<p>I find PG to be one of the most articulate about not putting HYP on the pedestal.</p>
<p>I don’t think people think any less of my son for choosing STEM schools over the ivies, and if they did, he wouldn’t care.</p>
<p>In what universe is Cal Tech not prestigious? And in what universe does Cal Tech not have “social cachet” similar to or greater than Dartmouth, Brown or U Penn?</p>
<p>“Cal Tech is an outstanding school.:”</p>
<p>Agreed; no one has said that it isn’t. Of course it is. </p>
<p>"The research of Cal tech was alarming to us however due to their lack of black students on their campus. Obviously you can’t assume that due to bring admitted to one school you would in all likelihood be admitted to another but he was admitted to every school he applied to except one. Yet is it a concern for a place like Cal Tech (Harvey Mudd has the same issues) that many qualified black kids and families may not consider such an outstanding school due to comfort zone. "</p>
<p>It seems only common sense that it would be a wise move on the part of a college administration to want to ensure a certain level of critical mass of every type of student on a campus - so they don’t lose the super-qualified ones who don’t want to be tokens. Some people seem not to understand that. Their loss. </p>
<p>And of course, there is a complete difference between “we want to achieve more diversity” and “we want to keep X type of people out.” If I recruit for my company at College A, and then decide I want to add College B to the mix, I’m not “discriminating against” College A people, even if that’s the net effect. </p>
<p>But whatever. The hypocrisy of “they don’t admit the qualified kids!” coupled with “and I’d sell my left arm to go there / have my kid go there!” doesn’t go unnoticed. Which is why no one <em>really</em> believes that some of you <em>really</em> think the kids at these schools are so very hopelessly unqualified to do anything beyond 1+1=2. If you <em>really</em> thought that, you’d have your kid avoid that place like the plague. </p>
<p>Blossom, I’ve heard many kids say they are applying to many Ivies as well as MIT or Stanford. Caltech had 6524, applications last year, somewhat more than each of the women’s colleges. I imagine the teens think they would be a good fit for these schools.</p>
<p>Probably redundant, but Stanford had 42,167 apps, Harvard=34,295, Yale=30,932, and MIT=18,357. (Found these stats when looking for diversity figures at Caltech, which I still haven’t found.)</p>
<p>I was told that Caltech would love more qualified black students, but these kids are recruited everywhere. At Caltech graduation, there was a female student who stood out because of her entourage. At least a dozen of her family were there, in full African dress and amazing jewelry. They looked like royalty.</p>
<p>Here is the CDS for Cal Tech which breaks out the student body by ethnicity (section B2). <a href=“http://finance.caltech.edu/documents/198-cds2014_final.pdf”>http://finance.caltech.edu/documents/198-cds2014_final.pdf</a></p>
<p>Bookworm- you are surely not suggesting that the low Cal Tech applicant numbers are due to its low prestige, are you?</p>
<p>MIT has fewer than half the applicants of Stanford. My guess is that a strong math/science kid interested in EE or CS, who isn’t worried about location, will apply to both. A kid interested in European History or English Lit won’t apply to MIT. And a kid interested in Econ or Urban planning who can handle the GIR’s at MIT (and again, without regard to location) will NOT apply to Cal Tech.</p>
<p>So these numbers make perfect sense to me. You can major in anything at Stanford-- and California is a populous state to begin with. You can major in anything at Harvard-- and the fact that MIT (down the street) is getting about half the applications as Harvard does (given that you are NOT going to MIT to major in Victorian Poetry) makes perfect sense.</p>
<p>But I do not look at these numbers and say, “Oh Cal Tech is so much less prestigious than these other schools”. I look at these numbers and conclude that Cal Tech has a limited number of academic offerings; has a very intense concentration of math and science students, and if I’m not one of those math science types, I won’t apply there".</p>
<p>I’d love to know how many of the Stanford applicants are cross app’s with Cal Tech. My guess is that for HS students interested in California, math/science, and heavy prestige, there is a huge overlap, despite the VERY different experience a kid will have in Pasadena.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am about as far as can be from an Ivy worshipper, but I do think universities that have strengths in more areas and put graduates into more sectors of the economy have more social cachet among the general public. (And no, it doesn’t matter.)</p>
<p>Blossom, you understood me. I do think Stanford & Caltech attract kids on west coast. Stanford offers every discipline, yet still is tops in STEM fields and has a great location. When I total the HYP applications, it came to 91,868. If we added in the other terrific East coast colleges, the # would be higher.</p>
<p>Erin’s Dad, thanks. At Caltech:
Asians 42%
White 30%
Latin 10%
Black 2%</p>
<p>The “princess” I saw at the graduation would probably fall into the international group. I was surprised to see how the # of Asians has risen in past years. There are also far more from Californians than 8-10 years ago. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depending on the social circles/HS school cultures one is examining, there are some which would regard schools like Caltech with far more cachet than HYP. </p>
<p>However, that’s not to say they’re anti-elitist…far from it. </p>
<p>Rather, it’s a different form of elitism where Caltech/CMU/MIT/Berkeley/Stanford are regarded by senior executives/managers at hardcore engineering/tech firms as the true top schools whereas the Ivies…especially HYP tend to be regarded as “finishing schools” for future sales/marketers. </p>
<p>Positions which in some hardcore engineering/tech firms tend to be regarded as dumping grounds for engineering/CS or other graduates who didn’t make the supervisors’/senior tech management’s cut regarding their techie cred. </p>
<p>One other thing to keep in mind regarding Caltech, its total undergrad population is less than 1000 students. This makes it smaller than many LACs…not to mention elite research universities of HYPSM’s ilk. </p>
<p>Yep, different circles have different views, and different schools have different philosophies and build different student bodies and cultures. Personally, I think that’s a strength of the American higher educational system. Does that mean that some kid can get admitted to every school they apply to except one? Yes! But why is that bad? You can attend only one school anyway. Some schools will favor some kids over others because of certain attributes. Considering that in the US, there are usually many different paths to the same goal, it’s all good. Some schools are undervalued or underappreciated. The astute kid would look for those. Some schools favor those who show them love (which is a policy I agree with, BTW, in order to build a more engaged student body and alumni base). I would say that’s an advantage for the kid who’s willing to put in the effort. So say you’re an Asian kid with great stats but not hooks that many Ivies look for. Guess what, many LACs where Asians are underepresented would love to have you! And many of those LACs do a great job of overperforming compared to their test scores when you measure by alumni success. Some Ivy-equivalents will give you a fair shake if you show them love. Then there are some state schools that are great in certain disciplines and don’t have a problem with a certain race making up a disproportionate amount of their students. Almost all of them will get you where you want to go.</p>
<p>“I am about as far as can be from an Ivy worshipper, but I do think universities that have strengths in more areas and put graduates into more sectors of the economy have more social cachet among the general public. (And no, it doesn’t matter.)”</p>
<p>Completely agree. Like it or not, among the general public Caltech is, at most, the Big-Bang-Theory-nerd school. But again, so what? Why should that deter a kid for whom Caltech is interesting / compelling? Who cares what the general public thinks? The general public also likes Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian. Big whoops.</p>
<p>.“The astute kid would look for those. Some schools favor those who show them love (which is a policy I agree with, BTW, in order to build a more engaged student body and alumni base). I would say that’s an advantage for the kid who’s willing to put in the effort. So say you’re an Asian kid with great stats but not hooks that many Ivies look for. Guess what, many LACs where Asians are underepresented would love to have you!”</p>
<p>From your mouth to God’s ears. Of course, anyone with REAL brains would go – hey, let me find a place where I might stand out in the applicant pool, instead of crowding the applicant pool to the same old same old with 10,000 of my best friends. But, real brains aren’t necessarily measured in SAT scores. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl, you’re cool after all, though I hope you’re not implying that you’re God. ;)</p>
<p>“If their application processes aren’t to your liking, and they are just admitting all these unqualified jocks/legacies/rich kids, tell me again why you want your kid to go there sooooo badly?”</p>
<p>You can’t be talking to me. None of mine ever applied to an American school.
To answer your question, some might hope to marry up; some might want to befriend the rich and famous; some might want to work for them; some might want to do investment banking or consulting; some might even actually want to learn.</p>
<p>“The only reason the Ivies etc have this “racket” is because some of you are just sooooo dying to “brand” your kids that way.”</p>
<p>You are the only one calling it a “racket”. Harvard to me sounds more like a hedge fund with a school on the side.</p>
<p>“Also, these numbers are nonsense. Also, the idea that athletic recruits are the privileged is pretty funny–I guess a few of them are, but many are the exact opposite.”</p>
<p>Do you remember poster MITChris? A lot of the info came from him, and they matched well with Dan Golden’s writings. As far as athletic recruits go, have you forgotten this old poster?</p>
<p>The Ivies recruit for as many marginal sports as they can afford (which is to say, all of them), mainly for two reasons:
First, it allows them to give an admissions break to the affluent and especially the private school crowd.
Second, there are numerical constraints on the aggregate amount of Academic Index discounting allowed for the athletes. The constraints are a combination of school policy, Ivy League, and NCAA rules. The more teams the school can field in sports with relatively OK academic characteristics (fencing, sailing, golf, etc) the more the allowance for running down the SAT scores of the football team.</p>
<p>"Plus, don’t forget that the people who generally complain about “not too Asian” don’t like all those blacks and Hispanics that get special treatment. "</p>
<p>Heard about divide and rule? I said it back then, in some of the exact same threads.</p>
<p>“The idea that the most selective schools are limiting blacks and Hispanics to “just enough” is untrue. They’d like to get more.”</p>
<p>You sure they like to get more? According to James Traub, (Karabel) “candidly concedes that the Big Three ramped up the admission of black students almost overnight owing not to some midnight conversion but to terror at the rising tide of black anger and violence—owing, that is, to racial blackmail”. </p>
<p>Why are we acting as though these last few years of posting do not exist? I can see new posters making this mistake, but for someone who was with me there at the time, there is really no excuse. </p>
<p>You know, canuckguy, if that’s really your thesis (the elites don’t really want more black students, they’re just afraid not to), why not put your money where your mouth is and start a thread with that title? </p>
<p>And for someone whose kids didn’t apply to American schools (I didn’t know you were a parent, but whatever) you sure are upset by their failings. </p>
<p>Yeah, maybe Harvard IS a hedge fund with dorms. Oh well! It’s not like that will really impact my day or my life, unless I choose to let it. </p>
<p>"
@Pizzagirl You don’t like my quick and dirty technique? That’s because you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. "</p>
<p>I’m the first person in my family of origin to go to a four-year, sleep away college. My dad had a GED that he obtained while serving as enlisted in Vietnam, and my mother went to night school while working full time and finally graduated when I myself was in college. Can you remind me again what “vested interest” I have in “maintaining the status quo”? Did my children’s college list consist of any Ivies? (Hint - nope, not a one) </p>
<p>Oh darn it - I just googled within these threads, canuckguy is the poster who’s made some awfully offensive statements about me, insinuating that I’m a “pushy Jewish mother” and it’s “in my DNA” to want to “protect” my kids from Asians taking “their rightful spots.” Everyone who knows me IRL would be mightily amused to know this, especially when my background includes Catholic school catechism and I haven’t been in a synagogue in probably half a dozen years, but whatever. My son will be particularly amused to hear this when he’s currently dating a lovely young Asian woman, and my daughter will be amused given that her school has one of the highest Asian populations of any LAC. I’m now going to consider the source. </p>
<p>I think this thread has run its course.</p>