HYP undergrads vs. HYS 0Ls Forum

[Reinhardt]

There are multiple intelligences. The LSAT tests the intelligence(s) relevant for law school. It might be possible to further increase its validity, but I seriously doubt adding math to it would help.

[jnorsky]

Thinking that people at HYPS undergrad are "the smartest people ever" is ridiculous, i know plenty of people smart enough to go to HYP but didnt care enough in high school, got ok grades, and went to schools like UCB, Michigan, Georgetown, Chicago, etc. In fact, my buddy is at Harvard law now, went to public school undergrad and he rocked his first semester at harvard. His buddy that went to public school...same thing, absolutely rocked it. Undergrad is bullshit, the people went to Harvard undergrad from my high school were annoying overachievers that only cared about school.

[DoubleChecks]

Seeing as how Math is one of the main topics taught throughout our entire lower education system, testing your ability at it seems reasonable for testing a person's intelligence no? I'm pretty sure people like Einstein or Curie would have a score that does not indicate their true intelligence if they hadn't taken a test similar to the LSAT while any results from the SAT would be much more accurate.

Further, the fact that you can do very well on the SAT (more so than the LSAT) without any preparation seems to make it a better test of pure intelligence in my opinion.

eh, i dont know if the SAT math really tests that much lol. you make it sound as if it has depth. i took the SAT twice, first time cold (dont ask why lol). i got a 690 on math. studied for half a week for math, retook it the next available time, and got 800 on math. SAT math isnt that hard, so there's an early ceiling for whatever it is you're proposing it accurately reflects haha.

[DoubleChecks]

Thinking that people at HYPS undergrad are "the smartest people ever" is ridiculous, i know plenty of people smart enough to go to HYP but didnt care enough in high school, got ok grades, and went to schools like UCB, Michigan, Georgetown, Chicago, etc. In fact, my buddy is at Harvard law now, went to public school undergrad and he rocked his first semester at harvard. His buddy that went to public school...same thing, absolutely rocked it. Undergrad is bullshit, the people went to Harvard undergrad from my high school were annoying overachievers that only cared about school.

i mean, if you take it apart individually, of course not, esp. if you want to back it up w/ anecdotal evidence lol. but i think if the statement is taken from an overall, general perspective (i.e. the "smartest" [and we can get into a huge discussion on how to define "smarts" but lets just say whatever you want it defined as for this situation] student bodies would be at HYP) then i think it is a fair one to make. i certaintly wouldnt tout some other school and say its overall aggregate student body was "smarter" than HYP's.

this is of course excluding schools that you would say are competitive to HYP, like Stanford, small private liberal arts schools maybe, MIT, etc. i mean, for the purposes of this statement and idea, i will overlook those to make a point.

[09042014]

No, but I think its a better judge than HGPA and SAT if a person is fluent in English.

The SAT is part reading comprehension (which I think is useful), part vocabulary (doesn't say a lot about intelligence), and math (which says nothing because you can use a calculator, and math is entirely learned).

ACT is even worse.

Eh, in reality I think the SAT is actually a better judge of intelligence.. the LSAT is much too narrowly focused on one subject while the SAT is broader (especially the older SAT before they removed the analogies due to everyone's complaints).

Having it test math knowledge destroys any intelligence credibility with me. LSAT isn't very good either, but it requires less knowledge.

Seeing as how Math is one of the main topics taught throughout our entire lower education system, testing your ability at it seems reasonable for testing a person's intelligence no? I'm pretty sure people like Einstein or Curie would have a score that does not indicate their true intelligence if they hadn't taken a test similar to the LSAT while any results from the SAT would be much more accurate.

Further, the fact that you can do very well on the SAT (more so than the LSAT) without any preparation seems to make it a better test of pure intelligence in my opinion.

No, it makes it a worse intelligence test. Testing something that takes years to learn is not intelligence.

[englawyer]

Thinking that people at HYPS undergrad are "the smartest people ever" is ridiculous, i know plenty of people smart enough to go to HYP but didnt care enough in high school, got ok grades, and went to schools like UCB, Michigan, Georgetown, Chicago, etc. In fact, my buddy is at Harvard law now, went to public school undergrad and he rocked his first semester at harvard. His buddy that went to public school...same thing, absolutely rocked it. Undergrad is bullshit, the people went to Harvard undergrad from my high school were annoying overachievers that only cared about school.

haha sounds like me..

the problem is that everyone has a stake in the argument. those that went to HYPS undergrad etc. like to think they are special flowers and that the expensive tuition was worth it. those that went to TTT undergrads have a vested interest in not thinking they are fucked for life, and therefore attack the view held by HYPS folks.

i have yet to see a post in this thread where a HYPS undergrad says "yeah you guys are right, my ugrad just wasn't that special" or a TTT undergrad person is like "zomg! HYPS is so much better than my TTT that they should get into HYS law school over me!!"

the truth is somewhere in between all these views, and we all know it.

S added to HYP for crackberry's sanity btw.

[JusticeHarlan]

Part of the reason I posted is that I've always been in "awe" over HYP (Ivy in general) undergrads and I, for whatever reason, have never felt reverence for law students. Which is funny because I aim to be one soon

For example, the fact that H's LSAT median is 166 or whatever - that blows my mind because so many people here beat it. I always assumed the smartest kids ever! were found in HYP exclusively so the fact the median is relatively low to many in TLS is a non-compute for me.

Well, that 166 doesn't look too impressive compared to a 180, but let's put it in context a bit. A 166 is 93rd percentile for LSAT takers; if you phrased the stat, "the average Harvard undergrad does better than 93% of all LSAT takers," it seems slightly more impressive. Just because this place attracts a lot of that top 7% doesn't mean the average Harvard kid isn't in the upper realms of achievement on the test.

/blatant 166 trolling.

[Na_Swatch]

Eh, in reality I think the SAT is actually a better judge of intelligence.. the LSAT is much too narrowly focused on one subject while the SAT is broader (especially the older SAT before they removed the analogies due to everyone's complaints).

Having it test math knowledge destroys any intelligence credibility with me. LSAT isn't very good either, but it requires less knowledge.

Seeing as how Math is one of the main topics taught throughout our entire lower education system, testing your ability at it seems reasonable for testing a person's intelligence no? I'm pretty sure people like Einstein or Curie would have a score that does not indicate their true intelligence if they hadn't taken a test similar to the LSAT while any results from the SAT would be much more accurate.

Further, the fact that you can do very well on the SAT (more so than the LSAT) without any preparation seems to make it a better test of pure intelligence in my opinion.

No, it makes it a worse intelligence test. Testing something that takes years to learn is not intelligence.

As opposed to something that is one specific skill set, also quite learnable? The fact is the math isn't that hard... mainly it requires speed and accuracy of thought. There are no questions on the SAT that require the use of a calculator.

Plus it doesn't even take that long to learn all you need to know for the LSAT.. I got a 730 on the math section in 7th grade, its not testing any advanced theories or stuff that requires prolonged study of math.

[crackberry]

S added to HYP for crackberry's sanity btw.

FWIW, I don't think HYPS kids are de facto smarter than TTT UG kids. I think often kids who end up at HYPS are there because their parents have advanced degrees and money and can afford (and think it's a smart use of money) to pay $50K/year for their kids' college educations. And I also think a lot of kids at TTTs are there because their parents A) can't afford to pay $50K/year for their kids' college, and B) they didn't have the resources in high school (mentors, college guidance counselors, etc.) that kids at HYPS often had. I think there are plenty of kids at TTTs who are just as smart as kids at HYPS - there's no question about that.

That said, I do think HYPS attract, on average, better faculty than TTTs, so kids at HYPS are definitely studying under the best minds in the business, which has to be worth something.

[RVP11]

S added to HYP for crackberry's sanity btw.

FWIW, I don't think HYPS kids are de facto smarter than TTT UG kids. I think often kids who end up at HYPS are there because their parents have advanced degrees and money and can afford (and think it's a smart use of money) to pay $50K/year for their kids' college educations. And I also think a lot of kids at TTTs are there because their parents A) can't afford to pay $50K/year for their kids' college, and B) they didn't have the resources in high school (mentors, college guidance counselors, etc.) that kids at HYPS often had. I think there are plenty of kids at TTTs who are just as smart as kids at HYPS - there's no question about that.

That said, I do think HYPS attract, on average, better faculty than TTTs, so kids at HYPS are definitely studying under the best minds in the business, which has to be worth something.

Totally disagree.

The only thing that really separates HYPS from TTT is the quality/intelligence of the students. I don't think the education is really that different. Professors at nearly every university are hired for the quality of their research and publications, not the quality of their teaching.

[englawyer]

S added to HYP for crackberry's sanity btw.

FWIW, I don't think HYPS kids are de facto smarter than TTT UG kids. I think often kids who end up at HYPS are there because their parents have advanced degrees and money and can afford (and think it's a smart use of money) to pay $50K/year for their kids' college educations. And I also think a lot of kids at TTTs are there because their parents A) can't afford to pay $50K/year for their kids' college, and B) they didn't have the resources in high school (mentors, college guidance counselors, etc.) that kids at HYPS often had. I think there are plenty of kids at TTTs who are just as smart as kids at HYPS - there's no question about that.

That said, I do think HYPS attract, on average, better faculty than TTTs, so kids at HYPS are definitely studying under the best minds in the business, which has to be worth something.

Totally disagree.

The only thing that really separates HYPS from TTT is the quality/intelligence of the students. I don't think the education is really that different. Professors at nearly every university are hired for the quality of their research and publications, not the quality of their teaching.

I disagree with both assessments. The only useful difference IMO is both on-campus and alumni job opportunities. Even if the professors and whatnot are better (and in my mind, the educational quality actually goes down because they focus even more on research), I don't care. I also don't care to be in the classroom w/ smarter minds; I just care about the end product: my network and career.

The top schools have access to MBB Consulting, Major Investment Banks, etc...opportunities that are just not there for TTT undergraduates. There is a substantial difference in both quality and number of jobs.

This phenomenon is even leaking to the tech sector, long thought to be a bastion of merit where a TTT or even non-college grad can get a sweet job if they are a l33t hacker. I believe Facebook only hires at H or S nowadays, or something crazy like that.

[Reinhardt]

H is pretty crappy in computer science, but it still wouldn't surprise since Zuckerberg came from H.

[georgina]

The only thing that really separates HYPS from TTT is the quality/intelligence of the students. I don't think the education is really that different. Professors at nearly every university are hired for the quality of their research and publications, not the quality of their teaching.

partially disagree.
agree: quality of students different. professors everywhere are smart.

however, like crack says, hyps still does attract the smartEST professors. and that still makes a difference.

also, quality of students determines quality of education, as well. teachers can only teach what they think their students can handle. for instance, i sat in on a few classes of a top 25 UG that were within the same field as my major at HYPS. i didn't think it would be different, but it was vastly different. professors were clearly smart, but they "dumbed" down the curriculum in a way rather shocking to me. HYPS may often use the same textbooks as other UG's, but they treat the curriculum more rigorously and bring in much outside stuff.

[Flanker1067]

Thinking that people at HYPS undergrad are "the smartest people ever" is ridiculous, i know plenty of people smart enough to go to HYP but didnt care enough in high school, got ok grades, and went to schools like UCB, Michigan, Georgetown, Chicago, etc. In fact, my buddy is at Harvard law now, went to public school undergrad and he rocked his first semester at harvard. His buddy that went to public school...same thing, absolutely rocked it. Undergrad is bullshit, the people went to Harvard undergrad from my high school were annoying overachievers that only cared about school.

haha sounds like me..

the problem is that everyone has a stake in the argument. those that went to HYPS undergrad etc. like to think they are special flowers and that the expensive tuition was worth it. those that went to TTT undergrads have a vested interest in not thinking they are fucked for life, and therefore attack the view held by HYPS folks.

i have yet to see a post in this thread where a HYPS undergrad says "yeah you guys are right, my ugrad just wasn't that special" or a TTT undergrad person is like "zomg! HYPS is so much better than my TTT that they should get into HYS law school over me!!"

the truth is somewhere in between all these views, and we all know it.

S added to HYP for crackberry's sanity btw.

This is the truth. I was the worst in high school, went into the SAT cold, went to mediocre undergrad and now I feel inclined to attack HYPS grads because I did well on the LSAT. I don't even have anything personal against them, most of them I have met are nice and smart. I am just infuriated (being a finance major) that every good private equity and investment banking job goes to them without consideration of merit.

[fortissimo]

Thinking that people at HYPS undergrad are "the smartest people ever" is ridiculous, i know plenty of people smart enough to go to HYP but didnt care enough in high school, got ok grades, and went to schools like UCB, Michigan, Georgetown, Chicago, etc. In fact, my buddy is at Harvard law now, went to public school undergrad and he rocked his first semester at harvard. His buddy that went to public school...same thing, absolutely rocked it. Undergrad is bullshit, the people went to Harvard undergrad from my high school were annoying overachievers that only cared about school.

i mean, if you take it apart individually, of course not, esp. if you want to back it up w/ anecdotal evidence lol. but i think if the statement is taken from an overall, general perspective (i.e. the "smartest" [and we can get into a huge discussion on how to define "smarts" but lets just say whatever you want it defined as for this situation] student bodies would be at HYP) then i think it is a fair one to make. i certaintly wouldnt tout some other school and say its overall aggregate student body was "smarter" than HYP's.

this is of course excluding schools that you would say are competitive to HYP, like Stanford, small private liberal arts schools maybe, MIT, etc. i mean, for the purposes of this statement and idea, i will overlook those to make a point.

I don't think it's really fair comparing MIT students with HYPS liberal arts students considering almost everyone at MIT is borderline genius/insane workaholic. The HYPS SCIENCE students I have met are incredibly smart, but the HYPS liberal arts students I've known are not nearly as impressive.

[rayiner]

H is pretty crappy in computer science, but it still wouldn't surprise since Zuckerberg came from H.

Harvard's EECS department is a rancid TTT. I haven't read a soaped out of there that wasn't based on some blatantly obvious idea. They're ranked too high even at 44 or whatever they are.

[fortissimo]

H is pretty crappy in computer science, but it still wouldn't surprise since Zuckerberg came from H.

Harvard's EECS department is a rancid TTT. I haven't read a soaped out of there that wasn't based on some blatantly obvious idea. They're ranked too high even at 44 or whatever they are.

One of my closest friends from high school studied Computer Science and Physics at Harvard. He was nationally ranked in the American math competition, got a 1600 on the SAT, took linear algebra as a high school senior (he tested a 5 on Calc BC as a high school sophomore, so he started taking university math courses), but still struggled maintaining a decent GPA against his classmates at Harvard because he was lazy...the department may not be that high ranked but the students in the science fields at Harvard are still very competitive (and probably far more competitive than those in the liberal arts).

(He got into every single university he applied to (HYPS), including Cal-tech with a full-ride, except for MIT. Even though he got a hefty scholarship from Harvard, he was rejected at MIT. This is partly why I think MIT>>HYPS in terms of caliber of students. It's just a lot harder to get in.)

[rayiner]

Thinking that people at HYPS undergrad are "the smartest people ever" is ridiculous, i know plenty of people smart enough to go to HYP but didnt care enough in high school, got ok grades, and went to schools like UCB, Michigan, Georgetown, Chicago, etc. In fact, my buddy is at Harvard law now, went to public school undergrad and he rocked his first semester at harvard. His buddy that went to public school...same thing, absolutely rocked it. Undergrad is bullshit, the people went to Harvard undergrad from my high school were annoying overachievers that only cared about school.

i mean, if you take it apart individually, of course not, esp. if you want to back it up w/ anecdotal evidence lol. but i think if the statement is taken from an overall, general perspective (i.e. the "smartest" [and we can get into a huge discussion on how to define "smarts" but lets just say whatever you want it defined as for this situation] student bodies would be at HYP) then i think it is a fair one to make. i certaintly wouldnt tout some other school and say its overall aggregate student body was "smarter" than HYP's.

this is of course excluding schools that you would say are competitive to HYP, like Stanford, small private liberal arts schools maybe, MIT, etc. i mean, for the purposes of this statement and idea, i will overlook those to make a point.

I don't think it's really fair comparing MIT students with HYPS liberal arts students considering almost everyone at MIT is borderline genius/insane workaholic. The HYPS SCIENCE students I have met are incredibly smart, but the HYPS liberal arts students I've known are not nearly as impressive.

+1 from my own experience.

[rayiner]

H is pretty crappy in computer science, but it still wouldn't surprise since Zuckerberg came from H.

Harvard's EECS department is a rancid TTT. I haven't read a soaped out of there that wasn't based on some blatantly obvious idea. They're ranked too high even at 44 or whatever they are.

One of my closest friends from high school studied Computer Science and Physics at Harvard. He was nationally ranked in the American math competition, got a 1600 on the SAT, took linear algebra as a high school senior (he tested a 5 on Calc BC as a high school sophomore, so he started taking university math courses), but still struggled maintaining a decent GPA against his classmates at Harvard because he was lazy...the department may not be that high ranked but the students in the science fields at Harvard are still very competitive (and probably far more competitive than those in the liberal arts).

I'm not saying that the undergrads aren't smart, by rather the department sucks and the graduate program is second rate. The top professors and grad students in the field are not teaching the UGs at Harvard.

[Na_Swatch]

H is pretty crappy in computer science, but it still wouldn't surprise since Zuckerberg came from H.

Harvard's EECS department is a rancid TTT. I haven't read a soaped out of there that wasn't based on some blatantly obvious idea. They're ranked too high even at 44 or whatever they are.

One of my closest friends from high school studied Computer Science and Physics at Harvard. He was nationally ranked in the American math competition, got a 1600 on the SAT, took linear algebra as a high school senior (he tested a 5 on Calc BC as a high school sophomore, so he started taking university math courses), but still struggled maintaining a decent GPA against his classmates at Harvard because he was lazy...the department may not be that high ranked but the students in the science fields at Harvard are still very competitive (and probably far more competitive than those in the liberal arts).

(He got into every single university he applied to (HYPS), including Cal-tech with a full-ride, except for MIT. Even though he got a hefty scholarship from Harvard, he was rejected at MIT. This is partly why I think MIT>>HYPS in terms of caliber of students. It's just a lot harder to get in.)

Ehh just anecdotally I think Harvard's top UG math students are probably best in the nation, at least on scale of MIT just because the name can attract huge talent. For example the guy above isn't that impressive.. at my school there were several others like me on the same track.. 5's on both BC Calc and AP Stat sophmore year... then Multivariable/Discrete/Linear Algebra and more at a T30 University for junior/senior years.

However, there was one guy who was truly a genius... he was a grade below me and 3 years ahead of me in terms of math level (finished calculus in middle school).. so given that I graduated with a minor in math.. he had completed basically a major in math by the time he was done with HS. In fact he was probably among top 5 math students in the entire nation given that he was on the AMC national team that went overseas to compete (basically the 5 winners of the entire nationwide AMC competition). He was accepted into every UG and chose Harvard over MIT... and Harvard has some extremely difficult math classes that cross admit MIT students. So yeah, I've heard the computer science is't too great there but the Math/Physics probably has some really intelligent students.

[09042014]

H is pretty crappy in computer science, but it still wouldn't surprise since Zuckerberg came from H.

Harvard's EECS department is a rancid TTT. I haven't read a soaped out of there that wasn't based on some blatantly obvious idea. They're ranked too high even at 44 or whatever they are.

One of my closest friends from high school studied Computer Science and Physics at Harvard. He was nationally ranked in the American math competition, got a 1600 on the SAT, took linear algebra as a high school senior (he tested a 5 on Calc BC as a high school sophomore, so he started taking university math courses), but still struggled maintaining a decent GPA against his classmates at Harvard because he was lazy...the department may not be that high ranked but the students in the science fields at Harvard are still very competitive (and probably far more competitive than those in the liberal arts).

(He got into every single university he applied to (HYPS), including Cal-tech with a full-ride, except for MIT. Even though he got a hefty scholarship from Harvard, he was rejected at MIT. This is partly why I think MIT>>HYPS in terms of caliber of students. It's just a lot harder to get in.)

Picking Harvard over a full ride at CalTech for physics is ridiculous.

Also I don't care how brilliant you are, if you slack off in hard science or engineering you will get owned by the curve. Even at a TTT engineering school.

[09042014]

H is pretty crappy in computer science, but it still wouldn't surprise since Zuckerberg came from H.

Harvard's EECS department is a rancid TTT. I haven't read a soaped out of there that wasn't based on some blatantly obvious idea. They're ranked too high even at 44 or whatever they are.

One of my closest friends from high school studied Computer Science and Physics at Harvard. He was nationally ranked in the American math competition, got a 1600 on the SAT, took linear algebra as a high school senior (he tested a 5 on Calc BC as a high school sophomore, so he started taking university math courses), but still struggled maintaining a decent GPA against his classmates at Harvard because he was lazy...the department may not be that high ranked but the students in the science fields at Harvard are still very competitive (and probably far more competitive than those in the liberal arts).

(He got into every single university he applied to (HYPS), including Cal-tech with a full-ride, except for MIT. Even though he got a hefty scholarship from Harvard, he was rejected at MIT. This is partly why I think MIT>>HYPS in terms of caliber of students. It's just a lot harder to get in.)

Ehh just anecdotally I think Harvard's top UG math students are probably best in the nation, at least on scale of MIT just because the name can attract huge talent. For example the guy above isn't that impressive.. at my school there were several others like me on the same track.. 5's on both BC Calc and AP Stat sophmore year... then Multivariable/Discrete/Linear Algebra and more at a T30 University for junior/senior years.

However, there was one guy who was truly a genius... he was a grade below me and 3 years ahead of me in terms of math level (finished calculus in middle school).. so given that I graduated with a minor in math.. he had completed basically a major in math by the time he was done with HS. In fact he was probably among top 5 math students in the entire nation given that he was on the AMC national team that went overseas to compete (basically the 5 winners of the entire nationwide AMC competition). He was accepted into every UG and chose Harvard over MIT... and Harvard has some extremely difficult math classes that cross admit MIT students. So yeah, I've heard the computer science is't too great there but the Math/Physics probably has some really intelligent students.

I wouldn't judge someone's genius based on them being ahead of you in school. IMO anyone who can do Calculus in college, could have learned it in middle school. Math education wastes numerous years going over the same old shit year after year.

[rayiner]

H is pretty crappy in computer science, but it still wouldn't surprise since Zuckerberg came from H.

Harvard's EECS department is a rancid TTT. I haven't read a soaped out of there that wasn't based on some blatantly obvious idea. They're ranked too high even at 44 or whatever they are.

One of my closest friends from high school studied Computer Science and Physics at Harvard. He was nationally ranked in the American math competition, got a 1600 on the SAT, took linear algebra as a high school senior (he tested a 5 on Calc BC as a high school sophomore, so he started taking university math courses), but still struggled maintaining a decent GPA against his classmates at Harvard because he was lazy...the department may not be that high ranked but the students in the science fields at Harvard are still very competitive (and probably far more competitive than those in the liberal arts).

(He got into every single university he applied to (HYPS), including Cal-tech with a full-ride, except for MIT. Even though he got a hefty scholarship from Harvard, he was rejected at MIT. This is partly why I think MIT>>HYPS in terms of caliber of students. It's just a lot harder to get in.)

Ehh just anecdotally I think Harvard's top UG math students are probably best in the nation, at least on scale of MIT just because the name can attract huge talent. For example the guy above isn't that impressive.. at my school there were several others like me on the same track.. 5's on both BC Calc and AP Stat sophmore year... then Multivariable/Discrete/Linear Algebra and more at a T30 University for junior/senior years.

However, there was one guy who was truly a genius... he was a grade below me and 3 years ahead of me in terms of math level (finished calculus in middle school).. so given that I graduated with a minor in math.. he had completed basically a major in math by the time he was done with HS. In fact he was probably among top 5 math students in the entire nation given that he was on the AMC national team that went overseas to compete (basically the 5 winners of the entire nationwide AMC competition). He was accepted into every UG and chose Harvard over MIT... and Harvard has some extremely difficult math classes that cross admit MIT students. So yeah, I've heard the computer science is't too great there but the Math/Physics probably has some really intelligent students.

Picking Harvard over MIT, Princeton, or Caltech for physics would be retarded. For math less so.

Anecdotally, I think MIT is the hardest school to get into. I know lots of HYP people that got rejected at MIT. You basically need an 800 SAT math + substantial research in HS.

[crackberry]

Why would any good CS high school student pick Harvard over CalTech or Stanford? That makes NO sense.

[crackberry]

H is pretty crappy in computer science, but it still wouldn't surprise since Zuckerberg came from H.

FB is based in Palo Alto though. At least half its staff is Stanford grads. And basically its entire software enginnering staff is Stanford grads.