Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of threads in this forum that tout HYPSM and denigrate other elite schools as “Ivy rejects,” much to the protest of parents and students at other elite schools. What’s going on here?

First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.

It is about two other variables:

1) dispositional intensity - HYPSM are looking for hyper-driven, highly competitive people who believe that worldly success/legacy is existential. Other elite schools, particularly those outside the NE, are looking for more balanced students that value Midwestern Southern or non-tech/SV Western values of hospitality, humility, and enjoyment of life.

2) regional cultural differences - HYPSM
draws heavily from the Northeast, elite private high schools and global strivers. Amongst these groups, prestige awareness and achievement stacking is essential for external validation. For other elite schools that draw heavily from the South, Midwest, or non-tech West, ambition is more subtle, relational and not existential.

When the Ivy-or-bust group deride your kid’s choice as an “Ivy reject,” what they’re really saying is that you’re soft, not hardcore, like them. They want to be a Supreme Court justice; you want to be a local trust and estate lawyer. They want to create Facebook; you want to work at Facebook and get a stock grant.

While many would be tempted to applaud the world-changing desire of HYPSM, I’m not always impressed. First, much of what’s counted as an “advancement” is just incremental improvements on existing human habits. Second, much of this worldly success is privatized (think hedge funds and their ilk). Third, in the worst cases, crazy ambition leads to the breaking of social and institutional norms where society shoulders the consequences. In contrast, hometown doctors, lawyers, educators, and small business leaders almost always benefit their communities.

Only you and your kid can decide what’s right for them. Not all smart kids belong at or will thrive at HPYSM. And, that’s a good thing. If everyone in society acted like the most ambitious, we’d kill each other for scraps.

Many go to finance and consulting. Not genius’ outside of the box. Many are sheep. Who cares? The question is assini e.

There are sheep at every school, including HYPSM. But there are proportionately more wolves. This is unequivocal. Would you rather your kid be sheep or wolf? Canine beats ovine all day long.

HYPSM send more to wall street / FAANG than other schools. Plenty of sheep, just better ones. Maybe "Oxen" is a better term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody in their right mind tries to differentiate between kids who attend an ivy or a top non-ivy. In south, so many kids decline ivies for similar schools in warm climates.

This just isn't true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of threads in this forum that tout HYPSM and denigrate other elite schools as “Ivy rejects,” much to the protest of parents and students at other elite schools. What’s going on here?

First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.

It is about two other variables:

1) dispositional intensity - HYPSM are looking for hyper-driven, highly competitive people who believe that worldly success/legacy is existential. Other elite schools, particularly those outside the NE, are looking for more balanced students that value Midwestern Southern or non-tech/SV Western values of hospitality, humility, and enjoyment of life.

2) regional cultural differences - HYPSM
draws heavily from the Northeast, elite private high schools and global strivers. Amongst these groups, prestige awareness and achievement stacking is essential for external validation. For other elite schools that draw heavily from the South, Midwest, or non-tech West, ambition is more subtle, relational and not existential.

When the Ivy-or-bust group deride your kid’s choice as an “Ivy reject,” what they’re really saying is that you’re soft, not hardcore, like them. They want to be a Supreme Court justice; you want to be a local trust and estate lawyer. They want to create Facebook; you want to work at Facebook and get a stock grant.

While many would be tempted to applaud the world-changing desire of HYPSM, I’m not always impressed. First, much of what’s counted as an “advancement” is just incremental improvements on existing human habits. Second, much of this worldly success is privatized (think hedge funds and their ilk). Third, in the worst cases, crazy ambition leads to the breaking of social and institutional norms where society shoulders the consequences. In contrast, hometown doctors, lawyers, educators, and small business leaders almost always benefit their communities.

Only you and your kid can decide what’s right for them. Not all smart kids belong at or will thrive at HPYSM. And, that’s a good thing. If everyone in society acted like the most ambitious, we’d kill each other for scraps.

Many go to finance and consulting. Not genius’ outside of the box. Many are sheep. Who cares? The question is assini e.

There are sheep at every school, including HYPSM. But there are proportionately more wolves. This is unequivocal. Would you rather your kid be sheep or wolf? Canine beats ovine all day long.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think HYP even belongs in the same sentence as MIT and Stanford. MIT and Stanford are at a different level than Harvard, Yale, and Princeton - globally, professionally, network, quality of education, the talent of undergrad students, resources, opportunities, star professors, research, etc. Plus both MIT and Stanford are excellent at engineering and CS and are at the forefront of a rapidly changing world. Harvard and Yale are woefully behind. Princeton is better, but it's still not at the same level.

MIT and Stanford exist at a different level. HYP and some of the other ivies have made questionable decisions in admissions, leadership, and hiring in recent years. And everyone has noticed - certainly anyone that's been hiring recent grads. HYP are relentlessly focused on hooks - whether wealth, the prominence of parents, athletes, FGLI, and so on. Whereas MIT and Stanford have been much better at picking up the genuine best and brightest, as well as students most likely to make an impact. Neither are perfect, but both are infinitely better than HYP, which have effectively become undergrad country clubs that do a little charity on the side.

HYPSM is a very antiquated construct. There's MIT and Stanford. And then there are about 15 schools that could be used interchangeably, depending on interest and major.

I find it strange to group them like this unless all you care about is CS. Princeton is undoubtedly more academically rigorous than Stanford, and HYPS all have very similar admissions priorities

Anonymous wrote:What school is the “M”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This paper is an interesting take on the HYPSM question, including the sub question of how to think about the HYPSM players themselves.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03547-8#Sec19

The authors wanted to see where “ extreme winners” (my summary term, not theirs…think presidents, Supreme Court justices, Nobel Prize winners, F500 CEO’s, Pulitzer Prize winners, MacArthur fellows) went to school. Using data on ~ 26,000 people who have achieved remarkable across disparate fields, they find that a very small group of elite colleges have produced a huge share of these top achievers. Within that set of elite schools, Harvard seem to have a disproportionate footprint. For example, about one out of every six “extraordinary Americans” in their list went to Harvard alone.

Of course, the strong association between these schools and extraordinary outcomes does not establish causation (for example, it is possible that these individuals would have achieved extraordinarily regardless of the school they attended). And if there is causation, the precise mechanism is hard to pin down with respect to education effects vs network effects vs a possible “treatment effect that increases one’s ambitions or expectations ” by attending Harvard. But the net effect, especially for Harvard, is hard to ignore.

One note: the authors do the analysis using institutional attendance, not only undergraduate. My read of the paper is that while undergraduate attendance at elite schools is highly represented among top achievers, graduate education at these institutions plays an even more prominent role. So, even if you didn’t win the lottery for Harvard undergrad, there’s always an opportunity to go there for graduate school, that that may be even more of a driver of outcome.

This is why I would love for my kid to attend Harvard, although we realistic on the odds. The analogy I keep thinking about is joining a high school football team that has won the state championship for several years straight. Everyone around you expects to win. The tradition of excellence fosters a mindset that “winning is normal,” which builds your confidence and drives you to perform at a higher level.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think HYP even belongs in the same sentence as MIT and Stanford. MIT and Stanford are at a different level than Harvard, Yale, and Princeton - globally, professionally, network, quality of education, the talent of undergrad students, resources, opportunities, star professors, research, etc. Plus both MIT and Stanford are excellent at engineering and CS and are at the forefront of a rapidly changing world. Harvard and Yale are woefully behind. Princeton is better, but it's still not at the same level.

MIT and Stanford exist at a different level. HYP and some of the other ivies have made questionable decisions in admissions, leadership, and hiring in recent years. And everyone has noticed - certainly anyone that's been hiring recent grads. HYP are relentlessly focused on hooks - whether wealth, the prominence of parents, athletes, FGLI, and so on. Whereas MIT and Stanford have been much better at picking up the genuine best and brightest, as well as students most likely to make an impact. Neither are perfect, but both are infinitely better than HYP, which have effectively become undergrad country clubs that do a little charity on the side.

HYPSM is a very antiquated construct. There's MIT and Stanford. And then there are about 15 schools that could be used interchangeably, depending on interest and major.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of threads in this forum that tout HYPSM and denigrate other elite schools as “Ivy rejects,” much to the protest of parents and students at other elite schools. What’s going on here?

First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.

It is about two other variables:

1) dispositional intensity - HYPSM are looking for hyper-driven, highly competitive people who believe that worldly success/legacy is existential. Other elite schools, particularly those outside the NE, are looking for more balanced students that value Midwestern Southern or non-tech/SV Western values of hospitality, humility, and enjoyment of life.

2) regional cultural differences - HYPSM
draws heavily from the Northeast, elite private high schools and global strivers. Amongst these groups, prestige awareness and achievement stacking is essential for external validation. For other elite schools that draw heavily from the South, Midwest, or non-tech West, ambition is more subtle, relational and not existential.

When the Ivy-or-bust group deride your kid’s choice as an “Ivy reject,” what they’re really saying is that you’re soft, not hardcore, like them. They want to be a Supreme Court justice; you want to be a local trust and estate lawyer. They want to create Facebook; you want to work at Facebook and get a stock grant.

While many would be tempted to applaud the world-changing desire of HYPSM, I’m not always impressed. First, much of what’s counted as an “advancement” is just incremental improvements on existing human habits. Second, much of this worldly success is privatized (think hedge funds and their ilk). Third, in the worst cases, crazy ambition leads to the breaking of social and institutional norms where society shoulders the consequences. In contrast, hometown doctors, lawyers, educators, and small business leaders almost always benefit their communities.

Only you and your kid can decide what’s right for them. Not all smart kids belong at or will thrive at HPYSM. And, that’s a good thing. If everyone in society acted like the most ambitious, we’d kill each other for scraps.

Many go to finance and consulting. Not genius’ outside of the box. Many are sheep. Who cares? The question is assini e.

There are sheep at every school, including HYPSM. But there are proportionately more wolves. This is unequivocal. Would you rather your kid be sheep or wolf? Canine beats ovine all day long.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of threads in this forum that tout HYPSM and denigrate other elite schools as “Ivy rejects,” much to the protest of parents and students at other elite schools. What’s going on here?

First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.

It is about two other variables:

1) dispositional intensity - HYPSM are looking for hyper-driven, highly competitive people who believe that worldly success/legacy is existential. Other elite schools, particularly those outside the NE, are looking for more balanced students that value Midwestern Southern or non-tech/SV Western values of hospitality, humility, and enjoyment of life.

2) regional cultural differences - HYPSM
draws heavily from the Northeast, elite private high schools and global strivers. Amongst these groups, prestige awareness and achievement stacking is essential for external validation. For other elite schools that draw heavily from the South, Midwest, or non-tech West, ambition is more subtle, relational and not existential.

When the Ivy-or-bust group deride your kid’s choice as an “Ivy reject,” what they’re really saying is that you’re soft, not hardcore, like them. They want to be a Supreme Court justice; you want to be a local trust and estate lawyer. They want to create Facebook; you want to work at Facebook and get a stock grant.

While many would be tempted to applaud the world-changing desire of HYPSM, I’m not always impressed. First, much of what’s counted as an “advancement” is just incremental improvements on existing human habits. Second, much of this worldly success is privatized (think hedge funds and their ilk). Third, in the worst cases, crazy ambition leads to the breaking of social and institutional norms where society shoulders the consequences. In contrast, hometown doctors, lawyers, educators, and small business leaders almost always benefit their communities.

Only you and your kid can decide what’s right for them. Not all smart kids belong at or will thrive at HPYSM. And, that’s a good thing. If everyone in society acted like the most ambitious, we’d kill each other for scraps.

Many go to finance and consulting. Not genius’ outside of the box. Many are sheep. Who cares? The question is assini e.

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of threads in this forum that tout HYPSM and denigrate other elite schools as “Ivy rejects,” much to the protest of parents and students at other elite schools. What’s going on here?

First, it’s not about smarts. Every school among the Top 25 universities and Top 15 liberal arts colleges have a very similar academic profile.

It is about two other variables:

1) dispositional intensity - HYPSM are looking for hyper-driven, highly competitive people who believe that worldly success/legacy is existential. Other elite schools, particularly those outside the NE, are looking for more balanced students that value Midwestern Southern or non-tech/SV Western values of hospitality, humility, and enjoyment of life.

2) regional cultural differences - HYPSM
draws heavily from the Northeast, elite private high schools and global strivers. Amongst these groups, prestige awareness and achievement stacking is essential for external validation. For other elite schools that draw heavily from the South, Midwest, or non-tech West, ambition is more subtle, relational and not existential.

When the Ivy-or-bust group deride your kid’s choice as an “Ivy reject,” what they’re really saying is that you’re soft, not hardcore, like them. They want to be a Supreme Court justice; you want to be a local trust and estate lawyer. They want to create Facebook; you want to work at Facebook and get a stock grant.

While many would be tempted to applaud the world-changing desire of HYPSM, I’m not always impressed. First, much of what’s counted as an “advancement” is just incremental improvements on existing human habits. Second, much of this worldly success is privatized (think hedge funds and their ilk). Third, in the worst cases, crazy ambition leads to the breaking of social and institutional norms where society shoulders the consequences. In contrast, hometown doctors, lawyers, educators, and small business leaders almost always benefit their communities.

Only you and your kid can decide what’s right for them. Not all smart kids belong at or will thrive at HPYSM. And, that’s a good thing. If everyone in society acted like the most ambitious, we’d kill each other for scraps.

Anonymous wrote:This paper is an interesting take on the HYPSM question, including the sub question of how to think about the HYPSM players themselves.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03547-8#Sec19

The authors wanted to see where “ extreme winners” (my summary term, not theirs…think presidents, Supreme Court justices, Nobel Prize winners, F500 CEO’s, Pulitzer Prize winners, MacArthur fellows) went to school. Using data on ~ 26,000 people who have achieved remarkable across disparate fields, they find that a very small group of elite colleges have produced a huge share of these top achievers. Within that set of elite schools, Harvard seem to have a disproportionate footprint. For example, about one out of every six “extraordinary Americans” in their list went to Harvard alone.

Of course, the strong association between these schools and extraordinary outcomes does not establish causation (for example, it is possible that these individuals would have achieved extraordinarily regardless of the school they attended). And if there is causation, the precise mechanism is hard to pin down with respect to education effects vs network effects vs a possible “treatment effect that increases one’s ambitions or expectations ” by attending Harvard. But the net effect, especially for Harvard, is hard to ignore.

One note: the authors do the analysis using institutional attendance, not only undergraduate. My read of the paper is that while undergraduate attendance at elite schools is highly represented among top achievers, graduate education at these institutions plays an even more prominent role. So, even if you didn’t win the lottery for Harvard undergrad, there’s always an opportunity to go there for graduate school, that that may be even more of a driver of outcome.