I agree that it is easier. But for a kid who has the stats to be competitive for a top school, going to a school further down the rankings will not limit their opportunities even if the goal is MBB or investment banking if they have what it takes and put in the effort. If more families realized this, maybe there wouldn’t be so much pressure on students to get into a few schools, debt by those who get in but really can’t afford it, and disappointed families who think their kids are doomed if rejected.
1 Like
I think the false assumption many have is that being at a top reputation school “guarantees” a lucrative internship. Reality is if you are at Wharton yes there are likely more companies on campus and likely more slots relative to lesser known schools. You will also have the advantage of alumni network to draw on for support and insight from recruitment to full time offer.
However you are also competing against other Wharton kids. This can create a cut throat environment, some are leveraging relationships and the number of slots aren’t limitless. It is much harder to stand out. Frequently the very top kids have numerous offers and the next tier down is challenged.
At other quality schools that might not have the same cache while there are fewer spots the kids at or near the top are in great demand and not necessarily competing with the same depth of talent.
All things being equal I think top kids are top kids and in demand accordingly regardless of school of origin. On the margin being at the top may be slightly less cut throat at non elites for comparably skilled kids so certainly a path worth considering. With an elite pedigree however you may have slightly more latitude as “top” may be defined more broadly in terms of the number of kids afforded high status internships.
I think any generalization or universal statements in this regard ignores the reality that we live in a world (thankfully) where true talent is sought, identified and aggressively recruited based on the candidate not the school.
10 Likes
100%.
It’s ok to not be included in “gifted” in elementary school. It’s ok to not be an AP candidate in HS. It’s ok to not be IVY or top tier viable for college. It doesn’t define you or determine your professional / personal path. Essentially anyone can do quite well from anywhere based on lots of factors, most importantly their own drive.
What’s not OK is thinking you are gifted, AP, IVY ready when you are not. Somehow our society has decided it’s bad to tell a kid they’re not good enough. For those without the grades / scores, they fall short in that area. For those with all the academics, they may be missing the necessary EC levels needed to be a competitive candidate. If the bar has risen to whatever the ridiculous level is, that’s the bar. To use the UT example, if the bar raised to the top 2%, so be it provided they could fill the class with 2% and ties. At least you’d know where you stood.
I have two older brothers who are both extremely smart, were great students, yada yada yada. They were the top tier candidates in everything from an early age. I had different priorities, didn’t enjoy school (other than lunch, gym class and socially). Was always that kid whose parents were told by teachers , “If he would only apply himself…” I didn’t care. There was no way I would be a candidate for the same level colleges as my brothers (ironically we all went to our state flagship because of cost but that’s irrelevant). I never took it personally. They did better, period. They eased through calc and such. It was more difficult for me. Kind of like playing a sport or an instrument, some kids are just better and they start or make first chair. It’s not an insult to me, it’s a reward for them.
We’ve become far more touchy feely regarding college admission (and lots of things) than the rest of the world.
10 Likes
There is a trend to eliminating gifted and talented programs in areas with racial and socioeconomic diversity (I.e. NYC schools, Montclair State’s program for elementary students). My NJ school district eliminated their programs. I understand the reasons why, but it’s frustrating when your kid does multiplication in kindergarten and reads 6 grades above level and there really is no differentiated instruction.
5 Likes
I don’t understand why. Seems shortsighted to ignore gifted kids.
5 Likes
According to the school board meetings I attended a few years ago when cutting the gifted program was on the table:
There is no such thing as gifted. It isn’t ok to track kids in elementary school because it closes opportunities for late bloomers and those with less-resourced homes. Besides, everyone benefits from the enriched classroom opportunities in gifted programs, so every class should be taught that way. It isn’t fair to give more resources to a subset of kids, especially when the method for selecting the kids for the program is inherently biased. Teachers can teach to all levels at the same time in the same classroom, so long as they are given the training to do so. And don’t worry about the accelerated kids if they don’t get their academic needs met, they will be fine no matter what. They will get a lot out of helping the other students- doing so will allow them to learn the material more deeply. So they will be better off, too. Especially because they will be relieved from the pressures of their overbearing parents.
4 Likes
It sounds as if a) the school board is under represented by members who have had an experience of being gifted while growing up, and therefore they were unable to bring such a lived experience to the situation, and b) they were also unable to muster enough empathy to deal with situations where they themselves lacked sufficient lived experience (about being gifted). This dynamic is also furthered by education “research” conducted by people who likely come from cohorts similar to education administrators.
6 Likes
I didn’t enter the gifted program until I was in middle school, as I’d been in private school prior to that. My family moved around a fair bit and there was a significant difference in my experience when my core classes were gifted classes vs. when I was in an inclusive, general ed classroom. As a student, I definitely felt a difference, though when I attended a magnet high school one year, there was little difference between an “honors” class and my “gifted” classes, as there were no gifted science offerings.
Since the time I graduated from high school things have moved in the direction of not having separate tracks and having inclusive classrooms. I have a number of years working as a public school teacher. Only two of those years did I ever teach an honors section. But even in that honors section (which mainly seemed to be kids more intent on doing work than the majority of the kids in the regular section…but not necessarily a big difference in ability), there was a kid who was clearly gifted, and despite all my training, I knew that he was not getting what he needed in that class. He did well, he was an active participant, and I probably gave him more intellectual challenges than many of his other teachers, but if that kid had been surrounded by his intellectual peers, he would have gone much further.
Just to clarify, however, a K-12 experience is very difference from a college one in terms the pool of students. I am confident that gifted kid would have done well at a Top X institution, but he would also have done well at a state flagship. Just because a college is less selective in its admissions does not mean that it doesn’t have extremely high caliber students in attendance.
2 Likes
Also, never underestimate the influence of organized parents who believe someone else’s child is getting an opportunity that theirs is not. My school district isn’t very diverse at all, and the community is very well off. So parents are very sensitive to differences in the delivery of educational programs, especially when their children are left out. And they are very good at having their voices heard. They volunteer in the schools, run the PTA, donate, and run for school board.
6 Likes
Yes, most people think their children are above average even if statistically that is untrue.
4 Likes
How society’s resources are shared is always a hot topic. I heard that at a large public school in Texas, the strong kids and the weaker kids have functionally very different school experiences even though they are physically in just one school. The stronger kids are taught by better teachers because the better teachers want to teach the stronger kids and so on. This phenomenon is also present at private schools.
1 Like
I believe a version of this is called the Dunning-Krueger effect :-). Everyone thinks they are above average. Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia
I’m probably in the minority and I’ll certainly offend some people with the following opinion:
These “educational researches” by so-called educational “experts” graduated with “education” degrees are what caused and/or contributed to, and continue to cause and/or contribute to, many of the problems we have in education (both K-12 and post-secondary). Unfortunately, we’re producing too many of them (believe it or not, education is one of the most popular fields to get a PhD).
7 Likes
Because you get paid for it. In NJ, it’s especially valuable, as you can get one well into your career, get a bump in salary, and retire with an unreasonably large pension.
5 Likes
I take the admissions departments at their word when they say their applicant pools are mostly students who are qualified to attend.
Cornell no longer includes this level of scoring detail; not sure if MIT still does. For the class of 2024, 58% of 44,000 applicants submitted a 99th percentile math SAT. Very few applicants submitted composite scores <1350 (90th percentile).
The onus here falls fully on parents, counselors, and communities to recalibrate expectations and promote the idea that high-flying kids can succeed anywhere. To set some arbitrary higher admissions cut-off that would disproportionately exclude underrepresented applicants because kids at the high end are upset at having to go to a T15 university rather than a T5 is an unserious proposition.
4 Likes
Curious why this is unserious.
If we look at the Olympic trials, countries are limited to a certain number of spots. For instance, the U.S. might be limited to three 100m freestyle swimmers. It could well be that the top 10 U.S. swimmers would have finished in the top 10 at the Olympics (for argument’s sake). But, the U.S. only gets to send three. Swimmers with times #4-10 won’t get to go to the Olympics. Does that make them worse swimmers? They’re still among the best in the world. They will go to meets with other people who are super strong swimmers (like Australia’s #4-10 swimmers). And that is acting as though the swimmers are all finishing in the exact same order other time and that there isn’t swapping as people have better/worse meets at varying times.
But college isn’t just about a stat. So maybe a top college would take the #1 finisher, the #4 finisher, and the #9 finisher because they like certain things about those finishers (maybe their major, or where they’re from, or any number of other factors). All of these individuals are top in their specialties.
So if you think that the T5 would take finisher #1, 3, 7, then is it really so bad to be going to school that took #4, 6, and 8? Or, heaven forbid, #8, 9, and 10? That’s essentially what the difference seems to be between a T5 and a T15. They’re all getting really top students, which is why it doesn’t seem like that big of a deal to go to a T15 rather than a T5.
7 Likes
I also think it’s short sighted and sets a terrible example for both parties. If I qualify, I’m pretty upset there is no longer an option. If I don’t qualify, I’d like to see what I can aspire to. Instead, this school system has been duped into the terrible thinking of equality is measured by outcome (which is actually more like socialism - everyone gets the same) vs. opportunity.
What are these kids supposed to think later in life when outcome is a function of ability; the job, the raise, the X? Not everyone gets promoted. Some get fired or laid off. Just the way the world works.
2 Likes
Not from my personal experience.
Forcing a kid sit to through school days where their needs are consistently not met (no matter if on the “high” side - or the “low” side), will turn school into a pointless chore in their mind, create resistance/disinterest early on.
Just having a “G&T” period or two every other day, where they are “engaged” with kids on their level, is just as important as the pull-out sessions for kids who initially might need more personal instruction at a more individualized pace in early reading/writing/math skills.
This way you keep them hooked until they are old enough to initially qualify for accelerated math, then honors classes, then A/P classes, etc.
5 Likes
“Statistically”, it’s entirely possible for 49% of values to be “above average” 
But, in elementary school level, there are some very objective, easily observable, criteria: early readers, earlier math abilities, measurable reading comprehension. So - regardless of what ambitious parents might think, teachers can tell quite reliably which kids to recommend for inclusion into G&T programs.
1 Like