World University Rankings 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

ivies and top private kids do not spend time thinking about state school choices they let go. quite the contrary

Correct. The ones who do not get in to ivy/+ are the ones who toss the ire at ivies for not being social enough. There is either one relentless ivies-are-not-social poster on DCUM, or a group of similar posters. Recently that poster has been posting about how Vanderbilt is so social and so much better than ivies. OK. Anyone with a recent kid or friend's kid at each can see that the culture is not tons different: grinder groups at both, partiers at both. Ivy/+ are certainly not for everyone. But the kids there almost all had options for top instate or OOS flagships and turned them down. The cross yield data from our own high school for the last 5 yrs tells the story, and it parallels the national data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

ivies and top private kids do not spend time thinking about state school choices they let go. quite the contrary

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

Huh? Dozens of kids from our high school go to T25 privates OR UCB/Mich types. They still hang out when they come home. The kids at privates whether it be WashU or Chicago or Ivies all have had fun and are social, as are the flagship kids. The more competitive schools at the very top have a bit more competitive spirit but the ones who picked these were the ones at the very top of the high school and that is a good environment for them--they thrive with it. All of these students mention they rarely go out more than 1-2 nights a week and they all spend a large part of the weekend studying. Most are premed/stem so maybe that is why, but they are not lacking socially. That is how they describe the culture at their varied schools. The ones at the private schools do not have the 500+ lecture hall stories because they do not have more than one or two classes above 200.

This 100% These kids were all peers in the same classes and clubs throughout middle and high school and then chose among ivies, top privates, and top publics. They know that their friends who chose Michigan, UCB or UVA could be at any ivy or top private but made reasoned decisions for their own reasons. They are all (for the most part) doing great, having fun, working hard, happy for each other. The nonstop meanness on this board and pitting these schools against each other simply doesn't exist in the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

You know nothing about me. Why don't you cite actual facts? Don't you have any?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

Huh? Dozens of kids from our high school go to T25 privates OR UCB/Mich types. They still hang out when they come home. The kids at privates whether it be WashU or Chicago or Ivies all have had fun and are social, as are the flagship kids. The more competitive schools at the very top have a bit more competitive spirit but the ones who picked these were the ones at the very top of the high school and that is a good environment for them--they thrive with it. All of these students mention they rarely go out more than 1-2 nights a week and they all spend a large part of the weekend studying. Most are premed/stem so maybe that is why, but they are not lacking socially. That is how they describe the culture at their varied schools. The ones at the private schools do not have the 500+ lecture hall stories because they do not have more than one or two classes above 200.

This 100% These kids were all peers in the same classes and clubs throughout middle and high school and then chose among ivies, top privates, and top publics. They know that their friends who chose Michigan, UCB or UVA could be at any ivy or top private but made reasoned decisions for their own reasons. They are all (for the most part) doing great, having fun, working hard, happy for each other. The nonstop meanness on this board and pitting these schools against each other simply doesn't exist in the real world.

Kamala?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

You know nothing about me. Why don't you cite actual facts? Don't you have any?

You literally cited subjective academic rankings and ignored the others aspects of the college experience that I noted have plenty of value for parents seeking to identify the best fit for well-rounded applicants.

And no, band / orchestra and coding competitions / Science Olympiad awards, etc. don’t make a kid well-rounded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

ivies and top private kids do not spend time thinking about state school choices they let go. quite the contrary

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

ivies and top private kids do not spend time thinking about state school choices they let go. quite the contrary

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

"Top private" parents feel the need to brag. They have a really odd demeanor. It's cringe. There is this strange sanctimonious tone. It's almost like they have to justify their kids choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

ivies and top private kids do not spend time thinking about state school choices they let go. quite the contrary

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

"Top private" parents feel the need to brag. They have a really odd demeanor. It's cringe. There is this strange sanctimonious tone. It's almost like they have to justify their kids choice.

Agreed. I think it’s probably the ones scraping by to afford their kid’s top private education who resent that there are kids paying less for their education and having a substantially better experience in the process.

I doubt the parents of kids getting full aid or the parents with FU money really care to attack the top public schools, but the ones who know they are there by the thinnest of margins (either financially or because their kid barely got in, or were accepted from a waitlist) seem to be pretty relentless in their effort to downplay the Berkeleys, UCLAs, and Michigans. I’d guess there are a lot of SLAC and Cornell parents in the mix with the highest levels of insecurity, but who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

ivies and top private kids do not spend time thinking about state school choices they let go. quite the contrary

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Some of this is people trying to feel better about the 100K+ in undergrad debt they have that they wouldn't have if they went to those state schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

You know nothing about me. Why don't you cite actual facts? Don't you have any?

You literally cited subjective academic rankings and ignored the others aspects of the college experience that I noted have plenty of value for parents seeking to identify the best fit for well-rounded applicants.

And no, band / orchestra and coding competitions / Science Olympiad awards, etc. don’t make a kid well-rounded.

DP here.

So what makes a kid well rounded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

ivies and top private kids do not spend time thinking about state school choices they let go. quite the contrary

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

"Top private" parents feel the need to brag. They have a really odd demeanor. It's cringe. There is this strange sanctimonious tone. It's almost like they have to justify their kids choice.

Agreed. I think it’s probably the ones scraping by to afford their kid’s top private education who resent that there are kids paying less for their education and having a substantially better experience in the process.

I doubt the parents of kids getting full aid or the parents with FU money really care to attack the top public schools, but the ones who know they are there by the thinnest of margins (either financially or because their kid barely got in, or were accepted from a waitlist) seem to be pretty relentless in their effort to downplay the Berkeleys, UCLAs, and Michigans. I’d guess there are a lot of SLAC and Cornell parents in the mix with the highest levels of insecurity, but who knows.

Something tells me you downplay everything after the Berkeley's, UCLA's, and Michigan's. As a UCLA grad you seem like a snob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

DP: your source is Niche ratings. Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

You know nothing about me. Why don't you cite actual facts? Don't you have any?

You literally cited subjective academic rankings and ignored the others aspects of the college experience that I noted have plenty of value for parents seeking to identify the best fit for well-rounded applicants.

And no, band / orchestra and coding competitions / Science Olympiad awards, etc. don’t make a kid well-rounded.

DP here.

So what makes a kid well rounded?

For me? In addition to notable academic achievements (grade inflation and super scoring have largely distorted what that means for many people, unfortunately), athletic achievement at a level that results in some level of recruitment, active participation in clubs and ECs that are diverse, support community, and align with college major interests, etc., and the ability to socialize with a broad range of peers are all part of the effort to nurture a well-rounded kid.

I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all formula, but I can tell you that high-level academics + ECs that don’t manage to cultivate social development that can be expressed in mainstream society (like band /orchestra or the various olympiads / coding competitions) is not a formula that gets there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

ivies and top private kids do not spend time thinking about state school choices they let go. quite the contrary

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

"Top private" parents feel the need to brag. They have a really odd demeanor. It's cringe. There is this strange sanctimonious tone. It's almost like they have to justify their kids choice.

Agreed. I think it’s probably the ones scraping by to afford their kid’s top private education who resent that there are kids paying less for their education and having a substantially better experience in the process.

I doubt the parents of kids getting full aid or the parents with FU money really care to attack the top public schools, but the ones who know they are there by the thinnest of margins (either financially or because their kid barely got in, or were accepted from a waitlist) seem to be pretty relentless in their effort to downplay the Berkeleys, UCLAs, and Michigans. I’d guess there are a lot of SLAC and Cornell parents in the mix with the highest levels of insecurity, but who knows.

Something tells me you downplay everything after the Berkeley's, UCLA's, and Michigan's. As a UCLA grad you seem like a snob.

DP but those are being cited frequently because they were the three highest ones in the ranking being discussed (and are usually the three highest publics in school rankings). But go further up in the back and forth and you also see Florida, Texas, UVA, and UNC mentioned.