Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a bunch of new ivies including Emory, Vandy, Rice. They can simulate a similar environment.

Ha, nope. Look at parchment match ups, while those are great schools, they are full of kids who didn't get into an Ivy and would have picked it if they had.

My Emory kid toured a couple Ivies but really wasn’t interested and didn’t apply to any. Emory checked off their boxes- warm weather, urban, global, diverse student body. I won’t pretend that Emory (or its peers) are just as selective or prestigious as the Ivies because they’re not. However, not everyone at Emory is wishing they were at an Ivy.

Which in turn is part of why Emory (and similar) will never be in the group of ivy+: the concentration of the highly-driven super smart kids is not as high there. And that's ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most sure thing you get from an Ivy degree (really only HPY) is bragging rights. In most circles it is shorthand for I’m smart.

But, it also comes with a lot of baggage, especially outside Ivy circles. Many think that Ivy “normals” rest on their laurels and think too highly of themselves. Some normals are so intoxicated by their supposed sophistication that they are tone-deaf to their obnoxiousness. The worst is when Ivy normals level-up by name-dropping notable alumni, especially ones who attended school at the same time but didn’t interact with them. In other words, for many Ivy graduates, the diploma becomes a burden that many don’t wear well. With great opportunities come great, perhaps insurmountable, expectations.

I think one exception might be Cornell.

If you say you went to Cornell, you are signaling that you are smart but nobody thinks you're bragging.

Anonymous wrote:It's true. I went to an Ivy and I'm a Fortune 500 CEO.

Everyone should send their kid to an Ivy 25 years ago so they can be a Fortune 500 CEO too!

Look at Sundae Pichai, Satya Nadella, Jensen Huang, Tim Cook...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

This is the reason for the waitlist design, but I agree would be stronger if it was admitted students who decided to go elsewhere. I believe there IS a.study like that but its older (90s?) and showed no effect of attendance choice. The landscape may have changed since then though.

The waitlist are high stat, amazing kids that are UNHOOKED, completely unhooked. The seats available for an unhooked (non-recruit, no legacy, not First Gen, questbridge, Pell Grant, etc). They are waitlisted due to class shaping and priority kids. That’s it.

All of the schools already out the WL kids through committee rounds and they passed, when it came to class shaping there wasn’t a spot. The WL is unranked and they will fill any need from that list, they do not re-review the application.

I have a kid that got off the WL who is top of his class, winning awards, prestigious internships….i think largely because the path wasn’t paved. They weren’t guaranteed admits. Some of the teams have kids with much lower stats that never would be admitted otherwise.

And my kid’s friends at UVA and other schools were of similar caliber. A lot comes down to just luck.

Yep. My kids friend at UVA were identical to him except they were Asian (this is pre SFFA)... and it's not like my kid was the least talented kid at Penn.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

This is the reason for the waitlist design, but I agree would be stronger if it was admitted students who decided to go elsewhere. I believe there IS a.study like that but its older (90s?) and showed no effect of attendance choice. The landscape may have changed since then though.

The waitlist are high stat, amazing kids that are UNHOOKED, completely unhooked. The seats available for an unhooked (non-recruit, no legacy, not First Gen, questbridge, Pell Grant, etc). They are waitlisted due to class shaping and priority kids. That’s it.

All of the schools already out the WL kids through committee rounds and they passed, when it came to class shaping there wasn’t a spot. The WL is unranked and they will fill any need from that list, they do not re-review the application.

I have a kid that got off the WL who is top of his class, winning awards, prestigious internships….i think largely because the path wasn’t paved. They weren’t guaranteed admits. Some of the teams have kids with much lower stats that never would be admitted otherwise.

And my kid’s friends at UVA and other schools were of similar caliber. A lot comes down to just luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most sure thing you get from an Ivy degree (really only HPY) is bragging rights. In most circles it is shorthand for I’m smart.

But, it also comes with a lot of baggage, especially outside Ivy circles. Many think that Ivy “normals” rest on their laurels and think too highly of themselves. Some normals are so intoxicated by their supposed sophistication that they are tone-deaf to their obnoxiousness. The worst is when Ivy normals level-up by name-dropping notable alumni, especially ones who attended school at the same time but didn’t interact with them. In other words, for many Ivy graduates, the diploma becomes a burden that many don’t wear well. With great opportunities come great, perhaps insurmountable, expectations.

I think one exception might be Cornell.

If you say you went to Cornell, you are signaling that you are smart but nobody thinks you're bragging.

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

When these schools corner the market on high student caliber, the result is the same.
There schools studied have the maximum density if you will of superior minded students, everywhere: classrooms, labs, clubs.
Though I suppose one could add Caltech, Northwestern and JHU to the ivy+ schools studied: based on pre-test optional data they are likely essentially the same student population.

Caltech provides something Americans don’t respect: rigorous education and a dedication towards improving science, not for profit, but for humanity’s sake. There’s a reason the American people adore MIT as a bastion for intellectual science while having never heard of Caltech- MIT provides all the useful tech for bombing others, stealing our data, creating polarizing media. Meanwhile Caltech students disproportionately receive PhDs and go in to the less profitable route of academia to improve our society.

Cool story bro.
today’s Caltech is for MIT rejects, which isn’t that bad actually:

Maybe, but my DD got into MIT and she didn't get into CalTech so maybe not.

Does that conflict with what I said?

Pretty much the reverse, MIT was for the Caltech reject in her case.

You wouldn’t think your DD’s case is representative or you’re not lying, would you?
https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=MIT&with=Caltech

Lying no, she didn’t get into Caltech and she got into MIT. Simple as that and given the excess of demand relative to supply either result makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is calling Caltech the spot for MIT rejects.

Anonymous wrote:The most sure thing you get from an Ivy degree (really only HPY) is bragging rights. In most circles it is shorthand for I’m smart.

But, it also comes with a lot of baggage, especially outside Ivy circles. Many think that Ivy “normals” rest on their laurels and think too highly of themselves. Some normals are so intoxicated by their supposed sophistication that they are tone-deaf to their obnoxiousness. The worst is when Ivy normals level-up by name-dropping notable alumni, especially ones who attended school at the same time but didn’t interact with them. In other words, for many Ivy graduates, the diploma becomes a burden that many don’t wear well. With great opportunities come great, perhaps insurmountable, expectations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

Disagree. Ivy leagues are all test required now. Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores. The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities.

Columbia remains TO

If Columbia wasn’t in nyc, it would be struggling to be a t30

If nyu wasn’t in nyc it would be a t100

BS, Forbes ranks Columbia 2nd, after only MIT. The Forbes ranking is exclusively based on outcomes, not the softer factors which are easily manipulated. Columbia is right to ignore USN

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.

Disagree. Ivy leagues are all test required now. Of course they have institutional priorities, but they all submit scores. The majority of other schools are test optional, AND give the same if not more preference to priorities.

These tests are meaningless when we all know that the little Larlos of the world studied with tutors for years AND had to take the tests multiple times to achieve their “superior” scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

bingo.

Parent of a current Ivy student who describes all of his classmates as "cracked" and says it has made him better.

Same. It can cause angst but boy does it push them all.

If you aspire for your child to be a societal and environmental menace, by all means these schools with a statistically higher concentration of sociopaths will push them.

Some people aspire to more than that, however.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the article is getting at is that smart people with emotional intelligence go far. Basing that conclusion on Ivy schools is a little reductive however. It's a very outdated metric. There are bright students with a high emotional IQ at all sorts of schools in 2026.

But peer group and good manners do matter of course - as they have since the beginning of time. Not exactly rocket science.

The metric is the concentration of these people. Far fewer in other schools.

Eh. Given admission priorities these days, the Ivy League ain't all that in 2026. For smart + emotional IQ, there are a lot of other schools, as everyone who has toured universities over the past three years has discerned. The Harvard Man is a myth today. Things have changed a lot.