You do you and don’t sh*t on others.

+1

This kind of conversation comes up every other week on this forum. No one is right or wrong. There are plenty of bad public high schools and universities. There are plenty that are amazing. Couple private school kids couldn’t cope with the rigor at our magnet program and went back to private school sophomore year. You hear from many Ivy League professionals who say that while they enjoyed the experience they would have landed at the same place with a degree from a state flagship. Just because you’re paying more doesn’t guarantee extraordinary outcomes. There is so much of a grey area in both public and private education that no one can ever recommend one over the over with 100% certainty. If you can ‘comfortably’ afford the private education go for it, but no need to say all public education is low quality because it isn’t. In the same vein not all the private universities are going to provide you the best possible outcomes. You do you and don’t sh*t on others.

As an employer, all I can say is that we have seen ZERO correlation between students who went to prestigious universities for their major, and their job performance. If the teaching at their schools and peer group are helping them come out with a better ability to perform their job, then it really isn't showing up in the field.

I went to a "school for the poors" as did my entire family. My husband (who went to a college on no one's radar because of the $ they offered) and I run a successful company and will be retiring soon with a secure financial future for several generations. One of my cousins is a physician. Another will be retiring early also, having done well in his chosen field. My younger brother would have retired by now, except for alimony. Most of my friends from the lab where we worked together have gone on to really successful careers, including one who has an MD-PhD and is renowned in her field.

In the current generation (nieces/nephews), the most prestigious school anyone has gone to is UChicago, and all are doing well, including the ones that went state flagships. Most of the choices were made on the basis of finances, so they've all come out with no debt.

Anyway, my long-winded way of saying that I agree with the OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in an unchartered territory because of AI. The jobs will look different four years from now. That’s inevitable. Don’t spend too much money on undergrad. It's so obvious that while college education is a necessity in general (unless you're a born entrepreneur), it will not guarantee you a high paying job because the jobs of the future will not rely on human intelligence (unless you're an AI visionary).
Kids should take a chill pill so to speak while this plays out. In state or very cheap public flagship is the way to go if you’re not going to get any merit aid. Very simple!

People with resources are going to pay for a high quality education. They're always have and they probably always will. No one can take an education away from you once you have it.

High quality education is available in a lot more places than you think. We’re saying the same thing, so please read, understand and then reply. Always a great strategy!

+1

Many state flagship, top 500 schools can offer a great education and opportunities for those that want it. Just because they only give this to 10% of the students rather than 50%, like the more competitive school, doesn't mean it's not available.

The great thing about flagships is that you can access lots of resources without being in any program. There is just a huge smorgasbord of things to get involved in. So it's not about what you get "given", it's about how you choose to spend your time. It's there waiting for you if you want it. I still go back to my grad flagship for theater, concerts, speakers, etc.