Which schools will continue to be the most sought after in the next decade? Which ones will hit a downward trajectory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:State flagships will be popular. Particularly the Honors programs.

A lot of Ivies will decline in popularity. Particularly Harvard and Yale. They'll be regarded as rich kid and DEI schools, and not taken seriously for undergrad.

Schools going up will be the other major privates - Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Northwestern. And some publics like Michigan, Berkeley, and UCLA. MIT will continue to be regarded as the best school in America. Stanford will do fine.

Among SLACS, no real change. Amherst, Williams, and Bowdoin

There will be more interest in the academies. West Point and Annapolis will be roughly equal. Then Air Force.

Not a lot of change. Except in the Ivy League. Harvard, Yale, Penn, Brown, and Columbia are declining institutions. Princeton and Cornell will do fine

+ 1 though I disagree about Princeton. They posses the same woke issues as Harvard. It just hasn't been as widely publicized.

+1

This is SO true. My niece is there and she laughs when people talk about Harvard and Yale as woke and exclude Princeton. She says it’s exactly the same.

Completely agree with this.

[Anonymous]

My kid attend ND.
The sport(football) and school spirit are nice side ting that came as a bonus, but never a major factor.

Academics and outcome were the major factors.
Isn't this a common sense for everyone? Does anyone really pick a school because of the football team? weird concept to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HYPSM will be just fine. Chicago, Rice, Northwestern, etc are not going anywhere.

The Biggest Losers: Dartmouth, Bowdoin, Williams, Amherst, etc. They'll be bitten by the hand that fed them - athletics. These schools will receive the same "woke agenda" accusation as HYP (perhaps correctly), but the second punch is the one that will connect: the many articles that will be coming down the pike about the full pay downhill skiers, sailing, and fencers (etc). These colleges are building classes that are either Pell kids paying zero and St Ann's squash who are paying full fare. That makes for a dysfunctional classroom experience that holds zero appeal to the rest of the world.

Other winners:

The Next Michigan: MN, Iowa, Illinois, Oregon .. basically any flagship with a college town and a football team. (Schools like UCs, UT Austin already in the Michigan category)

Revenge of the Nerds aka "I know what I'm paying for": Purdue, Case, CMU, RPI, WPI, Texas A&M, VT.

Hail Mary: ND but also places like Santa Clara, Loyola Marymount, Gonzaga, Dayton, U of San Diego, Marquette.

I disagree with the point about athletics because I think athletics are what will save these schools from being perceived as uselessly woke. For better or worse, the athletes are the ones that keep the deep ties to Wall Street, IB, etc going at the elite schools. They also bring a group of students to the schools who are perceived as hard workers who aren’t annoying and who can handle hard competition. Basically, the athletics programs bring kids to the schools who don’t melt down when faced an opinion they don’t like, who have been forced to get along with team members whether they like them or not, who can handle losing, and who have a lot of discipline. That’s appealing to many competitive employers and has been for many years.

Now if (say) Amherst College guts its athletics programs, I suspect you will be right about the decline of the school. Turning Amherst into another Reed will not be great for the perception of the school. But right now, athletics is one of the only things that is preserving the reputation of these schools from being seen as producing uselessly woke and out of touch graduates.

I find it a huge bonus when schools cut athletics to favor academics. Any school where the highest paid employee is the football coach is kind of a joke.

Okay, but you aren’t a Wall St or IB hiring manager. And in no world does a college like Amherst have the highest paid employee be the football coach anyhow. The athletes at Amherst, Williams, etc are smart kids who have the added bonus of generally not being annoying and who have proof of being good team players. Regardless of what DCUM thinks, the fact remains that’s an attractive combination for highly competitive employers, especially in a world where employers are worried about uselessly woke new hires.

There is a reason the Ivy League started life as an athletic conference. There has long been a pipeline from Ivy athletics to super-competitive jobs.

Yes and Yes to the bolded. I work for and have recruited for one of those employers. Do we now hire more broadly? Yes, we do. But who is still the definition of a top candidate for us? An Amherst or Yale athlete with top GPA and demonstrated extracurricular leadership. Everybody is still fighting for these kids and they get scooped up. So I don’t know what most of you are talking about in terms of the decline of these schools. I don’t see it from where I sit.

I think that's a lagging indicator. You'll see this in four years.

I used to work for McKinsey a million years ago and they wanted only name brands grads, because they were client facing and they thought that prestige was important. That's still true afaik. But as soon as clients don't think it's meaningful, it's not meaningful. As soon as clients see it even a little big negatively, it's negative. I now work for a giant corporation and our recruitment casts a wider net, but has more quantitative hoops to jump through. Various rounds of interviews and tests. I know Google and Amazon are the same. And more and more, we hire people who are 3-4 years out of college. Apparently this is new at our company - I think they've found covid generation is not as job ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take:

With 2.8 billion Chinese and Indians, a growing Asian domestic population, and a finite number of slots at top schools, my hypothesis is that the top schools we see today will retain their status PLUS get increasingly more difficult to gain entry. The skills necessary for technological advancements dictates that high-demand STEM graduates will continue to fuel the gap between "elite (and near-elite) institutions and everyone else. The number of international students studying in the US have doubled over the past 10 years. These students very much are "name driven" which drives the cycle of upward selectivity at all but a few schools.

My list:

Rich get richer category
Ivies + UChicago, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Emory, Wash. Univ at SL

Through inertia they will continue to be the #1 destination for the world's elite. In spite of the spotlight shone on some of the contentious issues of today, I don't see these universities are going anywhere.

The UC system:
More demand, same supply. Center of tech and innovation. Historically, less than half the price of comparable private schools. Increasing demographic changes skewing Asian ensures robust demand. Internationals love the UC's.

Top flight publics outside of the UC's:
UVA, UNC, Michigan, UIUC, UGA, Florida, Texas, A&M
Population growth in the south, plus tradition, plus in-state tuition will continue to drive the bus. Crazy to think that Florida and UGA are now considered to be top flight universities.

Location-driven universities:
Boston, New York, Washington DC, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles
These schools benefit from being in a world-class city. Like the UC's, internationals love these schools. The university enriches the city; likewise, the city enriches the university.
BU, Northeastern, NYU, UMiami, USC, (Tulane??).

The potential up and comers:

East coast: Does GWU or American make that next-level leap considering the draw of D.C.? Again, limited supply at "top" schools means that the top will be filtered lower.

In Texas, does Texas, A&M and Rice suck the oxygen out so that a school like SMU can never make that leap? A growing state with a finite number of elite institutions.

Interesting list, and I will play along.

First, I disagree with the presumption that US universities will continue to be as desirous to internationals. We already saw a drop during the Trump years (pre-pandemic) due to visa restrictions. As reports of carjackings, shootings, etc., increase, internationalists will increasingly look to study in other countries. Look at the lists of top world universities! Already, we hardly dominate.

Your top-flight state universities list is short. Due to skyrocketing costs, more smart people will enroll at state flagships. Already, UMD and Rutgers, among many others, belong on your list.

Fortunately violent crime is dropping significantly and is basically back to pre-pandemic levels. So anyone deciding to not come in 2024 when they would have come in 2019 is just... welll... dumb

https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2023-10-20/killings-in-the-u-s-are-dropping-at-an-historic-rate-will-anyone-notice-essential-politics

For the nth time, while crime is dropping nationally, it is increasing in formerly “safe,” affluent areas like Upper NW DC. The carjackers now come to you. And we must just be inured to mass shootings. Since Trump, the Europeans I know chose Canadian universities or English-speaking European or UK universities over the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My take:

With 2.8 billion Chinese and Indians, a growing Asian domestic population, and a finite number of slots at top schools, my hypothesis is that the top schools we see today will retain their status PLUS get increasingly more difficult to gain entry. The skills necessary for technological advancements dictates that high-demand STEM graduates will continue to fuel the gap between "elite (and near-elite) institutions and everyone else. The number of international students studying in the US have doubled over the past 10 years. These students very much are "name driven" which drives the cycle of upward selectivity at all but a few schools.

My list:

Rich get richer category
Ivies + UChicago, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Emory, Wash. Univ at SL

Through inertia they will continue to be the #1 destination for the world's elite. In spite of the spotlight shone on some of the contentious issues of today, I don't see these universities are going anywhere.

The UC system:
More demand, same supply. Center of tech and innovation. Historically, less than half the price of comparable private schools. Increasing demographic changes skewing Asian ensures robust demand. Internationals love the UC's.

Top flight publics outside of the UC's:
UVA, UNC, Michigan, UIUC, UGA, Florida, Texas, A&M
Population growth in the south, plus tradition, plus in-state tuition will continue to drive the bus. Crazy to think that Florida and UGA are now considered to be top flight universities.

Location-driven universities:
Boston, New York, Washington DC, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles
These schools benefit from being in a world-class city. Like the UC's, internationals love these schools. The university enriches the city; likewise, the city enriches the university.
BU, Northeastern, NYU, UMiami, USC, (Tulane??).

The potential up and comers:

East coast: Does GWU or American make that next-level leap considering the draw of D.C.? Again, limited supply at "top" schools means that the top will be filtered lower.

In Texas, does Texas, A&M and Rice suck the oxygen out so that a school like SMU can never make that leap? A growing state with a finite number of elite institutions.

The above bolded private schools will CONTINUE to decline for the foreseeable future for the same/similar reasons they declined this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everything in the Rust Belt is fading. Kids don’t want to be in a freezing cold dying region outside of perhaps Catholics at Notre Dame. You can’t pull the wool over their eyes, they pull up YouTube instagram and TikTok and see how cold grey and dreary those regions are most of the school year.

Then pray tell, why is Chicago the top destination of recent college grads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Florida and Georgia can get to UVA level, I'm not sure how much more room in the south.

For flagship publics, you need a huge buy in from the brightest in-state students to stay home. And there has to be a sufficient quantity of high achieving students. NOVA probably has more of those students than Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi combined.

How do you know this?

Over 5,000 Virginians score between 1400 and 1600 on the SAT.

In Alabama, fewer than 500. In Arkansas, fewer than 250. Same for Mississippi.

Keep in mind, this is a score achieved in one sitting. So all these states, including Virginia, will have more students achieving a 1400-1600 using the composite score.

That doesn’t tell us much. Did they have the same test prep budget as nova kids?

Exactly, not to mention high priced college consultants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I predict more Jesuit schools won't break the top 20 but will move into the space BC held 15 years ago.

Schools like Marquette, Gonzaga, U of San Diego, Loyola Chicago, Regis U, Loyola Marymount, Seattle U

for UMC families with A- kids these colleges provide a solid education while side stepping the culture wars. They're right-sized schools in urban (ish) locations with friendly kids, fun sports, dependable career placement all at a reasonable COA w merit.

The #1 culture war is the attack on reproductive health and justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general I think there will be a push to schools perceived as fun but with good educational rigor. The northeast schools will drop because they are perceived as grim grinds filled with backstabbing, unfriendly people. Political moderation will be appealing. I think this generation of kids, who suffered through covid, has little patience for schools where, fair or not, there is a perception of tolerance of drama queens and waste of education. This will also go with an increasing demand for good ROI.

Excessive drama, misery, and petulance is headed out, solid education, fun, and good ROI is in.

So kids weren't interested in schools that were fun before recently? And plenty of drama and backstabbing in the Southern sorority scene.

They were, but schools in the northeast used to be a lot more fun because there was more personality variety in who they attracted. They used to attract the population that made campuses come alive: the quirky geniuses, the smart frat and sorority kids, the theater kids who had the time in HS to really perfect their craft, etc. But those kids often don’t have the mid-career project management skills that getting perfect GPAs in a test-minimizing environment along with the requisite resume-polishing now requires. So these schools are instead filled with grim armies of Tracy Flicks who don’t understand what “fun” even means.

Have you been on the campus of some of these schools recently? What’s remarkable is how silent they are. It’s like walking through a library, but outside. It’s outright depressing and for some bright kids, that’s not going to be appealing no matter how shiny the name is.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:State flagships are the next “thing”. Families will increasingly balk at spending outrageous sums for Larla to vape and whine about micro aggressions at obscure private schools.

Employers will increasingly balk at dealing with obnoxious super-woke hires from ivies. Without leading to a lucrative employment pipeline, their desirability will slowly ebb.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

The MITs, Ga Techs will flourish, and others like them will grow.

The Lehigh's and Northeastern's that emphasize STEM jobs will flourish.

There will always be a room for the humanities "sjw" type schools, but I'd bet that some of these might struggle. Bard, Sarah Lawrence, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Florida and Georgia can get to UVA level, I'm not sure how much more room in the south.

For flagship publics, you need a huge buy in from the brightest in-state students to stay home. And there has to be a sufficient quantity of high achieving students. NOVA probably has more of those students than Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi combined.

How do you know this?

Over 5,000 Virginians score between 1400 and 1600 on the SAT.

In Alabama, fewer than 500. In Arkansas, fewer than 250. Same for Mississippi.

Keep in mind, this is a score achieved in one sitting. So all these states, including Virginia, will have more students achieving a 1400-1600 using the composite score.

That doesn’t tell us much. Did they have the same test prep budget as nova kids?

Exactly, not to mention high priced college consultants.

Oh please. My FCPS kid, who scored a 1500, didn't have any professional test prep (just did free online prep) and we certainly didn't hire a college consultant. Same thing for several of his high-scoring friends. Not saying there aren't families who spend $$ on this stuff, but lots of high scorers do NOT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rutgers is like a cross between UMD and UVA. Top in-state students want UVA. Maryland, especially with CS, retains many of the best Maryland students. Rutgers isn't seen as a state school which keeps home the best and brightest.
Maybe because of all the other choices available in the northeast-SLACS, Jesuits, private R1 schools. Or it's the wacky take a bus to class campus feel.
UVA and UNC are already insanely competitive to get into. I shudder to think what it will look like in 10 years.

Rutgers is ranked In the 40s and will rise going forward.
Out of 4,000+ colleges, not bad!

Rutgers- New Brunswick's acceptance rate is 67%. Its yield is pretty low, so for right now, many, many students use it as a safety.

Contrast with UVA, UNC, UofF, Michigan, etc.

But time will tell if based on the factors above, things change.

Rutgers wasn't being compared to already elite public flagships ( you can scratch Florida...don't know how that got snuck in there with UNC, UVA and Michigan). However, within 10 years, state flagships will rise in popularity , and Rutgers stands to remain well within the top 40 or so.

DP. You know Florida is ranked #28 in National Universities, and #6 in publics, right?
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/university-of-florida-1535/overall-rankings

Solid school, but way behind Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, UNC, UVA in prestige.

Certainly at the U of Texas Austin and top southern flagships level.

UF and UGA are not way behind, your understanding of prestige is.

Sneaking in UGA in the prestige factor too? LOL!

UF/UTX/UGA are fine colleges. Different tier than the elite state flagships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general I think there will be a push to schools perceived as fun but with good educational rigor. The northeast schools will drop because they are perceived as grim grinds filled with backstabbing, unfriendly people. Political moderation will be appealing. I think this generation of kids, who suffered through covid, has little patience for schools where, fair or not, there is a perception of tolerance of drama queens and waste of education. This will also go with an increasing demand for good ROI.

Excessive drama, misery, and petulance is headed out, solid education, fun, and good ROI is in.

So kids weren't interested in schools that were fun before recently? And plenty of drama and backstabbing in the Southern sorority scene.

They were, but schools in the northeast used to be a lot more fun because there was more personality variety in who they attracted. They used to attract the population that made campuses come alive: the quirky geniuses, the smart frat and sorority kids, the theater kids who had the time in HS to really perfect their craft, etc. But those kids often don’t have the mid-career project management skills that getting perfect GPAs in a test-minimizing environment along with the requisite resume-polishing now requires. So these schools are instead filled with grim armies of Tracy Flicks who don’t understand what “fun” even means.

Have you been on the campus of some of these schools recently? What’s remarkable is how silent they are. It’s like walking through a library, but outside. It’s outright depressing and for some bright kids, that’s not going to be appealing no matter how shiny the name is.

Wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Florida and Georgia can get to UVA level, I'm not sure how much more room in the south.

For flagship publics, you need a huge buy in from the brightest in-state students to stay home. And there has to be a sufficient quantity of high achieving students. NOVA probably has more of those students than Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi combined.

How do you know this?

Over 5,000 Virginians score between 1400 and 1600 on the SAT.

In Alabama, fewer than 500. In Arkansas, fewer than 250. Same for Mississippi.

Keep in mind, this is a score achieved in one sitting. So all these states, including Virginia, will have more students achieving a 1400-1600 using the composite score.

That doesn’t tell us much. Did they have the same test prep budget as nova kids?

Exactly, not to mention high priced college consultants.

Oh please. My FCPS kid, who scored a 1500, didn't have any professional test prep (just did free online prep) and we certainly didn't hire a college consultant. Same thing for several of his high-scoring friends. Not saying there aren't families who spend $$ on this stuff, but lots of high scorers do NOT.

Sure. Keep convincing yourself.