2024 US News rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford and Harvard are both amazing for undergrad and as overall universities. They are 1 and 1a in my book.

I think it is totally reasonable to go to Princeton, Dartmouth, or AWS over Harvard or Stanford though since there is such a focus on undergrads at those schools.
The biggest names like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale are still there for grad school.

For sure. Harvard and Stanford are the top schools because of their graduate and professional programs. When you are 18 years old, that doesn't matter. You're going to get a better education and a more interesting experience at schools that are really focused on undergraduates - Princeton, Dartmouth, Rice, Amherst, Williams, West Point, Naval Academy, Bowdoin. And then go to Harvard and Stanford for grad school.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not as familiar with Harvard but MIT is arguably not even as good as Stanford in MIT's strongest departments and it isn't even very close in several others (most of the humanities and social sciences beyond Econ). MIT also doesn't have the breadth of Stanford and Harvard beyond undergrad, which limits it as an overall university.

I think the stories about Jeffrey Epstein cast a lot of doubt on MIT.

Example: The MIT Media Lab looked cool from afar. But now it looks like a half-assed money laundering scheme.

I thought Epstein was more associated with Harvard than any other school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard's football team might even be on par with Stanford's this year. It is painful to see Stanford getting crushed by Colorado like this!

You obviously reacted a bit too early….

Yes, glad I stayed up well into the night! What a comeback by Stanford (largest in school history).

[Anonymous]

Not the best look for MIT since they apparently knew some bad things...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-research-center-concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein

[Anonymous]

(Refilled my popcorn)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard's football team might even be on par with Stanford's this year. It is painful to see Stanford getting crushed by Colorado like this!

This aged well.

[Anonymous]

i am a student at one of hypsm that somehow stumbled upon this thread today.

please take a step back and think about how unhinged you guys sound comparing minute differences at hypsm for 90 whole pages of discussion. i guarantee you that no one outside of this tiny corner of the internet cares at all about the differences between each of these schools and here you guys are hurling insults like apes. at your big age!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i am a student at one of hypsm that somehow stumbled upon this thread today.

please take a step back and think about how unhinged you guys sound comparing minute differences at hypsm for 90 whole pages of discussion. i guarantee you that no one outside of this tiny corner of the internet cares at all about the differences between each of these schools and here you guys are hurling insults like apes. at your big age!

+1. Well said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i am a student at one of hypsm that somehow stumbled upon this thread today.

please take a step back and think about how unhinged you guys sound comparing minute differences at hypsm for 90 whole pages of discussion. i guarantee you that no one outside of this tiny corner of the internet cares at all about the differences between each of these schools and here you guys are hurling insults like apes. at your big age!

+1. Well said

+2

Never ending rubbish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the new methodology removing class rank raises a legit issue about the ranking removing too many academic-focused factors, but by the same token, the class size and alumni engagement factors were too easily gamed by a lot of private schools and artificially propped them up.

Ultimately, I think the new rankings overall are better in clarifying, “Which schools are actually worth paying $90,000 per year over our in-state flagship?” The rankings still indicate that there’s a clear difference by going to an Ivy or its other peers in the top 20-ish, but maybe people will be dissuaded from thinking that paying a lot extra for, say, Tufts or Wake Forest is going to result in materially different outcomes compared to many of the major public flagships.

I disagree, if you want small class sizes, more professors with phds, and more money spent per student, you are going to get that at Wake or Tufts over Rutgers.

If you care more about social mobility, pick Rutgers.

That’s fine if you want those things, but those are luxuries. If Rutgers is enrolling essentially the same academic caliber of students as Wake or Tufts while also providing greater social mobility and not costing $90,000 per year, then that’s honestly more valuable information to the vast majority of people (even relatively affluent people in the upper middle class). Once again, the true academic elite (Ivy League and their peers) largely didn’t go down in these rankings. The next tier of private schools were getting an artificial boost based in the luxury good items that you mentioned compared to public schools with students with just as good or better academic qualifications and often higher-ranked programs in a lot of areas like engineering and business.

You're smoking Crack if you think Rutgers has the sane caliber students as Tufts.

Top to bottom? Probably not. But Rutgers has nearly 6x the number of kids as Tufts and there are many very bright students in NJ who cannot afford a school like Tufts and wind up at Rutgers. So it is entirely possible that the top 6-7000 students at Rutgers are of the caliber of the Tufts kids. My kid is applying to both and, in the somewhat unlikely scenario that she gets into both, I am hard-pressed to say which she'll choose (we're in-state for Rutgers and know a bunch of kids there and a handful at Tufts).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the new methodology removing class rank raises a legit issue about the ranking removing too many academic-focused factors, but by the same token, the class size and alumni engagement factors were too easily gamed by a lot of private schools and artificially propped them up.

Ultimately, I think the new rankings overall are better in clarifying, “Which schools are actually worth paying $90,000 per year over our in-state flagship?” The rankings still indicate that there’s a clear difference by going to an Ivy or its other peers in the top 20-ish, but maybe people will be dissuaded from thinking that paying a lot extra for, say, Tufts or Wake Forest is going to result in materially different outcomes compared to many of the major public flagships.

I disagree, if you want small class sizes, more professors with phds, and more money spent per student, you are going to get that at Wake or Tufts over Rutgers.

If you care more about social mobility, pick Rutgers.

That’s fine if you want those things, but those are luxuries. If Rutgers is enrolling essentially the same academic caliber of students as Wake or Tufts while also providing greater social mobility and not costing $90,000 per year, then that’s honestly more valuable information to the vast majority of people (even relatively affluent people in the upper middle class). Once again, the true academic elite (Ivy League and their peers) largely didn’t go down in these rankings. The next tier of private schools were getting an artificial boost based in the luxury good items that you mentioned compared to public schools with students with just as good or better academic qualifications and often higher-ranked programs in a lot of areas like engineering and business.

You're smoking Crack if you think Rutgers has the sane caliber students as Tufts.

Top to bottom? Probably not. But Rutgers has nearly 6x the number of kids as Tufts and there are many very bright students in NJ who cannot afford a school like Tufts and wind up at Rutgers. So it is entirely possible that the top 6-7000 students at Rutgers are of the caliber of the Tufts kids. My kid is applying to both and, in the somewhat unlikely scenario that she gets into both, I am hard-pressed to say which she'll choose (we're in-state for Rutgers and know a bunch of kids there and a handful at Tufts).

PP just has to justify a $360k price tag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the new methodology removing class rank raises a legit issue about the ranking removing too many academic-focused factors, but by the same token, the class size and alumni engagement factors were too easily gamed by a lot of private schools and artificially propped them up.

Ultimately, I think the new rankings overall are better in clarifying, “Which schools are actually worth paying $90,000 per year over our in-state flagship?” The rankings still indicate that there’s a clear difference by going to an Ivy or its other peers in the top 20-ish, but maybe people will be dissuaded from thinking that paying a lot extra for, say, Tufts or Wake Forest is going to result in materially different outcomes compared to many of the major public flagships.

I disagree, if you want small class sizes, more professors with phds, and more money spent per student, you are going to get that at Wake or Tufts over Rutgers.

If you care more about social mobility, pick Rutgers.

That’s fine if you want those things, but those are luxuries. If Rutgers is enrolling essentially the same academic caliber of students as Wake or Tufts while also providing greater social mobility and not costing $90,000 per year, then that’s honestly more valuable information to the vast majority of people (even relatively affluent people in the upper middle class). Once again, the true academic elite (Ivy League and their peers) largely didn’t go down in these rankings. The next tier of private schools were getting an artificial boost based in the luxury good items that you mentioned compared to public schools with students with just as good or better academic qualifications and often higher-ranked programs in a lot of areas like engineering and business.

You're smoking Crack if you think Rutgers has the sane caliber students as Tufts.

Top to bottom? Probably not. But Rutgers has nearly 6x the number of kids as Tufts and there are many very bright students in NJ who cannot afford a school like Tufts and wind up at Rutgers. So it is entirely possible that the top 6-7000 students at Rutgers are of the caliber of the Tufts kids. My kid is applying to both and, in the somewhat unlikely scenario that she gets into both, I am hard-pressed to say which she'll choose (we're in-state for Rutgers and know a bunch of kids there and a handful at Tufts).

PP just has to justify a $360k price tag.

Agree probably not Tufts but what about other privates?