Why do we support Ivy League Schools as the best if they are cheating too?

Because the best people from the best families go there?

Yeah all the presidents are from Yale and Harvard basically.

In the real work world, it is a symbol. An Ivy League degree does not automatically indicate merit, skill, or expertise compared to others. The emperor had no clothes. All they indicate is connection. Prestige.

It’s a cultural myth we all buy into.

In terms of research, most cutting edge stuff happens elsewhere, random programs for example, often in state schools.

It is telling that Harvard is notorious for POACHING professors. It does not, by and large, take pains to nurture risk-takers. It wants guaranteed commodities. Some professors stay where they are, others are tempted and go. I have known one who refused and remained at UCLA, for example. Cutting edge program, but not Ivy League.

In my field, there was little or nothing original coming out of the Ivy’s. They seemed to rest on their laurels. It’s the difference between where real research goes on and branding.

Some good stuff does come out at times, but the Ivy’s do not seem to produce the bulk of it by and large. Just a casual observation.

Btw, I’ve known quite a bit about the Ivy’s MBA programs. They have done a great deal of harm to corporate America. I hate their lingo and pomposity. A festering pool of privilege sustaining privilege. Blech.

Are you out of your mind? Harvard, Yale, and USC—etc.—have superb researchers in the sciences, history, languages and literatures, social sciences, etc., who are publishing and training grad students. They write books that either influence directly how you see the world or influence those who write those books. They're not just undergrad institutions—and most of the undergrads who get in are fully up to the work. The George Bush types are the exception.

I can agree with R3 about Harvard profs often resting on their laurels, but even there I don't know many who are. And OP isn't talking about just Harvard or just the Ivies.

Ivy League schools support more lower income kids than any other type of college. They grant full scholarships for little or no reason other than diversity, and these are actual full scholarships, covering everything, not some course cost only bullshit or workfare scheme.

Since having a degree matters little past your first job, it really doesn't matter what school you went to. I went to U o Chicago and Columbia (neither exactly lower rung) but no one cared after I left my first job. And once I hit 40 and hit the age barrier, well today I work for a boss that dropped out of high school and has connections.

"I’ve known quite a bit about the Ivy’s MBA programs. They have done a great deal of harm to corporate America. I hate their lingo and pomposity. A festering pool of privilege sustaining privilege."

100% right, R3. The fact that so many Presidents came out of the Ivy League is proof. George W was a Yalie, and a Bonesman - and a complete moron.

Aside from the scandal of it all, I don't understand why this is news. When I went to college (back when we had to dash between lectures lest be stomped by a dinosaur), I actually took an honors-program class in which we discussed the fact that Ivy-league schools were merely gatekeepers, you had to be related to, know or bribe someone to be admitted, and if it was quality education you sought, you looked elsewhere. I get that it chaffes people that we have a class structure in America, but you either accept it and find your place, or you just whine about it pointlessly.

We had the opportunity to change America, and we did make some changes in the 60s (the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action) but the next generation — the late baby boomers, of which I count myself a member — dropped the ball. It's not quite that simple, and I've reduced it to a single statement for sake of argument, but TPTB got their act together and made it more difficult to effect change while organizing to stop change long term.

I've written on DL before about the handful of elites that got together at the end of the 60s and put together the plans, the structure, and the funding to see that everything that was done for the sake of America was rolled back, replaced and never allowed to happen again, and they've been wildly successful. Just look at this very scandal to see that success: not only is it more difficult (a larger population, more competition) to get into an Ivy-league school, but any school; after all, it was on college campuses that the cultural revolution took place. To wit, today's colleges are rife with ridiculous experiments in social justice, safe spaces, and "woke" policies and practices that do nothing to solve the problems, and in fact make many of the problems worse.

And while most of this was by design (again, TPTB want us to argue amongst ourselves over these weighty matters while they destroy the environment, rationalize wholesale theft, and divide the country down the middle such that no meaningful reform even enters the discussion let alone take place), the population has fallen for the plan hook, line and sinker. I'll say it again: we could solve these problems quite easily... if we wanted to, but we don't. It's much easier to fall back on the usual bullshit platitudes and divisive issues.

I'm sure there will be people here who disagree with me. Of course, when I point out that these disagreements are all part of the plan nicely laid out by the elites nearly 50 years ago, it will fall on deaf ears.

It is so refreshing to finally have a president who is not Yale or Harvard minted.

OP is kind of dumb and also naive. I went to 2 Ivies and everything was top rate - including the obvious - my education. All the prestige and connections and open doors were great too. That doesn't mean other schools don't offer excellent educations.

He also seems unaware that there are at least 100 universities that are difficult to access and probably at least 50 liberal arts colleges. So there is plenty of institutional offer to meet the demand.

The scandal of this week, is about immoral greedy lying pretentious rich cunts.

It also seems that the Ivy Admissions are barely implicated in the scandal, if at all. A few dirty coaches at Ivies. Payoffs were to a broker who paid off coaches - not admissions officers.

The perhaps "undeserving" gratin get into the very elite colleges through the president's office, development office, and admissions, in legal ways. No need for a SLEAZY broker and faked test scores.

None of those researchers actually teach, r4, so they have little to do with the actual quality of education that the institution provides. Their reputation for "superior" education is all marketing.

I prefer the "little Ivies" - Bowdoin, Amherst, Middlebury, etc.

"Superior education" is always a wink wink, nudge nudge. You can get a good education at countless places.

An elite college gives you an elite network. Your friends and classmates are going to go on to do great things, the people in your school's alumni network are people who do great things. It gives you a ticket into a more prestigious world than you get by going to your local commuter college.

Plus it is fun going to college at a place that has lots of money, many perks.

Also I swear I am ready to believe this whole controversy was a PR scheme to make USC look good. I had never heard of USC being referred to as an elite school, it makes them look good that someone would pay 500k to go get in there.

The ivy league does not own the elite college scene.

Surely you have heard of Stanford and MIT? Some of the most prestigious colleges in this country are not part of the Ivy league.

There are many colleges that look more impressive on your resume than Cornell. People pretend the only colleges in the ivy league are Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

Which is precisely why the children of privilege want in, r13.

One of the dumbest people I've ever known went to Brown.

I've known a few morons with Harvard Ph.Ds too.

Cunts? PLEASE stop pretending that your personal experience is somehow representative of the whole. You "didn't know" that USC is now a selective school? That means you haven't been paying attention, not that you're right. You heard OVER 50 YEARS AGO that it was impossible to get into Harvard or Yale unless you had "connections"? That, too, doesn't even remotely reflect what admissions have been like for the past 20 (or even 30) years.

[quote]If I attend Michigan State or NYC does that mean I have less of a chance to be the best or an elite?

No, you can't become an elite because you don't know how to fucking spell "NYU." Despite it having only THREE LETTERS!

[quote]Does that mean I can't write for the New Yorker, have a show on PBS or NPR, or become president ?

Again, I doubt you'd get hired at The New Yorker considering you're unaware the "The" in it is capitalized. They have some serious grammar bitches there. (I'm merely a grammar cunt.) President is another story, obviously.

Gen Zers are extremely entitled. They all feel as though they deserve to go to Harvard, Yale, etc even if they are merely upper middle class.

Actually OP, the list of "top" colleges has been greatly expanded.

Schools that were once "very good" are now in a league just below the Ivies. (Off the top of my head, and this is clearly an incomplete list: Georgetown, Duke, UVa, Northwestern, Wash U, Vanderbilt, U Chicago, Cal, UCLA, USC, Michigan)

Not to mention Stanford, MIT and CalTech.

Talk to someone who graduated from those schools or the Ivies 20 or 30 years ago and they will tell you that there is no way they'd get in today.

I interview kids for Brown (alum) and so many of these kids have resumes far more impressive than many people in their 30s.

It's sad in that they spend all of high school doing this instead of the usual crap high school kids do, and, more important, it exacerbates the class divide, because almost all those kids are upper middle class, from the top 15%, while the lower 85% make due with community college and Trump University.

^^And by "expanded" I mean the things OP was (I think) alluding to--so Goldman and BCG will recruit at Vanderbilt and USC, not just the Ivies and that a kid from Duke who gets a job at the New Yorker won't be looked at as some sort of interloper.

The Ivies are still the best we have. (And Stanford does not count, contrary to what CA people think.) As a commenter above writes, the Ivies have the best faculty, the best curriculum, the brightest students, the most beautiful buildings and traditions. Walk on the campuses and tell me you're not moved. The Ivies and other well-endowed schools give more scholarships and work harder to keep their students once accepted. Sadly, like all universities and colleges, they are more businesses now than halls of learning. If you're talking about education -- true education -- they are unparalleled in the US. I went to an Ivy. My daughter went to a podunk college (long story), but in her tenure, she had maybe one great professor. I had many. My degree got me my first job. Her college is unknown. And yes, I'm far better educated, even though she worked harder than I did. Don't knock what you don't know.

Olds like R23 have no fucking idea what they are talking about.

R24 What have you done with your life?

BA from Brown, MBA from Columbia (double Ivy!!!) and run an analyst group (Wall St.)

I'm 38

You?

I mean other than giving birth to a daughter whose clearly seeing a shrink because her mother thinks she went to a "podunk" college and that nothing she does is ever good enough?

OH DEARing myself: who is clearly

R23 here with more. Go to UMichigan, and look where you are. Duke? Durham NC and founded on cigarette money. Vanderbilt. Texas A&M. UVa at least was designed and conceived by Thomas Jefferson. Much of the UC system was created by business people to enrich their areas (Irvine in Orange County), and they bought professors with tons of money. Use your head R24. Things are valued because they have value. And higher learning is about more than a degree.

[Quote]The Ivies are still the best we have. (And Stanford does not count, contrary to what CA people think

Snort. Good luck convincing anyone that Cornell, Brown or Penn is more impressive than Stanford, MIT or Caltech. You are clueless.

Who doesn't know that rich people have been buying their way into prestige schools since forever? Ivy League schools rely on this sort of thing to survive. Who doesn't know that? Millions of stupid people graduate from Ivy Leagues every year. How disconnected with reality can you be?

This is capitalism 101.

Sometimes I think posters here are either too naive or too stupid.

Your question is suspect, OP. "We" don't support Ivy League schools. A large cabal of elitists supports them. Since this elite is becoming a post-capitalist kleptocracy, "we" shouldn't be surprised if the people seeking entrance into this cabal employ fraudulent means to do so.

R26 My daughter is one of the smartest people I know. From alcohol rehab at 16, she got a GED and applied to a college with a sober student program, rather than return to the boarding school where she drank. Now she wishes she had taken a different route, but that's her history not mine. Where she went is a fact, and she'd be the first to tell you. Thank God, for the one great professor she had, who hated where he taught but was trapped by tenure. Yes, I'm old, and yes, I feel incredibly lucky to have studied at three excellent schools. I worked my way through them. Not financially, but learning as fast as I could to make up for my very poor East Texas education. In the 70s, if you went to a major college on the east coast, you met amazing students from all walks of life and parts of the country. The diversity was stunning, even then.

People who went to Harvard, Yale and Princeton say those schools. People who went to lesser ones say "ivy league" to trick people into thinking of the big three.

I think the big question going forward is — which group does an Ivy League grad belong to — front door side door or back door? Can I say that in my job ads? Front door Ivies ONLY. Do not apply if you are a legacy or bribery admit.

[BA from Brown, MBA from Columbia (double Ivy!!!) and run an analyst group (Wall St.)]

R26 They must be so proud!!!

R33, no they don't. They say "I went to school in Connecticut/Boston/New Jersey."

First off, the schools, in their capacity as institutions, weren't accused of any wrongdoing. Rather, those accused included individuals who worked for these schools. So, lamenting Americans' support of these schools as a result of these "cheating" investigations is misplaced (something shady may be going on behind the closed-doors of these schools, but that's not really what the complaint was referencing). Secondly, I think people tend to over-estimate the reach of higher-ranked schools on politics and industry in general. That's not to say there is no reach, but a degree from one of these elite schools certainly doesn't guarantee any kind of enviable success. Anecdotal, I admit, but I do work with and know numerous people who were Ivy-educated and not one of those people is part of some cultural elite. They're not Appalachian hill people, but they're also not part of any uber-elite ruthlessly manipulating economies or politics for personal gain at the expense of others. They're just normal, mostly middle-class people doing the daily grind. For every one thousand degrees these schools churn out, maybe one or two of those students end up in some kind of elite position later on with any kind of influence (obviously I don't know the numbers, but I do doubt anyone's assertion that graduating from an Ivy results in success always).

Personally, I think there is misplaced aggression on the Ivy's and other high-ranking schools. This is a problem with education in America and many of our institutions of higher learning. Because higher education is becoming so common, there isn't much value in these degrees as they don't really set people apart from others as degrees used to do. It leads students (or parents of students) to go to more drastic measures to ensure they/their child stand out, which leads to stupid stunts like what recently became exposed.

If someone really is ignorant, an easy way to understand the situation today, regarding PRIVATE elite universities, Need Blind.

This is the list:

scroll down to: U.S. institutions that are need-blind for U.S. applicants and meet full demonstrated need

They are all extremely high quality and they are not ripping off lower middle class and poor students.

Then add in the top 20 State Universities in the US.

voila. America's elite institutions. All great.

The private institutions on this list, are also great. However, their endowments have failed them recently. So then do need to admit rich kids to offset the poor and middle class kids. Its not an "even" playing field.

"U.S. institutions that are not need-blind for U.S. applicants and meet full demonstrated need"

Yale and Harvard don't need even 10% annual returns on their endowments to afford all their operating costs, R39. Aren't their endowments over $50 billion?

[quote] One isn't really sending a child there for an education, but to network and mingle with other elites.

That's not entirely true.

I went to Harvard as an undergraduate because it was the best college for what I wanted to study; though I did mix with elites, I am solidly middle class today (I'm a college professor), and so are many of my friends who went there with me.

[quote] The Ivies are still the best we have. (And Stanford does not count, contrary to what CA people think.) As a commenter above writes, the Ivies have the best faculty, the best curriculum, the brightest students, the most beautiful buildings and traditions. Walk on the campuses and tell me you're not moved. The Ivies and other well-endowed schools give more scholarships and work harder to keep their students once accepted. Sadly, like all universities and colleges, they are more businesses now than halls of learning. If you're talking about education -- true education -- they are unparalleled in the US. I went to an Ivy. My daughter went to a podunk college (long story), but in her tenure, she had maybe one great professor. I had many. My degree got me my first job. Her college is unknown. And yes, I'm far better educated, even though she worked harder than I did. Don't knock what you don't know. My daughter is one of the smartest people I know. From alcohol rehab at 16, she got a GED and applied to a college with a sober student program, rather than return to the boarding school where she drank. Now she wishes she had taken a different route, but that's her history not mine. Where she went is a fact, and she'd be the first to tell you. Thank God, for the one great professor she had, who hated where he taught but was trapped by tenure. [bold]Yes, I'm old[/bold], and yes, I feel incredibly lucky to have studied at three excellent schools. I worked my way through them. Not financially, but learning as fast as I could to make up for my very poor East Texas education. In the 70s, if you went to a major college on the east coast, you met amazing students from all walks of life and parts of the country. The diversity was stunning, even then.

Clearly dementia has set in

Havard and Yale are in the first list. Their endowments are fine but they do occasionally take big hits. Harvard's is currently about 40 billion but you could have googled that yourself. There are public universities with huge endowments. U of Texas has 20+ billion!

100% R36

And then they make you play the guessing game

Boston U? BC? MIT?

I thought you went to school in Boston

Cambridge?

Oh....

(Or Rutgers? Fairleigh Dickinson....)

We used to joke that if you said "Rhode Island" people would just go "Oh!" and not try to guess since no one knew where Brown (or Providence) actually was

It's a pity to see some Seven Sisters sink back off the first list to the second list. I mean they are mostly need blind, but still. Who would have thought it, 15 years ago. Maybe they could hit on the rich trannies for endowment gifts.

[quote]I am solidly middle class today (I'm a college professor)

As a college professor you are a member of a very high socioeconomic class. You seem blinded to how "elite" you are compared to the average American, even if you don't have money to burn like some finance bigwig.

Oh honey I'm a ivy educated prof too, and I only make 150K. I guess high in "socio" but not in economic. I'd make more in STEM.

The median salary of a fulltime American worker is around 44k r27. A person making 150k is considered *upper* middle class. That's before we even get into the socio part of socioeconomic.

R47*

R47, how old are you and where do you live? How much you make is only part of the equation in terms of your economic class.

They aren't the best - but they have the best branding and idiot consumerist Americans have fallen for it. It opens doors once on your resume but I argue if you work hard coming out of a state school you can advance just as far as anyone from Ivy.

150K is middle class in some cities. :) Also what if god forbid I had kids! I'm not complaining and I could have stayed in finance. Choices. But saying college profs are automatically members of "a very high socioeconomic class" is off base.

^A 50yr old making 150k in SF is middle class. A 30yr old making 150k in Boston is upper middle class.

[quote]But saying college profs are automatically members of "a very high socioeconomic class" is off base.

It's just the truth. Only 33% of American adults even have a college degree, some tenured college professor with a PhD is in a very elite job.

As I said before, you seem blinded to what the average American looks like. Most of us live in circles where that is easy to happen, because we only hang out in a certain socioeconomic subset.

What about as a prof at the University of Khartoum? 150K?

R54 you are lumping together 2 different posters. I'm blinded by nothing. Honey we are all middle class. I worked for the .01%. They have ALL the money and their money isn't anything like our money.

R38 Most schools claim to be "need blind." Most are fucking liars.

Sure they are all liars in different ways, For example the Ivys and little ivies don't factor in the legacy admits and the global VIP spawn admits through the level playing field.

That's only the beginning of their dishonesty, r57.

There's a great book called the Dream Hoarders (linked) that talks about the massive gulf between the upper middle classes and everyone else, that what we used to call "middle class" no longer exists as the top 15% or so has shut the gates behind them.

His point is that it's not the 1%, it's the 20%--that's who is living in places like Lake Forest and Scarsdale and Palo Alto and sending their kids off to USC and Duke and Yale, where they will graduate debt-free, get an internship with someone their parents know (or the parents of someone they know) and mom and dad will subsidize that while they get "experience" and then Mom and Dad will help them pay for an apartment in a hip gentrifying neighborhood where they'll live until it's time to make back to Lake Forest or Scarsdale or Palo Alto...

The actual dollar value of an upper middle class salary varies greatly from area of area, but the lifestyle is pretty much the same.

In America's "upper middle class" enclaves, 150K is not a high salary. Sheesh. What you are describing is formerly known as the rich and most of them have multimillion dollar net worths. But that is quite modest, compared to the VIP class in the world that has ALL the money.

SMH

It depends WHERE R61

In Grand Rapids or Cedar Bluff or Hanover, NH, it's probably a nice chunk of change.

In Palo Alto, it's not even table stakes

The Ivy League was originally a gentlman’s Rowing federation, a RICH gentlman’s rowing federation . Nothin more, nothing less

Bowdoin, Amherst, Wesleyan, Pomona, Williams, Vassar, Middlebury, Davidson, Swarthmore, Haverford <-- best undergrad experiences

Football conference, no? Was crew before football?

Jack Welch former GE CEO helped to begin the modern wealth grab arguing for all sorts of perks and benefits he probably deserved - the issue is that every other CEO started to say - well "where's mine" and thus began the absurd divide of the haves and have nots. And it spread to the rest of the C-suite where divisional VP's now got President titles and the pay and benefits that went along with it. Along the way - to finance and rationalize their new salaries and largess they took and took from their workers. Middle managers used to be upwardly mobile themselves with perhaps a car lease, free health care,, access to the 'executive lunchroom' and so on - now, it's all gone. All of it is in the top tier's pocket.

Godbale, McVicar and Morgan. YUM

R66 that's what I'm saying.

Two of the creepiest things I have ever read about Yale is a nude study they did of all incoming students to predict their success - it's been a while since I read the article - but I have posted the link - read it - there is supposition that many of our leaders today are among those photographed. The second thing about Yale is Skull and Bones - I don't know if it exists today but there was a movie about it - and lots printed if you read the internets

^ you would think these were the best schools and they still practiced this bullshit. Smart really.

[quote] So if a parent is willing to commit fraud to get their child into Harvard, Yale, or USC

Harvard was not named among the schools in the cheating scandal.

[quote] Bowdoin, Amherst, Wesleyan, Pomona, Williams, Vassar, Middlebury, Davidson, Swarthmore, Haverford <-- best undergrad experiences

Which of these did you attend, r64?

Harvard and Yale have always been tops in my mind. They're like... Oxford and Cambridge. Coke and Pepsi. McDonald's and Starbucks. Boston and New York.

Or something.

Daphne and Josephine?

I think this is going to be huge! More people will be found guilty.

Harvard, etc pull the same stunts, just because they haven't been named yet means nothing. There is more coming down the pike.

The "elite schools" will never say "actually, there's a ton of wonderful schools you could go to." Totally against their interest. Few people who went to such schools are willing to give up the idea of their specialness. And I bet many of the high school kids who feel they have a shot of getting into these schools also like the notion that these schools are elite -- they can therefore brag if they are accepted. There's plenty of resistance to changing the status quo.

It is where the best go. It opens doors. For example you cannot get a job at the NYT without an Ivy degree.

I think it’s useful specifically for networking and specifically for certain fields. I’m sure if you want to be at xx fancy law firm, etc. it’s useful. Other degrees, not so much.

A lot of it is wanting to be in the popular club. It’s not just Ivy’s. Much of the student loan crisis is rooted in kids thinking they have to go to a certain school and spend a fortune on a major who’s salary will never pay them enough to get out of the debt. They could have gone the community college to state school route, ended up with the same job and had $20,000 or less debt to deal with.

It’s like $100 wallet or a $5,000 wallet. They both probably do the same thing for you. The $5,000 one might be made of better material but really, that’s not why you’re buying it. You’re buying it so every time you take it out the logo says “look at me, look at how successful I am and what I can afford” without you saying anything at all. Either of the wallets would have done the actual purpose fine.

Saying my school is better than your school is pretty juvenile. The person saying this was probably part of a grade inflation/college admission scam.

students who went to harvard had a hard time there, but they lie and say it was great publicly. The criticisms are it is chaos and hard to figure out. Staff is there for the rich mainly. It is a high classicist place. Yale students say the hard part was getting in. Once you are in, they baby you. Same with Brown.

So if you manage to get into Yale or Brown through the lengthy interview process and impress them, even if you have little money, they support you. Yale and Brown graduates seem to have a very hard time in competitive work environments. They are shell shocked.

I went to Cornell and Brown. Cornell was by design, difficult. Brown was only as difficult as one's own ambition. However, I knew a few people at Cornell who found it a cake walk and went on to Harvard Law and said that was "stimulating" but didn't mention difficult. There are brilliant people. Not me. I think the first time they experienced really long hours of work every week was as 1st year associates at white shoe firms. But even then, the work wasn't "difficult" - just LONG. I think one could find extremely difficult work in STEM at least 100 universities.

[QUOTE] It is a high classicist place.

Oh dear.

Can we stop trying to make USC happen?

Yale has always been special in my mind. Something about the sound of the name.

And the minting presidents thing.

R60, I'm reading the book now. Depressing. But it explains why it's so hard to get traction for any program that benefits the masses. The quite-well-off act and portray themselves as if they are working class even as they shout down programs that would help the working classes. They overwhelm discussion and politics and drown out other voices. They are a large enough bloc to pay attention to; nevertheless, they are overrepresented in public institutions and online.

I encountered this via my side-door scholarship to a better university. I was in, but I was shut out of the lives of people I went to school with. They had lots of money, lots of opportunities. My biggest problem was I couldn't get a decent internship, which was essential to my grad program. Other students walked into theirs, set up by their parents. I kept getting rejected by every place I applied to, despite being very qualified. I wasn't "in."

Then I was offered a very prestigious internship ... in Washington DC, 1500 mi from grad school. It was impressed upon me what a great opportunity was being offered. But the pay was low and I was expected somehow to afford to live in 2 cities and commute. I explained it would be impossible for me to do so.

Again, I was told how this was such a great opportunity it was, and how offensive it would be to turn it down. A professor said, "Can't you ask your parents to cover the cost?" It was in that moment I realized how class-based everything was, and all my hard work wasn't going to end up amounting to anything.

[quote] In my field, there was little or nothing original coming out of the Ivy’s.

[quote] but they Ivy's don't seem to produce the

[quote] Btw, I've known quite a bit about the Ivy's MBA programs

Yeah I'm going to listen to a genius who talks about "the Ivy's."

We should protect the stem programs (science) throughout the education system. Have liberal arts programs in high school and undergrad because this is the fruits of human knowledge and should be for everyone.

Have business, advertising, communications and all these non academic programs be more like vocational job training.

I think drama, the arts and athletics should be more like extracurricular activities and not degrees.

Heard today Singer isn't the only one providing these services. So he says he has 700-800 clients. If others are providing the same service it could be in the 1000's.

So it seems like you can only get into these schools by affirmative action or knowing someone or paying someone off. Yep, these schools are the best.

The spoiled silver Spooner's cheat because they are the ignorant lazy spawn of the jaded and decadent idle rich who are worthless and weak fat parasites worthy only of annihilation.

If you're from the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast or LA/SF and aren't a legacy/URM/development admit, it's much more difficult to get into the top Ivies than kids from the Midwest and South. Some Exeter kids end up at Bard.

True, geographic diversity is an overlooked but important component. Also if you are a first generation college student that is a big leg up too.

So many factors go into admissions at top colleges.

Because no one needs to cheat to get onto 'state U.'

In my day, Yale was considered problematic by some because the undergrads were primarily taught by TAs, whereas Princeton focused on its undergrads with professors leading all the courses.

Many of the high reputations of schools are based on its graduate schools, while others are primarily undergrad institutions.

I visited UCLA when I was an undergrad and their Intro to English Lit was led by a TA with 250 students in the class, whereas my class (using the same Norton Anthology) had 25 people and was led by a full professor.

continued from r95 --

This does not mean UCLA's course was any worse, it just meant it had to be different because there were more people in it.

In STEM, most of us learned the same things as undergrads, wherever we went, but each grad school was different, depending on their budgets for research, the interests of the profs, etc.

The trumps went to Penn so clearly as long as you have money you are in an ivy leauge school. Bushes too. I’m from the west coast, we really don’t give a shit where you went. It caries less value than being an entrepreneur, hardworking or just a chill hombre

I would go to a good state school and have my parents give me the millions trying to get me someplace better and invest it

I know three women who went to Harvard. They are all housewives now.

Gloria Steinem lived in vain.

Such a lot of moaning. Most Americans have the same opportunities, if they aren't black. And cheats have always done better than everybody else. It's human nature.

Some of you act like you expect a college to have a team of private detectives on call to investigate all the applicants!