Forbes 20 'New Ivies'

[Anonymous]

weird. where's Duke, MIT, etc.
??????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:weird. where's Duke, MIT, etc.
??????

They noted that they excluded Ivy and Ivy+ schools, which they identified as MIT, Duke, Chicago, and Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious. The article says very clearly before it lists the private 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."...so basically it is just listing the US News Rankings minus these schools and the SLACs.

Totally agree. Why exclude SLACs?

[Anonymous]

And no LACs. LOL (laughing out loud)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious. The article says very clearly before it lists the private 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."...so basically it is just listing the US News Rankings minus these schools and the SLACs.

Totally agree. Why exclude SLACs?

Forbes seems to not want to be just another fluffer for Northeast egos, which is what top 10 LAC list would be?

[Anonymous]

Binghamton University... really?

[Anonymous]

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.

I guess…but wouldn’t it be fairly instructive that if 300 respondents across the country replied with where they hire and SJSU makes the list? Who cares about selectivity and all the other metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious. The article says very clearly before it lists the private 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."...so basically it is just listing the US News Rankings minus these schools and the SLACs.

Totally agree. Why exclude SLACs?

Forbes seems to not want to be just another fluffer for Northeast egos, which is what top 10 LAC list would be?

Good one, and true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Binghamton University... really?

why not? State univ can do really well in terms of ROI.

The average SAT scores are higher than UF or UT, and on par with Wis. The % of submitted SAT scores is higher than Wis, and their % admitted is lower than Wis.

They get a lot of smart NYers who cannot afford more expensive colleges.

[Anonymous]

So, this list was created by narrowing the field with standardized test scores and acceptance rates. Then they surveyed 300 subscribers from their Future of Work newsletter to determine which of top 32 should make it into the top 10? This will make a great marketing tool for these schools with banners bragging, "Named Forbes Public Ivy." These rankings need to go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, this list was created by narrowing the field with standardized test scores and acceptance rates. Then they surveyed 300 subscribers from their Future of Work newsletter to determine which of top 32 should make it into the top 10? This will make a great marketing tool for these schools with banners bragging, "Named Forbes Public Ivy." These rankings need to go away.

They exist because the public likes them. Let's not pretend that the dcum crowd aren't going by their perceived "prestige" list.

[Anonymous]

Northeastern belongs on this list.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why is the standard for publics so much lower? Bing, UTA don't belong there

Because publics are less selective as they serve mostly in state students. A lot of publics have a quota for oos students.

+1

[Anonymous]

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.

[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."

It's about the same list we always see - it's just lopping off the top 12.

My kid only wants schools with fewer than 4000 students, so no need to click the link!