we show that attending an Ivy-Plus college instead of the average flagship public college
increases students’ chances of reaching the top 1% of the earnings distribution by 50%, nearly doubles
their chances of attending an elite graduate school, and almost triples their chances of working at a
prestigious firm.

Anonymous wrote:I know people who struggled emotionally/socially at different Ivies. I also know people who blossomed/thrived at colleges that are looked down upon by people on this board (little known LAC’s, regional state schools). And it’s probably safe to say that may of us have colleagues who never set foot on an Ivy campus or at any T-25 school or SLAC who are doing extremely well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12% are ivy ceos. What about the other 88%? It’s a dumb report. I know plenty of multi millionaires who went to average schools and some who didn’t even go to college.

Jesus help me.

.5% of college graduates represent 12% of CEOs.

Told you DCUM was dumb…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The study findings are what I intuitively would have said was the thing an elite institution gets you. I was a small town girl from a MC high school. Living in a dorm with heiresses and UMC girls acclimated me to the life I lived "ever after."

I would say the same but with regard to academic and intellectual firepower rather than lifestyle factors.

I managed to get to a T10 school without working hard or challenging myself much in high school. I knew I was very smart, so though I engaged when I wanted to, I mostly coasted through.

My T10 college changed that immediately. The environment stimulated and challenged me - to dig deeper, work harder, and push myself to the learning edge again and again. The discourse was more complex and sophisticated, and the “average” performance was astronomical compared to my previous environments. My classmates were truely impressive, and being around them helped me grow more than any concept or material I learned in a book or from a lecture.

It’s always about the people. Our peers help frame our daily lives and influence us so much more than we often realize.

And you get the exact same peer profile at another 20 or so universities and dozen or so SLACs.

No, you do not. The ivy+ schools as well as a couple of others JHU, Caltech, CMU, Rice, WashU, Vanderbilt all had roughly 75%* or more with 98-99%ile scores, based on matriculated students in the pre-TO years. Williams was in this range, Amherst and Swarthmore a little lower, more like 50% with 98-99%ile scores, similar to Northwestern, Notre Dame and a few others, by the time you get to the 25th best SAT range it was more like 25% of the class in the 98-99%ile range: ie UVA, Georgetown, Emory, and many SLACs between #5 and 13, some of those start to drop even lower.
Having 75% of the class at 98-99%ile is not at all the same as 25%.
Time will tell but now that almost all are back to test required, the same players will likely be up at the top again, ivies plus 7-10 more schools, presumably Williams will remain the top LAC for this stat.
Vanderbilt has moved away from caring about scores, they may not remain in that group as they once were. They used to brag at info sessions and post score tables showing only 4 ivies were higher than their ranges.
SAT scores are of course not the only indicators of a driven, motivated peer group. Vanderbilt for one used to take top-scoring kids who did not quite have top-10% grades from the private schools and top public magnet in our area: maybe Vanderbilt never

TLDR there are not 30 unis and 12 SLACs that have equivalent peers to the ivy+ schools studied. There are maybe 5-8 more in addition to the 12 studied. By the time you get to the 30th uni and 12th SLAC the talent is significantly diluted.

*Cornell was always the lowest, with about 50% 98-99%ile, likely related to the in-state admissions for CALS. Chicago and Columbia never used to report. Presumably they were lower than many peers in the ivy+.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12% are ivy ceos. What about the other 88%? It’s a dumb report. I know plenty of multi millionaires who went to average schools and some who didn’t even go to college.

Jesus help me.

.5% of college graduates represent 12% of CEOs.

Anonymous wrote:12% are ivy ceos. What about the other 88%? It’s a dumb report. I know plenty of multi millionaires who went to average schools and some who didn’t even go to college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys aren't getting it. It's the expectations you develop for yourself and what your life will be like that matters long after you graduate. Yes, you work hard, are challenged academically. But that's not all. You learn how people from more successful backgrounds think and act. How smarter and academically more accomplished people think and act. You change.
--small town girl from MC high school

It evens out more once people hit middle age. You can’t tell by outcomes. For every tech millionaire or billionaire there’s a random [insert job].

-HYP grad

Anonymous wrote:You guys aren't getting it. It's the expectations you develop for yourself and what your life will be like that matters long after you graduate. Yes, you work hard, are challenged academically. But that's not all. You learn how people from more successful backgrounds think and act. How smarter and academically more accomplished people think and act. You change.
--small town girl from MC high school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither me nor my DH attended an ivy league school. We both have flexible well paying jobs with good work life balance. We have a great life and it's what we want for our kid. Not a crazy high pressure job that will destroy their health.

Another low iq person exposed.

DP. Nothing about that post is low IQ. It is simply stating a different preference.

Low IQ is not being able to understand the difference.

Trying is inference using anecdotal instead of statistical evidence IS low iq.

Except, again, that’s not what that poster was doing.

This whole discussion seems to be going over your head so you may want to bow out gracefully.

I am the PP with the flexible well paying job. I often encounter Ivy League grads with attitudes like the "low IQ" poster. They don't do well and don't last in my sector.

I doubt the “low IQ” poster attended an Ivy League school. More likely a striver parent on the low end of the Dunning-Kruger curve.

It was a general comment on people using anecdotal evidence to infer. It has nothing to do with whether an Ivy League grad is actually superior, one way or the other. Once again, comments in this thread fully show the low iq nature of DCUM. Reddit, although full of high school and college kids, is actually much smarter.

You clearly misunderstood the post you responded to. The thesis of the original article is "that these schools [are] really unparalleled training grounds to be in these upper-echelon professional jobs." The post you responded to was pointing out that they aren't in one of these stressful upper-echelon jobs, and they have a good life. It wasn't an anecdote about CEO-level professional success without ivy league attendance; it was making the point that the definition of success as laid out in the article is very narrow and not something that everyone is seeking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither me nor my DH attended an ivy league school. We both have flexible well paying jobs with good work life balance. We have a great life and it's what we want for our kid. Not a crazy high pressure job that will destroy their health.

Another low iq person exposed.

DP. Nothing about that post is low IQ. It is simply stating a different preference.

Low IQ is not being able to understand the difference.

Trying is inference using anecdotal instead of statistical evidence IS low iq.

Except, again, that’s not what that poster was doing.

This whole discussion seems to be going over your head so you may want to bow out gracefully.

I am the PP with the flexible well paying job. I often encounter Ivy League grads with attitudes like the "low IQ" poster. They don't do well and don't last in my sector.

I doubt the “low IQ” poster attended an Ivy League school. More likely a striver parent on the low end of the Dunning-Kruger curve.

It was a general comment on people using anecdotal evidence to infer. It has nothing to do with whether an Ivy League grad is actually superior, one way or the other. Once again, comments in this thread fully show the low iq nature of DCUM. Reddit, although full of high school and college kids, is actually much smarter.

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.

My Ivy kid is actually surprised by how unimpressive many of their classmates are--can't do math, can't write, etc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither me nor my DH attended an ivy league school. We both have flexible well paying jobs with good work life balance. We have a great life and it's what we want for our kid. Not a crazy high pressure job that will destroy their health.

Another low iq person exposed.

DP. Nothing about that post is low IQ. It is simply stating a different preference.

Low IQ is not being able to understand the difference.

Trying is inference using anecdotal instead of statistical evidence IS low iq.

Except, again, that’s not what that poster was doing.

This whole discussion seems to be going over your head so you may want to bow out gracefully.

I am the PP with the flexible well paying job. I often encounter Ivy League grads with attitudes like the "low IQ" poster. They don't do well and don't last in my sector.

I doubt the “low IQ” poster attended an Ivy League school. More likely a striver parent on the low end of the Dunning-Kruger curve.

It was a general comment on people using anecdotal evidence to infer. It has nothing to do with whether an Ivy League grad is actually superior, one way or the other. Once again, comments in this thread fully show the low iq nature of DCUM. Reddit, although full of high school and college kids, is actually much smarter.

You are misreading those comments. And mine.

Seems like you have some issues with reading comprehension.