<p>Catalan, for the love of god. Private universities do not exist in consortia with geographically drawn boundaries. There is no collective mission within different regions (let along universally accepted definitions of what those regions are) to educate students from within a certain area. And the last “elite” universities founded began accepting students 130 years ago, anyway. An upstart new college is not just going to be suddenly “elite” because the founders say they want it to be.</p>
<p>At the time many colleges and universities in the U.S. were founded, far more than 55 percent of the population DID live in the northeast. Even some of the little colleges on the east coast, such as Allegheny, are 200 years old.</p>
<p>“Also, why do you think 55% of elite colleges are in the NE, when far less than 55% of the U.S. Population lives in the NE? What are the other regions doing to cater to the needs of their elite students?”</p>
<p>I calculated this in an earlier post. 55% of the SEATS of these top 22 unis are in the NE. I believe it was 11 out of the 22 of the colleges. </p>
<p>I was a teenager when I moved to the Midwest and figured it out. Not a forty or fifty something adult (which I presume you are), who just recently discovered that they have electricity and paved roads in flyover states. </p>
<p>“So, is it the regions’ fault for not building enough elite schools for their kids, or is it the regions’ fault for not developing enough elite students”</p>
<p>“The regions”? There was no concerted effort to jointly found NU/U of C/WashU/NDame or Rice/Vandy/Emory or Stanford/USC. </p>
<p>Actually if your hypothesis that those NE kids are just smarter in general, then “the region” that has failed is the NE by not investing in high caliber state flagships. The bright kid in Michigan will get 80% of Harvard at his state school. The bright kid in Mass won’t. </p>
<p>"“The regions”? There was no concerted effort to jointly found NU/U of C/WashU/NDame or Rice/Vandy/Emory or Stanford/USC."</p>
<p>When someone says that a region has failed in creating sufficient jobs for its population, it doesn’t mean that the Govt has to create the jobs; it means the Govt has to create an environment conducive to job creation and entrepreneurs will do the rest. The same applies to education. Your numbers clearly show that there is a lack of elite schools in the S and MW. What are the people in these regions, and hence their Govts in turn, doing to solve this issue? Or is there a general lack of educational leadership in the S and the MW?</p>
<p>At any rate, I didn’t know this before. Now that I know it, tell me, why would someone with kids and with high goals for education settle in the S or the MW if there are not enough quality elite schools for their kids?</p>
<p>“Actually if your hypothesis that those NE kids are just smarter in general, then “the region” that has failed is the NE by not investing in high caliber state flagships. The bright kid in Michigan will get 80% of Harvard at his state school. The bright kid in Mass won’t.”</p>
<p>That is not my hypothesis. My hypothesis is kids are equally smart everywhere (nature) but they are just better prepped for elite college admissions in the NE (nurture) because of the relatively high SES of the NE as well as the blood sport culture here. I understand that there are small pockets in the S/MW where such a demographic is present (high SES, caught NE virus for college admissions over all else), but I also understand that the size of that demographic is relatively small.</p>
<p>I do agree that the NE should invest more in state flagships and make them better. Thankfully, the overabundance of elite colleges in the NE means that the smart kids are not penalized. </p>
<p>“I calculated this in an earlier post. 55% of the SEATS of these top 22 unis are in the NE. I believe it was 11 out of the 22 of the colleges.”</p>
<p>So it is 50% instead of 55%. My point stands. The NE has far less than 50% of the country’s population.</p>
<p>Smart kids are not penalized by the lack of elite schools. We no longer need buggies or mules to travel around the county, or even abroad. Very few schools have implicit regional quotas. The preferences to attend schools that are closer to roots or job opportunities is not the result of a … limitation or penalty. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the bad luck in “getting” parents that bring unrealistic expectations or are either overwhelmingly uninterested or overinvolved to the point of manipulating the process through extreme behavior is a true handicap. </p>
<p>In the end, applicants do not need to find the answers to a great number of theoretical questions. The reality is a lot simpler than it appears. Some just like to over complicate everything! </p>
<p>I am not sure where you find regional biases and insecurities in this thread, but perhaps that is why you are posing questions upon questions. </p>
<p>Are you afraid your insecurities and biases will have an impact on your kid chances? Or do you believe the schools in your region have such biases that they are causing your insecurities? </p>
<p>Fwiw, I never noticed such things in our Southwestern region. </p>
<p>“At any rate, I didn’t know this before. Now that I know it, tell me, why would someone with kids and with high goals for education settle in the S or the MW if there are not enough quality elite schools for their kids?” </p>
<p>Well, first of all, I have two top 20 unis within a 45 min drive and a third one about 90 min away. </p>
<p>But I don’t NEED to have elite schools within close proximity, because I have these amazing things called cars and airplanes that enable me to access all parts of the country. They must have them in the NE, too, because my kid out there seems to be perfectly capable of flying back here as needed. </p>
<p>As to why settle in the S or Midwest? The same reason anyone settles anywhere. Family, jobs, personal preferences. </p>
<p>Xiggi, it’s from the repeated comments made on this thread by multiple people on how folks from NE look down upon the S and MW. That’s indicative of deep insecurity. </p>
<p>I am not involved in the college admissions preparation for any kid.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, that works for you because you do not have a preference for kids going to college close to home. In fact you have the reverse preference. But Americans have a different preference as the statistical analysis showed. So you can’t extrapolate your experience to the rest of the country, even though it is pretty clear from your posts that you consider your lifestyle to be the model that everyone else should follow, else they must be unsophisticated.</p>
<p>Catalan, at this point–over 100 posts later by someone with no kids or vested interest in this conversation–one has to wonder what your insecurity is.</p>
<p>You have accomplished nothing besides turning all but the most stoic posters here away from this thread. Your thinking is fundamentally flawed, your needling is tiresome, and your inability to respond thoughtfully to perspectives you disagree with is, well, sad.</p>
<p>I don’t look down upon any region or state. </p>
<p>I didn’t ask why anyone would settle in the S/MW. I asked why someone with kids who puts high priority on education and wants kids to go to college close to home would settle in the S/MW, given the lack of adequate local elite colleges as your analysis showed. </p>
<p>“Xiggi, it’s from the repeated comments made on this thread by multiple people on how folks from NE look down upon the S and MW. That’s indicative of deep insecurity.”</p>
<p>No. Most of us Northeasterners do not look down on the S and MW. A number of us even send our children there, and not because they didn’t get into any NE elites, but as a first choice. </p>
<p>Again, you are not a parent. So one thing you don’t know is that 99.99 percent of people don’t have all of this figured out before they have kids or when their kids are young. There are many, many reasons to live outside the NE. And there are planes, trains and automobiles to get kids to colleges in the NE if that is where they want to go. No one decides when their kid is in utero or preschool to impose limits on where they can go to college almost two decades later.</p>
<p>I appreciate CatalanNumber’s posts, and was especially interested in this:
: That is not my hypothesis. My hypothesis is kids are equally smart everywhere (nature) but they are just better prepped for elite college admissions in the NE (nurture) because of the relatively high SES of the NE as well as the blood sport culture here. I understand that there are small pockets in the S/MW where such a demographic is present (high SES, caught NE virus for college admissions over all else), but I also understand that the size of that demographic is relatively small.</p>
<p>Is it a problem that the NE virus for blood sport college admissions culture is spreading cross country? (I usually think of it as the college admissions arms race) Are the Ivies worth it to those out of region, IF they have to plan their kids’ education and extracurriculars around creating the sort of profile the Ivies want? (which is different than a kid who just ends up with that sort of profile, which can sometimes happen, I think)</p>
<p>And is it a problem that usually only high SES kids have access to the sort of enriched environments that lead to the sort of profiles that the Ivies want?</p>
<p>I wonder if what I see as a heightened concern about elite college admissions is somehow tied to increasing concerns about economic disparity between classes in this country? Or am I just once again reading a different thread than everyone else? and rudely interrupting with off topic comments. if so - apologies in advance</p>