the top 25% of a place like university of Illinois (and a lot of other big state schools like it), probably represents a critical mass of intelligent young people that would be pretty competitive with ivy league schools
----------
----------
also, while ivy league school give out generous amounts of aid, Illinois students aren't filtered by exactly how generous a discount the financial aid office wants to give on at 55k a year tuition (I suspect the top 25% does pretty well scholarship money wise at Illinois too)
> University of Illinois has 32,878 undergraduates
That's a fair point. It'd be interesting if YC could do some sort of data analysis on attendance for their events at a big state school vs. an elite school.
> Illinois students aren't filtered by exactly how generous a discount the financial aid office
Most elite universities are need-blind.
Spreading these myths does a disservice to smart, poor kids. Thinking they can't possibly get in, or afford it if they do, dissuades many of the underrepresented students from applying. That's part of why I push back so hard when people try to spread bullshit or the notion that you can only go to Harvard if you're rich.
> I suspect the top 25% does pretty well scholarship money wise at Illinois too
I can tell you that elite universities were a lot more generous with scholarships for me (smart, poor kid) than any lower tier schools.
Only goes so far. They don't offer aid to students wishing to take SAT prep courses. Admissions criteria include vague things like oddball extracurriculars. It's an interesting coincidence that wealthy people tend to engage in the same activities that top schools consider signals of a "well-rounded" applicant.
Oh please. You can do plenty of SAT prep at the library. My parents certainly couldn't afford an SAT prep course for me. The effect of such courses is vastly overblown—they mostly just sit you down with the same books you can get for free at the library (or for $20 on Amazon).
There are plenty of "oddball" extracurriculars that rural poor students can engage in. My admissions essay was literally about hiking with an ancient backpack covered in duct tape.
Your personal experience is contradicted by some systematic studies. Unfortunately I don't have the citations nearby, but I'm sure if you search Google Scholar you'll find that you are an unusual person.
I think you're overestimating the extent that SAT prep courses play in college admissions compared to, say, personal tutors or involved parents who have knowledge about the particular rituals needed to get into good schools.
I should add that while it's true a child can visit the library to study for the SAT, it seems that's not very common.
I looked up some articles about SAT prep, reports say preparing for the test increases scores about 25 points on average. I'm not sure whether that was from the 2400 or 1600 test.
Not that it matters, but I'm sort of confused as to what lower tier schools you applied to
At every state school whose scholarship packages I'm familiar with (granted sample size of 3, plus antedotally maybe 5 or so more), an applicant with your SAT scores would have almost certainly been offered a full ride, probably with a stipend as well
I should probably have left out the last point as it was a distraction from the overall point
whether what's dissuading them from going to ivy league schools are myths or not, the larger point, is that big state schools tend to have pretty (statistically) good critical masses at the top of them
Is Illinois really a good choice for contrast with Columbia? Yes it is a state school, so it has less elite-sounding brand than Columbia, but UI actually outranks Columbia in most STEM fields.
>Top schools attract a disproportionate of intelligent young people.
Top schools scrape off a tiny cohort of the wealthiest and best college-prepped among the smartest. The other 97% of the smartest are, well, not at top schools.
> Being set up for success is different than being inherently intelligent.
Sure, but you're arguing against a straw man.
It's simply objectively true that students at elite are on average much smarter than students at other schools, and more ambitious. They're much more likely to have a viable YC application.
In fact, students who get into elite schools but don't attend them still far out-perform students who never got into one.
> It's simply objectively true that students at elite are on average much smarter than students at other schools, and more ambitious. They're much more likely to have a viable YC application.
In fact, students who get into elite schools but don't attend them still far out-perform students who never got into one.
No no no...
First, your "objectivity" is not objective, at best it is a common assumption.
Second, nobody stumbles into Harvard and the like. That tier of school is an aim for both the child and parent from birth (probably before birth for the parents). Acceptance into these schools is the product of hard work (that I am not trying to detract from) and a financial investment (on behalf of the parent). Sure, there are some very intelligent people who take up residence in these schools, but for the VAST majority it was the hard work that got them there, not brilliant work. So yes, students who get in but don't attend can go on to be successful. However, that is a reflection of their work ethic more than their intelligence.
SO being at that tier of school doesn't guarantee intelligence, just being outside of the tier doesn't exclude intelligence. At best it shows that you can work hard and probably had a bankroll of some sort.
> SO being at that tier of school doesn't guarantee intelligence, just being outside of the tier doesn't exclude intelligence.
You continue to argue against straw men. I never said everyone at top schools is smart, nor did I claim that everyone who is smart is at a top school. Just that the average IQ at a top university is higher than at a random one.
Do you have any evidence to disprove that the average IQ at elite universities is higher? It's almost a farcical thing to argue against. For one thing, IQ correlates with SAT scores pretty heavily and SAT scores at elite universities are much higher. [0]
> That tier of school is an aim for both the child and parent from birth (probably before birth for the parents).
Oh give me a break. Have you ever been to an elite university? Do you know anyone there? My parents sure as hell weren't thinking about my college acceptances when they conceived me. I certainly didn't work hard to get there.
There's a small population of crazy Manhattan elites who are obsessed with preparation and education status, but that's far from being everyone who goes to a top school. Most of my friends were people who just happened to be very intelligent and (in many cases) hard working.
The argument that I was making is that the determining factor for getting into this tier of school (aside from luck) is your hard work and determination. Intelligence comes after that. Sure, there is a minimum level of competency. The world's best ditch digger isn't getting into Harvard, all they know how to do is dig ditches.
If you want to make the argument that there is a concentration of intelligence around top tier campuses, sure (though that makes less sense when you realize that the average state school is 4x the size of Harvard and the like). However, I argue that what got those people there was primarily their determination to be there in combination with their competency (competency which was learned by the way, not inherent to the student/person).
> Oh give me a break. Have you ever been to an elite university? Do you know anyone there? My parents sure as hell weren't thinking about my college acceptances when they conceived me. I certainly didn't work hard to get there.
While I did not go to a to a top tier school (I was offered and couldn't ironically, due to money), I work very closely with people who did. Those people possess a drive that took them to success. Sure "from birth" was a hyperbole, but I'm sure you didn't just finish your SAT and say "well I guess I'll go to {top tier}". I'm sure it was premeditated. If you went yourself that is.
> The argument that I was making is that the determining factor for getting into this tier of school (aside from luck) is your hard work and determination. Intelligence comes after that.
It seems fairly clear to me that YC would be well served to select for hard work and determination, probably before intelligence, but if they can find all three, why wouldn't they stack the deck in their (and the applicant's) favor?
Sure, it was "premeditated" but that's because I always did extremely well in school and it seemed like the obvious choice. It's not like my parents groomed me to succeed or something. They were busy enough with their own work.
If you want to argue that ambition and hard work are also essential to getting into a top school, I won't dispute that. I'd also say those are both essential qualities for successful founders.
Sure, but do you disagree that P(smart|elite school) > P(smart)?
I feel like people on HN have a giant chip on their shoulder when it comes to top schools. They're filled with lots of very smart students and ignoring that is ridiculous.
Nowhere do I pretend that all smart kids are at top schools, or even that the majority is. But if I wanted to select a school to go to with the highest average IQ it would definitely be an elite school.
It's not like everyone is buying their way into elite schools. I certainly didn't, nor did many of my classmates.
>Sure, but do you disagree that P(smart|elite school) > P(smart)?
I expect it to be only negligibly higher, but in the case of some elite schools like MIT or Georgia Tech, I do expect the elite kid to have received a better education.
I mean, I got my master's at the Technion, so I'm one to bag on elite schools, but still. My experience was that the people weren't innately smarter than everyone else, but they had been given a bunch more background coursework and research experience when they completed their official degree level.
Top schools attract a disproportionate demographic of wealthy students. Of the 5 schools on the list, students from wealthy families are substantially over-represented in the student body (with MIT being a relative outlier). Nearly half of the student body at each university comes from the top 5-10% by income tier.
% of students from top 1% by income ($630K)
UPenn - 18.7%
Stanford - 17.5%
Harvard - 15.1%
Columbia - 13.4%
MIT - 5.7%
% of students from the bottom 60% by income ($65K)
UPenn - 16.5%
Stanford - 18.6%
Harvard - 20.4%
Columbia - 21.1%
MIT - 23.4%
