4 ms·

As a student in my last year at an `elite' high school, I can confirm anecdotally that many kids are near breaking point because they feel it is `Ivy or bust'.

by sidek 11y ago

As a student in my last year at an `elite' high school, I can confirm anecdotally that many kids are near breaking point because they feel it is `Ivy or bust'. I think this is an inherent problem with the American university system, where the top tier is so small and so universally desired. I think Canada does it very well. Expectations to get into top Canadian schools are grade-based and their undergraduate enrolment is much larger. If you can pull a 90%+ average,you can be sure that you can go wherever you want in Canada for university. Certainly an undergraduate education at University of Toronto might be not quite as good as Harvard's, but it seems to do wonders for the mental health of Canadian children; none of my friends in Canada have even really stressed about university admissions. For me personally, the Canadian `safety net' also helped a lot: although I am going to Harvard next year, I knew from day one that if anything didn't work out I had myriad wonderful options in Canada.

interwho 11y ago
I feel compelled to respond to this, as I know from first-hand experience it isn't true. The pressure is definitely there for Canadian high school students, and 90 isn't enough for some schools anymore. Programs like University of Waterloo's Software Engineering and Mechatronics Engineering and University of Toronto's Engineering Science all require 95+ AND extracurriculars. Same goes for the "best" schools in other categories - Queen's Commerce for business, McMaster's Health Science for premed, etc...
- lewisl9029 11y ago
  I haven't really kept up with Waterloo's new requirements, but this definitely wasn't the case when I was accepted to their Computer Engineering program 6 years ago with mid 80s average with no advanced placement type courses except 2 IB certificate courses (CE was my first choice so I have no idea how SE or ME requirements would compare). They definitely do take extra-curricular stuff into account as well since some of my friends who had averages in the low 90s ish were rejected from the same program. It's hard for me to believe they've since added a hard cutoff of 95+. It's next to impossible to get grades like that unless your highschool is handing them out like hotcakes at the eventual expense of their own reputation. That said, the university application process is by no means a stress-free experience for students up here. Getting rejected from Waterloo would have been a huge blow to me at the time because I really wanted to experience their mandatory co-op program and understood the value it would bring to my professional career over the lackluster alternatives at other universities.
  - interwho 11y ago
    There isn't a hard cutoff, those are the recommended grades to receive an offer. I'm currently in the Computer Engineering program here and I can say out of my class, most had around a 90. That said, CE is one of the less competitive programs. Here's a chart of the number of students rejected from Waterloo Engineering with averages 90+: https://profbillanderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/unadmittednumbers.png https://profbillanderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/unadmit...
enupten 11y ago
Toronto is probably much better than Harvard (atleast in Engr/CS).
- r0naa 11y ago
  Having friends at both school and going myself to Waterloo, I can confidently say that this is not true. UofT has very strong research programs but that's about everything. they don't give a shit about their undergrads, instructors, TAs or anyone who isn't in grad school or tenured. I was complaining that some of my CS courses atP Waterloo were over crowded (+60 people) but it was before I learned about Toronto's +1,500 people lectures. I don't know a single person at UofT who is happy or having a blast. So no, I don't think so.
  - spollock 11y ago
    I go to UofT. It's great. The only 1,500 person lecture I've had was the big first year psychology course (which is an elective), and honestly it was great. The quality of lecture you get at that size is incredible. For CS courses, most of my classes after first year top out at 50-60 people. We also have much better professors and instructors then you do at Waterloo. Beyond that we get to study on a beautiful campus in the middle of a very fun and interesting city, whereas you are stuck on an uninspiring concrete-and-goose-dropping wasteland in a small "city". I bought the propaganda that Waterloo is #1 when I was in high school. A one-day visit to each campus quickly changed my mind and I am very happy I made the decision to go to the better school.
    - r0naa 11y ago
      I am glad that you like it. I don't know why you are trying to make it about Waterloo. You are totally missing the point of the discussion which is about UofT v. Harvard (as silly as it sounds). It is not very productive to start a dick measuring contest on "which school is the best". Especially when the answer is obvious \joke. More seriously, I know a pretty large sample of people going to UofT. Sorry if you felt like I was denigrating your school. I am sure that there is a lot of very bright student going to UofT. I was talking about how the administration treat its students and the general atmosphere and malaise on-campus. Does that "TA strike" ring a bell? Everyone I know going to UofT is complaining about the heavy workload, poor school spirit and over-competitiveness of their peers (refusing to share course notes, spreading out fake informations on a test and other horror stories). Also 50/60 per class for CS electives is definitely a lot of people. Most CS upper year courses at Harvard and Waterloo are ~10. To compare the cities of Waterloo and Toronto is almost as silly as comparing Harvard and UofT. Obviously Toronto is better although being in a smaller, very connected community like Waterloo obviously has its perks. Let's just agree to disagree.
stegosaurus 11y ago
In the UK it's not even just 'Ivy or bust' in my view. The amount of career paths that seem to viably lead to anything other than "rent forever" seems tiny to me. We have silly conflicting goals; the Government wants to encourage pension saving, so private pensions are now opt out. But for most, homeownership is a higher priority (because renting would eat away at that pension anyway). Yet we seem to be still pumping the housing bubble by focusing on nonsense like 'access to mortgages' rather than decreasing/stabilising the cost of housing. An interesting statistic I like to use is the proportion of properties that are owned and owned outright. Very roughly, ~30% are owned outright, another 30% owner occupied, and the rest are rental properties. You could then say that going forward it would be reasonable to expect that 60% or more of young people will eventually be homeowners. But that does not match up at all with the income scales myself and most of my friends seem to be facing (and we are in the higher tiers comparatively).

by sidek 11y ago

interwho 11y ago

I feel compelled to respond to this, as I know from first-hand experience it isn't true. The pressure is definitely there for Canadian high school students, and 90 isn't enough for some schools anymore. Programs like University of Waterloo's Software Engineering and Mechatronics Engineering and University of Toronto's Engineering Science all require 95+ AND extracurriculars. Same goes for the "best" schools in other categories - Queen's Commerce for business, McMaster's Health Science for premed, etc...

lewisl9029 11y ago
I haven't really kept up with Waterloo's new requirements, but this definitely wasn't the case when I was accepted to their Computer Engineering program 6 years ago with mid 80s average with no advanced placement type courses except 2 IB certificate courses (CE was my first choice so I have no idea how SE or ME requirements would compare). They definitely do take extra-curricular stuff into account as well since some of my friends who had averages in the low 90s ish were rejected from the same program. It's hard for me to believe they've since added a hard cutoff of 95+. It's next to impossible to get grades like that unless your highschool is handing them out like hotcakes at the eventual expense of their own reputation. That said, the university application process is by no means a stress-free experience for students up here. Getting rejected from Waterloo would have been a huge blow to me at the time because I really wanted to experience their mandatory co-op program and understood the value it would bring to my professional career over the lackluster alternatives at other universities.
- interwho 11y ago
  There isn't a hard cutoff, those are the recommended grades to receive an offer. I'm currently in the Computer Engineering program here and I can say out of my class, most had around a 90. That said, CE is one of the less competitive programs. Here's a chart of the number of students rejected from Waterloo Engineering with averages 90+: https://profbillanderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/unadmittednumbers.png https://profbillanderson.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/unadmit...

enupten 11y ago

Toronto is probably much better than Harvard (atleast in Engr/CS).

r0naa 11y ago
Having friends at both school and going myself to Waterloo, I can confidently say that this is not true. UofT has very strong research programs but that's about everything. they don't give a shit about their undergrads, instructors, TAs or anyone who isn't in grad school or tenured. I was complaining that some of my CS courses atP Waterloo were over crowded (+60 people) but it was before I learned about Toronto's +1,500 people lectures. I don't know a single person at UofT who is happy or having a blast. So no, I don't think so.
- spollock 11y ago
  I go to UofT. It's great. The only 1,500 person lecture I've had was the big first year psychology course (which is an elective), and honestly it was great. The quality of lecture you get at that size is incredible. For CS courses, most of my classes after first year top out at 50-60 people. We also have much better professors and instructors then you do at Waterloo. Beyond that we get to study on a beautiful campus in the middle of a very fun and interesting city, whereas you are stuck on an uninspiring concrete-and-goose-dropping wasteland in a small "city". I bought the propaganda that Waterloo is #1 when I was in high school. A one-day visit to each campus quickly changed my mind and I am very happy I made the decision to go to the better school.
  - r0naa 11y ago
    I am glad that you like it. I don't know why you are trying to make it about Waterloo. You are totally missing the point of the discussion which is about UofT v. Harvard (as silly as it sounds). It is not very productive to start a dick measuring contest on "which school is the best". Especially when the answer is obvious \joke. More seriously, I know a pretty large sample of people going to UofT. Sorry if you felt like I was denigrating your school. I am sure that there is a lot of very bright student going to UofT. I was talking about how the administration treat its students and the general atmosphere and malaise on-campus. Does that "TA strike" ring a bell? Everyone I know going to UofT is complaining about the heavy workload, poor school spirit and over-competitiveness of their peers (refusing to share course notes, spreading out fake informations on a test and other horror stories). Also 50/60 per class for CS electives is definitely a lot of people. Most CS upper year courses at Harvard and Waterloo are ~10. To compare the cities of Waterloo and Toronto is almost as silly as comparing Harvard and UofT. Obviously Toronto is better although being in a smaller, very connected community like Waterloo obviously has its perks. Let's just agree to disagree.

stegosaurus 11y ago

In the UK it's not even just 'Ivy or bust' in my view. The amount of career paths that seem to viably lead to anything other than "rent forever" seems tiny to me. We have silly conflicting goals; the Government wants to encourage pension saving, so private pensions are now opt out. But for most, homeownership is a higher priority (because renting would eat away at that pension anyway). Yet we seem to be still pumping the housing bubble by focusing on nonsense like 'access to mortgages' rather than decreasing/stabilising the cost of housing. An interesting statistic I like to use is the proportion of properties that are owned and owned outright. Very roughly, ~30% are owned outright, another 30% owner occupied, and the rest are rental properties. You could then say that going forward it would be reasonable to expect that 60% or more of young people will eventually be homeowners. But that does not match up at all with the income scales myself and most of my friends seem to be facing (and we are in the higher tiers comparatively).