Kids of parents making $158.2-222.4k/yr have worst odds of Ivy League acceptance
nymag.com
nymag.com
How is it possible not to get into a state flagship with a 1500+ SAT? If I was white or Asian with college aged kids I’d move to Texas or Georgia.
People vote with their feet.
The technical term for this is "race to the bottom," abetted by short-term thinking on the part of "customers." It's similar to how people complain bitterly about the quality of air travel, but then go for the lowest-possible air fare.
(OK, the actual technical term is "revealed preference vs. expressed [or stated] preference.")
The Bay Area has insane housing costs because of toxic zoning regulations.
Austin is a firmly blue city with extensive public services.
The parts Georgia Bay Area folks are moving to are similar politically and socially.
A better description is “people who value a well run city leave their poorly run city and move to a well run city.”
Corporations doing business in the country with the least environmental regulation is a race to the bottom.
Big corporations opening campuses in lightly populated suburbs is a race to the bottom.
Ships flying flages of convenience in third world countries is a race to the bottom.
People leaving a poorly run place to a well run place is not a race to the bottom.
When a person moves from the Dominican Republic to New York, that’s not a race to the bottom.
We need to keep in mind the magnitude of coercion, or even of oppression, that arises simply from economic forces -- and these generally squeeze harder in the blue states. If the states with the "good politics" can't supply housing at a reasonable price, and if their affordable universities won't let your kids in, then what good are they? A red state with "bad politics" may be sufficiently cheap that the freedom it offers from wage-slavery may outweigh whatever oppressive laws are on the books there. The same goes for other countries. Suppose a country nominally has an authoritarian ruler, but he leaves ordinary apolitical people alone, and prices for medical care are reasonable. Maybe that's still a perfectly nice place to live? Maybe it's better than struggling to pay rent in the "good place"?
As for Texas and Georgia, local politics also matter. Some of the cities are blue islands. So you can't judge a county based only on what state it's in.
But if people are so blinkered that it's literally worth their entire life's wages just to own a house in the "good place", then I guess that's their problem.
That's my issue. The sheer amounts of money we're talking about are staggering. And you have to survive within an abusive corporate structure to get the money. Why tolerate that?
How can you have an emancipatory politics on the one hand, and sign up for lifelong debt on the other? It is good to try to free others, but if you can, shouldn't you try to free yourself first? Then, how can you free yourself in one of the places where money-power is strongest?
On the plus side, for the rest of your life, including especially if you actually want to raise a child, red states are much better in most ways unless you have a very high salary in a coastal blue state (or your income is low enough to get benefits from the blue states, but your income won't be low enough if you're a professional).
Well unless your a woman with pregnancy complications that are life threatening. Then your out of luck. Hopefully you can catch a flight to California in time before you go into septic shock.
Not that the US News ranking is particularly meaningful.
> “She’s happy but often says, ‘Mom, I just wish I hadn’t studied. I would have gotten into the exact same schools.’” And Marie is probably right. Admissions scarcity is concentrated at the top of the rankings list; there are hundreds of four-year colleges that readily admit B and C students.
My experience is that they actually would have gotten into more / better schools
UC Berkeley, UCLA, USC, UC Davis UC Irvine have insane freshmen profile and it's possible that she went to school that might not be nationally ranked but is a good school on its own right (i.e. Cal Poly).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/college-acceptance-r...
It definitely makes things easier IF you get in and IF you use the resources of the school to their full potential. Lot of ifs, but let's not discount the objective value of those schools in making the next set of decisions easier just because they didn't benefit you.
For example, I think that consulting firm McKinsey does some kind of recruitment and job interview on campus during spring and then they announce who they are hiring for the next summer internship in Autumn. A lot of people try to get in and then there is kind of a weird thing on campus where people talk about who made it in. (I never applied so idk all the specifics just observed this.)
So is working at McKinsey or being a Google director or whatever, working at the other big consulting firms/Goldman Sachs really worth it? I don't know. It seems like they pay higher but I don't feel like there is a big value play for these firms. So really you just have people who play every trick in the book to make themselves appear impressive to get in to the school, then use that to get a job at McKinsey, then they do nothing useful there but at least they can say they were in a special club?? Is this really what's considered desirable? It just feels very artificial all the way down.
On the other hand if you didn't go to an Ivy+ I think there isn't really a barrier to doing interesting and useful things which aren't involved in this weird status game. That's not to say all students at those schools are like that but the places where degree matters the most seem questionable to me. I don't like speaking in generalities either but I think it's worth questioning this economic system we have set up with admissions and the job availability after graduation.
Culture was another reason I chose state school over MIT (and didn't even consider any other fancy schools). I don't really have a good word for it, but I got a bad smell and haven't regretted it.
I bet on myself and it wasn't an uneducated bet. I figured I would end up in the same place regardless because I had been reading about research on college outcomes. I read that intelligent people tend to end up with the same level of success in life regardless of university. Made sense to me.
Given where my career has taken me since, I'm especially confident I would be in the same sort of place. If anything, going to the state school I went to is both what introduced me to my career focus (professional FP & Haskell) and first job (got a referral from a friend for FAANG. He was pretty savvy - had an older brother in SV tech - and told me tips such as job hopping for a raise every 2y or so).
Not sure I follow. You got admitted at MIT and decided to go to a Big-10 school? Is Big-10 the Big Ten Conference, with Ohio State and U Michigan?
You really did that?
Have you ever seen this ?
https://sfs.mit.edu/undergraduate-students/the-cost-of-atten...
> 58% of full-time undergraduates received an MIT Scholarship during the 2022–2023 academic year. Among those, the median family contribution after student term-time work was $9,926.2. I (and my parents) actually did dig into the real cost. It was more than that. It was doable but with loans and/or my parents dipping into funds well beyond their college savings for me.
Not sure I would've gone even if the costs were closer tbh. Culture fit is important.
If it was not a fit, why did you apply to MIT? 99% of people who apply to MIT are people who are absolutely hungry to get into MIT. I never heard about anyone accepted at MIT and turning it down because they realized it was not a good cultural fit for them.
What exactly was the cultural issue that you didn't like? People being rich? The MIT crowd is not rich. If you travel the one mile or so from MIT to Harvard, you'll immediately see the contrast between MIT kids and Harvard kids. MIT is definitely a place for hard working people from all backgrounds, and if anything, the rich are underrepresented.
When parents lament or worry about their kids not being able to get into Ivy League schools, I think it's less about those specific eight institutions and more about whatever selective college they might want to attend.
America had so many hidden-gem colleges, this is really a stupid concern.
On one hand using anything other than final, school leaving, standardized at country-level exams that are fair and transparent
feels like wanting to introduce shitton of bias and lack of fairness and transparency
but on the other hand pure academic capability/output isn't perfect proxy for success and it seems like fancy higher edu institutions want to 'create' successful people, right?
ehh, while im standing behind #1 option, then #2 aint stupid
____________
>Marie currently attends a university that did not make the U.S. News & World Report list of top-50 public schools. Amanda tells me, “She’s happy but often says, ‘Mom, I just wish I hadn’t studied. I would have gotten into the exact same schools.’” And Marie is probably right.
This is fucking sad, imo.
She didnt teach her the purpose of eduction, of studying, what the hell.
You don't study to get better grades, to get better scores, to get to better school.
That's just a means to an end
This is very true imo. In my country medical school admissions are extremely competitive, and takes into account many of these factors, since there are many more ace students than slots. The results definitely favor wealthy students though, they're the ones with extra time for activities, or parents to fund groups for them to lead. Personally I think being a part-time burger flipper is better for your character than spending all your free time volunteering at a shelter to cynically maximize your resume.
What about schools that don't do legacies, like MIT?
When my kid went to college the development office started shmoozing before said kid had even chosen his classes.