[jshowa3]

There's nothing wrong with this guy except for maybe the fact that he thinks he deserves to get into a top school. Top schools are really just as good as a lot of lower acceptance rate schools. The point is the piece of paper, not necessarily where you go. Where you go has ancillary benefits like connections and more opportunity, but that doesn't make you any lesser if you take a school with less of that. Some of the smartest people in the world didn't even go to college.

[akhilcacharya]

This is specious. It's pretty clear that if Ivy+ acceptance didn't mean anything nobody would go. There is a genuine bar here that admits pass that non-admits don't. As a non-admit, I realize this more and more every day after graduating from a non-selective college.

[jshowa3]

I never said there wasn't a difference. What I said was that the content you're taught is no different than what is taught at a school that accepts more people. Calculus doesn't change whether you go to Ivy or low tier. It's the same material.

What it means is that you get more opportunities. And literally, nobody cares once you get to the working world which is what the majority of people go to college for. In fact, the longer you work, the less your degree is even considered. Degrees only provide more opportunity and help get your foot in the door a lot easier.

Also, you're competing with all the other 1% so it wouldn't be a shocker if you didn't get in. Nearly everyone applying to those schools will have perfect grades, SAT/ACT scores, and extra-curriculars. Plus special interest applicants such as sports players, rich people, and disadvantaged minorities.

The OP doesn't even mention how many times he applied. And now he publishes a web page with the entire goal of being condescending toward everyone else and acting like he deserves to get everything he wants. Its like he's never learned the greatest lesson of life, that it's horribly unfair.

[akhilcacharya]

> Calculus doesn't change whether you go to Ivy or low tier. It's the same material.

I have doubts. The DS&A classes in top schools are probably better than mine and according to people I've met at top schools they make studying for tech interviews easy. They don't need to study Leetcode problems, they just need to study for their tests.

>Also, you're competing with all the other 1% so it wouldn't be a shocker if you didn't get in.

Obviously, but it implies if you don't get into any of the top schools that you're not 1%.

[jshowa3]

Obviously, but it implies if you don't get into any of the top schools that you're not 1%.

Are you saying that someone in the 1% can't choose to go to a non-top 1% school?

Now that is pretty specious to me because it doesn't imply anything. He could've simply been applying during a highly competitive time of year. And considering the college scandal and how money affects people getting in or not, clearly the "top 1%" really isn't the top.

I have doubts. The DS&A classes in top schools are probably better than mine and according to people I've met at top schools they make studying for tech interviews easy. They don't need to study Leetcode problems, they just need to study for their tests.

I'd argue that most jobs don't require you to go to interviews that are as competitive as big tech companies. Most of my interviews have been pretty low key. It may help if you want to get into Facebook, Google, Amazon, MSFT, or Apple, but I'd argue plenty people work there that aren't the top 1% simply because the companies are so large that it would be impossible to have that many people at the top, otherwise the top would be the mean.

If you look at MIT Open Courseware, nothing out right shocked me with regards to the curriculum. In fact, they taught Scheme in their intro class for years. How many companies do you think use that language? I'd guess not a lot.