3 ms·
One problem with this theory is that life continues past age 17/18. As far as I've been able to tell, the difference between a typical MIT admit and a typical U
by kolbe 8y ago
One problem with this theory is that life continues past age 17/18. As far as I've been able to tell, the difference between a typical MIT admit and a typical UMass kid is about two years of hard work. By age 20, many gunners from bad schools have already surpassed the party crowd at elites.
- CalChris 8y agoDunno if MIT has ever been called a party school but point still taken. And I think to continue along your line, that's what getting into a good grad school is all about. Do well at UMass and you can get into an elite grad school. Party at an elite and you probably won't. Indeed that's what junior colleges are all about, a second chance. Look, rich people who can afford elite high schools, etc, are going to dominate elite admissions. But allowing hard working kids from the wrong side of tracks multiple chances helps even that playing field. Case in point, a buddy of mine, wrong side of the tracks, arrest record, freaky smart, he started over in junior college, killed it, went to Cal, murdered it, went to Columbia, got bored with it and became a quant.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago> Do well at UMass But even UMass Amherst is a pretty elite school when it comes to CS (~T30). It's not MIT level but it's still pretty highly ranked. I went to a school that's just on the cusp of being irrelevant in ranking (~T50) and even the smart kids from my school don't get into elite grad programs for the most part. Most of them just continue their CS PhDs at the same school even with 4.0 GPAs and good GREs.