Forbes 20 'New Ivies'

[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

Sorry to be late. I just finished my breakfast beer.

On!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sorry to be late. I just finished my breakfast beer.

On!

lol. NP, No dog in this fight, but you made me laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wonder how the quality of education in an honors program at an in-state public university compares with that of an Ivy. Do these relatively inexpensive honors programs help the "internally flawless diamonds" compete with the "highly polished cubic zirconia" from "elite schools"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wonder how the quality of education in an honors program at an in-state public university compares with that of an Ivy. Do these relatively inexpensive honors programs help the "internally flawless diamonds" compete with the "highly polished cubic zirconia" from "elite schools"?

dp.. generally, you'll have more students from different SES backgrounds in honors colleges at the states schools compared to the elite schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lists like this are click bait.

and it works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Binghamton University... really?

Yep. It’s a good school.

It’s a great school. Very well regarded in the NYC area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Selectivity between Northwestern and Duke are about the same at our HS, but Chicago is more random. I feel like Chicago has been ultra focused on enrolling private school kids that need less aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn't it more so that Stanford, Chicago, and Duke are considered the most "prestigious" roughly speaking schools in their respective regions? Stanford - West; Chicago - Midwest; and Duke - South. In terms of achieving regional parity, I think the term “Ivy Plus” is partly meant to balance out the Ivy League, all 8 school being in the Northeast, with the most prestigious/elite schools in regions outside the Northeast that dominate their respective regions. Which is why schools like Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, and Vanderbilt, which although roughly the equivalent to the lower Ivy League schools, aren’t necessarily considered the most elite in their region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn't it more so that Stanford, Chicago, and Duke are considered the most "prestigious" roughly speaking schools in their respective regions? Stanford - West; Chicago - Midwest; and Duke - South. In terms of achieving regional parity, I think the term “Ivy Plus” is partly meant to balance out the Ivy League, all 8 school being in the Northeast, with the most prestigious/elite schools in regions outside the Northeast that dominate their respective regions. Which is why schools like Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, and Vanderbilt, which although roughly the equivalent to the lower Ivy League schools, aren’t necessarily considered the most elite in their region.

If we're talking Ivy Plus, it probably makes the most sense to include Northwestern and Johns Hopkins, at least. I can see why a school like Vanderbilt or Rice might be left off, but the former two have just about all the attributes one might assign to a true Ivy peer - a long history of rigorous academic standards, national prestige, big endowments, research prowess, Ivy-equivalent (or in some cases, superior to Ivies) graduate or professional schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Binghamton University... really?

Yep. It’s a good school.

It’s a great school. Very well regarded in the NYC area.

+ Especially the business school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lists like this are click bait.

and it works

lol and both of you are proof!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have a very perceptive and wise kid.

DC is full of people who are regarded as “accomplished” when they’re really just very well connected. I used to work on the Hill vetting Presidential nominees and then working with them after they were confirmed, and there are some really impressive people in our government, and some of those with inherited wealth are very smart and capable, but there are also an inordinate number of the barely mediocre who were privileged children admitted into a prestigious college who became the roommate of an even more prominently privileged person and parlayed that into a think tank or “consulting” gig and then a Presidential appointment. They’re very polished and put out a very good line of BS, but it’s frightening when you realize how little “there” is there. I guess that is why people in DC are so rabid about getting their kids into an Ivy — they think that it’s going to put their mediocre kid on that path. But I think the these schools used to graduate a sufficient proportion of truly impressive people so that the mediocre ones could obtain enough polish and it was harder to pick them out of the crowd. Have you seen any of the interviews with the protestors at Columbia? They’re not even polished any more. They’re mediocre *and* can’t even fake anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have a very perceptive and wise kid.

DC is full of people who are regarded as “accomplished” when they’re really just very well connected. I used to work on the Hill vetting Presidential nominees and then working with them after they were confirmed, and there are some really impressive people in our government, and some of those with inherited wealth are very smart and capable, but there are also an inordinate number of the barely mediocre who were privileged children admitted into a prestigious college who became the roommate of an even more prominently privileged person and parlayed that into a think tank or “consulting” gig and then a Presidential appointment. They’re very polished and put out a very good line of BS, but it’s frightening when you realize how little “there” is there. I guess that is why people in DC are so rabid about getting their kids into an Ivy — they think that it’s going to put their mediocre kid on that path. But I think the these schools used to graduate a sufficient proportion of truly impressive people so that the mediocre ones could obtain enough polish and it was harder to pick them out of the crowd. Have you seen any of the interviews with the protestors at Columbia? They’re not even polished any more. They’re mediocre *and* can’t even fake anything else.

I vetted the White House Fellows for years. They were pretty bright. Are you talking about the interns? Like Monica Lewinsky? Those are different, and usually favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have a very perceptive and wise kid.

DC is full of people who are regarded as “accomplished” when they’re really just very well connected. I used to work on the Hill vetting Presidential nominees and then working with them after they were confirmed, and there are some really impressive people in our government, and some of those with inherited wealth are very smart and capable, but there are also an inordinate number of the barely mediocre who were privileged children admitted into a prestigious college who became the roommate of an even more prominently privileged person and parlayed that into a think tank or “consulting” gig and then a Presidential appointment. They’re very polished and put out a very good line of BS, but it’s frightening when you realize how little “there” is there. I guess that is why people in DC are so rabid about getting their kids into an Ivy — they think that it’s going to put their mediocre kid on that path. But I think the these schools used to graduate a sufficient proportion of truly impressive people so that the mediocre ones could obtain enough polish and it was harder to pick them out of the crowd. Have you seen any of the interviews with the protestors at Columbia? They’re not even polished any more. They’re mediocre *and* can’t even fake anything else.

I vetted the White House Fellows for years. They were pretty bright. Are you talking about the interns? Like Monica Lewinsky? Those are different, and usually favors.

oh puleezr. white house fellows is a world apart from interns like Monica

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lists like this are click bait.

and it works

lol and both of you are proof!

this entire thread and college forum is proof