Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Most online systems could be easily worked around. Also the systems aren't in use now.

Just install things that need to scan your id. The classes are like 300 people max, it would take no time. I’m sure they have the same technology for dorms and the library.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Maybe that is because you do not learn anything anyway….

I hire an avg of 8 kids from t10 schools every year for the last 15 years at an IB in NYC.
I’m yet to hire one who has learn enough. None of them know anything. I could care less if they took Class A, B or C. But if I give them a very complex real world problem, can they solve it? that is all I care about. I will teach them everything else I need them to know.

Investment Banking isn’t known for solving “complex real world problems”. If kids want to do that, they go work for companies trying to create nuclear fusion energy or DNA-based computer chips.

You know…actual complex real world problems. It’s laughable that you would combine that phrase and IB in the same sentence.

So, "trying" to do something that essentially no one actually does is the only "solving" complex real world problems? OK chum. Obviously IB work is super easy and that's why all the work is done for $7/day in Bangladesh slums.

Why is your English so bad?

?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Most online systems could be easily worked around. Also the systems aren't in use now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

That was not my impression of Amherst all. I got a happy nerd vibe. Kids seemed content, not grim at all.

Harvard seemed pretty happy, too. A mix of true nerds and future 'master of the universe' types. Agree with a PP that Harvard shoots for a mix. They want the latter because they are strategically cultivating the next generation of leaders and big donors. It's necessary to keep the corporate machine well-oiled. Harvard is very much what you make of it, from the student perspective. If courses are selected well, can be an incredibly enriching academic experience or one can coast and learn little.

Ita Harvard is what you make of it. You can take easy courses and hide if you choose to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

I don't buy the premise that there is a connection between big parties and quirky geniuses, sorry. I think you have a different understanding of "quirky" than most.

Large parties means game nights, robotics hacking, rooms set up with DJs, etc. It does not mean frat parties.

I was at Stanford back when Stanford valued fun and creativity. Those large spaces were absolutely critical. Amherst gas systemically removed them.

Those are not large parties, lol. Are you actually suggesting game nights and robotics events are prohibited at Amherst? From an Amherst student one year ago: "In terms of the social scene, I'd break down the population as 30-40% hardcore going out/party types, another 40% still social and going to some parties but also mixing it with campus events, and then maybe 20% very insular/introverted types. The social scene at Amherst is partially parties but then there are concerts, student events that are more casual like performance nights at the art theme house where students go up and play music or sing, movie nights, bonfires, etc. In general you will get a mix of people and it's not extremely nerdy, though there are some people like that."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

I don't buy the premise that there is a connection between big parties and quirky geniuses, sorry. I think you have a different understanding of "quirky" than most.

Large parties means game nights, robotics hacking, rooms set up with DJs, etc. It does not mean frat parties.

I was at Stanford back when Stanford valued fun and creativity. Those large spaces were absolutely critical. Amherst gas systemically removed them.

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

I don't buy the premise that there is a connection between big parties and quirky geniuses, sorry. I think you have a different understanding of "quirky" than most.

NP but what’s yours? You seem purposefully obtuse on this point.

Well, I don't follow you either. NP. Quirky geniuses are associated with social differences and are the opposite of big partiers.

"The quirks often associated with geniuses can be attributed to several factors:

Diverse Thinking Styles: Geniuses may think outside conventional norms, leading to unique perspectives and behaviors. This divergence can manifest as eccentricities or unconventional habits.
Intense Focus: Many highly intelligent individuals exhibit deep focus on their interests, which can result in behaviors that seem unusual to others. Their dedication can overshadow social norms or expectations.
Social Challenges: Some geniuses may struggle with social interactions, leading to behaviors that appear quirky. Conditions like autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can be more prevalent among individuals with high intelligence, contributing to social differences.
Creative Expression: Quirkiness can be a form of creative expression. Geniuses often explore ideas and concepts in novel ways, which can include unconventional lifestyles or habits.
Cognitive Overload: Highly intelligent individuals may process information differently or more rapidly, leading to idiosyncratic habits as a way to manage their thoughts or emotions.
Rejection of Conformity: Many geniuses prioritize originality and may intentionally reject societal norms, leading to behaviors that are perceived as quirky.
In summary, the quirks of geniuses often reflect their unique cognitive processes, intense focus on their interests, and a tendency to challenge societal conventions."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Maybe that is because you do not learn anything anyway….

I hire an avg of 8 kids from t10 schools every year for the last 15 years at an IB in NYC.
I’m yet to hire one who has learn enough. None of them know anything. I could care less if they took Class A, B or C. But if I give them a very complex real world problem, can they solve it? that is all I care about. I will teach them everything else I need them to know.

Investment Banking isn’t known for solving “complex real world problems”. If kids want to do that, they go work for companies trying to create nuclear fusion energy or DNA-based computer chips.

You know…actual complex real world problems. It’s laughable that you would combine that phrase and IB in the same sentence.

The attitude here is hilarious….And yet I get about 100 applications from your precious IVY little kids dying to be an idiot not wanting to solve any problems working for me….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

I don't buy the premise that there is a connection between big parties and quirky geniuses, sorry. I think you have a different understanding of "quirky" than most.

NP but what’s yours? You seem purposefully obtuse on this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

I don't buy the premise that there is a connection between big parties and quirky geniuses, sorry. I think you have a different understanding of "quirky" than most.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

Anonymous wrote:Harvard doesn't take the smartest students anymore. They select for all other reasons and aren't even the best college in Cambridge now.

I would argue it hasn’t been since 1861

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid at another Ivy. Friends from HS that are at Harvard, “are never there”. Skiing now (break), or in Florida a lot on the fall or traveling to London. It’s definitely a thing. Most unintellectual experience of all the kids who went Ivy.

Weird.

I'm also mystified by what Harvard is doing. The number of applicants to Harvard has been declining for years. It's known as a school that is indifferent to the undergrad experience. Its undergrad students are largely hooked or Z list or wealthy. Very few are admitted for their smarts. Students glide for four years. Maybe they attend class. Maybe they don't. Employers have all noticed a significant decline in the quality of Harvard grads over the past thirty years. I guess mandating that students actually attend classes is a start to addressing the problems at Harvard undergrad. But it's pathetic that it's come to that.

I have two kids at T20 universities. Among their cohort, it was only legacies and the offspring of prominent names that applied to Harvard. The genuinely smart and accomplished kids didn't even look in Harvard's direction. It does have the reputation for being a country club school these days. I'm referring to undergrad. Grad school is different.

agree with all of this from what I've seen.
non-DMV private.
Sends 2-3 kids to harvard every year.

Harvard continuously makes terrible admissions decisions for DC’s school. They’re rejected a Coolidge scholar now at Princeton, multiple top stem students now at MIT, a student who actually ran a really successful non profit now at Wharton, many strong performing humanities students at top LACs (a few in STEM too).

Who’s been accepted? A black double legacy, a subpar middle of the class student who’s a legacy, a professor’s child, and various other wealthy families likely connected to the school. My child isn’t even bothering applying and is gunning for other ivies.