<p>"Well, my point is, who says BDP are worse than HYPS? And based on what? (Some have been saying, based on simple details.) "</p>
<p>There are two tiers of ivy league colleges because the portion of the upper middle class that cares about status has determined that there are two tiers of ivy league colleges.</p>
<p>Because somewhere some group of people decided that HYP (which are all better than Stanford) were better than DBP in terms of <em>social status</em>. </p>
<p>I didn’t go to an Ivy League college (or an Ivy League law school), however that’s just the way it is. </p>
<p>With respect to law schools, it’s pretty clear that Harvard and Yale are better than, and always will be, better than Stanford (as long as that system exists).</p>
<p>It’s just some status thing that’s determined however it is that large numbers of people within social groups decide to categorize and rank things. I don’t know how it works or why it exists. I’m just pointing out that it’s there.</p>
<p>““But employers think!” “But my cousins think!” Don’t any of you have your own self-confidence these days?
My D goes to an LAC that is, at the same time, both historically prestigious AND not known to the average Joe. And so what? Who cares? Why this chasing of what other people think? It’s practically an obsession for some of you.”</p>
<p>MathBabe wrote a post on Princeton recently.</p>
<p>I love reading stuff like this. Very infotaining.</p>
<p>"Princeton, New Jersey</p>
<p>There are two kinds of people in the world: people who hate Princeton, New Jersey, and people who are über successful white men (and sometimes Asian men). And I guess there’s a third kind, the people who have never visited Princeton."</p>
<p>Really sad, actually that so many people have to trot out a strawman in order to…to…to what? Why do people do this?</p>
<p>There was a great post in the MIT forum about one of the value-added of MIT. It was something along the lines of “the types of research done there borders on science fiction”. They have the $ and they attract the type of researchers who can figure out how to build a model of a sand castle…on a single grain of sand. The point is the type of opportunities you get.</p>
<p>The point about Google and Facebook is that there are opportunities there that you don’t get at the average place - go build something that may be deployed to billions of people, figure out how to save .01 watts on a server…and create tens of millions in savings and reduce tons and tons of carbon emissions. </p>
<p>The attraction there is not the simple-minded view of “oh look, they pay a lot!”</p>
<p>What does that have to do with anything, JonLaw? I happen to love Princeton, personally. It was my dream school growing up, I probably could have gotten in 30 years ago when I was an applicant and probably should have tried, I visit the campus periodically for work-related stuff, and my nephew is a graduating senior there who IS going on to one of those masters-of-the-universe jobs that everyone on CC drools over. And? No one is saying these top schools aren’t great places with tons of opportunities. </p>
<p>Please keep in mind this is not entirely a NE driven thing.
And I suggest we ignore what;s near trollish. it’s going to go nowhere, since JL thinks he has a bead on it. </p>
<p>“What does that have to do with anything, JonLaw?”</p>
<p>Nothing. It’s infotainment. Like TMZ.</p>
<p>“And I suggest we ignore what;s near trollish. it’s going to go nowhere, since JL thinks he has a bead on it.”</p>
<p>It’s not like I’m sitting around making this up. It’s just what I’ve observed over the last 10 years or so.</p>
<p>And yes, Stanford is not Harvard or Yale when it comes to law schools. I think this is because NYC/DC are the center of the legal marketplace and Stanford is more remote. I didn’t realize that until about 3 or 4 years ago.</p>
<p>Just in general, to this thread, just to repeat what I told my girls: Don’t fall into, “I think it, so it must be true.” And it’s sister, “I read it somewhere, so I know it is.”</p>
<p>“Just in general, to this thread, just to repeat what I told my girls: Don’t fall into, “I think it, so it must be true.” And it’s sister, “I read it somewhere, so I know it is.””</p>
<p>Please. Just pointing out something that’s there.</p>
<p>Or going into public-interest/public sector jobs which like academic law…only hire graduates from top 5-6 or so law schools with impressive LS GPA/class rank and relevant ECs/internships. </p>
<p>The median values are limited to those employed in the private sector, which reduces some of the effects of lower paying sectors. It does not control for different degrees of demand for law grads in different section of the country and related cost of living differences.</p>
<p>They probably only count recent graduates who were willing to submit employment query forms. Those who are unemployed are unlikely to respond due to shame/stigma of their position. It’s one factor in why law school employment statistics have been heavily scrutinized and criticized in the last few years.</p>
<p>Sometimes, some law schools will provide temporary RA jobs lasting several months after graduation to ensure they can be counted among the “employed” and will count any full-time job among the employed…including working as a Starbucks Barista. </p>
<p>Such hyperbole! Such melodrama! Such misrepresentations! </p>
<p>First, it’s a parent’s forum, so I am not sure how worried we need to be about poor high school students being led down a path of despair after reading this thread. They are likely smarter than most of us.</p>
<p>The topic is about one statistic which gives Stanford the edge over the traditional leader in selectivity. That leader was Harvard, which for years and years has led a variety of national and international university rankings. Given H’s unique prestige, this shift was believed to be significant and meaningful to some people. Others believe it is meaningless, and thus they went on to pen fervent assertions that many other schools are just as wonderful and selective as Stanford, or that Stanford isn’t actually that wonderful or selective at all. An oddly emotional response to something so allegedly trivial. </p>
<p>From that theme, the comments morphed into insults of idiocy directed towards those who thought the index was relevant That latter’s statements were twisted and misrepresented to mean that all other schools are grossly inferior to S, and lacking in adequate opportunities. It really is dishonest to take claim that S was the most popular among applicants in 2014 and that this fact will enhance its rankings and reputation, to mean anything other than exactly that. It is also dishonest to take a claim that a degree from H or S could in some contexts offer expanded prestige and career opportunities over degrees from other institutions, and act as though it was being said other schools are worthless and only offer poor or insufficient opportunities. I suppose sophistication and enlightenment is no guarantee of integrity.</p>
<p>Well…this is the internet with anonymous posters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seem that there are more straw men built on the internet than in the corn fields of Iowa.</p>
<p>But again, this is the internet and it is clear who is worth discussing a point with and who you just have to LOL when you see these things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, any teenager will be led down that path of despair if they think that this “quality” of discussion and these odd discussion tactics are what they have to look forward to when they are an adult.</p>
<p>So a school having a slightly lower admit rate than another school with an already low admit rate makes it somehow better? What kind of logic is that? Both Harvard and Stanford are excellent institutions; if Harvard’s acceptance rate is 7% while Stanford’s is 5%, it doesn’t really make much of a difference. Both are extremely selective and will be educating the best of the best. </p>