4 ms·

I totally agree that the legacy and nepotism needs to be dropped. But there's some caveats to consider: * It's partly about where your kids graduated valedicto

I totally agree that the legacy and nepotism needs to be dropped. But there's some caveats to consider: * It's partly about where your kids graduated valedictorian with perfect GPAs, etc. I was considered "gifted" in my district, but I would be below average in the greater scheme of things. * Top 99% of SAT is nothing. I read somewhere that 60% of Ivy applicants have perfect scores. * It depends on the major they intend to pursue. If it's a popular one, there would be many fewer open slots. And I agree with you, there's schools just as good, if not better, than the Ivies. You just have to shop around looking for the field you're interested in. For instance, UIUC is a top choice for computer science and engineering, and it's a state-funded school.

laidoffamazon 3y ago
> but I would be below average in the greater scheme of things. Which scheme of things is this? > Top 99% of SAT is nothing. I got 99pct on my SAT too (1500/1600). I didnt have a chance at a top school. What do you suggest people like me do now? I went to an undergrad with a 50% acceptance rate, not exactly UIUC CS. I can't sleep most days because I don't feel like I have anything to hope for.
- whywhywouldyou 3y ago
  Sounds like you need a serious adjustment on your world view if you currently believe you don't have anything to hope for simply because you and your 1500 SAT score didn't get into an elite school.
  - laidoffamazon 3y ago
    This isn't what the rest of these comments would indicate (which say that people that get into top schools are fundamentally more qualified and intelligent than people that do not)
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Your comment is the only one in this thread that uses the word "fundamentally." The other comments I've read suggested that school can be an indicator of talent/diligence/etc. especially in the absence of a lot of other signal. It's also true that Big Law and Big Management Consulting are pretty educational pedigree focused especially for new grads but that's not everyone.
      - laidoffamazon 3y ago
        OK, but it's a pretty big indicator, and apparently justified in being so because the people at top schools are just that much better than people like me.
        ghaff 3y ago
        I think you're literally the only person on this thread making statements like that.
        laidoffamazon 3y ago
        I don't think so? I think I'm just surfacing the implication. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it appears like the pretty clear implication of defending Harvard and elite schools is to believe that the rest of us should remain in a lower social caste, forever, and that we deserve it because of meritocracy.
        ghaff 3y ago
        I have very little direct experience with Harvard but do have a lot of experience with grads from other East Coast Ivies and related schools--other liberal arts colleges, seven sisters--and have rarely encountered that type of school-centric snobbery except maybe in jest or football rivalry.
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    "Thanks, I'm fixed!" Telling people who are experiencing dread at the classist social prospects available to them to just "adjust your world view" isn't exactly a refutation of their cause for that dread.
commandlinefan 3y ago
> there's schools just as good, if not better, than the Ivies You know that and I know that... I just wonder if HR knows that.
mandmandam 3y ago
Those aren't very good caveats, imo. > * It's partly about where your kids graduated valedictorian with perfect GPAs, etc. I was considered "gifted" in my district, but I would be below average in the greater scheme of things. One of the biggest factors for success is zip code; that needs changing too. And in any case, if you can graduate valedictorian in a shitty school in a shitty neighborhood, that's a big achievement nonetheless. Ivy League schools would be well served taking those students in, and not just for reasons of basic fairness. > Top 99% of SAT is nothing. I read somewhere that 60% of Ivy applicants have perfect scores. The difference between 99% and perfect has little to do with ability, and everything to do with the ability to spend time/money hacking a metric beyond reason. > * It depends on the major they intend to pursue. If it's a popular one, there would be many fewer open slots. That doesn't actually follow. If it's a popular major, then there ought to be more slots made available for students. It's not like Harvard doesn't have the money to make that happen. ... We may disagree on these, but I also agree that legacy and nepotism is a major problem, and that there are better schools, from an academic / learning standpoint.

laidoffamazon 3y ago

> but I would be below average in the greater scheme of things. Which scheme of things is this? > Top 99% of SAT is nothing. I got 99pct on my SAT too (1500/1600). I didnt have a chance at a top school. What do you suggest people like me do now? I went to an undergrad with a 50% acceptance rate, not exactly UIUC CS. I can't sleep most days because I don't feel like I have anything to hope for.

whywhywouldyou 3y ago
Sounds like you need a serious adjustment on your world view if you currently believe you don't have anything to hope for simply because you and your 1500 SAT score didn't get into an elite school.
- laidoffamazon 3y ago
  This isn't what the rest of these comments would indicate (which say that people that get into top schools are fundamentally more qualified and intelligent than people that do not)
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Your comment is the only one in this thread that uses the word "fundamentally." The other comments I've read suggested that school can be an indicator of talent/diligence/etc. especially in the absence of a lot of other signal. It's also true that Big Law and Big Management Consulting are pretty educational pedigree focused especially for new grads but that's not everyone.
    - laidoffamazon 3y ago
      OK, but it's a pretty big indicator, and apparently justified in being so because the people at top schools are just that much better than people like me.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        I think you're literally the only person on this thread making statements like that.
        laidoffamazon 3y ago
        I don't think so? I think I'm just surfacing the implication. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it appears like the pretty clear implication of defending Harvard and elite schools is to believe that the rest of us should remain in a lower social caste, forever, and that we deserve it because of meritocracy.
        ghaff 3y ago
        I have very little direct experience with Harvard but do have a lot of experience with grads from other East Coast Ivies and related schools--other liberal arts colleges, seven sisters--and have rarely encountered that type of school-centric snobbery except maybe in jest or football rivalry.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  "Thanks, I'm fixed!" Telling people who are experiencing dread at the classist social prospects available to them to just "adjust your world view" isn't exactly a refutation of their cause for that dread.

commandlinefan 3y ago

> there's schools just as good, if not better, than the Ivies You know that and I know that... I just wonder if HR knows that.

mandmandam 3y ago

Those aren't very good caveats, imo. > * It's partly about where your kids graduated valedictorian with perfect GPAs, etc. I was considered "gifted" in my district, but I would be below average in the greater scheme of things. One of the biggest factors for success is zip code; that needs changing too. And in any case, if you can graduate valedictorian in a shitty school in a shitty neighborhood, that's a big achievement nonetheless. Ivy League schools would be well served taking those students in, and not just for reasons of basic fairness. > Top 99% of SAT is nothing. I read somewhere that 60% of Ivy applicants have perfect scores. The difference between 99% and perfect has little to do with ability, and everything to do with the ability to spend time/money hacking a metric beyond reason. > * It depends on the major they intend to pursue. If it's a popular one, there would be many fewer open slots. That doesn't actually follow. If it's a popular major, then there ought to be more slots made available for students. It's not like Harvard doesn't have the money to make that happen. ... We may disagree on these, but I also agree that legacy and nepotism is a major problem, and that there are better schools, from an academic / learning standpoint.