<p>As I’ve pointed out numerous times before, Deresciwiez shovels out many different points, and although most of them are baloney, enough are valid that people say, “he makes some good points.” In general, I say fooey.</p>
<p>But I will add this: the Ivy League students of today are different from those of thirty years ago. They are more accomplished, and more intense in general. That has nothing to do with the hamster wheel or conformity–but it does have to do with a high energy level, and high expectations of themselves. These traits are not guarantors of happiness–indeed, they can lead to a lot of frustration, both in college and the real world. The Ivy students of today are mostly not “stop and smell the roses” types of people–they are “study the roses, catalog them, write a play about a famous horticulturalist, and publish a paper on rose taxonomy” type of people. Personally, I question the degree to which a person can be pushed to be like this–I think it’s mostly an inborn personality trait.</p>
<p>Many top kids (I am talking about #1’s in their repsective HS and I mostly mean rigorous privates / publics) are not fitting the model in OP at all. Yes, while they are loaded with activities and keeping up with academics, they sleep 8 - 10 hours, have tons of friends of great variety (because they want to have close frineds with different personalities and different intellectual level and interests) and they are NOT chasing bogus clubs and such, nope, they are in real activities and many un-related all at the same time simply because they cannot limit themselves. This is NOT such a big deal at all. American k - 12 is NOT a big deal at all, very low level, and these smart kids just capitalising on this fact and just doing their homework to achieve the highest standards. They are having fun with everything they do and continue so thru college, while many do not even apply to Ivy’s. Why to pay for UG, if these top kids could achieve the same for free - I call this smart, and sleeping 2 hours / day not smart at all.</p>
And you are still talking about the “rigorous privates/publics”? How much do you know about them? What I have observed is that while in some other countries in certain subjects (math and sciences mostly) more “depth” can be reached in HS, rigorous American HS’s in general focus more on “breadth” which is meant to build a liberal arts foundation for students. If you are comparing top students from different countries, the students who make to the top of their classes and especially those that get in the top colleges have to challenge themselves with the most difficult courses (for example, in elite private/boarding schools, these students are taking courses like Multivariable Calculus, Linear Algebra and Fluid Mechanism, and reading and writing intensive seminar classes in Humanities…) and succeed. When combined with the multitude of ECs they are involved in, I don’t think it’s a walk in the park in any sense. </p>
<p>You can’t have this debate without affiliates of less prestigious schools getting offended and taking this personal. It’s very rare to find someone who attended both non-peer and peer undergraduate schools. Why did Obama transfer to Columbia during undergrad? The top schools in this nation produce an overwhelming % of the nation’s leaders. A higher % of doctors, especially those in the most competitive disciplines. A higher % of corporate lawyers. Higher % of elite PhDs. I could go on. Is your life over if you don’t attend a top ranked school? OF COURSE NOT. Nobody is saying that.</p>
<p>Please elaborate how “American K-12 is not a big deal at all, very low level”.</p>
<p>Namely, which countries are, <em>as a whole, that is for EVERY student</em>, educating their students better than the US.</p>
<p>You do realize that the countries whose students do better than those in the US weed out the “low achievers” very early on, and by the time Chinese kids get to high school, it’s about 2% of the total population of high school age?</p>
<p>The only difference I see is over-specialization in certain countries, where if you are going into engineering you are doing specific project work in high school, without having any breadth or knowledge of why you are doing what you are doing.</p>
<p>“And you are still talking about the “rigorous privates/publics”? How much do you know about them?”
-Just from my kids and grandkids experiences. If I start mentionning the results. then people here will call it bragging, So, maybe I should not. However, I am talking about tiny private HS that is the most rigorous in the region and huge test-in public in NYC that normally has 30000 applicants for 900 spots. I believe that these 2 very different schools served my purpose very well. I am also very very familiar with the spectrum of before college studies abroad. The schools abroad prepare EVERY student to go for engineering in college (if this is the choice) without any kind of special classes. In fact, programs do not have any advanced placement classes in some countires, they just have a much higher level for EVERYBODY, no kids are stupid, they can do the work and more so when it is challenging and interesting and not filling the papers and busy no-thinking assignments. They also start with real math and science in 5 -6 grade and not 9th, when it is way too little and way too late. </p>
<p>Well of course prepping students for engineering is the acid test. Clearly they don’t bother with good English grammar and spelling.</p>
<p>Schools in most countries vet their students well before high school. ALL students are not even permitted to progress to college prep high schools. Some are sent to schools for other vocations prior to high school.</p>
<p>Believe what you want to believe…but NOT every student from schools abroad will be successful engineering students at the college level. In fact, the vals from your small private high schools might not be suited for that career.</p>
<p>As I’ve said before…give it a break. Your perspective is clearly noted…and is one sided.</p>
<p>“Since the upper middle class is happy, Ivy grads must be happy? Interesting logic.”</p>
<p>No. Since the upper middle class has lower rates of serious mental illness than the general population, Ivy grads likely have lower rates of serious mental illness than the general population. Ivy grads are mostly upper-middle class – most of them started there before they went to the Ivy.</p>
<p>It’s a huge, though common, mistake to confuse the absence of depression with happiness. They are two different things.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to look at life satisfaction measures for people in the corporate careers this author disapproves of vs. those in academia, non-profit, government, or artistic careers. In my extremely narrow sample of classmates, 15 years out of college and 12 out of law school, I see happy and unhappy people on both tracks. I wouldn’t even know where to characterize myself…I’m a solo entrepreneur in a helping profession in the education field. Most independent counselors, therapists, psychiatrists, etc. operate for profit, so are we soulless automatons worshiping the almighty dollar or following our bliss to save the world? I think the reality that we’re both illustrates the silliness of the dichotomy.</p>
<p>“IMO…ivy leagues are for insecure people who need validation (yet pretend to be humble )”</p>
<p>You know, people who go to Ivy League schools are just like anyone else. some are humble, some are jerks, some are nice, whatever. It seems that you’re the only one idealizing Ivy League schools if you think that all people who attend them must think highly of themselves. Believe it or not, people who attend these schools don’t walk around all day going “wow, look at me, I attend an Ivy League.” They go to school, do their work, whatever, just like anyone else.</p>
<p>@hunt “The Ivy students of today are mostly not “stop and smell the roses” types of people–they are “study the roses, catalog them, write a play about a famous horticulturalist, and publish a paper on rose taxonomy” type of people.”</p>
<p>True, and best original comment on the board that I have seen in a while!</p>
<p>American students today have an entirely different level of competition than did students 30 years ago. Not only has technology changed our world and raised the bar for those interested in making an impact in those fields, but the competition from other countries and from the students coming here from overseas has risen dramatically.</p>
<p>So is the OP blaming this generation for accommodating to the economic realities of today? </p>
<p>There are still students who study literature, the arts, anthropology with the hopes of staying in those fields and making an impact, but the realities of academia are also changing. Research money is tight, professor appointments are few and far between, and society is not supporting those who chose these more intellectual paths.<br>
Frankly, I think our kids see the writing on the wall and they are adapting. It may take them a bit longer to find their niche than kids 30 years ago when there were many more opportunities for all, but I don’t think they are any shallower or less aware than we were. Actually, I think they are much more aware. </p>
<p>None of this has anything to do with Ivy vs. State Uni. It’s our new reality.</p>