Combining Multiple Undergrad Rankings To Get One! Interesting Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Pretty interesting that only 5 schools maintained their spot compared to US News. MIT at #4, Penn at #7, Dartmouth at #12, and Cornell at #17, and UVA at #25. It looks like US News is underrating Duke, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, UMich, UNC, and UCSD while it's overrating Yale, JHU, UChicago, WUSTL, Brown, Berkeley, CMU, and Emory

You guys make up narratives to support your biases. These rankings have different criteria and different methodology, combining them makes little sense as some of them are not even measuring academics. Schools with great academics that send a lot of their students to grad school will have poor ROI lowering them on this list. See John's Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory as prime examples. On the ROi rankings they rank low. On the academic rankings they are consistent across the board.

Many of them measure academics, many of them measure ROI as well, the schools that rose to the top have great academics and provide a good ROI. Seems worthwhile since college is expensive. Also Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory don't send more to grad school than other places necessarily. They just don't have as good outcomes for whatever reason.

Feeder schools to what exactly. This doesn't specify. Another crap list. And no
These schools have just as good of ROI but it takes a few years for theor students to get there as they are in grad school.....

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2022/

The only purpose these lists serve is to bolster the poster's ego. A bulk ranking like this is meaningless. A more meaningful ranking would be for a specific major since that varies greatly by college. For example, MOST ivies aren't especially strong at engineering (yes there are a few), but overall not all that impressive.

Sure ivies aren’t necessarily the best at engineering but their undergrads end up getting great jobs with an engineering degree. Many of them even go on to start their own companies - if you look at the top schools that produce entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of ivies and elite privates like Stanford, MIT, and Duke

+1000 if you want to be a software engineer it matter less but if you want to raise money or go on the business side of tech, the elite privates give a leg up

Complete bullshit. Ranking of universities that produce the most VC-backed startup founders: https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings

Once again, you're acting on nothing substantive but your stupid gut instinct. Don't spread misinformation.

1. Stanford
2. Berkeley
3. Harvard
4. MIT
5. Penn
6. Cornell
7. Tel Aviv University
8. Michigan
9. UT Austin
10. Yale
11. UCLA
12. Princeton
13. Columbia
14. Illinois
15. Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
16. USC
17. Wisconsin
18. NYU
19. Brown
20. Duke
21. Waterloo
22. Carnegie Mellon
23. UW-Seattle
24. BYU
25. McGill

Pitchbook has terrible data. Look at some of the companies they say were founded by alums of each school. They say Reddit was founded by a Harvard alum - no Harvard alums founded Reddit, and that adds $1.3B to Harvard's funding total. TeraWatt infrastructure, another $1.1B of Harvard's total, is also not founded by any Harvard alum. They're just misassigning startups and giving the wrong schools credit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Pretty interesting that only 5 schools maintained their spot compared to US News. MIT at #4, Penn at #7, Dartmouth at #12, and Cornell at #17, and UVA at #25. It looks like US News is underrating Duke, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, UMich, UNC, and UCSD while it's overrating Yale, JHU, UChicago, WUSTL, Brown, Berkeley, CMU, and Emory

You guys make up narratives to support your biases. These rankings have different criteria and different methodology, combining them makes little sense as some of them are not even measuring academics. Schools with great academics that send a lot of their students to grad school will have poor ROI lowering them on this list. See John's Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory as prime examples. On the ROi rankings they rank low. On the academic rankings they are consistent across the board.

Many of them measure academics, many of them measure ROI as well, the schools that rose to the top have great academics and provide a good ROI. Seems worthwhile since college is expensive. Also Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory don't send more to grad school than other places necessarily. They just don't have as good outcomes for whatever reason.

Feeder schools to what exactly. This doesn't specify. Another crap list. And no
These schools have just as good of ROI but it takes a few years for theor students to get there as they are in grad school.....

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2022/

The only purpose these lists serve is to bolster the poster's ego. A bulk ranking like this is meaningless. A more meaningful ranking would be for a specific major since that varies greatly by college. For example, MOST ivies aren't especially strong at engineering (yes there are a few), but overall not all that impressive.

Sure ivies aren’t necessarily the best at engineering but their undergrads end up getting great jobs with an engineering degree. Many of them even go on to start their own companies - if you look at the top schools that produce entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of ivies and elite privates like Stanford, MIT, and Duke

+1000 if you want to be a software engineer it matter less but if you want to raise money or go on the business side of tech, the elite privates give a leg up

Complete bullshit. Ranking of universities that produce the most VC-backed startup founders: https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings

Once again, you're acting on nothing substantive but your stupid gut instinct. Don't spread misinformation.

1. Stanford
2. Berkeley
3. Harvard
4. MIT
5. Penn
6. Cornell
7. Tel Aviv University
8. Michigan
9. UT Austin
10. Yale
11. UCLA
12. Princeton
13. Columbia
14. Illinois
15. Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
16. USC
17. Wisconsin
18. NYU
19. Brown
20. Duke
21. Waterloo
22. Carnegie Mellon
23. UW-Seattle
24. BYU
25. McGill

Pitchbook has terrible data. Look at some of the companies they say were founded by alums of each school. They say Reddit was founded by a Harvard alum - no Harvard alums founded Reddit, and that adds $1.3B to Harvard's funding total. TeraWatt infrastructure, another $1.1B of Harvard's total, is also not founded by any Harvard alum. They're just misassigning startups and giving the wrong schools credit.

Yeah, we should probably bump Harvard down then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Pretty interesting that only 5 schools maintained their spot compared to US News. MIT at #4, Penn at #7, Dartmouth at #12, and Cornell at #17, and UVA at #25. It looks like US News is underrating Duke, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, UMich, UNC, and UCSD while it's overrating Yale, JHU, UChicago, WUSTL, Brown, Berkeley, CMU, and Emory

You guys make up narratives to support your biases. These rankings have different criteria and different methodology, combining them makes little sense as some of them are not even measuring academics. Schools with great academics that send a lot of their students to grad school will have poor ROI lowering them on this list. See John's Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory as prime examples. On the ROi rankings they rank low. On the academic rankings they are consistent across the board.

Many of them measure academics, many of them measure ROI as well, the schools that rose to the top have great academics and provide a good ROI. Seems worthwhile since college is expensive. Also Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory don't send more to grad school than other places necessarily. They just don't have as good outcomes for whatever reason.

Feeder schools to what exactly. This doesn't specify. Another crap list. And no
These schools have just as good of ROI but it takes a few years for theor students to get there as they are in grad school.....

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2022/

The only purpose these lists serve is to bolster the poster's ego. A bulk ranking like this is meaningless. A more meaningful ranking would be for a specific major since that varies greatly by college. For example, MOST ivies aren't especially strong at engineering (yes there are a few), but overall not all that impressive.

Sure ivies aren’t necessarily the best at engineering but their undergrads end up getting great jobs with an engineering degree. Many of them even go on to start their own companies - if you look at the top schools that produce entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of ivies and elite privates like Stanford, MIT, and Duke

+1000 if you want to be a software engineer it matter less but if you want to raise money or go on the business side of tech, the elite privates give a leg up

lol, people in SV probably don't even know what Williams is. If you actually went to an elite private (Harvard, Yale, MIT), you wouldn't be referring to that group of schools as such

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Pretty interesting that only 5 schools maintained their spot compared to US News. MIT at #4, Penn at #7, Dartmouth at #12, and Cornell at #17, and UVA at #25. It looks like US News is underrating Duke, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, UMich, UNC, and UCSD while it's overrating Yale, JHU, UChicago, WUSTL, Brown, Berkeley, CMU, and Emory

You guys make up narratives to support your biases. These rankings have different criteria and different methodology, combining them makes little sense as some of them are not even measuring academics. Schools with great academics that send a lot of their students to grad school will have poor ROI lowering them on this list. See John's Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory as prime examples. On the ROi rankings they rank low. On the academic rankings they are consistent across the board.

Many of them measure academics, many of them measure ROI as well, the schools that rose to the top have great academics and provide a good ROI. Seems worthwhile since college is expensive. Also Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory don't send more to grad school than other places necessarily. They just don't have as good outcomes for whatever reason.

Feeder schools to what exactly. This doesn't specify. Another crap list. And no
These schools have just as good of ROI but it takes a few years for theor students to get there as they are in grad school.....

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2022/

The only purpose these lists serve is to bolster the poster's ego. A bulk ranking like this is meaningless. A more meaningful ranking would be for a specific major since that varies greatly by college. For example, MOST ivies aren't especially strong at engineering (yes there are a few), but overall not all that impressive.

Sure ivies aren’t necessarily the best at engineering but their undergrads end up getting great jobs with an engineering degree. Many of them even go on to start their own companies - if you look at the top schools that produce entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of ivies and elite privates like Stanford, MIT, and Duke

+1000 if you want to be a software engineer it matter less but if you want to raise money or go on the business side of tech, the elite privates give a leg up

lol, people in SV probably don't even know what Williams is. If you actually went to an elite private (Harvard, Yale, MIT), you wouldn't be referring to that group of schools as such

The second largest VC investor in the world went to Williams for undergrad, fyi

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Pretty interesting that only 5 schools maintained their spot compared to US News. MIT at #4, Penn at #7, Dartmouth at #12, and Cornell at #17, and UVA at #25. It looks like US News is underrating Duke, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, UMich, UNC, and UCSD while it's overrating Yale, JHU, UChicago, WUSTL, Brown, Berkeley, CMU, and Emory

You guys make up narratives to support your biases. These rankings have different criteria and different methodology, combining them makes little sense as some of them are not even measuring academics. Schools with great academics that send a lot of their students to grad school will have poor ROI lowering them on this list. See John's Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory as prime examples. On the ROi rankings they rank low. On the academic rankings they are consistent across the board.

Many of them measure academics, many of them measure ROI as well, the schools that rose to the top have great academics and provide a good ROI. Seems worthwhile since college is expensive. Also Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory don't send more to grad school than other places necessarily. They just don't have as good outcomes for whatever reason.

Feeder schools to what exactly. This doesn't specify. Another crap list. And no
These schools have just as good of ROI but it takes a few years for theor students to get there as they are in grad school.....

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2022/

The only purpose these lists serve is to bolster the poster's ego. A bulk ranking like this is meaningless. A more meaningful ranking would be for a specific major since that varies greatly by college. For example, MOST ivies aren't especially strong at engineering (yes there are a few), but overall not all that impressive.

Sure ivies aren’t necessarily the best at engineering but their undergrads end up getting great jobs with an engineering degree. Many of them even go on to start their own companies - if you look at the top schools that produce entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of ivies and elite privates like Stanford, MIT, and Duke

+1000 if you want to be a software engineer it matter less but if you want to raise money or go on the business side of tech, the elite privates give a leg up

Complete bullshit. Ranking of universities that produce the most VC-backed startup founders: https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings

Once again, you're acting on nothing substantive but your stupid gut instinct. Don't spread misinformation.

1. Stanford
2. Berkeley
3. Harvard
4. MIT
5. Penn
6. Cornell
7. Tel Aviv University
8. Michigan
9. UT Austin
10. Yale
11. UCLA
12. Princeton
13. Columbia
14. Illinois
15. Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
16. USC
17. Wisconsin
18. NYU
19. Brown
20. Duke
21. Waterloo
22. Carnegie Mellon
23. UW-Seattle
24. BYU
25. McGill

Pitchbook has terrible data. Look at some of the companies they say were founded by alums of each school. They say Reddit was founded by a Harvard alum - no Harvard alums founded Reddit, and that adds $1.3B to Harvard's funding total. TeraWatt infrastructure, another $1.1B of Harvard's total, is also not founded by any Harvard alum. They're just misassigning startups and giving the wrong schools credit.

Yeah, we should probably bump Harvard down then.

I was just using Harvard as an example. They're misassigning for every school so the numbers aren't accurate. This was just based on their 5 school preview, so if 2/5 were wrong for Harvard, that means hundreds will be wrong for each school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

100% UChicago is way overrated by US News. In today’s world you can’t be a truly top university without an engineering program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Pretty interesting that only 5 schools maintained their spot compared to US News. MIT at #4, Penn at #7, Dartmouth at #12, and Cornell at #17, and UVA at #25. It looks like US News is underrating Duke, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, UMich, UNC, and UCSD while it's overrating Yale, JHU, UChicago, WUSTL, Brown, Berkeley, CMU, and Emory

You guys make up narratives to support your biases. These rankings have different criteria and different methodology, combining them makes little sense as some of them are not even measuring academics. Schools with great academics that send a lot of their students to grad school will have poor ROI lowering them on this list. See John's Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory as prime examples. On the ROi rankings they rank low. On the academic rankings they are consistent across the board.

Many of them measure academics, many of them measure ROI as well, the schools that rose to the top have great academics and provide a good ROI. Seems worthwhile since college is expensive. Also Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory don't send more to grad school than other places necessarily. They just don't have as good outcomes for whatever reason.

Feeder schools to what exactly. This doesn't specify. Another crap list. And no
These schools have just as good of ROI but it takes a few years for theor students to get there as they are in grad school.....

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2022/

The only purpose these lists serve is to bolster the poster's ego. A bulk ranking like this is meaningless. A more meaningful ranking would be for a specific major since that varies greatly by college. For example, MOST ivies aren't especially strong at engineering (yes there are a few), but overall not all that impressive.

Sure ivies aren’t necessarily the best at engineering but their undergrads end up getting great jobs with an engineering degree. Many of them even go on to start their own companies - if you look at the top schools that produce entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of ivies and elite privates like Stanford, MIT, and Duke

+1000 if you want to be a software engineer it matter less but if you want to raise money or go on the business side of tech, the elite privates give a leg up

lol, people in SV probably don't even know what Williams is. If you actually went to an elite private (Harvard, Yale, MIT), you wouldn't be referring to that group of schools as such

The second largest VC investor in the world went to Williams for undergrad, fyi

Williams' notable alumni list is a who's who of random no-names, lmao.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Pretty interesting that only 5 schools maintained their spot compared to US News. MIT at #4, Penn at #7, Dartmouth at #12, and Cornell at #17, and UVA at #25. It looks like US News is underrating Duke, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, UMich, UNC, and UCSD while it's overrating Yale, JHU, UChicago, WUSTL, Brown, Berkeley, CMU, and Emory

You guys make up narratives to support your biases. These rankings have different criteria and different methodology, combining them makes little sense as some of them are not even measuring academics. Schools with great academics that send a lot of their students to grad school will have poor ROI lowering them on this list. See John's Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory as prime examples. On the ROi rankings they rank low. On the academic rankings they are consistent across the board.

Many of them measure academics, many of them measure ROI as well, the schools that rose to the top have great academics and provide a good ROI. Seems worthwhile since college is expensive. Also Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory don't send more to grad school than other places necessarily. They just don't have as good outcomes for whatever reason.

Feeder schools to what exactly. This doesn't specify. Another crap list. And no
These schools have just as good of ROI but it takes a few years for theor students to get there as they are in grad school.....

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2022/

The only purpose these lists serve is to bolster the poster's ego. A bulk ranking like this is meaningless. A more meaningful ranking would be for a specific major since that varies greatly by college. For example, MOST ivies aren't especially strong at engineering (yes there are a few), but overall not all that impressive.

Sure ivies aren’t necessarily the best at engineering but their undergrads end up getting great jobs with an engineering degree. Many of them even go on to start their own companies - if you look at the top schools that produce entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of ivies and elite privates like Stanford, MIT, and Duke

+1000 if you want to be a software engineer it matter less but if you want to raise money or go on the business side of tech, the elite privates give a leg up

Complete bullshit. Ranking of universities that produce the most VC-backed startup founders: https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/pitchbook-university-rankings

Once again, you're acting on nothing substantive but your stupid gut instinct. Don't spread misinformation.

1. Stanford
2. Berkeley
3. Harvard
4. MIT
5. Penn
6. Cornell
7. Tel Aviv University
8. Michigan
9. UT Austin
10. Yale
11. UCLA
12. Princeton
13. Columbia
14. Illinois
15. Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
16. USC
17. Wisconsin
18. NYU
19. Brown
20. Duke
21. Waterloo
22. Carnegie Mellon
23. UW-Seattle
24. BYU
25. McGill

Where is the one and only UVA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UNC is really good, I don’t get why more people on here don’t mention it. This kind of confirms it’s perhaps been overlooked! Easily a top 5 public IMO.

UNC booster and UVA booster can battle it out here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UNC is really good, I don’t get why more people on here don’t mention it. This kind of confirms it’s perhaps been overlooked! Easily a top 5 public IMO.

UNC booster and UVA booster can battle it out here

Also a Williams basher and a Northeastern booster on here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Pretty interesting that only 5 schools maintained their spot compared to US News. MIT at #4, Penn at #7, Dartmouth at #12, and Cornell at #17, and UVA at #25. It looks like US News is underrating Duke, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, UMich, UNC, and UCSD while it's overrating Yale, JHU, UChicago, WUSTL, Brown, Berkeley, CMU, and Emory

You guys make up narratives to support your biases. These rankings have different criteria and different methodology, combining them makes little sense as some of them are not even measuring academics. Schools with great academics that send a lot of their students to grad school will have poor ROI lowering them on this list. See John's Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory as prime examples. On the ROi rankings they rank low. On the academic rankings they are consistent across the board.

Many of them measure academics, many of them measure ROI as well, the schools that rose to the top have great academics and provide a good ROI. Seems worthwhile since college is expensive. Also Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory don't send more to grad school than other places necessarily. They just don't have as good outcomes for whatever reason.

Feeder schools to what exactly. This doesn't specify. Another crap list. And no
These schools have just as good of ROI but it takes a few years for theor students to get there as they are in grad school.....

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2022/

The only purpose these lists serve is to bolster the poster's ego. A bulk ranking like this is meaningless. A more meaningful ranking would be for a specific major since that varies greatly by college. For example, MOST ivies aren't especially strong at engineering (yes there are a few), but overall not all that impressive.

Sure ivies aren’t necessarily the best at engineering but their undergrads end up getting great jobs with an engineering degree. Many of them even go on to start their own companies - if you look at the top schools that produce entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of ivies and elite privates like Stanford, MIT, and Duke

+1000 if you want to be a software engineer it matter less but if you want to raise money or go on the business side of tech, the elite privates give a leg up

lol, people in SV probably don't even know what Williams is. If you actually went to an elite private (Harvard, Yale, MIT), you wouldn't be referring to that group of schools as such

What are you talking about? Everyone who went to an elite school knows Williams. It’s part of the club.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that both Forbes and Money ranked MIT #1, but ranked Caltech substantially lower (#45 and #33). I assume those rankings place more emphasis on some measurement of value or ROI than the other rankings, which kept Caltech in the top 10. Caltech & MIT cost about the same, and attract a very similar group of students. Why is MIT so much better in this area? Does their emphasis on sending students to business grad school pull up their ROI, while Caltech tends to stay more purely technical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that both Forbes and Money ranked MIT #1, but ranked Caltech substantially lower (#45 and #33). I assume those rankings place more emphasis on some measurement of value or ROI than the other rankings, which kept Caltech in the top 10. Caltech & MIT cost about the same, and attract a very similar group of students. Why is MIT so much better in this area? Does their emphasis on sending students to business grad school pull up their ROI, while Caltech tends to stay more purely technical?

I think it comes down to the fact that Caltech attracts a very research-oriented student body, whereas MIT has more of a mix of kids looking to enter grad school and looking to enter industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Pretty interesting that only 5 schools maintained their spot compared to US News. MIT at #4, Penn at #7, Dartmouth at #12, and Cornell at #17, and UVA at #25. It looks like US News is underrating Duke, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown, UCLA, UMich, UNC, and UCSD while it's overrating Yale, JHU, UChicago, WUSTL, Brown, Berkeley, CMU, and Emory

You guys make up narratives to support your biases. These rankings have different criteria and different methodology, combining them makes little sense as some of them are not even measuring academics. Schools with great academics that send a lot of their students to grad school will have poor ROI lowering them on this list. See John's Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory as prime examples. On the ROi rankings they rank low. On the academic rankings they are consistent across the board.

Many of them measure academics, many of them measure ROI as well, the schools that rose to the top have great academics and provide a good ROI. Seems worthwhile since college is expensive. Also Johns Hopkins, UChicago, and Emory don't send more to grad school than other places necessarily. They just don't have as good outcomes for whatever reason.

Feeder schools to what exactly. This doesn't specify. Another crap list. And no
These schools have just as good of ROI but it takes a few years for theor students to get there as they are in grad school.....

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/roi2022/

The only purpose these lists serve is to bolster the poster's ego. A bulk ranking like this is meaningless. A more meaningful ranking would be for a specific major since that varies greatly by college. For example, MOST ivies aren't especially strong at engineering (yes there are a few), but overall not all that impressive.

Sure ivies aren’t necessarily the best at engineering but their undergrads end up getting great jobs with an engineering degree. Many of them even go on to start their own companies - if you look at the top schools that produce entrepreneurs, it’s a lot of ivies and elite privates like Stanford, MIT, and Duke

+1000 if you want to be a software engineer it matter less but if you want to raise money or go on the business side of tech, the elite privates give a leg up

lol, people in SV probably don't even know what Williams is. If you actually went to an elite private (Harvard, Yale, MIT), you wouldn't be referring to that group of schools as such

What are you talking about? Everyone who went to an elite school knows Williams. It’s part of the club.

+1 Williams is incredible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw this and thought it was interesting. Basically someone took the average ranking of each college from these sources and created a composite rank for each school relative to all the other schools. It was noted schools like Georgetown and Duke were underranked by US News and schools like UChicago and JHU were overranked. Some of these rankings included focus more on academics and some more on ROI, so with a composite I believe the idea was to see which schools excel in all the important metrics for undergrad.

Coming back to this, what are peoples' thoughts on WUSTL? I don't hear much about it on here but they have some top notch academic programs and tons of $$$