And it may be that here in the midwest we’re just more comfortable with our comfort zone.
When I was making my college choice, my parents (both public school teachers) told me “You can go to any in-state public college you want.” So I did. My sister, one of the smartest and most accomplished women I know, didn’t want to follow in my footsteps so she went to a directional state uni. (It hasn’t held her back at all, BTW.) My husband’s family did the same thing with a slight twist. He was basically told he could go to “any Catholic college within a 100 mile radius”. He did. And he sings the praises of his small, suburban Catholic LAC to this day. We never even considered another route when we were 16 or 17 years old.
And, frankly, if D hadn’t found CC when she was an eighth grader and looking for the “epidemiology camp” she had heard of somewhere, she might have followed in our footsteps. I’m neither unintelligent nor uninformed on most issues, but first reading about and then visiting the range of colleges (elite and not-so-elite) out there was an eye-opening experience for me. Which is why the dichotomy that is set up between elite vs. nonelite, public vs. private, etc., etc., seems incredibly limiting to me. I feel the same way about the over-emphasis or, conversely, the complete denial of college rankings.
D loves her school, a “moderately elite”, smallish, private research university that fits her perfectly. And that I had never consciously considered before she told me she wanted to visit it when she was a freshman in high school. I’m glad she forced us out of our comfort zone.
The fact that that the schools that the forum typically calls “elite” are primarily outside of the Midwest is a big factor. States located nearest to the college tend to have the highest rate of applicants. For example, the ratio between US region population and number of domestic Harvard 2019 freshman class members is below for different regions of the United States. A ratio of >1 suggest the region is overrepresented. A ratio of <1 suggested the region is underrepresented.
The Northeast is especially overrepresented, while both the Midwest and South are especially underrepresented. This is what I’d expect from a college in the Northeast. The only thing that may be unexpected is while the West is also underrepresented, they do a bit better than other areas outside of the Northeast. I suspect this mostly relates to specific areas of CA, but I didn’t dig in to it that far.
I grew up in the Northeast, almost directly in the center of the Ivies, but I went to Stanford. People I knew from community generally didn’t hold Stanford in the same “elite” manner some might to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton; which I expect primarily relates to the distance. For example, when I mentioned going to Stanford, one of my relatives assumed that I was going to college in Stamford (Connecticut). She hadn’t heard of the school in CA. Literally nobody in my community, including teachers, knew anything about Harvey Mudd, which was another school that was high on my list. However, virtually all in the community were familiar with nearby quality schools like RPI or SUNYs, and held them in high regard. Many community members put RPI on the same level as MIT.
@Data10, see post #336: “But that’s only part of the story. New Jersey also sends more kids to elite private schools in the Midwest—Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and WUSTL—than either Michigan or Ohio, states that produce similar numbers of college-bound students. . . . And it’s not just that New Jerseyans love the Midwest. New Jersey sends more kids to schools like Stanford, USC, Rice, Duke, Emory, and Vanderbilt than Michigan and Ohio combined.”
Fair enough. It is, as you know, difficult to get data on who is applying where, since colleges generally don’t publish this. But we can get some inkling of it by looking at where students from each state send SAT score reports, especially looking at schools that require SAT Subject Tests even from students who submit the ACT instead of the SAT Reasoning Test. The College Board annually publishes, for each state, a list of the 50 colleges (in-state or OOS) that received SAT score reports from the most college-bound seniors in that state. If you’re applying to Harvard, you need to submit SAT Subject Tests. In 2015, 624 Michigan HS seniors sent SAT score reports to Harvard—more than to any other private college. That represents about 1.22% of the state’s college-bound seniors. A similar number of Ohioans, 600, sent score reports to Harvard, or about 1.0% of that state’s college-bound seniors. Unfortunately, Harvard didn’t make New Jersey’s top 50 so it’s impossible to do a straight-up comparison, but some other elite private schools did: Cornell 3,688 (6.47% of the state’s college-bound seniors), Penn 3,561 (6.24%), Princeton 3,270 (5.73%), Columbia 2,589 (4.54%), Johns Hopkins 2,308 (4.04%). Of course, these are all “local” schools for New Jerseyans, but the numbers dwarf those for Michigan and Ohio.
Now we don’t know whether all those sending score reports ultimately complete their applications, and we don’t know how many additional applications there might be to schools that don’t require SAT Subject Tests (which I believe includes all the schools I listed for NJ, so the actual number of NJ applicants could be higher). It’s not drop-dead proof, but it certainly suggests that NJ residents are applying to elite privates in far larger numbers and higher percentages, which would be the most logical explanation for why NJ residents attend these schools in far higher numbers, e.g. Cornell (NJ 287 enrolled freshmen in 2014 = 7.78% of the number sending score reports; MI 17 = 4.29% of score reports, OH 39 = 14.8% of score reports); Penn (NJ 233 = 6.54%; MI 18 = 5.59%: OH 44 = 7.89%); Princeton (NJ 216 = 6.61%; MI 20 = 4.36%; OH 26 = 4.98%); Columbia (NJ 119 = 4.60%; MI 15 = 5.38%; OH 31 = 7.14%). Broadly speaking, the ratio of enrolled freshmen to SAT score reports is pretty similar across the three states; just many times more SAT score reports, presumably many times more applicants, and many times more enrolled freshmen from New Jersey than from Ohio or Michigan.
Keep in mind, though, that New Jersey is 18.5% Hispanic, while Michigan is only 4.6% Hispanic. Not all Hispanics are Catholic but a very large percentage of them are. Hispanics are now about 34% of U.S. Catholics, and I would guess at least that percentage in New Jersey. In general I don’t think Notre Dame has anywhere near the same kind of hold on the imaginations and loyalties of Hispanic Catholics as it does on “white ethnic” (European-American) Catholics. That’s reflected in ND’s student body which is only 10.7% Hispanic according to its most recent Common Data Set—well below the proportion of Hispanics in the nation’s Catholic population, and an even smaller fractional share of Hispanics in the population of Catholic millennials (46% Hispanic and 43% white non-Hispanic, according to the Pew Research Center). So when all is said and done, my guess is that there are pretty similar numbers of white ethnic Catholics in Michigan and New Jersey, the prime constituency that Notre Dame appeals to.
And in any event, whatever we make of Notre Dame, it doesn’t explain why more NJ residents than Michigan or Ohio residents attend the secular Midwestern private elites like Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and WUSTL.
“For many of the Northeast Catholics I know- ND is at the very top of the heap, prestige wise, followed by Georgetown and BC”
I don’t disagree (though my Catholic side thought Georgetown was the bomb and frankly so do I - applied there as did my kid). I’d also note that in the Irish Catholic enclave of Beverly here in Chicago, the pecking order appears to be Notre Dame, Harvard, Northwestern and then “all other”!
I missed that post. I haven’t been following the thread closely. Without doing any kind of analysis, my guess would be that in addition to location, there is a correlation with population density. I touched on this with my earlier comment about CA. My guess would be the higher rate of freshman class members per population in CA is centered around major population areas such as the SJ/SF bay area, the LA area, and the SD area. This includes wealthy suburbs, well known private schools, selective magnets, and such. And I’d guess that more rural areas have a lower rate of freshman class members per population. New Jersey is the state with the highest population density, so I’d expect a greater portion of students live in such regions. The cost of state school alternatives may also play a role. HYPSM… type schools are less expensive than state school alternatives. for ~90% of families in the US. However, the specific numbers vary tremendously from one state to another.
I have no problem conceding that. In fact, I have always felt that the elites exist for that very purpose: channeling scions of the rich and the famous into wonderful careers that don’t involve science.
In my kids business program I observed another interesting phenomenon. Some of the strongest students were using their electives to fulfill pre-med requirements, and immediately enrolled in Med school upon graduation. Others tried to fill their electives with fluff courses and applied to law school. Still others tried to stack as many math or econ courses into their electives as the program would allow, and aimed to get into banking. It appeared to me that they were using a stepping-stone approach to a future career. They aimed higher, but if all else failed, they have an elite business degree to fall back on. Is this approach common down south?
Here are some data that folks here may find interesting:
Harvard sent 47% of graduates to finance and consulting in 2007. Princeton still sent 35.9% into finance alone in 2011.
If the adcoms are really looking to build an interesting and diverse class, then why are the classes filled with future bankers and consultants? Something does not add up.
Because whatever they entered thinking they would do, it’s pretty hard to resist the lure of the $$$.
Neither of my kids are interested in those careers (which sort of puts the lie to your accusation that I’m “trying to dampen the competition” as neither of my kids care about those “competitive” fields of banking or management consulting).
I think you also don’t understand that the adcoms have no control over who recruits on campus.
“Harvard sent 47% of graduates to finance and consulting in 2007. Princeton still sent 35.9% into finance alone in 2011.”
Many of us think this is unfortunate. We can’t “stop” it but it’s unfortunate. I’m personally glad my elite alma mater has plenty of alumni representation in the arts and other fields. I would find a school where everyone aspired to be an I-banker boring. But, to each her own.
“In fact, I have always felt that the elites exist for that very purpose: channeling scions of the rich and the famous into wonderful careers that don’t involve science.”
Many jobs aren’t filled by on campus recruiting. So kind of hard to argue the elites “exist” to propel them.
I think you are completely off base in understanding the social cultures of the US and American elite schools. You seem to envision they are dominated by the already-rich and already-famous.
Moreover, a lot of great careers (both intellectually and remuneratively) don’t require elite educations, or elite educations provide only a modest boost. So again, where do you get your thinking that these schools exist to “propel people into great careers not-science”?
Adcoms may not have control over who recruits on campus, PG, but the college career center/administration in general certainly does. Schools require companies to sign agreements about fair recruiting policies before they are permitted to interview on campus. Some colleges even stipulate that their staff be allowed to choose who gets to interview with the company, not the company itself. DS’s college did that. Now most colleges probably aren’t going to say no to a top bank who wants to hire their students, but they certainly could refuse access if they wanted to.
Given that holistic review is in place, either the students are smarter than the adcoms by fooling them what they want to be or the adcoms want the students that go to financial or consulting fields. But I think most students simply take what are available to them right after graduation and then go on to their desired careers.
I don’t think that adcoms are selecting against future finance/consulting types at all (nor do I find it unfortunate if many go in to those fields; I suppose the only unfortunate aspect is the common lemming-like behavior to heard in to popular fields, though that shifts; for instance, there is much stronger interest in high tech than before). In fact, the holistic admissions process would tend to select those who would do well in the banking entry process, elite b-school admissions process, and consulting entry process.
In any case, the adcoms care first and foremost about meeting institutional needs: forming a balanced (and preferably outstanding) class while getting enough scholars, athletes, etc. who will all contribute to the vibrancy of campus and then go on to become leaders and do great things (preferably benefitting the world) after graduation.
It has always been my opinion that much of the angst of elite admission is driven by those in the bottom half of the top 1%, because they know that if their children do not share their ability and/or drive, they would not be able to hold their parents’ station in life any longer.
This is certainly consistent with my idea that the way to make serious money is to marry world-class quant skills with finance and banking. Back in the 70s, Fischer Black was an assistant prof at MIT when he published the Black-Scholes equation. His income jumped from 25 thousand to a million a year, a VPship, and a penthouse office in downtown Manhattan.
Talks about Russians remind me of this Chinese guy:
Rent-seeking at its very best is all I can say. I met a couple in Toronto who know him,btw. He is apparently now a very wealthy man. He seems to know exactly when to hold and when to fold. Impressive.
“It has always been my opinion that much of the angst of elite admission is driven by those in the bottom half of the top 1%, because they know that if their children do not share their ability and/or drive, they would not be able to hold their parents’ station in life any longer.”
Why would it be driven more by them than the folks just below - eg top 5% but not hitting 1%? I swear, you constantly perseverate on this “protecting the kids’ status” thing and have done so for years without any data whatsoever other than your own belief. You also perseverate on the bottom half of the top 1% being all that different from the top 5%. You must think it’s like the monarchy or something.
“Most of those in the bottom half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%, just like the bottom 99%.”
C’est moi! I don’t particularly care that I don’t have “power” or “global flexibility.” Why would that be important? How odd! I have a comfortable life and security for my family. Why do I need to gnash my teeth that I’m probably not top 0.5% or top 0.1%? (I say probably because I’m not even sure where the cutoff is.) Who cares? The meaning of life isn’t making more money.
"This is certainly consistent with my idea that the way to make serious money is to marry world-class quant skills with finance and banking. "
Honey. My kids will be set no matter what profession they choose. (They don’t know this yet, so don’t tell them.). If my kid decides to become a high school history teacher (which he would be awesome at), he doesn’t need to worry - his eventual kids’ college education will be taken care of. Again, they won’t know this til years from now because it’s important they have a strong work ethic, which both of them do. Amazingly, we got to this place without either of us being bankers (unless you want to count my summer college internship which convinced me I wanted no part of that world). You continue to be totally unaware of or oblivious to people making money other ways than through either STEM or now, apparently, finance which you segued to. I’m beating my head against a wall because you start out with erroneous assumptions and you hold fast to them.
We valued an elite college experience because of the EXPERIENCE. Not some prepare-you-to-assume-your-I banking-spot.