Why Ivies?

Applying to College
61

<p>
[quote]
Although I have a few more months before actually attending Brown myself, most of my friends are very dissatisfied with the academic rigor there (and Princeton's as well). That is because, unlike our highschool here, focus is put on weaker students - helping them understand the classes instead of going over with the top ones. I myself always wanted to study at the highest possible level (even more so if the level was above me)...that's why I wanted to study at Ivies. Now I hear all my former peers feel like being surrounded by..idiots. And what's worse, teachers make them feel like it's ok to be dumb.</p>

<p>Now I don't know if this true everywhere, or just these classes, but..cmon, how can you not know what recursion or dynamic programming is and major in CS? Or not understand the physics class because the teacher made some other notations that you were used to?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not used with :
Student asks stupid grade 5 question
Teacher says yes, excellent question, very good, [then starts explaining for 20 minutes, losing everybody's time]
The other students wait patiently.</p>

<p>Here it was:
Student asks stupid question
Teacher goes, *** is wrong with you, are you ****ing stupid, how the hell did get into this school?? Go and take out the trash or something. FAILED CLASS.
The other students laugh their ass out loud for 20 minutes along with the teacher, and then continue making fun of the idiot for another 3-4 months.</p>

<p>Needless to say, second one is a lot more fun and efficient.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>negru, your posts come off as incredibly arrogant. Let me first say that I have had sufficient experience with a top school that has more than its share of mediocre students. The common complaint I see isn't that classes are paced too slowly (although I've heard that one too); it's that there isn't enough support offered for the students who slip through the cracks. Too many students are not getting proper advising, getting hurt by weeders, and failing out. Hey think about it this way: if you want the professors to just fail students for asking a simple question in class, why admit that student in the first place? If a student is struggling, should the university help that student or just kick him out? If it's the latter case you want, why bother admitting that student in the first place? Why waste the student's time and the university's time if the university is not willing to support that student?</p>

<p>How can someone not know what recusion is and major in CS, you ask? Maybe a student who wants to LEARN CS, maybe? What's the point of coming into a class knowing everything about it? What's the point of taking that class? What about those students who are liberal arts majors, or science buffs, but decide to take a CS class out of sheer intellectual curiosity?</p>

<p>Hey, if you think you're heads and shoulders above your peers, great. More power to you. There are always upper-division classes you can take. There are graduate courses available to you. I'm sure you're familiar with Brown enough to know that there aren't those pesky requirements that most other schools require you to take. Don't want to be stuck in an intro class? Don't take it. Why are all of your supposedly "bright" friends not bright enough to figure out that if a class is too simple for them, to take a more challenging class? Instead they blame it on the supposed "lack of rigor" of the university. Beginning to see a flaw here?</p>

<p>Instead it seems to me like all you want to do is mock and put down your peers, showing a complete lack of respect for them. You may think Ivy League schools won't offer much of a challenge to you, but it seems to me like you still have a lot to learn.</p>

62

<p>The main thing I was complaining about (actually it's not me who is complaining..I'm just saying what some peers told me, to find out if those were just isolated cases, or maybe exaggerations) is a lack of competition between students. Struggling to get the highest GPA has, at least in my view, nothing to do with competition. Actually, I heard that you don't even know what grades others get..Simply getting an A in a course means nothing to me, since others can also get it. I want that in all classes everyone knows who the good students are, and who the weak ones are, and respect them accordingly. Making everyone feel the same should be left to communism, not the elite US universities. </p>

<p>See, I told you..as soon as anyone thinks he is better than others he is seen as arrogant. Maybe he is better? And if he is, he should get the chance to prove it, and than feel like he is appreciated.</p>

<p>From where I'm coming, if you weren't an International Olympian, you were a nobody. If you were, you were on equal terms with most of the teachers, and the principal's beer buddy. But hey, maybe I'm just being arrogant.</p>

<p>Anyway, sure, you don't have to be an ace at everything. But you'll never become one if all you hear is "yes, excellent question". The more you can express yourself, the better you will get. The more recognition you get,also the better you will get. I just don't see this happening, when tests, homework, etc, are checked by sophomore TA's, and then noted down secretly somewhere.</p>

<p>Everything should be in the wide open.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, etc. don't have name recognition? Not to mention their vast numbers of alumni.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't say the Ivy League schools are the ONLY ones with name recognition.
Sure, the above schools are good... But I don't think anyone would say that those schools' names have more recognition/more of an impact than Harvard, Dartmouth, Cornell, etc...</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
I'm just saying what some peers told me, to find out if those were just isolated cases, or maybe exaggerations) is a lack of competition between students. Struggling to get the highest GPA has, at least in my view, nothing to do with competition. Actually, I heard that you don't even know what grades others get..Simply getting an A in a course means nothing to me, since others can also get it. I want that in all classes everyone knows who the good students are, and who the weak ones are, and respect them accordingly. Making everyone feel the same should be left to communism, not the elite US universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me get this straight. You define yourself (and your academic experience) by comparing yourself (your grades) vs. your peers? You speak about breaking against the norm / going against the grain / communism --> but this totally belies what you are saying -- i.e. that individualism doesn't really count (or matter) if you are not allowed to see how your "individualism" compares, contrasts and ranks within the larger community (isn't that the very antithesis of individualism?).</p>

<p>Am i the only one who finds this highly ironic (if not flat-out hypocritical)?</p>

<p>Do you have to be ranked no. 1 to "know" you are smartest one in your class? (as if this actually validates that you are the "smartest" guy in the class). Do you have to identify the "weaker" students so that you can inflate your own ego? (hint: they might just be slacking a bit and if they exerted themselves 100% perhaps they might run circles around you -- i wouldn't place so much weight on "grades") </p>

<p>It sounds to me like a massive self-esteem problem. Perhaps, unlike you, your peers already understand that they have the talent and smarts to be there, perhaps they don't need any further affirmation of that, and perhaps they are there to learn and grow personally. Now there is a novel thought.</p>

65

<p>No, the 2 sentences were about different things.
First, I said that GPA means nothing to me. That the truly brilliant need a hell lot more than that to prove their worth.
Second, I said that you don't even know the GPA of others..so how can I want the first thing, if you don't even get this.</p>

<p>Excuse me for trying to grow personally by being better than others, and being respected for what I prove, not by simply sitting in an Ivy class.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
Excuse me for trying to grow personally by being better than others

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) How do you define "better"
2) The fact that you cannot find value within yourself without comparing yourself to others speaks volumes about you rather than the crowd.</p>

67

<p>I'm speaking about individual classes, to make this clear. I think it's fair to assume that one is better than others when he is able to solve more difficult problems/grasp more complicated concepts. </p>

<p>Oh I can find value in myself, that's not the issue. The issue is that I am an elitist..so shoot me. I don't think good students should be treated equally with the weaker ones. Not overall, as that is subjective. But in a science class, for example, it is quite possible.</p>

68

<p>If someone's worth was judged by one's ability to solve the Reimann hypothesis, this world would be run by geeks with pocket protectors and slide rulers.</p>

69

<p>I was talking only about merit in a particular class, don't get me wrong.</p>

70

<p>Solving simultaneous equations in your head may be great in the classroom, but it's the intangible qualities / abilities that really matter in life:</p>

<ul>
<li>How well do you work with others?</li>
<li>How well do you communicate?</li>
<li>How well do you understand / manage a difficult situation?</li>
<li>How well do you determine who is a potential friend / foe?</li>
<li>How well do you get people to follow you / lead?</li>
<li>How do you earn respect?</li>
</ul>

<p>These are just a few things that just cannot be taught in a classroom, and yet, in the real world matter as much (if not more) than sheer book smarts.</p>

71

<p>It's all very true, but you're simply taking this to a level I never had in mind. I was just saying that, in some particular class (say physics for example) some students are better than others, and should be treated accordingly. The good ones should be encouraged to show their talent, by being invited to solve a problem in front of the class, or by answering a difficult question out loud. <em>shock</em> yes, in front of the whole class and the teacher. That way they can really stand out.
Grades simply don't have sufficient range to truly differentiate students. Especially if they are only A,B,C or F. There isn't enough range when they are on a 1 to 10 numerical scale, where you can get a 10 only with a perfect test. Top students are waaaay above normal classes, that is the truth. But with this current system, instead of soaring high in the sky, they just bump their head in the ceiling.</p>

72

<p>I'm sorry negru...I don't want to pile on, but I just can't agree with even the basic premise of your argument. I totally agree that the overall class should not stop or be dumbed down overall for one student. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about kids who ask a "stupid" question or who aren't the class genius...those kids most CERTAINLY have their place in any class. The "good" kids ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS stand out. They will answer the tough questions, and people will be plenty impressed. </p>

<p>I'm sorry that we can't all come from places where international olympians are a dime a dozen, but that doesn't mean that we are dumb or worthless. I said it before and I'll say it again (and the_prestige seems to agree): I am just not buying that the Brown/Princeton/any of the top schools both in and out of the Ivy League are of a pathetic academic rigor.</p>

73

<p>Oh trust me, I myself have real trouble believing that Ivy schools are as weak as some tell me. I'm not trying to be offensive, just critical. Or at least that's my intention..
Sure, a class should have of each kind of students, this is not in contradiction with what I was saying. It's just that more time is spent on helping weaker students than on challenging the better ones. This is my main issue, others are of personal preference, which I am willing to disregard. And I don't think that is an arrogance issue, but a fair one.</p>

74

<p>^^Okay...you make more sense to me now. Your other posts were worded in a somewhat inflammatory fashion, but I think we actually agree: the class should generally move forward, but there IS room for a dumb question or two :). I acknowledged in my previous post upthread that this is what you are being told, not your own confirmed opinion...I'm glad that you (and others) find it hard to believe, too. Afterall, if this were true, to the extent that it is being presented, a) a whole lot of people have been lying to us and b) college academics really would be in a sorry state!</p>

<p>Back to the original question--Why Ivies? (it's been awhile since we talked about it!!)--I think that another reason that the Ivies hold a lot of appeal is that the 8 universities are so different, that many groups of students could potentially find a couple that meet their individual interests. I am always dubious when I see someone applying to ALL of the Ivies (not saying that it is impossible that you would want to go to all of them, but...I'd like to hear your reasons!), but I think that there is so much variety and, I think, uniqueness to the Ivies as a group that there is a lot to be attracted to. Not that this isn't true of other top schools! Stanford is not Amherst is not Caltech and so on. I think that this maximizes the Ivy effect, along with the other reasons that we have already mentioned--after all, if you artifically grouped together another group of 8 top colleges, they would certainly have a lot of applicants between the 8 of them. </p>

<p>Personally, I don't think reasonable, moderately knowledgeable (okay, now I'm asking a lot :), but still) people would look at a Harvard grad and a UChicago grad applying for a job and automatically throw out the UChicago grad (unless they were a hardcore Harvard grad...not sure if that qualifies as reasonable in this situation :)). Plus, I gotta say...would you want to work for someone like that? I sure wouldn't!! Maybe I'm being overly idealistic, but honestly, that's okay with me in this case, because I really don't want to deal with people so caught up in artificial prestige.</p>

75

<p>Negru, I'm with the others here on this thread. If you think that your courses are too easy, then why are you in those classes? Why not just take harder ones? Why not take graduate-level courses? Or even better, why not arrange to take a specialized and high-level custom course with a professor. Plenty of schools do this - they're generally called 'reading courses', but basically they are just classes of just one student (you), and you complete a bunch of assignments that are custom arranged by a prof. Generally, this is done with students who are helping that prof do research, but it seems like you want that challenge anyway, so why not pursue research and attack problems that nobody in the world has been able to solve? That way, you can demonstrate all of the 'elitism' you want by solving something nobody else has ever been able to solve. </p>

<p>Look, I don't know if you're ever going to enter graduate school to get a PhD, but it seems like you probably will, and if you do, you will quickly realize that in PhD programs, nobody really cares about your performance in classes (unless your performance is absolutely atrocious). Nobody there is going to be impressed by high grades. The currency that holds weight is the quality of your research. I know some PhD students who have rather mediocre grad-school grades but who have published ground-breaking research articles. You will be judged on the quality of your publications and your conference presentations. You can have straight A's throughout all of your courses. But if your research is mediocre, you're not going to get a good academic placement. </p>

<p>To give you an historical example, Robert Burns Woodward is widely acknowledged to be the greatest organic chemist in history. Yet he flunked out of undergrad at MIT (mostly because he was unmotivated). But MIT gave him a second chance, and he finished his undergrad degree there, and then he managed to complete his PhD at MIT in just one year. He eventually went on to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Nobody in the scientific community cared that his overall undergrad GPA was mediocre.</p>

<p>Or take Buckminster Fuller. He went to Harvard for undergrad, and got expelled not once, but twice. But he later went on to become a world innovator in architecture and design. Or take 'Beautiful Mind' John Nash. He didn't even bother to go to most of his graduate classes at Princeton (and he hadn't yet become mentallly ill - something that was inaccurately portrayed in the movie - his illness came long after he graduated). Yet it was his research as a grad-student, and especially his PhD dissertation, that basically won him the Economics Nobel. </p>

<p>But the point is, respect in the academic world is not garnered by grades. It's garnered by discoveries and accomplishments. Frankly, in the world of academia, it doesn't matter how smart you are if you never discover anything.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
All excellent points and I agree this is obviously true for many applicants (and yes I have also heard the immigrant analogy). However your premise holds if there were a strict hierachy in peoples choices based only on SAT scores. This is clearly not the case. If you look at the stat pages on CC posters, it's occasionaly a topsy turvy world for school preference out of kilt with SAT scores.
I have seen
Tufts over Duke and Cornell;
Georgetown over Amherst and Williams;
Georgetown(1), ND (1) over Dartmouth (6), Williams (6)
Every school (State schools and Privates) over Princeton (12)
Tulane (1) over Cornell (4) over Amherst (11)
Penn (1) Yale (3)
Penn over HYP

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I think you gave it away when you said * occassionally *. Neither my, nor Hoxby's arguments rest on the premise that a strict hierarchy exists. Rather, it's simply an aggregation of statistical data. All statistical data has outliers. But the interesting data correlations can be seen where the data points tend to coalesce. * In general * people tend to prefer Harvard over, say, Tufts. That doesn't mean that * every * single person prefers Harvard to Tufts. Just like we know statistically that smoking tends to damage your health, but not that * everybody * who smokes has bad health. I know a guy who smoked 3 packs a day and still lived to be over 90, and he died not from smoking-related health problems but rather of a car accident. Conversely, I know a woman who lived the healthiest lifestyle you can imagine, and still sadly died of a stroke at the age of 26. However, * in general * things like not smoking, exercising properly, eating properly, and so forth will tend to give you longer life. No guarantees of course, but the statistical likelihood is well established. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The Krueger and Dale paper did say applicants in general applied to a fairly narrow range of schools (139 SAT point average). So these types of flips are not that rare and probably often reflect just subtle preference and not only for extenuating circumstances as you suggest. I am sure there are also middle to upper tier flips between schools not in the Ivy League that I didn't analyze. I was looking for flips primarily with Ivy League schools. But I would guess the same would hold true for non-Ivy League schools. I also think important reasons for final flips in the schools attended are probably related to geography and financial circumstances (attending a closer cheaper state school, for example) and these applicants probably wouldn't be that "special" compared to those choosing to attend the more elite school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, but that just reinforces the point that these people are not randomly selected but rather have REASONS to select the 'lower'-ranked school. There are plenty of people who turn down Harvard to go to Stanford for one simple reason - sports scholarships. Stanford gives out athletic scholarships. Harvard doesn't. Hence, you can play football at Harvard but have to pay, or you can play football at Stanford and * get paid *. What would you choose? Now, granted, you have to be a quite good player to get offered a football scholarship at Stanford, because although Stanford did have a terrible season last year, they're still a Div 1-A team. The players probably figure that the loss of prestige and educational quality from choosing Stanford over Harvard is minimal, and I will get paid to play and have a better (although still small) shot at the NFL. For the same reason, I am sure that there are players who turn down Harvard for Cal, Michigan, Notre Dame, Northwestern, UCLA, Virginia, etc. I am quite sure there are people who turn down Harvard for Duke or North Carolina to play basketball. </p>

<p>But that's the point of the story - that people generally don't turn down top-ranked schools for lesser ones unless they have a strong reason to do so. Therefore, unless you have a similarly strong reason, you probably should also not turn down a top-ranked school for a lesser one.</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
have a better (although still small) shot at the NFL

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's a MUCH better shot. Remember that the Cardinal play perennial national championship contenders Notre Dame, USC and other Pac-10 powerhouses, Cal, Oregon, etc. (i.e. you not only get a high quality education, you also get critical national TV exposure if you are good enough to take advantage of it) ... Ivy football, by contrast, is lucky to even get mentioned once during the frenzied national college coverage, generally for the venerable Harvard-Yale game and that's about it.</p>

<p>Stanford's QB, Trent Edwards, for example, is likely going to be a Top 10 QB pick in this year's NFL draft (at least according to ESPN draft guru Mel Kiper)... and that's despite the Cardinal racking up a dismal 1-11 record this year. Contrast that to Brown's runningback Nick Hartigan, who broke all the relevant Ivy rushing records, led the Bears to an Ivy championship, was selected to play in the East-West all-star game as a fullback for the East --> sure he got to try out with the Jets, but ultimately got cut... though he was also a Rhodes Scholar finalist as well, and although his post-grad NFL plans didn't pan out, plan "B" isn't too shabby: Harvard Law School. Article on Hartigan:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401613.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401613.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>That said, a shout out to Ivy League football (I posted this before, but noone replied to it <em>sniff</em>) so here is the link to the upcoming documentary:</p>

<p><a href="http://theleague.ivysport.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://theleague.ivysport.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

78

<p>
[quote]
I want that in all classes everyone knows who the good students are, and who the weak ones are, and respect them accordingly. Making everyone feel the same should be left to communism, not the elite US universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wait, I thought you didn't even want the weak ones in your classes at all for asking so many stupid questions.</p>

<p>
[quote]
See, I told you..as soon as anyone thinks he is better than others he is seen as arrogant. Maybe he is better? And if he is, he should get the chance to prove it, and than feel like he is appreciated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, it's fine if you're better than others. Be humble about it. If you're going to act like a jerk about it, you'll be seen as arrogant. What do you expect?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I was just saying that, in some particular class (say physics for example) some students are better than others, and should be treated accordingly. The good ones should be encouraged to show their talent, by being invited to solve a problem in front of the class, or by answering a difficult question out loud. <em>shock</em> yes, in front of the whole class and the teacher. That way they can really stand out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why would you possibly want this? Why would anyone in the class want this? Hey, let's make the whole class waste half the period watching one guy do a problem they don't even understand, and won't derive any benefit from, all to what? Boost the smart kid's own ego? Sounds like a desperate plea for attention.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure, a class should have of each kind of students, this is not in contradiction with what I was saying. It's just that more time is spent on helping weaker students than on challenging the better ones.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll say it again. The better students can take more challenging courses. There are upper-division courses, graduate courses, etc. that are especially available to Brown students due to the open-curriculum. If they can't even figure this out, they're not very bright to begin with.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Excuse me for trying to grow personally by being better than others, and being respected for what I prove, not by simply sitting in an Ivy class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, you have a lot of room for growth, but it's not in the classroom. You need to learn how to work with others instead of looking down on them. In the real world very few successful people go at it alone. You don't have CEOs prancing around the company showing off how much smarter they are than everyone else. Businessmen, scientists, engineers, they all work together. You want respect from the weaker students? You're sure as heck not going to get it from them by looking down on them or laughing at them. You think you're a hotshot at CS? Go do something different. Take a Classics course. Challenge yourself. Don't just sit here and complain that you're not being challenged. Go out there and seek those challenges out. You want personal growth? You have to pursue it.</p>

79

<p>


CC posters with their obsession with prestige are hardly the typical applicant.</p>

<p>


You say this like applicants are automatons and choose schools without reasons. We should all just apply to the top 25 USnews schools and go to the top one we get into. By applying to Princeton without applying to Harvard, the applicant has already chosen for some reason not to apply to Harvard. There are far more applicants who apply to Princeton without applying to Harvard than apply to both. In general overlap applicants between any two schools are not commonplace (overlap applicants are generally in the 100s between schools). Thus the majority of applicants to Princeton have already chosen not to attend the higher ranked school.


Again in choosing where to apply, applicants are turning down the opportunity to go to higher ranked schools without reasons that are that strong. Even at CC most applicants don't apply to every single one of the HYPMS schools or every Ivy League school. An excellent applicant may apply to Harvard and Hopkins or Northwestern without applying to Yale because they didn't like New Haven or Dartmouth, too yuppy or not a major research institution. Unfortunately they don't get into Harvard and wind up getting into Hopkins or Northwestern but if they had applied they very may well have gotten into a school with higher SATs. There are a great deal of Stanford students who chose not to even apply to Harvard. Clearly many of them probably could have gotten in. Certainly weather, geographical location may have entered their mind (and most of them probably didn't go to Stanford for an athletic scholarship but the reason they chose not to apply to Harvard probably wasn't that strong. Millions of applicants every year go to schools with lower SATs than they could have gone too if they had applied to all the schools with higher SATs.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
You say this like applicants are automatons and choose schools without reasons. We should all just apply to the top 25 USnews schools and go to the top one we get into. By applying to Princeton without applying to Harvard, the applicant has already chosen for some reason not to apply to Harvard. There are far more applicants who apply to Princeton without applying to Harvard than apply to both. In general overlap applicants between any two schools are not commonplace (overlap applicants are generally in the 100s between schools). Thus the majority of applicants to Princeton have already chosen not to attend the higher ranked school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How did I ever say that people should just go to the best schools they get into? In fact, I expressly made the case that people often times do NOT do this, and for entirely rational reasons. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Again in choosing where to apply, applicants are turning down the opportunity to go to higher ranked schools without reasons that are that strong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, usually the reason is simple - they don't think they will get into the top one. For example, plenty of people who apply to Tufts will probably not apply to Harvard simply because they don't think they would get into Harvard, so why waste an app fee? Generally, people apply to no more than 10-15 schools (if that) and the 'application set' that they choose is a function of not only the kinds of schools that they like, but also the kinds of schools that they think they can get into. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There are a great deal of Stanford students who chose not to even apply to Harvard. Clearly many of them probably could have gotten in. Certainly weather, geographical location may have entered their mind (and most of them probably didn't go to Stanford for an athletic scholarship but the reason they chose not to apply to Harvard probably wasn't that strong. Millions of applicants every year go to schools with lower SATs than they could have gone too if they had applied to all the schools with higher SATs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet at the end of the day, the shuffling of the deck is clear. There aren't exactly a lot of valedictorians with perfect SAT scores and superstar extracurriculars going to East Tennessee State. There aren't a lot of complete idiots getting into MIT. Nobody is saying that the separation is * perfect *. But it would be disingenouous at best to argue that no separation is happening at all. </p>

<p>But I don't see what this has to do with your original points you made anyway. You argued that the Ivies are not entirely meritocratic, of which you, I, and Karabel agree. But, my point is, neither are the lower-tier schools. The lower-tier schools ALSO have students getting in for reasons having nothing to do with academic merit. Like I said, Oklahoma State admitted Dexter Manley to play football even though he couldn't even read. And when he left for the NFL, he STILL couldn't read. I don't see how that's any better than what the Ivies do. Even in the most extreme cases, I highly doubt that Harvard has ever admitted anybody who couldn't even read.</p>