Forbes 20 'New Ivies'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hilarious. DH and I are both grads of these "new Ivies," but our kids are or will be grads of the real Ivies or top SLACS, and they're getting a much better education than either DH or I did.

Sure. Comparing today to 30 years ago makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

Is Forbes a real magazine anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you please list the 20 schools ?

Thank you in advance & thank you for posting.

Top publics:
Binghamton University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Florida Florida
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Texas-Austin Texas
University of Virginia Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison

The SAT scores are impressive for those publics, and the cost compared to private schools are so much cheaper, even for oos.


Top Privates:
Boston College
Carnegie Mellon University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Rice University Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Southern California
Vanderbilt University

Where is the Wisco booster? This is their moment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article and the list don't actually seem to have anything to do with one another.

Why wouldn't the list be a compilation of the top 10 public and top 10 private colleges that the respondents indicate where they hire the most graduates?

Makes no sense that it is just a list of schools with high standardized test scores (although, strange that they say if only more than 50% of the schools had kids reporting test scores...seems like that threshold should be much higher)...and not a list of where companies hire kids.

I don't know what questions were asked but, here's what they looked at:

we also screened with a selectivity yardstick (below a 20% admission rate at private schools, 50% at publics). And then from there, we took the 32 remaining schools and surveyed our hiring manager respondents about each one.

So, they cut the list to 32 schools through simply a selectivity yardstick and then asked the respondents? I still don't get it. Why wouldn't you ask the respondents to list the top 20 schools based on who they actually hire...which is factual and the hiring manager would know...get all those responses and then create the list based on the responses.

Why does it matter how selective a school may be. It's funny because they quote Mark Cuban who went to Indiana University and Kelley is a top ranked program...yet IU wasn't even an option for the respondents because it didn't make the cut down to 32 schools.

I don't know what companies they surveyed, but generally, hiring is regional. So, if they ask the question of "what colleges do you hire the most from", it may be skewed due to locality.

For example, Google hires a lot from San Jose State Univ because it's in the heart of SV (I work in tech, and full disclosure, I went to SJSU). But, SJSU doesn't make any "great colleges" list. So, if you ask Google what colleges they hire from, you'll get a skewed list.

That’s not the question they asked. Why do people attempt to rebut something they haven’t even read?

It's about the hiring manager's perception, which is key.

It comes down to preparedness. Some 37% of those with hiring authority in our survey said state universities were doing better than five years ago in preparing job candidates and 31% thought non-Ivy League private colleges had improved. Just 14% had similar praise for the Ivy League, while 20% said they’re doing worse, making this the only segment in which negative appraisals of the trend in job readiness exceeded positive ones.

The problem with the list is they curated it to 32 schools based on selectivity and test scores and then asked respondents which of these 32 schools they hire from.

I don’t get why it was curated to only 32 schools as a starting point…that makes zero sense.

Again, University of Indiana was specifically mentioned in the article…but it won’t make the list because it isn’t selective enough. Doesn’t make much sense.

You mean Indiana University? It really is IU, it’s not like CU-Boulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you please list the 20 schools ?

Thank you in advance & thank you for posting.

Top publics:
Binghamton University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Florida Florida
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Texas-Austin Texas
University of Virginia Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison

The SAT scores are impressive for those publics, and the cost compared to private schools are so much cheaper, even for oos.


Top Privates:
Boston College
Carnegie Mellon University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Rice University Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Southern California
Vanderbilt University

disagree with the article. William&Mary is THE public ivy, has pre-TO SATs that are the same as UVa and higher than half the publics above, AND William &Mary is the most similar to an ivy of all the public Us, based on seminar classes, intellectualism and smalelr undergrad populatiion.

The private they left off is WashU. Bump University of Spoiled Children and put in WashU. Much more similar to Ivy type vibes. USC does not have the same intellectual dynamics.

I do not have a kid at either but I have kids at ivies, toured and know many students at both, and these two schools are ivy-like and should not have been left off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you please list the 20 schools ?

Thank you in advance & thank you for posting.

Top publics:
Binghamton University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Florida Florida
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Texas-Austin Texas
University of Virginia Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison

The SAT scores are impressive for those publics, and the cost compared to private schools are so much cheaper, even for oos.


Top Privates:
Boston College
Carnegie Mellon University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Rice University Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Southern California
Vanderbilt University

Per the article these are the schools that are “next” after ivies+Stanford,MIT, Duke, Chicago
(The 4 original ivy-plus schools).

Some of them are, some of them are not. Based on phD feeders and MBB recruiting, as well as T14 law over-representation, this list leaves out the obvious “near ivies”: the top LACs, Williams/Amherst/Pomona/Swat.

Williams and Amherst especially make the MBB lists and punch well above their size for phD and top law/med. very strange and not well researched article
(My kid is ivy, no skin in this game, but the list is not based on how grad school admissions and employers act)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you please list the 20 schools ?

Thank you in advance & thank you for posting.

Top publics:
Binghamton University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Florida Florida
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Texas-Austin Texas
University of Virginia Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison

The SAT scores are impressive for those publics, and the cost compared to private schools are so much cheaper, even for oos.


Top Privates:
Boston College
Carnegie Mellon University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Rice University Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Southern California
Vanderbilt University

disagree with the article. William&Mary is THE public ivy, has pre-TO SATs that are the same as UVa and higher than half the publics above, AND William &Mary is the most similar to an ivy of all the public Us, based on seminar classes, intellectualism and smalelr undergrad populatiion.

The private they left off is WashU. Bump University of Spoiled Children and put in WashU. Much more similar to Ivy type vibes. USC does not have the same intellectual dynamics.

I do not have a kid at either but I have kids at ivies, toured and know many students at both, and these two schools are ivy-like and should not have been left off.

False. UVA and W&M were both "public ivies" when the term was coined 40-50 years ago. Now UVA is more difficult to get knto and has higher goa and test scores. look up "Public Ivy" in wikipedia.

[Anonymous]

Now do hidden Ivies and little Ivies. Hell, it’s all Ivies now. No exclusion. You get an Ivy degree, and you get an Ivy degree. Except Barnard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you please list the 20 schools ?

Thank you in advance & thank you for posting.

Top publics:
Binghamton University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Florida Florida
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Texas-Austin Texas
University of Virginia Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison

The SAT scores are impressive for those publics, and the cost compared to private schools are so much cheaper, even for oos.


Top Privates:
Boston College
Carnegie Mellon University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Rice University Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Southern California
Vanderbilt University

disagree with the article. William&Mary is THE public ivy, has pre-TO SATs that are the same as UVa and higher than half the publics above, AND William &Mary is the most similar to an ivy of all the public Us, based on seminar classes, intellectualism and smalelr undergrad populatiion.

The private they left off is WashU. Bump University of Spoiled Children and put in WashU. Much more similar to Ivy type vibes. USC does not have the same intellectual dynamics.

I do not have a kid at either but I have kids at ivies, toured and know many students at both, and these two schools are ivy-like and should not have been left off.

Boston college is the obvious one that doesn't belong in the private ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you please list the 20 schools ?

Thank you in advance & thank you for posting.

Top publics:
Binghamton University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Florida Florida
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Texas-Austin Texas
University of Virginia Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison

The SAT scores are impressive for those publics, and the cost compared to private schools are so much cheaper, even for oos.


Top Privates:
Boston College
Carnegie Mellon University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Rice University Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Southern California
Vanderbilt University

Where is the Wisco booster? This is their moment

More than likely he/she started this whole thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess this settles the argument that Emory is better than Wake and Tulane.

Where are all the crybabies about how the new USNEWS rankings penalized all the schools with small classes and few Pell recipients.

Seems like this Forbes list supports the USNEWS rankings since no Tufts or Wash U either.

And I ooop. You're right pp, Tufts never makes lists like these. However, WashU should be there over Boston College.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess this settles the argument that Emory is better than Wake and Tulane.

Where are all the crybabies about how the new USNEWS rankings penalized all the schools with small classes and few Pell recipients.

Seems like this Forbes list supports the USNEWS rankings since no Tufts or Wash U either.

And I ooop. You're right pp, Tufts never makes lists like these. However, WashU should be there over Boston College.

Well if the respondents don’t hire many kids from WashU…how would it make the list?

I assume it made the cut to 32 schools at which point the respondents indicate if they hire many kids from the school or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course BC belongs on the list, along with the others because they're all essentially the next in line after excluding the top schools:
"Our analysis excluded schools with fewer than 4,000 students, the eight old Ivies and four Ivy-plus schools—Stanford, MIT, Duke and Chicago."

I don’t get why you’d exclude Duke and Chicago but not northwestern which is as hard to get into as those. I think it’s harder to get into that Chicago now, and for Duke it probably depends on the year and the student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article out this morning. I'm sure everyone here will agree on the list . . . . .

[url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawhitford/2024/04/29/exclusive-employers-are-souring-on-ivy-league-grads-while-these-20-new-ivies-ascend/?sh=216979fb5585

Interesting. I have a DC at Stanford who talks a lot about the poison of privilege and how Stanford is full of extremely privileged kids who, while usually driven, are not necessarily exceptionally bright (DC considers herself one of the privileged). She relates this to narratives around ethnic supremacy and entitlement and is very uncomfortable about it. Most (not all) of DC's friends at Stanford went to expensive private schools or public schools in very nice neighborhoods and have multi-million dollar vacation homes. Many have traveled widely and/or enjoyed spectacularly exciting and enriching gap years. Above all, they usually have very supportive parents who are willing to invest in them in every way. DC feels the highly-polished cubic zirconia squeeze out the internally flawless diamonds in the rough and that this should be taken into account when hiring or selecting for grad school. I wonder if there is a backlash against the "$40K a year private school to Ivy to powerful and influential positions pipeline," which favors those with early privilege over those with genuine talent, leading to a pool of mediocrities having disproportionate power in the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Lists like this are click bait.