Irvine School District too Competitive and Backfires?

eyephone said:
Jack Ma applied to Harvard, but was rejected 10 times.
Click to expand...

There is always exception to the rule. Not everyone will be a billionaire though.

High academic achievement and being a successful businessman(woman) usually have poor correlation.
 
Extreme scenarios aside, the important thing here as parents are to maximize the opportunities for our kids.  At the end of the day you got to ask yourself the honest question: Would you have denied it if you were given the opportunity to go to an Ivy League alike?  And what is more important to you: be a C+ Prestige or A+ elsewhere?

I did. I rejected Yale graduate school for UCLA because I would get the same education for literally 15% of the IVY hefty price tag. It was a no brainer to me because ultimately it was not going to change my career path.

But I understand. You want to go to the best school possible because it does create more opportunity to do so - whether it is stronger academic counselors, better classmate competition, more effective networking opportunitiesetc. But I want my kids to know that money also DOES matter. That school debt matters in the long run - coming out of an education track with $500k in student loan debt is extremely impeding to wealth accumulation. Unless of course your 1st year out of school you're making $500k plus annually.

I think to be successful takes a compilation of skills, luck, and depends on your long term life goals. Who knows their long term life goals at 18 going into freshman year anyway? So yes quality of undergrad does matter because of that. It provides you better opportunities. But all I'm saying is IVY is not the end all be all. I went to UCLA and my husband went to USC and these schools are just as good as most IVYs. I just feel like so many Irvine parents put pressure on their kids about IVYs, it's unnecessary.

Someone brought up networking and I completely agree. My husband went to USC, got his 1st job at a Big 4. And that's all he needed to get his foot in the door. Now his career only depends on who he knows and who he's "good with" in the Fortune 50 company he works at. These guys at the top of corporate america all went to no name schools but networked themselves to the top. They make more in a stock options or bonuses than most of us will ever make.
My point in this is simply that parents also underestimate the value of social skills in their children. I would say it is one of the top qualities in setting them up for life success. So yes that teamwork sport, early preschool interactions with other children, running for student office - these are important life skills. Some of the most successful people out there including Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, Musk never got to the top alone. They networked, created optimal teams with optimal skills that helped them get there.
 
My daughter will be a college senior soon. This topic is getting rehashed again. I am an employer and I come across many graduates over the years. There is a huge difference between the quality of staff from the top colleges vs the state colleges. Top colleges nurture the students to be leaders and equipped the students with awareness and knowledges outside of their professions. This is extremely important for those who would be in position on making decisions. There are professions requiring specific procedures, and formulaic approach to accomplishing a task the state colleges do a good job in preparing the students for immediate employment.

Ambition of the students matters. Top universities nurture that ambition and do give the student a pride and strong confident to go after the highest positions especially for public office, executive position of a hospital or officers for a Fortune 500 companies. A pedigree education will matter.

If the student does not have the drive or ambition sending them to the top colleges will be a waste of the parents effort and money. They will not benefit from it. However if the students do have the eccolades but stripping of this opportunity the state college education will stifle them from will limit them from fully realizing their potentials.

The two top college ranking websites offer conflicting second tier college positions. Which one is more reliable? Forbes is much more reliable than US News based on the quality of students and their potential to succeed. Forbes barometer is much closer in measuring the quality of colleges.

How much weight should be given to the "selectivity" in ranking. I feel it is a popularity contest. Harvard and Stanford are household names for all Asian parents so irregardless of their children potential they must apply. The high volume of dummy applicants drive acceptance rate down. The "selectivity" should not be weighted heavily. Professors to students ratio makes a huge difference in learning. Impacted schools rob students the interaction with their teachers and enrollment into necessary classes. School endowments improves the quality of school facilities and give the students a higher quality of life and learning.

Making connections and friendship are the most important aspect of college. The difference between the top tier and lower tier colleges are drastically different. Top tier colleges has the financial resources to harvest fellowship, team spirit events, weekend retreats, social events, group projects and family like housing arrangements to strengthen the bonding process. The lower tier colleges impacted financially do not have the means to harvest friendship among students. Many felt isolated, alone and making fewer friends at best. Top tier colleges have better business connection because the students' parents are likely executives of large companies and offers greater opportunities of a salary internship.

State run colleges have a laser focus by teaching students practical knowledge with immediate result to joining the work force. Part time teachers having a primary job can offer students a realistic expectation of a real work environment. This college setting is less likely to promote a entrepreneurial spirit but do produce hardworking individuals doing their duty well. Students who are introvert and quite self sufficient not requiring a peer system could do really well here.

The students personality has a lot to do with the school match up. Learn about the social atmosphere of the school whether it's the right fit. Many top colleges used the same text books as the state colleges. The knowledge in the books are about the same. The major difference is in the lifestyle experience.
 
I have to disagree with you regarding state run colleges.

irvinehomeshopper said:
My daughter will be a college senior soon. This topic is getting rehashed again. I am an employer and I come across many graduates over the years. There is a huge difference between the quality of staff from the top colleges vs the state colleges. Top colleges nurture the students to be leaders and equipped the students with awareness and knowledges outside of their professions. This is extremely important for those who would be in position on making decisions. There are professions requiring specific procedures, and formulaic approach to accomplishing a task the state colleges do a good job in preparing the students for immediate employment.

Ambition of the students matters. Top universities nurture that ambition and do give the student a pride and strong confident to go after the highest positions especially for public office, executive position of a hospital or officers for a Fortune 500 companies. A pedigree education will matter.

If the student does not have the drive or ambition sending them to the top colleges will be a waste of the parents effort and money. They will not benefit from it. However if the students do have the eccolades but stripping of this opportunity the state college education will stifle them from will limit them from fully realizing their potentials.

The two top college ranking websites offer conflicting second tier college positions. Which one is more reliable? Forbes is much more reliable than US News based on the quality of students and their potential to succeed. Forbes barometer is much closer in measuring the quality of colleges.

How much weight should be given to the "selectivity" in ranking. I feel it is a popularity contest. Harvard and Stanford are household names for all Asian parents so irregardless of their children potential they must apply. The high volume of dummy applicants drive acceptance rate down. The "selectivity" should not be weighted heavily. Professors to students ratio makes a huge difference in learning. Impacted schools rob students the interaction with their teachers and enrollment into necessary classes. School endowments improves the quality of school facilities and give the students a higher quality of life and learning.

Making connections and friendship are the most important aspect of college. The difference between the top tier and lower tier colleges are drastically different. Top tier colleges has the financial resources to harvest fellowship, team spirit events, weekend retreats, social events, group projects and family like housing arrangements to strengthen the bonding process. The lower tier colleges impacted financially do not have the means to harvest friendship among students. Many felt isolated, alone and making fewer friends at best. Top tier colleges have better business connection because the students' parents are likely executives of large companies and offers greater opportunities of a salary internship.

State run colleges have a laser focus by teaching students practical knowledge with immediate result to joining the work force. Part time teachers having a primary job can offer students a realistic expectation of a real work environment. This college setting is less likely to promote a entrepreneurial spirit but do produce hardworking individuals doing their duty well. Students who are introvert and quite self sufficient not requiring a peer system could do really well here.

The students personality has a lot to do with the school match up. Learn about the social atmosphere of the school whether it's the right fit. Many top colleges used the same text books as the state colleges. The knowledge in the books are about the same. The major difference is in the lifestyle experience.
Click to expand...
 
Paris said:
Got into every UC though and ended up at UCLA. I was premed and I was now competing with a couple thousand premed students fighting to the death to get into medical school. Our classes were graded on a curve so it was a constant competition and I was up against students like myself and certainly those more intelligent.
During this moment in my life I was so glad that I went to that competitive high school, the one where I was challenged, and where I learned from some of the best students on study strategies and learned to not falter under the intense pressure of competition. I am pretty confident to say that had I attended a subpar high school I would not be a physician today.
Click to expand...

gonna ignore the rest of the stuff in this thread but nice to see at least 3 docs in the groves who went to undergrad at UCLA.  go bruins!
 
I spent four years bouncing around various junior colleges while I worked full time after HS, then got a degree at CSUF.

Today I work at a top 5 global consultancy where I help Fortune 100 companies improve their sales function. Most of my colleagues went to Ivy or other top public schools (Cal MBAs), but I'm top 10% with my Fullerton degree.

I had friends from HS that went to top schools and their networks helped open doors for me that wouldn't have been available otherwise.

I'm going to try to teach my kids to love learning, have good work ethic, and not worry too much about whether they end up at one school or another. But for now we're focused on trying to get them to sleep in their own room. Baby steps.
 
Movingup said:
eyephone said:
Jack Ma applied to Harvard, but was rejected 10 times.
Click to expand...

There is always exception to the rule. Not everyone will be a billionaire though.

High academic achievement and being a successful businessman(woman) usually have poor correlation.
Click to expand...

Not everyone will be a billionaire, but his story is amazing. He failed a key primary school test 2 times, he failed the middle school test 3 times, he failed the college entrance exam 2 times, according to an interview with Charlie Rose in Davos. He got rejected from KFC, the police force, and many more.

But at the end we know who he is and what he has accomplished.
 
dethman said:
Paris said:
Got into every UC though and ended up at UCLA. I was premed and I was now competing with a couple thousand premed students fighting to the death to get into medical school. Our classes were graded on a curve so it was a constant competition and I was up against students like myself and certainly those more intelligent.
During this moment in my life I was so glad that I went to that competitive high school, the one where I was challenged, and where I learned from some of the best students on study strategies and learned to not falter under the intense pressure of competition. I am pretty confident to say that had I attended a subpar high school I would not be a physician today.
Click to expand...

gonna ignore the rest of the stuff in this thread but nice to see at least 3 docs in the groves who went to undergrad at UCLA.  go bruins!
Click to expand...

+1 UCLA grads keep up property values...gotta keep out the riff-raff ;)
 
BunkMoreland said:
I spent four years bouncing around various junior colleges while I worked full time after HS, then got a degree at CSUF.

Today I work at a top 5 global consultancy where I help Fortune 100 companies improve their sales function. Most of my colleagues went to Ivy or other top public schools (Cal MBAs), but I'm top 10% with my Fullerton degree.

I had friends from HS that went to top schools and their networks helped open doors for me that wouldn't have been available otherwise.

I'm going to try to teach my kids to love learning, have good work ethic, and not worry too much about whether they end up at one school or another. But for now we're focused on trying to get them to sleep in their own room. Baby steps.
Click to expand...
I like it...another fellow Titan. 
 
This will probably give my age away but IUSD truly has its benefits.  I went to Northwood high and at the end of the year, on the TV's they had this presentation of the schools everyone was going to with the graduating class.  I remember we had at least 10-15 Ivy league, 70% of everyone else went to some kind of UC, and the rest went to some kind of cal state.  It was crazy, I believe at least 95% went to at least cal state so going to a competitive school I think does have its merits. 

And outside of the 95%, many of those that went to Junior college like IVC first ended up transferring to a UC after so I think having top notch education really helps...

There was some kind of standardized testing and I remember our class had some insane passing rate 99% or something

Good schools lead to competition especially to get into the AP classes.  That competition (even if you weren't a straight A student) breeds good habits and persistence.  I think  my biggest takeaway from high school was just keeping a healthy schedule of studying/hobbies like basketball/play  :)
 
I lost count of how many of these I have seen around Irvine.

IMG_6157_zpskzonwit7.jpg


WTTCHMN said:
Bullsback said:
I like it...another fellow Titan.
Click to expand...

Not to worry.  According to IHS, Irvine schools are a feeder for CSUF.
Click to expand...
 
the potential problem with high performing IUSD is that it is very hard to get A's.  Whereas lower performing schools it is much easier to get A's.  so kids from lower performing high schools that get 4.0's get into all the good colleges.  So YES IUSD schools do backfire.  College admissions offices do not rate high schools.....a 4.0 gpa is all the same to them.  I learned a costly lesson about this. 
 
AA said:
the potential problem with high performing IUSD is that it is very hard to get A's.  Whereas lower performing schools it is much easier to get A's.  so kids from lower performing high schools that get 4.0's get into all the good colleges.  So YES IUSD schools do backfire.  College admissions offices do not rate high schools.....a 4.0 gpa is all the same to them.  I learned a costly lesson about this.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to add, when I was in Northwood High (might've changed by now) AP classes (the equivalent of college courses) were offered, like AP euro etc, and those gave a higher scale.  Essentially A= 5.0, B= 4.0 C= 3.0 and so on.  So many of the top tier students had higher than 4.0 GPA.  So in theory you could get B's in those classes and still get a high GPA.  But this was years ago so maybe they got rid of it for those advanced classes
 
AA said:
the potential problem with high performing IUSD is that it is very hard to get A's.  Whereas lower performing schools it is much easier to get A's.  so kids from lower performing high schools that get 4.0's get into all the good colleges.  So YES IUSD schools do backfire.  College admissions offices do not rate high schools.....a 4.0 gpa is all the same to them.  I learned a costly lesson about this.
Click to expand...

I am on the alumni interview committee for an Ivy and the committee and admissions officers are  definitely aware of which high schools are stronger and where the A's are more meaningful. A high GPA from a well known and respected feeder school is going to carry more weight. Also, the committee likes to see that students are pursuing more difficult courses in an area of deep interest, rather than taking all easy classes trying to fluff up their resume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top