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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, yes.

I was at MIT with Drew Houston (knew him) and at the same time Zuckerberg (didn't know him) was at Harvard. Could've dated two future billionaires 🤣.

I've had friends that created and sold tech companies created with team mates or classmates at MIT.

Some people came to MIT with money or access to money. MIT opened doors to money too. Still does.

Yep, Zuckerberg's wife who came from a humble, working-class, and immigrant background hit the jackpot by being admitted to Harvard.

Did she though? Have you ever met Mark Zuckerberg? I have and um, yeah I don't think she "hit the jackpot" at all.

“Women who marry for money earn every penny.”

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

I agree. Can you share how your educational experience changed your life beyond your sense of the possible?

I didn't go back to my small town. I got a job in a field that had very few women, hired because of my school. I excelled. I made good money and put myself through grad school with savings. Met spouse, who was a professor lol. Had social circle very different from people I grew up with. Life has been very different than HS classmates.

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 It's a very outdated metric.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: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.

When these schools corner the market on high student caliber, the result is the same.
There schools studied have the maximum density if you will of superior minded students, everywhere: classrooms, labs, clubs.
Though I suppose one could add Caltech, Northwestern and JHU to the ivy+ schools studied: based on pre-test optional data they are likely essentially the same student population.

Caltech provides something Americans don’t respect: rigorous education and a dedication towards improving science, not for profit, but for humanity’s sake. There’s a reason the American people adore MIT as a bastion for intellectual science while having never heard of Caltech- MIT provides all the useful tech for bombing others, stealing our data, creating polarizing media. Meanwhile Caltech students disproportionately receive PhDs and go in to the less profitable route of academia to improve our society.

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

I agree. Can you share how your educational experience changed your life beyond your sense of the possible?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, yes.

I was at MIT with Drew Houston (knew him) and at the same time Zuckerberg (didn't know him) was at Harvard. Could've dated two future billionaires 🤣.

I've had friends that created and sold tech companies created with team mates or classmates at MIT.

Some people came to MIT with money or access to money. MIT opened doors to money too. Still does.

Yep, Zuckerberg's wife who came from a humble, working-class, and immigrant background hit the jackpot by being admitted to Harvard.

Did she though? Have you ever met Mark Zuckerberg? I have and um, yeah I don't think she "hit the jackpot" at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, yes.

I was at MIT with Drew Houston (knew him) and at the same time Zuckerberg (didn't know him) was at Harvard. Could've dated two future billionaires 🤣.

I've had friends that created and sold tech companies created with team mates or classmates at MIT.

Some people came to MIT with money or access to money. MIT opened doors to money too. Still does.

Yep, Zuckerberg's wife who came from a humble, working-class, and immigrant background hit the jackpot by being admitted to Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ummm no the waitlist kids could definitely be hooked?

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.

When these schools corner the market on high student caliber, the result is the same.
There schools studied have the maximum density if you will of superior minded students, everywhere: classrooms, labs, clubs.
Though I suppose one could add Caltech, Northwestern and JHU to the ivy+ schools studied: based on pre-test optional data they are likely essentially the same student population.

Anonymous wrote:I get it, yes.

I was at MIT with Drew Houston (knew him) and at the same time Zuckerberg (didn't know him) was at Harvard. Could've dated two future billionaires 🤣.

I've had friends that created and sold tech companies created with team mates or classmates at MIT.

Some people came to MIT with money or access to money. MIT opened doors to money too. Still does.

Anonymous wrote:It's no surprise that being at top brand-name schools help with outcomes.

But as the article said ivy-plus grads "comprise less than half a percent of America’s undergraduate population" the real question is: what about everyone else? as parents, we can't afford to obsess and limit our focus on schools that only serve 0.5% of the undergrad population. they are statistically unlikely lottery tickets for everyone. we need to amplify, support and focus on the next tier of schools since doing so will be a tide that lifts up a more meaningful per cent of our kids.