Why is Northeastern (NEU) so popular with both parents and students these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think US News' rankings should matter at all, but Northeastern at least didn't cheat like Emory and Columbia. To me, that institutional behavior is inexcusable. It is one thing to focus on a metric, but quite another to just cheat.

I don't think many schools even care about US News' rankings nowadays. There is just way too much information available to parents and students than some "magazine". Majors, salary/incomes, selectivity, SAT scores, grad school outcomes are all information available to the consumer.

I have a friend whose daughter attends SMU's B school. She loves it and has great internships. SMU suddenly became a crappy school because of US News? Same for Tulane. I don't think so. It is a predominantly wealthy school that in the name of equity US News suddenly hates.

Likewise, UC Merced gamed the reputation ranking which comprises 20% of US News' ranking formula. All the other UC's and Cal States gave UC Merced a huge peer assessment. Everyone knows UC Merced is not a top 60 school, it can barely get the bottom of barrel students rejected from all the mainstream UC's. But the peer assessment combined with equity factors like first generation enrollment suddenly makes it better than much more established universities? No one is buying that.

I think someone asked this question before, but if you are blaming the USNWR metric for diversity, tell me why Notre Dame didn't fall in the rankings, considering 80% of the student body is Catholic and 70% white in addition to a strong portion of students being wealthy. Everyone predicted ND would fall with the new metrics, yet it is still T20. What I am saying it is likely very little to do with equity as much as you want to believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think US News' rankings should matter at all, but Northeastern at least didn't cheat like Emory and Columbia. To me, that institutional behavior is inexcusable. It is one thing to focus on a metric, but quite another to just cheat.

I don't think many schools even care about US News' rankings nowadays. There is just way too much information available to parents and students than some "magazine". Majors, salary/incomes, selectivity, SAT scores, grad school outcomes are all information available to the consumer.

I have a friend whose daughter attends SMU's B school. She loves it and has great internships. SMU suddenly became a crappy school because of US News? Same for Tulane. I don't think so. It is a predominantly wealthy school that in the name of equity US News suddenly hates.

Likewise, UC Merced gamed the reputation ranking which comprises 20% of US News' ranking formula. All the other UC's and Cal States gave UC Merced a huge peer assessment. Everyone knows UC Merced is not a top 60 school, it can barely get the bottom of barrel students rejected from all the mainstream UC's. But the peer assessment combined with equity factors like first generation enrollment suddenly makes it better than much more established universities? No one is buying that.

I think someone asked this question before, but if you are blaming the USNWR metric for diversity, tell me why Notre Dame didn't fall in the rankings, considering 80% of the student body is Catholic and 70% white in addition to a strong portion of students being wealthy. Everyone predicted ND would fall with the new metrics, yet it is still T20. What I am saying it is likely very little to do with equity as much as you want to believe it.

Except you are wrong with respect to the focus on equity.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think US News' rankings should matter at all, but Northeastern at least didn't cheat like Emory and Columbia. To me, that institutional behavior is inexcusable. It is one thing to focus on a metric, but quite another to just cheat.

I don't think many schools even care about US News' rankings nowadays. There is just way too much information available to parents and students than some "magazine". Majors, salary/incomes, selectivity, SAT scores, grad school outcomes are all information available to the consumer.

I have a friend whose daughter attends SMU's B school. She loves it and has great internships. SMU suddenly became a crappy school because of US News? Same for Tulane. I don't think so. It is a predominantly wealthy school that in the name of equity US News suddenly hates.

Likewise, UC Merced gamed the reputation ranking which comprises 20% of US News' ranking formula. All the other UC's and Cal States gave UC Merced a huge peer assessment. Everyone knows UC Merced is not a top 60 school, it can barely get the bottom of barrel students rejected from all the mainstream UC's. But the peer assessment combined with equity factors like first generation enrollment suddenly makes it better than much more established universities? No one is buying that.

I think someone asked this question before, but if you are blaming the USNWR metric for diversity, tell me why Notre Dame didn't fall in the rankings, considering 80% of the student body is Catholic and 70% white in addition to a strong portion of students being wealthy. Everyone predicted ND would fall with the new metrics, yet it is still T20. What I am saying it is likely very little to do with equity as much as you want to believe it.

Wrongo bongo.

The New York Times reported that several private universities fell in their ranking this year while many public universities climbed to higher spots on the list. Some of these changes can be attributed to adjustments made in the U.S. News and World Report formula such as no longer considering average class size, graduation rate, financial resources per student and high school class standing. According to the New York Times, this year, the U.S. News and World Report rankings placed more of a consideration on the graduation rates of disadvantaged and first-generation students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think US News' rankings should matter at all, but Northeastern at least didn't cheat like Emory and Columbia. To me, that institutional behavior is inexcusable. It is one thing to focus on a metric, but quite another to just cheat.

I don't think many schools even care about US News' rankings nowadays. There is just way too much information available to parents and students than some "magazine". Majors, salary/incomes, selectivity, SAT scores, grad school outcomes are all information available to the consumer.

I have a friend whose daughter attends SMU's B school. She loves it and has great internships. SMU suddenly became a crappy school because of US News? Same for Tulane. I don't think so. It is a predominantly wealthy school that in the name of equity US News suddenly hates.

Likewise, UC Merced gamed the reputation ranking which comprises 20% of US News' ranking formula. All the other UC's and Cal States gave UC Merced a huge peer assessment. Everyone knows UC Merced is not a top 60 school, it can barely get the bottom of barrel students rejected from all the mainstream UC's. But the peer assessment combined with equity factors like first generation enrollment suddenly makes it better than much more established universities? No one is buying that.

I think someone asked this question before, but if you are blaming the USNWR metric for diversity, tell me why Notre Dame didn't fall in the rankings, considering 80% of the student body is Catholic and 70% white in addition to a strong portion of students being wealthy. Everyone predicted ND would fall with the new metrics, yet it is still T20. What I am saying it is likely very little to do with equity as much as you want to believe it.

Not sure if you have been paying attention, but this has been debated before. It has everything to do with exchanging objective measurements of excellence in favor of equity.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2023/09/22/us-news-rankings-changes-spur-complaints-and-apologies

Highly selective institutions like Princeton and Stanford Universities still occupy the top spots, but thanks to a beefed-up social mobility metric, a number of public institutions climbed significantly from recent years—and a similar number of private universities dropped, sometimes by double digits.

[Anonymous]

From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.

🤡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.

Maybe top 20, definitely top 25..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.

Maybe top 20, definitely top 25..

It says 15 here including LACs
https://www.collegeadvisor.com/resources/lowest-acceptance-rate-colleges/

USN&WR says 13
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

So we can say top 20

[Anonymous]

NEU boosters resurrecting this thread with their insane proclamations again... It's not a top 20 people.

[Anonymous]

NEU never has and never will be T20, it will barely hold on to it’s current ranking because it cannot make the investments needed in professor caliber, student services, facilities upgrades. It has a minuscule endowment of 1.5B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NEU never has and never will be T20, it will barely hold on to it’s current ranking because it cannot make the investments needed in professor caliber, student services, facilities upgrades. It has a minuscule endowment of 1.5B.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment
Northeastern is ranked #51 among all private colleges for endowment.
It doesn't include hospital/medical facilities that take up big portion for other schools.
It's not bad although substantially less than T20ish schools, but it's being very efficient so that major metrics are at T20ish schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.

Maybe top 20, definitely top 25..

No and no. We get it, your kid attends NEU and you want to make it seem better than it actually is, it isn't. You can use all of the pretzel logic you like, no matter what all of you delusional boosters say it will never be a top 40 and laughable to utter the words top 25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.

Maybe top 20, definitely top 25..

No and no. We get it, your kid attends NEU and you want to make it seem better than it actually is, it isn't. You can use all of the pretzel logic you like, no matter what all of you delusional boosters say it will never be a top 40 and laughable to utter the words top 25.

Someone over-estimated it as top 10 for selectivity.

I corrected it to be top 20 with sources.
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

We go by data and source rather than $hit out of your a$$.

[Anonymous]

Why is it popular? It attracts smart kids who have good outcomes. Sometimes it is not that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it popular? It attracts smart kids who have good outcomes. Sometimes it is not that hard.

It attracts anyone willing to pay the application fee. No supplemental essays required means no additional effort to apply beyond the application fee. And, yes, it is in Boston, which is also a draw.