Anonymous wrote:Everything outside of Ivies, MIT, Stanford and maybe (maybe) Duke. So everything outside of top 10 to 12 is overrated by crazies

Look, nobody cares if your kid went to Northwestern or UVA or Wake Forest or SMU (#64) or whether your kid's state school is top 50 or top 80. All of the top 100 are schools are solid, however, you sound like an insecure striver lunatic knowing and bragging about where they rank and acting like their rank means anything to anyone.

Because honestly every college outside of the top 10 to 12 has a large % of unimpressive kids who will go on to live super normal ho-hum middle class lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Keep on posting, Dumpy. We rather see brain deads here than out in the streets rioting and looting!

Anonymous wrote:Amherst might be considered overrated.

Anonymous wrote:Amherst might be considered overrated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is probably hyperbole....particularly since Caltech is only going to look for STEM excellence, whereas Harvard and Yale are more holistic. But, the typical Caltech student will have a better academic resume than the typical engineering student at those schools.

Academic resume under holistic evaluation is much broadly defined. I know at some ivy sceas, students go in with no intention of working in the engineering field. They branch out to business, finance, law, arts, music, or whatever. Their passion is not in engineering. They may never have tinkered with traditional engineering stuff in their life. They tinker with ideas of how to use engineering concepts in fields in which a Sheldon Cooper never imagined. A Sheldon Cooper who never kissed a girl in his life doesn’t have what it takes to get into an ivy. He just doesn’t doesn’t have “it,” whatever that is.

Caltech admissions, by all accounts, is holistic in that they care about extracurriculars, particular engineering-focused extracurriculars.

Ivy holistic admissions, on the other hand, means legacy, politically-influential admissions, donor admissions, along with some sprinkling of leadership-focused extracurriculars.

However, something that people don't seem to understand, again, is that to get into Caltech you need scores + engineering-heavy extracurriculars.
Such students would easily get into any Ivy engineering based solely on their scores and engineering extracurriculars.

Let’s try this way Dopey.

If CalTech rejects someone who goes on to win a Nobel, CalTech will be soul searching, possibly discussing defunding the school. If HYPS did the same, they’ll be bragging they reject even Nobel winners. It’s a different process. Some schools are more about who they admit. Ivys are less about who they admit and more about who they keep out.

First of all, you are clearly an idiot and your low intelligence shows.
Second of all, you seem to pathetically worship the Ivies as if they are some holy grail of academia. They are not. You sucking up to Ivy admissions is not going to get your low intelligence brethren in, so stop the sycophantry.

Then tell us wise Dopey, why isn’t Harvard 40%+ Asian like some of these tech schools? Surely you must know.

Idiot, Harvard quite clearly racially discriminates against Asians.

DP - I do not see the PP "worshipping" ivy admissions in any way, just disputing your baseless, unevidenced claim.

For argument let's assume that H does discriminate against Asians. Doesn't that completely invalidate your point?

This is a level of reading incomprehension never seen before.

Again and again, I have stated that any student that gets into Caltech would get into Harvard/Yale engineering based on scores and ECs

Race is not a test score nor is it an EC. An engineering student admitted to Caltech - which is entirely on academic merit - may be rejected by Harvard because he doesn't check the right boxes for legacy status, donations by parents, gender, race, etc.

That does not mean that the student was rejected based on scores or ECs.

AKA if Harvard's admissions was based on merit over fluff and nepotism, any student accepted to Caltech engineering would easily get into Harvard engineering.

Does writing it all out help you understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is probably hyperbole....particularly since Caltech is only going to look for STEM excellence, whereas Harvard and Yale are more holistic. But, the typical Caltech student will have a better academic resume than the typical engineering student at those schools.

Academic resume under holistic evaluation is much broadly defined. I know at some ivy sceas, students go in with no intention of working in the engineering field. They branch out to business, finance, law, arts, music, or whatever. Their passion is not in engineering. They may never have tinkered with traditional engineering stuff in their life. They tinker with ideas of how to use engineering concepts in fields in which a Sheldon Cooper never imagined. A Sheldon Cooper who never kissed a girl in his life doesn’t have what it takes to get into an ivy. He just doesn’t doesn’t have “it,” whatever that is.

Caltech admissions, by all accounts, is holistic in that they care about extracurriculars, particular engineering-focused extracurriculars.

Ivy holistic admissions, on the other hand, means legacy, politically-influential admissions, donor admissions, along with some sprinkling of leadership-focused extracurriculars.

However, something that people don't seem to understand, again, is that to get into Caltech you need scores + engineering-heavy extracurriculars.
Such students would easily get into any Ivy engineering based solely on their scores and engineering extracurriculars.

Let’s try this way Dopey.

If CalTech rejects someone who goes on to win a Nobel, CalTech will be soul searching, possibly discussing defunding the school. If HYPS did the same, they’ll be bragging they reject even Nobel winners. It’s a different process. Some schools are more about who they admit. Ivys are less about who they admit and more about who they keep out.

First of all, you are clearly an idiot and your low intelligence shows.
Second of all, you seem to pathetically worship the Ivies as if they are some holy grail of academia. They are not. You sucking up to Ivy admissions is not going to get your low intelligence brethren in, so stop the sycophantry.

Then tell us wise Dopey, why isn’t Harvard 40%+ Asian like some of these tech schools? Surely you must know.

Idiot, Harvard quite clearly racially discriminates against Asians.

DP - I do not see the PP "worshipping" ivy admissions in any way, just disputing your baseless, unevidenced claim.

For argument let's assume that H does discriminate against Asians. Doesn't that completely invalidate your point?

This is a level of reading incomprehension never seen before.

Again and again, I have stated that any student that gets into Caltech would get into Harvard/Yale engineering based on scores and ECs

Race is not a test score nor is it an EC. An engineering student admitted to Caltech - which is entirely on academic merit - may be rejected by Harvard because he doesn't check the right boxes for legacy status, donations by parents, gender, race, etc.

That does not mean that the student was rejected based on scores or ECs.

AKA if Harvard's admissions was based on merit over fluff and nepotism, any student accepted to Caltech engineering would easily get into Harvard engineering.

Does writing it all out help you understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is probably hyperbole....particularly since Caltech is only going to look for STEM excellence, whereas Harvard and Yale are more holistic. But, the typical Caltech student will have a better academic resume than the typical engineering student at those schools.

Academic resume under holistic evaluation is much broadly defined. I know at some ivy sceas, students go in with no intention of working in the engineering field. They branch out to business, finance, law, arts, music, or whatever. Their passion is not in engineering. They may never have tinkered with traditional engineering stuff in their life. They tinker with ideas of how to use engineering concepts in fields in which a Sheldon Cooper never imagined. A Sheldon Cooper who never kissed a girl in his life doesn’t have what it takes to get into an ivy. He just doesn’t doesn’t have “it,” whatever that is.

Caltech admissions, by all accounts, is holistic in that they care about extracurriculars, particular engineering-focused extracurriculars.

Ivy holistic admissions, on the other hand, means legacy, politically-influential admissions, donor admissions, along with some sprinkling of leadership-focused extracurriculars.

However, something that people don't seem to understand, again, is that to get into Caltech you need scores + engineering-heavy extracurriculars.
Such students would easily get into any Ivy engineering based solely on their scores and engineering extracurriculars.

Let’s try this way Dopey.

If CalTech rejects someone who goes on to win a Nobel, CalTech will be soul searching, possibly discussing defunding the school. If HYPS did the same, they’ll be bragging they reject even Nobel winners. It’s a different process. Some schools are more about who they admit. Ivys are less about who they admit and more about who they keep out.

First of all, you are clearly an idiot and your low intelligence shows.
Second of all, you seem to pathetically worship the Ivies as if they are some holy grail of academia. They are not. You sucking up to Ivy admissions is not going to get your low intelligence brethren in, so stop the sycophantry.

Then tell us wise Dopey, why isn’t Harvard 40%+ Asian like some of these tech schools? Surely you must know.

Idiot, Harvard quite clearly racially discriminates against Asians.

DP - I do not see the PP "worshipping" ivy admissions in any way, just disputing your baseless, unevidenced claim.

For argument let's assume that H does discriminate against Asians. Doesn't that completely invalidate your point?

This is a level of reading incomprehension never seen before.

Again and again, I have stated that any student that gets into Caltech would get into Harvard/Yale engineering based on scores and ECs

Race is not a test score nor is it an EC. An engineering student admitted to Caltech - which is entirely on academic merit - may be rejected by Harvard because he doesn't check the right boxes for legacy status, donations by parents, gender, race, etc.

That does not mean that the student was rejected based on scores or ECs.

AKA if Harvard's admissions was based on merit over fluff and nepotism, any student accepted to Caltech engineering would easily get into Harvard engineering.

Does writing it all out help you understand?

The view is much nicer where you have the goalposts now. By the end of this discussion you'll be saying "Any student accepted to Caltech who is also accepted to Harvard will be admitted to Harvard". Lol.

More like posters here seriously lack reading comprehension considering I have stated the same thing multiple times at this point.

Any student that gets into Caltech would easily get into Harvard/Yale engineering. To argue otherwise is idiotic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is probably hyperbole....particularly since Caltech is only going to look for STEM excellence, whereas Harvard and Yale are more holistic. But, the typical Caltech student will have a better academic resume than the typical engineering student at those schools.

Academic resume under holistic evaluation is much broadly defined. I know at some ivy sceas, students go in with no intention of working in the engineering field. They branch out to business, finance, law, arts, music, or whatever. Their passion is not in engineering. They may never have tinkered with traditional engineering stuff in their life. They tinker with ideas of how to use engineering concepts in fields in which a Sheldon Cooper never imagined. A Sheldon Cooper who never kissed a girl in his life doesn’t have what it takes to get into an ivy. He just doesn’t doesn’t have “it,” whatever that is.

Caltech admissions, by all accounts, is holistic in that they care about extracurriculars, particular engineering-focused extracurriculars.

Ivy holistic admissions, on the other hand, means legacy, politically-influential admissions, donor admissions, along with some sprinkling of leadership-focused extracurriculars.

However, something that people don't seem to understand, again, is that to get into Caltech you need scores + engineering-heavy extracurriculars.
Such students would easily get into any Ivy engineering based solely on their scores and engineering extracurriculars.

Let’s try this way Dopey.

If CalTech rejects someone who goes on to win a Nobel, CalTech will be soul searching, possibly discussing defunding the school. If HYPS did the same, they’ll be bragging they reject even Nobel winners. It’s a different process. Some schools are more about who they admit. Ivys are less about who they admit and more about who they keep out.

First of all, you are clearly an idiot and your low intelligence shows.
Second of all, you seem to pathetically worship the Ivies as if they are some holy grail of academia. They are not. You sucking up to Ivy admissions is not going to get your low intelligence brethren in, so stop the sycophantry.

Then tell us wise Dopey, why isn’t Harvard 40%+ Asian like some of these tech schools? Surely you must know.

Idiot, Harvard quite clearly racially discriminates against Asians.

DP - I do not see the PP "worshipping" ivy admissions in any way, just disputing your baseless, unevidenced claim.

For argument let's assume that H does discriminate against Asians. Doesn't that completely invalidate your point?

This is a level of reading incomprehension never seen before.

Again and again, I have stated that any student that gets into Caltech would get into Harvard/Yale engineering based on scores and ECs

Race is not a test score nor is it an EC. An engineering student admitted to Caltech - which is entirely on academic merit - may be rejected by Harvard because he doesn't check the right boxes for legacy status, donations by parents, gender, race, etc.

That does not mean that the student was rejected based on scores or ECs.

AKA if Harvard's admissions was based on merit over fluff and nepotism, any student accepted to Caltech engineering would easily get into Harvard engineering.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is probably hyperbole....particularly since Caltech is only going to look for STEM excellence, whereas Harvard and Yale are more holistic. But, the typical Caltech student will have a better academic resume than the typical engineering student at those schools.

Academic resume under holistic evaluation is much broadly defined. I know at some ivy sceas, students go in with no intention of working in the engineering field. They branch out to business, finance, law, arts, music, or whatever. Their passion is not in engineering. They may never have tinkered with traditional engineering stuff in their life. They tinker with ideas of how to use engineering concepts in fields in which a Sheldon Cooper never imagined. A Sheldon Cooper who never kissed a girl in his life doesn’t have what it takes to get into an ivy. He just doesn’t doesn’t have “it,” whatever that is.

Caltech admissions, by all accounts, is holistic in that they care about extracurriculars, particular engineering-focused extracurriculars.

Ivy holistic admissions, on the other hand, means legacy, politically-influential admissions, donor admissions, along with some sprinkling of leadership-focused extracurriculars.

However, something that people don't seem to understand, again, is that to get into Caltech you need scores + engineering-heavy extracurriculars.
Such students would easily get into any Ivy engineering based solely on their scores and engineering extracurriculars.

Let’s try this way Dopey.

If CalTech rejects someone who goes on to win a Nobel, CalTech will be soul searching, possibly discussing defunding the school. If HYPS did the same, they’ll be bragging they reject even Nobel winners. It’s a different process. Some schools are more about who they admit. Ivys are less about who they admit and more about who they keep out.

First of all, you are clearly an idiot and your low intelligence shows.
Second of all, you seem to pathetically worship the Ivies as if they are some holy grail of academia. They are not. You sucking up to Ivy admissions is not going to get your low intelligence brethren in, so stop the sycophantry.

Then tell us wise Dopey, why isn’t Harvard 40%+ Asian like some of these tech schools? Surely you must know.

Idiot, Harvard quite clearly racially discriminates against Asians.

DP - I do not see the PP "worshipping" ivy admissions in any way, just disputing your baseless, unevidenced claim.

For argument let's assume that H does discriminate against Asians. Doesn't that completely invalidate your point?

This is a level of reading incomprehension never seen before.

Again and again, I have stated that any student that gets into Caltech would get into Harvard/Yale engineering based on scores and ECs

Race is not a test score nor is it an EC. An engineering student admitted to Caltech - which is entirely on academic merit - may be rejected by Harvard because he doesn't check the right boxes for legacy status, donations by parents, gender, race, etc.

That does not mean that the student was rejected based on scores or ECs.

AKA if Harvard's admissions was based on merit over fluff and nepotism, any student accepted to Caltech engineering would easily get into Harvard engineering.

Does writing it all out help you understand?

The view is much nicer where you have the goalposts now. By the end of this discussion you'll be saying "Any student accepted to Caltech who is also accepted to Harvard will be admitted to Harvard". Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is probably hyperbole....particularly since Caltech is only going to look for STEM excellence, whereas Harvard and Yale are more holistic. But, the typical Caltech student will have a better academic resume than the typical engineering student at those schools.

Academic resume under holistic evaluation is much broadly defined. I know at some ivy sceas, students go in with no intention of working in the engineering field. They branch out to business, finance, law, arts, music, or whatever. Their passion is not in engineering. They may never have tinkered with traditional engineering stuff in their life. They tinker with ideas of how to use engineering concepts in fields in which a Sheldon Cooper never imagined. A Sheldon Cooper who never kissed a girl in his life doesn’t have what it takes to get into an ivy. He just doesn’t doesn’t have “it,” whatever that is.

Caltech admissions, by all accounts, is holistic in that they care about extracurriculars, particular engineering-focused extracurriculars.

Ivy holistic admissions, on the other hand, means legacy, politically-influential admissions, donor admissions, along with some sprinkling of leadership-focused extracurriculars.

However, something that people don't seem to understand, again, is that to get into Caltech you need scores + engineering-heavy extracurriculars.
Such students would easily get into any Ivy engineering based solely on their scores and engineering extracurriculars.

Let’s try this way Dopey.

If CalTech rejects someone who goes on to win a Nobel, CalTech will be soul searching, possibly discussing defunding the school. If HYPS did the same, they’ll be bragging they reject even Nobel winners. It’s a different process. Some schools are more about who they admit. Ivys are less about who they admit and more about who they keep out.

First of all, you are clearly an idiot and your low intelligence shows.
Second of all, you seem to pathetically worship the Ivies as if they are some holy grail of academia. They are not. You sucking up to Ivy admissions is not going to get your low intelligence brethren in, so stop the sycophantry.

Then tell us wise Dopey, why isn’t Harvard 40%+ Asian like some of these tech schools? Surely you must know.

Idiot, Harvard quite clearly racially discriminates against Asians.

DP - I do not see the PP "worshipping" ivy admissions in any way, just disputing your baseless, unevidenced claim.

For argument let's assume that H does discriminate against Asians. Doesn't that completely invalidate your point?

This is a level of reading incomprehension never seen before.

Again and again, I have stated that any student that gets into Caltech would get into Harvard/Yale engineering based on scores and ECs

Race is not a test score nor is it an EC. An engineering student admitted to Caltech - which is entirely on academic merit - may be rejected by Harvard because he doesn't check the right boxes for legacy status, donations by parents, gender, race, etc.

That does not mean that the student was rejected based on scores or ECs.

AKA if Harvard's admissions was based on merit over fluff and nepotism, any student accepted to Caltech engineering would easily get into Harvard engineering.

Does writing it all out help you understand?

The view is much nicer where you have the goalposts now. By the end of this discussion you'll be saying "Any student accepted to Caltech who is also accepted to Harvard will be admitted to Harvard". Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is probably hyperbole....particularly since Caltech is only going to look for STEM excellence, whereas Harvard and Yale are more holistic. But, the typical Caltech student will have a better academic resume than the typical engineering student at those schools.

Academic resume under holistic evaluation is much broadly defined. I know at some ivy sceas, students go in with no intention of working in the engineering field. They branch out to business, finance, law, arts, music, or whatever. Their passion is not in engineering. They may never have tinkered with traditional engineering stuff in their life. They tinker with ideas of how to use engineering concepts in fields in which a Sheldon Cooper never imagined. A Sheldon Cooper who never kissed a girl in his life doesn’t have what it takes to get into an ivy. He just doesn’t doesn’t have “it,” whatever that is.

Caltech admissions, by all accounts, is holistic in that they care about extracurriculars, particular engineering-focused extracurriculars.

Ivy holistic admissions, on the other hand, means legacy, politically-influential admissions, donor admissions, along with some sprinkling of leadership-focused extracurriculars.

However, something that people don't seem to understand, again, is that to get into Caltech you need scores + engineering-heavy extracurriculars.
Such students would easily get into any Ivy engineering based solely on their scores and engineering extracurriculars.

Let’s try this way Dopey.

If CalTech rejects someone who goes on to win a Nobel, CalTech will be soul searching, possibly discussing defunding the school. If HYPS did the same, they’ll be bragging they reject even Nobel winners. It’s a different process. Some schools are more about who they admit. Ivys are less about who they admit and more about who they keep out.

First of all, you are clearly an idiot and your low intelligence shows.
Second of all, you seem to pathetically worship the Ivies as if they are some holy grail of academia. They are not. You sucking up to Ivy admissions is not going to get your low intelligence brethren in, so stop the sycophantry.

Then tell us wise Dopey, why isn’t Harvard 40%+ Asian like some of these tech schools? Surely you must know.

Idiot, Harvard quite clearly racially discriminates against Asians.

DP - I do not see the PP "worshipping" ivy admissions in any way, just disputing your baseless, unevidenced claim.

For argument let's assume that H does discriminate against Asians. Doesn't that completely invalidate your point?

This is a level of reading incomprehension never seen before.

Again and again, I have stated that any student that gets into Caltech would get into Harvard/Yale engineering based on scores and ECs

Race is not a test score nor is it an EC. An engineering student admitted to Caltech - which is entirely on academic merit - may be rejected by Harvard because he doesn't check the right boxes for legacy status, donations by parents, gender, race, etc.

That does not mean that the student was rejected based on scores or ECs.

AKA if Harvard's admissions was based on merit over fluff and nepotism, any student accepted to Caltech engineering would easily get into Harvard engineering.

Does writing it all out help you understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nah you're trolling. No one is this stupid.

"THE DATA IS IRRELEVANT! AND I DON'T NEED DATA TO SUPPORT MY CLAIM! WHAT I SAY GOES". Lol you dopey bastard.

The data for your specific school and county is irrelevant, idiot. If you don't understand how 1 datapoint - your school/county - is irrelevant to the whole country, you shouldn't even be thinking about engineering let alone arguing about Caltech/Ivy engineering.

Not my school. Not my datapoints.

ANY SCHOOL. ANY DATAPOINT.

Lol, keep digging.

You don't have access to scattergrams for the whole country, idiot.

1. Actually many naviance schools allow guest logins and I have used them.
2. What I personally have access to is irrelevant anyway.
3. One data point - whether my school or any other - disproves your claim.

Now, who is the idiot exactly?

How many guest logins do you have to get a good idea of the entire country's scatterplots?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nah you're trolling. No one is this stupid.

"THE DATA IS IRRELEVANT! AND I DON'T NEED DATA TO SUPPORT MY CLAIM! WHAT I SAY GOES". Lol you dopey bastard.

The data for your specific school and county is irrelevant, idiot. If you don't understand how 1 datapoint - your school/county - is irrelevant to the whole country, you shouldn't even be thinking about engineering let alone arguing about Caltech/Ivy engineering.

Not my school. Not my datapoints.

ANY SCHOOL. ANY DATAPOINT.

Lol, keep digging.

You don't have access to scattergrams for the whole country, idiot.

1. Actually many naviance schools allow guest logins and I have used them.
2. What I personally have access to is irrelevant anyway.
3. One data point - whether my school or any other - disproves your claim.

Now, who is the idiot exactly?