Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revised

Group 1: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, U Chicago

Group 2: Rice, Vanderbilt, ND, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Emory, WashU, USC, NYU

Group 3: Wake Forest, BU, BC, Tufts, Northeastern, Lehigh, Rochester, CWRU, Villanova,

Group 4: Brandeis, RPI, Santa Clara, GW, Syracuse, Tulane, Pepperdine, Stevens Inst. Tech, WPI, Marquette, Fordham, SMU, Baylor, Gonzaga, LMU, Drexel, RIT, TCU, USD

I always think the unconscious east coast regional bias on DCUM is so funny. These groups (and the other PPs above you) are the grouping of a specific group of anxious east coasters. For instance there are very few Californian students and employers that would rank Lehigh over (say) Santa Clara. The thought is incomprehensible. I don’t think a lot of California employers know Lehigh exists.

Santa Clara has 50% acceptance rate

Current USN&WR ranking
Lehigh: 47
Santa Clara: 60

Which really just goes to show how useless the rankings are when it comes to the massive numbers of students on the west coast.

Feel free to continue to take the position that California students, most of whom want to work in California, will pick Lehigh because some ranking says it is better.

The regional delusion is real, I guess.

Santa Clara received 18,844 application for class of 2027
Acceptance rate 50%
Yield 17%

It's just not it.




It's just not it.

Okay, sure. Honestly you people are hopeless. Continue believing west coast kids or employers would ever in a million years pick Lehigh over Santa Clara if you want. 🤦🤦

Santa Clara has great West Coast placement. If I planned to work in SV or CA in general I would definitely choose over Lehigh.

Would choose the opposite if I wanted to work on East Coast…especially Northeast.

Would anyone try to argue otherwise?

The PP who is trying to insist that her nonsense groups have nationwide relevance would.

I thought the list was just straight out of USNWR in order, then randomly broken into groups to annoy the people from the schools listed first on next tier down.

Well that’s probably completely accurate. 🤣🤣

It is hilarious how people on this board, self-admitted STEM majors, don't seem to understand the arbitrary nature of US News rankings, and how little a 5-10 spread really means. They have made it quasi-mystical, "BC must be a good school because it is 30! BU is bad because it is 40!"*

*I don't pay enough attention to those schools to know their real ranks, don't yell at me, pedants.

Yup! And then they consider the USNWR "Engineering" rankings. Those rankings are just rankings from all the other universities. Of course MIT/CalTech/CMU/Berkeley will come out on top---everyone has heard of them. And of course, smaller mostly engineering/Stem Schools will come out lower---WPI/RPI/STevens/etc---if you are not in the Northeast even if you are a professor you simply might not be familiar with those schools, or at least not enough to think "I should vote for them". So the rankings are a popularity contests done by all the schools involved.
Me personally, I prefer to actually research each school and see if it's a fit for our kid (I come from a STEM background). there are a ton of hidden gems out there that are much better than the "big names" for the undergrad process

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

Howard Roark was a figure in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. An architect, not a lawyer, so I'm confused

Anonymous wrote:Um, I think Jan was just making the point that doing the competitive high school/college/grad school junket is not luck of the draw like playing the lottery. But we're sure you already know that, bless your heart.

I'm not PP, but you've clearly never worked in BigLaw.

Putting in the long hours and being a good lawyer are merely table stakes for the partnership rat race. It takes way more than that, and yes often times getting the brass ring comes down to factors completely out of your control (i.e., luck).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree - this is our plan.

I have been saying for a few years that I think grad school is the new college, so it makes sense to go to a state college and save some $ for grad school.

I honestly don't understand this logic at all. So many grad schools / grad degrees produce kids with poor outcomes. So many jobs/industries don't care about a grad degree whatsoever.

This is another skewed DMV perspective that worked for you, but you can't rely on it holding going forward.

I can think of professions where graduate school is essential (medicine, law, etc). Maybe you mean graduate school isn’t *always* a good idea?

Yes, but there are many underemployed or unemployed law school grads. The median income for a doctor really isn’t all that great, so it’s not really a great payoff. Vet school is another bad financial decision. Grad degrees in the humanities if you are actually paying are usually a horrible decision.

No way I am planning for my kid to attend grad school before they have even set foot at undergrad.

Why wouldn’t you plan to make it an option, if you can. I know you will find this hard to believe, but not everyone chooses a profession based on ROI. I believe most doctors realize that medical school is not a great investment for most, based purely on the basis of time & tuition vs. earnings. But they do it because they *want* to be a doctor. I went to law school and have a fascinating career that is both interesting and lucrative. My kid is exactly like me and not his engineer father (who, by the way, also has a MBA which has furthered his career) and, although he could very well change his mind, there’s a very good chance he’ll end up in law school, as well. Could I have forced him into a STEM career? Maybe, but he’d be miserable. Could he change his mind? Sure. But he will have to resources to do it, if that’s what he wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

Sure, Jan. Those other associates working 90-hour-weeks were just lazy.

I get it, you're invested in your own version of yourself, the one that exists in a meritocracy.

But we've seen you argue here, so I gotta say, bless your heart.

Yes, you have competition. It is strong competition because the prize is significant. This does not mean that your victory in that competition was luck, like winning a lottery. Your argument to the contrary is hilariously stupid.

So what happened to you, anyway? You refused to compete because you knew you would lose? Or you got kicked to the curb and now you have to cope and seethe that it was pure luck that others won and you lost?

It’s a small percentage who want the big law type of life with the billable hours and the 12 hour days. And out of those who start this type of job quite a few leave on their own. It’s not considered a significant prize for everyone but you’re right, it’s usually not luck. It’s work work work.

My point: it's a lottery because there's only one winner, or a limited pool or winners. Merit? Luck? Connections? Doesn't matter, really, the goal is the same: it's just more winnowing.

Do you want to go through life working jobs where the goal is to be the last person standing? That's so depressing. Why on earth would you want that for your kid? Know how they already have anxiety? Gee, I wonder why. The world view you've handed them is seriously grim.

It's possible to learn, even to enjoy learning, without having it be a zero sum game. None of you ever talk about what your kids are learning, or what their specific interests are. Perhaps those interests are too technical for you to understand them. Perhaps you dont let them have interests that don't look good on a college application. Perhaps they just don't share their real lives with the joyless people who keep making them enter pointless competitions where the only reward is another competition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Revised

Group 1: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, U Chicago

Group 2: Rice, Vanderbilt, ND, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Emory, WashU, USC, NYU

Group 3: Wake Forest, BU, BC, Tufts, Northeastern, Lehigh, Rochester, CWRU, Villanova,

Group 4: Brandeis, RPI, Santa Clara, GW, Syracuse, Tulane, Pepperdine, Stevens Inst. Tech, WPI, Marquette, Fordham, SMU, Baylor, Gonzaga, LMU, Drexel, RIT, TCU, USD

I always think the unconscious east coast regional bias on DCUM is so funny. These groups (and the other PPs above you) are the grouping of a specific group of anxious east coasters. For instance there are very few Californian students and employers that would rank Lehigh over (say) Santa Clara. The thought is incomprehensible. I don’t think a lot of California employers know Lehigh exists.

Santa Clara has 50% acceptance rate

Current USN&WR ranking
Lehigh: 47
Santa Clara: 60

Which really just goes to show how useless the rankings are when it comes to the massive numbers of students on the west coast.

Feel free to continue to take the position that California students, most of whom want to work in California, will pick Lehigh because some ranking says it is better.

The regional delusion is real, I guess.

Santa Clara received 18,844 application for class of 2027
Acceptance rate 50%
Yield 17%

It's just not it.




It's just not it.

Okay, sure. Honestly you people are hopeless. Continue believing west coast kids or employers would ever in a million years pick Lehigh over Santa Clara if you want. 🤦🤦

Santa Clara has great West Coast placement. If I planned to work in SV or CA in general I would definitely choose over Lehigh.

Would choose the opposite if I wanted to work on East Coast…especially Northeast.

Would anyone try to argue otherwise?

The PP who is trying to insist that her nonsense groups have nationwide relevance would.

I thought the list was just straight out of USNWR in order, then randomly broken into groups to annoy the people from the schools listed first on next tier down.

LOL 😆

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

Sure, Jan. Those other associates working 90-hour-weeks were just lazy.

I get it, you're invested in your own version of yourself, the one that exists in a meritocracy.

But we've seen you argue here, so I gotta say, bless your heart.

Yes, you have competition. It is strong competition because the prize is significant. This does not mean that your victory in that competition was luck, like winning a lottery. Your argument to the contrary is hilariously stupid.

So what happened to you, anyway? You refused to compete because you knew you would lose? Or you got kicked to the curb and now you have to cope and seethe that it was pure luck that others won and you lost?

It’s a small percentage who want the big law type of life with the billable hours and the 12 hour days. And out of those who start this type of job quite a few leave on their own. It’s not considered a significant prize for everyone but you’re right, it’s usually not luck. It’s work work work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

Sure, Jan. Those other associates working 90-hour-weeks were just lazy.

I get it, you're invested in your own version of yourself, the one that exists in a meritocracy.

But we've seen you argue here, so I gotta say, bless your heart.

Yes, you have competition. It is strong competition because the prize is significant. This does not mean that your victory in that competition was luck, like winning a lottery. Your argument to the contrary is hilariously stupid.

So what happened to you, anyway? You refused to compete because you knew you would lose? Or you got kicked to the curb and now you have to cope and seethe that it was pure luck that others won and you lost?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

Sure, Jan. Those other associates working 90-hour-weeks were just lazy.

I get it, you're invested in your own version of yourself, the one that exists in a meritocracy.

But we've seen you argue here, so I gotta say, bless your heart.

Um, I think Jan was just making the point that doing the competitive high school/college/grad school junket is not luck of the draw like playing the lottery. But we're sure you already know that, bless your heart.

Then why so hard to get into most colleges? I am not talking Ivy

Anonymous wrote:Yeah. This is why so many high stat kids are a flagships.

+1 Go over to the UMD stats thread. It's crazy.

My own kid had super high stats and is now at UMD for CS, which is T20 for CS. Tons of credits going in; will be able to graduate in 4 years with a masters in CS in their 4+1 program, and possibly a double major, too. All for under $120k (merit aid). Really, not a bad deal.

Anonymous wrote:my kids list was fully this:

Ivy plus
Good matches that offered merit, including international schools.

In the end, he really had a hard time deciding btw the full pay ivy plus and the merit at Denison (with money for grad school). But had he had a full pay middlebury or full pay Colby or full pay BC option, he would have scratched those without a second thought. Which is why he didn't bother.

The only thing is you really have to show a lot of interest and/or don't pick schools known to yield. Or have an international school you feel good about. Or you could end up with nothing, I guess.

?

I disagree with Selingo’s points in one critical area. Students from population dense states with highly educated populations will need to do OOS horsetrading in order to gain admission and merit to state colleges. In state flagships are for middle income familles, Pell grant recipients, and students that meet other institutional objectives.

Or if they are lucky they can go to the in state flagship for 5 years because they can pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.

Sure, Jan. Those other associates working 90-hour-weeks were just lazy.

I get it, you're invested in your own version of yourself, the one that exists in a meritocracy.

But we've seen you argue here, so I gotta say, bless your heart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this last PP but are you saying connections cannot be had at larger schools? Like if my kid was at UCLA, Michigan, etc, wouldn't they make good connections to help with recruiting? The sheer size and abilities within those networks seem meaningful.

They can be, of course. My husband went to a huge law school, got recruited by several firms, got his first job because one partner was an alum who also taught a class at his law school. But then he entered with all the other first-years, and that's a process designed to make most fail. He did fine, but it's a hell of a way to live, watching everyone get laid off and then seeing a new crop of shiny fresh faces come in.

Some of you like that, of course. It appeals to your inner Howard Roarke.

But if you're invested in seeing life as a series of zero-sum games that you are sure you'll win, how different are you from the guy who buys a lottery ticket every day with his gas? Not as much as you think.

Connections at smaller schools can be just, if not more, meaningful. Your professors are more likely to know you. Alumni networks are a lot tighter. And opportunities, when they happen, are more tailored than cattle calls.

Succeeding in BigLaw is not at all the same as buying a winning lottery ticket. If you succeed, you got there because you worked your ass off, just like you worked your ass off in high school, undergrad, and law school. You are not there at the top by accident.

You can make connections at big schools and have professors who know you, if you are the kind of person who makes the effort to make the connection rather than just sitting in the back of the lecture hall saying nothing.