Anonymous wrote:I never said my small sample of public school applicants was representative of anything. That's where your lack of intelligence and poor reasoning abilities led this whole thread astray. The original discussion was about Ivy applications as supposed evidence of Big 3 parents being "prestige whores," except that public school parents are just as fixed on their kids getting into these same schools.

Again you are displaying your lack of intelligence. Your experience of interviewing a small number of public school students, albeit it is spanning over a decade as you claim, is still anecdotal. And based on that anecdotal experience you made sweeping statements about public students' worthiness to apply to Ivys. If only you have been following public school matriculation lists, widely available online and in Bethesda Magazine (for some area public schools) unlike for DMV area private schools, you would know a significant number of public school students go to any and all the Ivys and other equivalent and/or better universities (MIT, Stanford, Caltech, etc.). Whereas, as per your statement, only one student you interviewed had an offer from your alma mater. So clearly you have no basis to generalize public school students or their parents as "prestige whores". As for the other poster who riled you up and caused you to make such outlandish response, I never thought diddly-squat about it.

And by "everyone," that's all the other voices in your head. Projection is a wonderful thing. When you can't convince on the merits, resort to insults. Nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was my PP, verbatim: "Parents of PUBLIC SCHOOLS have their kids applying to the Ivies in droves too. I've interviewed several each year for the past decade and only a small handful over this time seemed remotely qualified IMO. I don't see you calling public school parents "prestige whores" though."

How you inferred "none" from the above is baffling.

You have MAJOR issues, lady.
- Sincerely, everyone

You're no bastion of sanity yourself, honey.

Anonymous wrote:This was my PP, verbatim: "Parents of PUBLIC SCHOOLS have their kids applying to the Ivies in droves too. I've interviewed several each year for the past decade and only a small handful over this time seemed remotely qualified IMO. I don't see you calling public school parents "prestige whores" though."

How you inferred "none" from the above is baffling.

You have MAJOR issues, lady.
- Sincerely, everyone

This was my PP, verbatim: "Parents of PUBLIC SCHOOLS have their kids applying to the Ivies in droves too. I've interviewed several each year for the past decade and only a small handful over this time seemed remotely qualified IMO. I don't see you calling public school parents "prestige whores" though."

How you inferred "none" from the above is baffling.

Anonymous wrote:I never said my small sample of public school applicants was representative of anything. That's where your lack of intelligence and poor reasoning abilities led this whole thread astray. The original discussion was about Ivy applications as supposed evidence of Big 3 parents being "prestige whores," except that public school parents are just as fixed on their kids getting into these same schools.

Are you the same poster who said none of those kids were even close to qualified?

I never said my small sample of public school applicants was representative of anything. That's where your lack of intelligence and poor reasoning abilities led this whole thread astray. The original discussion was about Ivy applications as supposed evidence of Big 3 parents being "prestige whores," except that public school parents are just as fixed on their kids getting into these same schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school has been selecting who you would interview for the past over a decade. Since the school knows your academic performance while your were a student, I suggest the school was sending your way only applicants matching your own level of intelligence.

Swing and a miss. Alumni volunteers do the interview matching.

And you didn't volunteer to do interview matching. You accepted the list given to you.

Thanks for the non sequitur.

You just displayed your level of intelligence. That is what I have been talking about.

Alumni volunteers in the DC area had no idea that my grades were good enough to get into top 5 grad schools, when they matched me up for interviews. So whatever your original point may have been, it's nonsensical.

It doesn't mean anything. Grades and intelligence don't always have a direct correspondence. And you are an excellent example of that. Even if we take all your postings about public school applicants to Ivys you interviewed, your sample is small and definitely not representative of all the public school students in DMV area who have applied to all the Ivys over more than a decade during the time you have been interviewing. But then again, if you did one of the fluffy majors, then your intelligence and the knowledge you gained through your major would handicap you from understanding this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school has been selecting who you would interview for the past over a decade. Since the school knows your academic performance while your were a student, I suggest the school was sending your way only applicants matching your own level of intelligence.

Swing and a miss. Alumni volunteers do the interview matching.

And you didn't volunteer to do interview matching. You accepted the list given to you.

Thanks for the non sequitur.

You just displayed your level of intelligence. That is what I have been talking about.

Alumni volunteers in the DC area had no idea that my grades were good enough to get into top 5 grad schools, when they matched me up for interviews. So whatever your original point may have been, it's nonsensical.

Anonymous wrote:+1

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree.
+2

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school has been selecting who you would interview for the past over a decade. Since the school knows your academic performance while your were a student, I suggest the school was sending your way only applicants matching your own level of intelligence.

Swing and a miss. Alumni volunteers do the interview matching.

And you didn't volunteer to do interview matching. You accepted the list given to you.

Thanks for the non sequitur.

You just displayed your level of intelligence. That is what I have been talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school has been selecting who you would interview for the past over a decade. Since the school knows your academic performance while your were a student, I suggest the school was sending your way only applicants matching your own level of intelligence.

Swing and a miss. Alumni volunteers do the interview matching.

And you didn't volunteer to do interview matching. You accepted the list given to you.

Thanks for the non sequitur.

Alumni interviewers for elite colleges are just ego boosts for the interviewer. They don’t contribute anything real to the process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always saw the top cohort referenced as HYPSM (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT)

+1. Since when were Stanford and MIT considered as less prestigious? Never.

Since the rise of tech I actually think Harvard, MIT and Stanford have become the top 3 for the most ambitious kids. Harvard was fortunate because Zuckerberg started Facebook and pulled a lot of Harvard alums in with him. Yale may be the shakiest because they have the weakest CS/tech but they have recently poured resources in to fix it and of course they have such a dominant law school. Princeton mysteriously seems to maintain its status no matter how the winds blow so kudos to them for that.

It’s not a mystery why Princeton retains its status. Princeton alums are crazy loyal, and it per alum it has a larger endowment than Harvard or Yale.

It has strong departments across the board, in part because it’s only professional school is small, a deliberate choice by the school.

It also isn’t nut job liberal, just liberal. Harvard and its dean have really lost their way, wish they’d rewrite their mission statement already.

Agree. Dean Rakesh Khurana has alienated the alumni base and career services.
When half the university is attacked for getting a full-time job at an “evil company” in tech, consulting, sales, and only non-law academics or social studies are “honored” and “everyone is there by total chance not skill or work ethos,” there is a indeed a separate mission and agenda.

The students there now can toe the social liberal line for four years, not participate or be their true self, or choose a different school to actually flourish in.