Not everyone is me. Lots of people would do equally well outside the crucible, and some people have mental health issues due to the crucible. But for me, it was really useful. (On the other hand, the rate of mental breakdowns and suicides/suspicious deaths did seem alarmingly high at MIT around the turn of the millennium.) For many people, finally learning to fail and pick yourself back up is useful.
In high school, I took 6 trimesters of honors-level math at one of the "Public Ivys"[0], and my senior year of high school I was taking a full course load there plus 1/4 course load (band class) at high school. I got all As, except for a B+ in Intro to World Politics, without working very hard, driving 45 minutes each way to and from school. It was a good education, and I could have gone there on a full ride scholarship, but I still feel MIT was worth it.
At the "public ivy", I would have gotten better grades, and probably would have put more effort into personal projects, but focusing on personal projects is very different from focusing on things you have to do, and I didn't really have to focus on my school work at the "public ivy" in order to get above a 4.0 GPA. I probably would have had to have waited until after school to learn how to pick myself back up after failure.
On the other hand, I don't think I would have found some other top schools as valuable. I have a friend who graduated with a CS degree from an Ivy League school and then came to MIT. In his experience, that Ivy treated students like they already worked very hard to get into school and deserved high grades, but it seemed to him that at MIT the culture was very different, seemingly even for undergrads. What I've read about the grading curves (median GPAs, percentage graduating with highest honors) at some of the Ivys seems to match up with his observations from that one Ivy.
In high school, I took 6 trimesters of honors-level math at one of the "Public Ivys"[0], and my senior year of high school I was taking a full course load there plus 1/4 course load (band class) at high school. I got all As, except for a B+ in Intro to World Politics, without working very hard, driving 45 minutes each way to and from school. It was a good education, and I could have gone there on a full ride scholarship, but I still feel MIT was worth it.
At the "public ivy", I would have gotten better grades, and probably would have put more effort into personal projects, but focusing on personal projects is very different from focusing on things you have to do, and I didn't really have to focus on my school work at the "public ivy" in order to get above a 4.0 GPA. I probably would have had to have waited until after school to learn how to pick myself back up after failure.
On the other hand, I don't think I would have found some other top schools as valuable. I have a friend who graduated with a CS degree from an Ivy League school and then came to MIT. In his experience, that Ivy treated students like they already worked very hard to get into school and deserved high grades, but it seemed to him that at MIT the culture was very different, seemingly even for undergrads. What I've read about the grading curves (median GPAs, percentage graduating with highest honors) at some of the Ivys seems to match up with his observations from that one Ivy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ivy