Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the average Ivy student, especially those not from a UMC NE background, the biggest opportunity is to be around students and professors who see the world as bigger and more possible than they might have imagined it.

My brother attended an Ivy and eventually became a professor at a ho-hum-ranked school. Though his school is not prestigious, he is happy as a professor, a role he hadn’t considered before attending college.

And yet.. Ivy or bust types on this board don’t see this AT ALL.. hence the Ivy or bust mentality.

Anonymous wrote:For the average Ivy student, especially those not from a UMC NE background, the biggest opportunity is to be around students and professors who see the world as bigger and more possible than they might have imagined it.

My brother attended an Ivy and eventually became a professor at a ho-hum-ranked school. Though his school is not prestigious, he is happy as a professor, a role he hadn’t considered before attending college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

This is the reason for the waitlist design, but I agree would be stronger if it was admitted students who decided to go elsewhere. I believe there IS a.study like that but its older (90s?) and showed no effect of attendance choice. The landscape may have changed since then though.

The waitlist are high stat, amazing kids that are UNHOOKED, completely unhooked. The seats available for an unhooked (non-recruit, no legacy, not First Gen, questbridge, Pell Grant, etc). They are waitlisted due to class shaping and priority kids. That’s it.

All of the schools already out the WL kids through committee rounds and they passed, when it came to class shaping there wasn’t a spot. The WL is unranked and they will fill any need from that list, they do not re-review the application.

I have a kid that got off the WL who is top of his class, winning awards, prestigious internships….i think largely because the path wasn’t paved. They weren’t guaranteed admits. Some of the teams have kids with much lower stats that never would be admitted otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But not everyone is a small town girl from a MC high school. All those people you met at an Ivy, they went to high school somewhere. For people who already met them in high school, what’s the benefit of the Ivy?

You haven't met the professors in your high school now have you? Any Nobel laureates taught your high school classes?

Oh absolutely from first hand. Steven Weinberg hated teaching andvtold usxstraight up if it snowed he wasn't showing up. But hearing him describe his WORK, hearing the change in tone and the passion..raised the bar.

DP but my non-Ivy school had TWO Nobel Laureates (one of whom taught classes while I was there). Did you know that there is zero correlation between winning a Nobel and being a good teacher?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

This is the reason for the waitlist design, but I agree would be stronger if it was admitted students who decided to go elsewhere. I believe there IS a.study like that but its older (90s?) and showed no effect of attendance choice. The landscape may have changed since then though.

The waitlist are high stat, amazing kids that are UNHOOKED, completely unhooked. The seats available for an unhooked (non-recruit, no legacy, not First Gen, questbridge, Pell Grant, etc). They are waitlisted due to class shaping and priority kids. That’s it.

All of the schools already out the WL kids through committee rounds and they passed, when it came to class shaping there wasn’t a spot. The WL is unranked and they will fill any need from that list, they do not re-review the application.

I have a kid that got off the WL who is top of his class, winning awards, prestigious internships….i think largely because the path wasn’t paved. They weren’t guaranteed admits. Some of the teams have kids with much lower stats that never would be admitted otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t prove Ivy League schools matter. You can argue it’s the high student caliber in those schools that led to the results.

This is the reason for the waitlist design, but I agree would be stronger if it was admitted students who decided to go elsewhere. I believe there IS a.study like that but its older (90s?) and showed no effect of attendance choice. The landscape may have changed since then though.

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:I did some back and forth with several AI engines, and I left even less impressed with the DCUM Ivy focus. The typical job for an Ivy grad is something in finance, consulting, or tech. It’s a job. It has a salary. But, many kids get this from a good school.

The students who go on to become standout alumni fall into one of several buckets:

1) They already had access to capital and networks before they arrived at school. The degree confirmed their birthright.

2) Ivy was a FIRST step among many to success, like a prestigious job, then a prestigious graduate degree, then another prestigious job, and then many years of hard work, and then they got the prize.

3) They were risk takers. Four of the wealthiest people in the US attended an Ivy and dropped out. It definitely wasn’t the education that determined their success. Other notables didn’t follow the safe path of the prestigious job, but ran for office, wrote a book, etc.

Whatever the case, only 1 in 50,000 Ivy dudes will become a CEO, and it’s hard to know if it was their Ivy degree, jobs after school, graduate education, or something else that got them there. Whatever the case, it’s clear that most Ivy students won’t be CEOs.

The takeaway is that while kids who attend Ivies are smart and probably more ambitious and competitive than most, only a fraction of even them have the insatiable ambition and drive to actively leverage the available network to make an outstanding difference.

For what it’s worth, I have a SIL who attended an Ivy undergraduate and Ivy medical school. She complains all the time about how her non-Ivy peers get paid the same money.

Why is she complaining?

Anonymous wrote:I did some back and forth with several AI engines, and I left even less impressed with the DCUM Ivy focus. The typical job for an Ivy grad is something in finance, consulting, or tech. It’s a job. It has a salary. But, many kids get this from a good school.

The students who go on to become standout alumni fall into one of several buckets:

1) They already had access to capital and networks before they arrived at school. The degree confirmed their birthright.

2) Ivy was a FIRST step among many to success, like a prestigious job, then a prestigious graduate degree, then another prestigious job, and then many years of hard work, and then they got the prize.

3) They were risk takers. Four of the wealthiest people in the US attended an Ivy and dropped out. It definitely wasn’t the education that determined their success. Other notables didn’t follow the safe path of the prestigious job, but ran for office, wrote a book, etc.

Whatever the case, only 1 in 50,000 Ivy dudes will become a CEO, and it’s hard to know if it was their Ivy degree, jobs after school, graduate education, or something else that got them there. Whatever the case, it’s clear that most Ivy students won’t be CEOs.

The takeaway is that while kids who attend Ivies are smart and probably more ambitious and competitive than most, only a fraction of even them have the insatiable ambition and drive to actively leverage the available network to make an outstanding difference.

For what it’s worth, I have a SIL who attended an Ivy undergraduate and Ivy medical school. She complains all the time about how her non-Ivy peers get paid the same money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But not everyone is a small town girl from a MC high school. All those people you met at an Ivy, they went to high school somewhere. For people who already met them in high school, what’s the benefit of the Ivy?

You haven't met the professors in your high school now have you? Any Nobel laureates taught your high school classes?

Oh absolutely from first hand. Steven Weinberg hated teaching andvtold usxstraight up if it snowed he wasn't showing up. But hearing him describe his WORK, hearing the change in tone and the passion..raised the bar.

DP but my non-Ivy school had TWO Nobel Laureates (one of whom taught classes while I was there). Did you know that there is zero correlation between winning a Nobel and being a good teacher?

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not the only one to make that observation.

This article reminds me of something David Brooks would have written 20 years ago. But the idea that the Ivy schools represent some kind of meritocracy is very dead in 2026. Most talent goes elsewhere these days.

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.

And a critical concentration has be reached to get the effects described in the article. Below that critical concentration, it rarely happens.
Ivies are the ones (most likely only ones) exceeding this critical concentration.

If it’s about a “critical concentration,” why wouldn’t an even smaller school be even better (more concentrated)? And shouldn’t it be possible to quantify and measure the concentration? I’d like to know if, as you suggest, a school that is merely at 99.99% of the “critical concentration” truly gets absolutely no benefit. Because my suspicion would be that things are not as black-and-white as that.

Not if you recruit half of the class with athletes, donors, and other priorities, and test optional. A larger school may recruit the same number of athletes but they are quickly diluted in a sea of geniuses. With test required, these athletes are probably also very capable.
It's just more difficult for SLACs to do this.