Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Exactly. If you want your kid to be a CEO/Bulge Bracket MD/PE Partner/Big Law Partner (which is the definition of "making it" for many of us), they are much more likely to get there from a good private than TJ or Stuy. I'm guessing half the kids and families at TJ and Stuy have no idea what these things even are. But as you noted, given the huge size of these schools, there definitely will be plenty of kids who do accomplish this. But most of them are the kids of white collar professionals.

None of this is true other than likely the kids family doesn’t know about it. When they get to college, there’s no difference, because many students are trying to get into these top firms. The information eventually reaches these students and they’re much better grinders than private school kids.

More often than not, TJ/Stuy kids end up in the front office, private kids in the back office but their parents can still claim they are on their way to "PE Partner".

Law is essentially a grind contest, LSAT, GPA, billable hours, clients you bring in. Not for the faint of heart.

Actually the opposite is school. Front office rewards soft skills which TJ/Stuy kids tend to lack (again, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule on both sides before you get your panties in a bunch). Except I wouldn't say that TJ/Stuy end up in back office. They just don't end up in the elite front office. Not sure what you do but most of the people I know in these types of elite roles come from money so know how to act the part.

I'm guessing you are a TJ/Stuy parent who has never worked in the elite world or interacted with these people and seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about it. Rather than broadcasting your ignorance, just stay quiet and learn. You are really proving my point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Exactly. If you want your kid to be a CEO/Bulge Bracket MD/PE Partner/Big Law Partner (which is the definition of "making it" for many of us), they are much more likely to get there from a good private than TJ or Stuy. I'm guessing half the kids and families at TJ and Stuy have no idea what these things even are. But as you noted, given the huge size of these schools, there definitely will be plenty of kids who do accomplish this. But most of them are the kids of white collar professionals.

I'm an ex-parent at one of those schools and can confirm majority pf parents have no idea what these jobs are and don't personally know anyone in these professions. To them, "making it" stills means the traditional doctors, lawyers, engineers. They know about Silicon Valley so they want their kids in Comp Sci, but just so they can become coders and programmers, not the next Sam Altman, Evan Speigel or Mark Zuckerberg who coincidentally all went to private schools

Hi, Sam's mom.

Isn't Sam's mom in jail?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Exactly. If you want your kid to be a CEO/Bulge Bracket MD/PE Partner/Big Law Partner (which is the definition of "making it" for many of us), they are much more likely to get there from a good private than TJ or Stuy. I'm guessing half the kids and families at TJ and Stuy have no idea what these things even are. But as you noted, given the huge size of these schools, there definitely will be plenty of kids who do accomplish this. But most of them are the kids of white collar professionals.

I'm an ex-parent at one of those schools and can confirm majority pf parents have no idea what these jobs are and don't personally know anyone in these professions. To them, "making it" stills means the traditional doctors, lawyers, engineers. They know about Silicon Valley so they want their kids in Comp Sci, but just so they can become coders and programmers, not the next Sam Altman, Evan Speigel or Mark Zuckerberg who coincidentally all went to private schools

Hi, Sam's mom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Honey, that’s not causation. The same HYP guy, if gone to CMU, will turn out the same. HYP screen, or they used to, for leaders. They can’t be fostered.

I don't love PP's condescending "honey" attitude, but I do agree with some sentiments of what she said.

My oldest DC was a lifer at several grind schools (magnets/G&T since K) and youngest is at a feeder private (both not in DVM but think equivalent of TJ and Sidwell). The public grinder kid and his friends were all doing 14 APs, dual enrollment, 2-3 volunteer jobs at hospitals and meals on wheels, then they all move on to grind colleges like Cornell and CMU. Meanwhile, the private school kids don't even take AP exams; the same caliber of kids (similar IQ, work ethics) would end up at HYP Duke, Williams, Brown etc and they are much less burned out than the public grinder kids. One thing I notice is that the private non-grinder kids are not necessarily smarter or even better leaders at that age (17, 18) but they are often much better public speakers, they can carry on an interesting analytical conversation with adults and are more polished.

This is very true. Private schools kids focus on the whole person approach. They often take low rigor courses but keep a polished appearance of high GPA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Exactly. If you want your kid to be a CEO/Bulge Bracket MD/PE Partner/Big Law Partner (which is the definition of "making it" for many of us), they are much more likely to get there from a good private than TJ or Stuy. I'm guessing half the kids and families at TJ and Stuy have no idea what these things even are. But as you noted, given the huge size of these schools, there definitely will be plenty of kids who do accomplish this. But most of them are the kids of white collar professionals.

I'm an ex-parent at one of those schools and can confirm majority pf parents have no idea what these jobs are and don't personally know anyone in these professions. To them, "making it" stills means the traditional doctors, lawyers, engineers. They know about Silicon Valley so they want their kids in Comp Sci, but just so they can become coders and programmers, not the next Sam Altman, Evan Speigel or Mark Zuckerberg who coincidentally all went to private schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Exactly. If you want your kid to be a CEO/Bulge Bracket MD/PE Partner/Big Law Partner (which is the definition of "making it" for many of us), they are much more likely to get there from a good private than TJ or Stuy. I'm guessing half the kids and families at TJ and Stuy have no idea what these things even are. But as you noted, given the huge size of these schools, there definitely will be plenty of kids who do accomplish this. But most of them are the kids of white collar professionals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Honey, that’s not causation. The same HYP guy, if gone to CMU, will turn out the same. HYP screen, or they used to, for leaders. They can’t be fostered.

I don't love PP's condescending "honey" attitude, but I do agree with some sentiments of what she said.

My oldest DC was a lifer at several grind schools (magnets/G&T since K) and youngest is at a feeder private (both not in DVM but think equivalent of TJ and Sidwell). The public grinder kid and his friends were all doing 14 APs, dual enrollment, 2-3 volunteer jobs at hospitals and meals on wheels, then they all move on to grind colleges like Cornell and CMU. Meanwhile, the private school kids don't even take AP exams; the same caliber of kids (similar IQ, work ethics) would end up at HYP Duke, Williams, Brown etc and they are much less burned out than the public grinder kids. One thing I notice is that the private non-grinder kids are not necessarily smarter or even better leaders at that age (17, 18) but they are often much better public speakers, they can carry on an interesting analytical conversation with adults and are more polished.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Honey, that’s not causation. The same HYP guy, if gone to CMU, will turn out the same. HYP screen, or they used to, for leaders. They can’t be fostered.

I don't love PP's condescending "honey" attitude, but I do agree with some sentiments of what she said.

My oldest DC was a lifer at several grind schools (magnets/G&T since K) and youngest is at a feeder private (both not in DVM but think equivalent of TJ and Sidwell). The public grinder kid and his friends were all doing 14 APs, dual enrollment, 2-3 volunteer jobs at hospitals and meals on wheels, then they all move on to grind colleges like Cornell and CMU. Meanwhile, the private school kids don't even take AP exams; the same caliber of kids (similar IQ, work ethics) would end up at HYP Duke, Williams, Brown etc and they are much less burned out than the public grinder kids. One thing I notice is that the private non-grinder kids are not necessarily smarter or even better leaders at that age (17, 18) but they are often much better public speakers, they can carry on an interesting analytical conversation with adults and are more polished.

This is very true. Private schools kids focus on the whole person approach. They often take low rigor courses but keep a polished appearance of high GPA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Honey, that’s not causation. The same HYP guy, if gone to CMU, will turn out the same. HYP screen, or they used to, for leaders. They can’t be fostered.

I don't love PP's condescending "honey" attitude, but I do agree with some sentiments of what she said.

My oldest DC was a lifer at several grind schools (magnets/G&T since K) and youngest is at a feeder private (both not in DVM but think equivalent of TJ and Sidwell). The public grinder kid and his friends were all doing 14 APs, dual enrollment, 2-3 volunteer jobs at hospitals and meals on wheels, then they all move on to grind colleges like Cornell and CMU. Meanwhile, the private school kids don't even take AP exams; the same caliber of kids (similar IQ, work ethics) would end up at HYP Duke, Williams, Brown etc and they are much less burned out than the public grinder kids. One thing I notice is that the private non-grinder kids are not necessarily smarter or even better leaders at that age (17, 18) but they are often much better public speakers, they can carry on an interesting analytical conversation with adults and are more polished.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

This is what I have in mind when I refer to a "grind school".

Obviously, all schools have a mix of kids. No school is all one thing or another.

And yes, the percentage of grindy kids often differs by major within the same school.

That said, I do feel some schools with really smart, hardworking kids don't feel like as much of a grind overall.

Two factors that I've noticed about the less grindy schools:

(1) They seem to attract and/or select enough kids who proactively balance their academics with some social ECs (not just additional resume-building clubs and activities); and

(2) They offer kids big, communal experiences outside the classroom that add dimension and balance to their lives. This could be anything from sports to social clubs (could be Greek life but not necessarily) to regular campus events or festivals or concerts that regularly attract a ton of students, to an off-campus setting that affects the school culture and inspires kids to balance their academics with something else (a vibrant city, an accessible and interesting college town, gorgeous and accessible nature/outdoor activities.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

This is what I have in mind when I refer to a "grind school".

Obviously, all schools have a mix of kids. No school is all one thing or another.

And yes, the percentage of grindy kids often differs by major within the same school.

That said, I do feel some schools with really smart, hardworking kids don't feel like as much of a grind overall.

Two factors that I've noticed about the less grindy schools:

(1) They seem to attract and/or select enough kids who proactively balance their academics with some social ECs (not just additional resume-building clubs and activities); and

(2) They offer kids big, communal experiences outside the classroom that add dimension and balance to their lives. This could be anything from sports to social clubs (could be Greek life but not necessarily) to regular campus events or festivals or concerts that regularly attract a ton of students, to an off-campus setting that affects the school culture and inspires kids to balance their academics with something else (a vibrant city, an accessible and interesting college town, gorgeous and accessible nature/outdoor activities.)

Cornell has all that you describe and is still grindy.

Right?? I know!

Cornell is an interesting one. The reputation is definitely grindy, and the school seems to lean in to it, including with what it chooses to include on it's various IG pages. (We've been following all the schools DD is considering and have been struck by how different they are in what they choose to emphasize.)

And yet DD really liked it when she visited. The academics are an excellent fit in so many ways, and on the non-academic, social side, she loved the active, outdoorsy setting, the option of Greek life, and the size and range of athletic options (to watch and to play). I think it also helps that the kids she knows there from her high school are somewhat balanced and social and are happy there.

Maybe it helps that Cornell is such a big school? Even if the overall vibe is more grindy, there are just so many kids. So maybe there's truly a cohort and a bunch of communities for everyone?

Cold, Grey, Winter, Freezing Temps and being somewhat isolated is not everyone's thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Honey, that’s not causation. The same HYP guy, if gone to CMU, will turn out the same. HYP screen, or they used to, for leaders. They can’t be fostered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Exactly. If you want your kid to be a CEO/Bulge Bracket MD/PE Partner/Big Law Partner (which is the definition of "making it" for many of us), they are much more likely to get there from a good private than TJ or Stuy. I'm guessing half the kids and families at TJ and Stuy have no idea what these things even are. But as you noted, given the huge size of these schools, there definitely will be plenty of kids who do accomplish this. But most of them are the kids of white collar professionals.

None of this is true other than likely the kids family doesn’t know about it. When they get to college, there’s no difference, because many students are trying to get into these top firms. The information eventually reaches these students and they’re much better grinders than private school kids.

More often than not, TJ/Stuy kids end up in the front office, private kids in the back office but their parents can still claim they are on their way to "PE Partner".

Law is essentially a grind contest, LSAT, GPA, billable hours, clients you bring in. Not for the faint of heart.

Actually the opposite is school. Front office rewards soft skills which TJ/Stuy kids tend to lack (again, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule on both sides before you get your panties in a bunch). Except I wouldn't say that TJ/Stuy end up in back office. They just don't end up in the elite front office. Not sure what you do but most of the people I know in these types of elite roles come from money so know how to act the part.

I'm guessing you are a TJ/Stuy parent who has never worked in the elite world or interacted with these people and seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about it. Rather than broadcasting your ignorance, just stay quiet and learn. You are really proving my point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Exactly. If you want your kid to be a CEO/Bulge Bracket MD/PE Partner/Big Law Partner (which is the definition of "making it" for many of us), they are much more likely to get there from a good private than TJ or Stuy. I'm guessing half the kids and families at TJ and Stuy have no idea what these things even are. But as you noted, given the huge size of these schools, there definitely will be plenty of kids who do accomplish this. But most of them are the kids of white collar professionals.

None of this is true other than likely the kids family doesn’t know about it. When they get to college, there’s no difference, because many students are trying to get into these top firms. The information eventually reaches these students and they’re much better grinders than private school kids.

More often than not, TJ/Stuy kids end up in the front office, private kids in the back office but their parents can still claim they are on their way to "PE Partner".

Law is essentially a grind contest, LSAT, GPA, billable hours, clients you bring in. Not for the faint of heart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it means a school where there is no work life balance. Kids are overworked and living with a lot of anxiety; they are not learning for the sake of knowledge, discovery and innovation, but to get good grades and stay afloat.

I always wonder if these kids graduate to become leaders and bosses, or if they simply transition to become work horses in the work place.

Basically the college version of TJ, Stuyvesant, etc.

TJ and Stuy produced way more successful “leaders and bosses” than any TT private schools.

Not sure if this is true proportionately. Sure TJ Stuy could have more in absolutely number bc the class size is literally 10x that of a private HS.

Also am noticing the kids who went from Stuy to LACs and HYP are more likely to become leaders. The Stuy kids who went to CMU or even MIT work for those leaders

Exactly. If you want your kid to be a CEO/Bulge Bracket MD/PE Partner/Big Law Partner (which is the definition of "making it" for many of us), they are much more likely to get there from a good private than TJ or Stuy. I'm guessing half the kids and families at TJ and Stuy have no idea what these things even are. But as you noted, given the huge size of these schools, there definitely will be plenty of kids who do accomplish this. But most of them are the kids of white collar professionals.

None of this is true other than likely the kids family doesn’t know about it. When they get to college, there’s no difference, because many students are trying to get into these top firms. The information eventually reaches these students and they’re much better grinders than private school kids.