When you say t50...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Syracuse and RPI? Both have been in the Top 50 from time to time.

I think of them as Top100. Because I know students recent grads. They aren’t in the same league as say BC

Depends on program.

The Newhouse, Maxwell, and architecture schools at Syracuse are top programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.

Why would that be used for U.S. UNDERGRADUATE education? They are largely research rankings.

If I am trying to determine the top colleges and universities, why would I only look at undergraduate education to determine top schools? Last I checked, cutting edge research was a key component of academia.

The argument is, sure the University of Washington advanced using AI to predict protein folding that will speed the development of new medicines, but they have larger Biology 101 classes than Wake Forest. U of W is a much more impactful university than Wake, by far.

Yes, that is exactly what you should look at, nothing more. How well does the school prepare a student over the first degree cycle. If you want to rank schools on research strength that is great, but it is not pertinent to undergraduate education.

At the undergraduate level, engineering, CS, accounting....they are all trades. You'll learn the same basic curriculum at any of them. ABET certified engineering programs all basically teach the same.

There is a reason that SLACs put a far greater proportion of their students into top B schools, Law schools, and PhD programs. They build a better product at the undergraduate level.

Having kids require grad school because they can’t get great jobs from undergrad sounds like failure to me.

You need to learn the difference between learning and training.

You are confused. It’s not that LAC students can’t get great jobs after their undergrad study. Plenty do. It’s that they often have higher expectations than just a good paying job, so go to grad school to qualify for the jobs which require the most education, often after a short break from school where they work in a job that prioritizes preparation for grad school over immediate financial rewards. That’s not for everyone, and that’s fine.

Not confused at all…especially when you make things up.

Know too many underemployed Swat and Haverford grads that had to attend grad school because their immediate options sucked.

Not all SLACs are equal…hence why CMC and Harvey Mudd grads as examples are able to productively enter the workforce on day 1.

Which is more likely…

The top grad schools keep accepting alumni from these schools into their ultra-selective programs attended by tomorrow’s leading experts across most fields because those students could only get jobs that “sucked” after college and the grad schools (apparently unlike their own less educated undergrad officials) don’t know how to evaluate ability…

…or….

The top grad schools keep accepting these alumni because their academic programs and work experience in jobs after college makes them the most qualified candidates for these ultra-selective programs?

You don’t seem to understand that top students will often use the gap between college and grad school on jobs better for learning specific skills relevant to grad programs than for immediate earning power because they have their eyes on a longer term prize.

Well then all these SLAC alums would be so wealthy…except they aren’t for the most part.

Hence, why when looking at the undergraduate schools of CEOs, PE folks hedge fund folks, tech founders, etc., these SLACs are poorly represented on a percentage and nominal basis.

So what’s this “longer term prize” you are pulling out of your ass?

So you don’t know those with a grad degree make on average over 20% more over their lifetime than those without? Or you don’t know the schools we are talking about having much higher than average grad school placement rates across all degree levels/types? Or you don’t know that College Scorecard measures earnings too soon after graduation to capture those grad degree boosts?

Not that everyone does or should prioritize earnings above all else; some would rather be an expert in their field or pursue a career of public service or have a certain lifestyle or whatever. But if we are looking at large numbers and not relying on anecdotes of the neighbor’s kids, grad degree recipients do already out-earn those that stop after undergraduate study. If you think that’s going to trend towards favoring less education with advances in AI and an increasingly skilled global workforce, you aren’t paying attention.

So it is the grad degree from places like Rutgers and Wisconsin that is providing the added wages and not the SLAC.

[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:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.

Why would that be used for U.S. UNDERGRADUATE education? They are largely research rankings.

If I am trying to determine the top colleges and universities, why would I only look at undergraduate education to determine top schools? Last I checked, cutting edge research was a key component of academia.

The argument is, sure the University of Washington advanced using AI to predict protein folding that will speed the development of new medicines, but they have larger Biology 101 classes than Wake Forest. U of W is a much more impactful university than Wake, by far.

Yes, that is exactly what you should look at, nothing more. How well does the school prepare a student over the first degree cycle. If you want to rank schools on research strength that is great, but it is not pertinent to undergraduate education.

At the undergraduate level, engineering, CS, accounting....they are all trades. You'll learn the same basic curriculum at any of them. ABET certified engineering programs all basically teach the same.

There is a reason that SLACs put a far greater proportion of their students into top B schools, Law schools, and PhD programs. They build a better product at the undergraduate level.

Having kids require grad school because they can’t get great jobs from undergrad sounds like failure to me.

You need to learn the difference between learning and training.

You are confused. It’s not that LAC students can’t get great jobs after their undergrad study. Plenty do. It’s that they often have higher expectations than just a good paying job, so go to grad school to qualify for the jobs which require the most education, often after a short break from school where they work in a job that prioritizes preparation for grad school over immediate financial rewards. That’s not for everyone, and that’s fine.

Not confused at all…especially when you make things up.

Know too many underemployed Swat and Haverford grads that had to attend grad school because their immediate options sucked.

Not all SLACs are equal…hence why CMC and Harvey Mudd grads as examples are able to productively enter the workforce on day 1.

Which is more likely…

The top grad schools keep accepting alumni from these schools into their ultra-selective programs attended by tomorrow’s leading experts across most fields because those students could only get jobs that “sucked” after college and the grad schools (apparently unlike their own less educated undergrad officials) don’t know how to evaluate ability…

…or….

The top grad schools keep accepting these alumni because their academic programs and work experience in jobs after college makes them the most qualified candidates for these ultra-selective programs?

You don’t seem to understand that top students will often use the gap between college and grad school on jobs better for learning specific skills relevant to grad programs than for immediate earning power because they have their eyes on a longer term prize.

Well then all these SLAC alums would be so wealthy…except they aren’t for the most part.

Hence, why when looking at the undergraduate schools of CEOs, PE folks hedge fund folks, tech founders, etc., these SLACs are poorly represented on a percentage and nominal basis.

So what’s this “longer term prize” you are pulling out of your ass?

So you don’t know those with a grad degree make on average over 20% more over their lifetime than those without? Or you don’t know the schools we are talking about having much higher than average grad school placement rates across all degree levels/types? Or you don’t know that College Scorecard measures earnings too soon after graduation to capture those grad degree boosts?

Not that everyone does or should prioritize earnings above all else; some would rather be an expert in their field or pursue a career of public service or have a certain lifestyle or whatever. But if we are looking at large numbers and not relying on anecdotes of the neighbor’s kids, grad degree recipients do already out-earn those that stop after undergraduate study. If you think that’s going to trend towards favoring less education with advances in AI and an increasingly skilled global workforce, you aren’t paying attention.

So it is the grad degree from places like Rutgers and Wisconsin that is providing the added wages and not the SLAC.

Wrong again. The LACs you mentioned earlier do have higher starting wages than those examples for alumni just a few years out of college, per College Scorecard, but the grad school education earned in part because of their undergrad prep pushes them still higher. Now if you are trying to argue that a large university with its grad schools included provides more total educational opportunity than a small baccalaureate-only institution, sure, but that’s a pointless comment, cause the LAC grads are disproportionately more likely to be admitted to those grad programs.

[Anonymous]

I think of UGA when I think of T50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think of UGA when I think of T50.

Well, it is. #46 🙂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter because if you fall outside of the Ivies and non-Ivy top 10, you're the loser when playing the eliteness game.

Exactly. Although I would say T12-T15, with schools like UChicago, Duke, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, ND, Hopkins added to the Ivies.

I like the tier ideas. Does anyone really see that major of a difference in terms of "prestige" between WashU and Emory? Or BU and NEU? BC and Tufts? GWU and American? Miami and Wake? Tulane and SMU? USC and UCLA, etc.

I applied to college in 1988. The main guidebook I used was called Barrons, and it used the tiering method.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of UGA when I think of T50.

Well, it is. #46 🙂

When any normal American thinks of UGA they dont think TOP 50…..sorry….most Americans dont even think about UGA….unless it is football….sorry.

Truth is, NO State School other that UCs and Michigan and maybe….UVA at t50…..and that is it…..it is private world….whether state people like it or not…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of UGA when I think of T50.

Well, it is. #46 🙂

When any normal American thinks of UGA they dont think TOP 50…..sorry….most Americans dont even think about UGA….unless it is football….sorry.

Truth is, NO State School other that UCs and Michigan and maybe….UVA at t50…..and that is it…..it is private world….whether state people like it or not…

Yet someone from the U of Washington just won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. So odd that it wasn’t someone from Dartmouth or Wake Forest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you also talking about schools like Case Western, Tulane that are not technically in US News's t50 anymore?

My kid is at Case and I am more impressed with their Robust career fairs and the internship offers my kid has received each summer. Who really cares where someone gets their degree if they are getting good post graduate opportunities? He picked Case over other real T20 (including an ivy) because they gave him a ton of merit aid. He will be able to attend any graduate school he wants and will be debt free.

[Anonymous]

You sound sadly slavish to USNWR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of UGA when I think of T50.

Well, it is. #46 🙂

When any normal American thinks of UGA they dont think TOP 50…..sorry….most Americans dont even think about UGA….unless it is football….sorry.

Truth is, NO State School other that UCs and Michigan and maybe….UVA at t50…..and that is it…..it is private world….whether state people like it or not…

Normal Americans don’t think about this…sorry…most Americans don’t think about most universities…and can’t even name the schools in the Ivy League…sorry.

Truth is, when someone thinks about where a school falls comparatively…sorry…they look blindly at USNWR…sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of UGA when I think of T50.

Well, it is. #46 🙂

When any normal American thinks of UGA they dont think TOP 50…..sorry….most Americans dont even think about UGA….unless it is football….sorry.

Truth is, NO State School other that UCs and Michigan and maybe….UVA at t50…..and that is it…..it is private world….whether state people like it or not…

Normal Americans don’t think about this…sorry…most Americans don’t think about most universities…and can’t even name the schools in the Ivy League…sorry.

Truth is, when someone thinks about where a school falls comparatively…sorry…they look blindly at USNWR…sorry.

Nope, if that's the case USG would get relatively low acceptance rate with full of high stat kids. That's not the case... sorry.
Normal Americans pay good attention to what they pay especially something as big as college.
While USNWR is one of the most influential references, it's still a reference.

Every year, 10 million students collectively rank schools, apply, and commit. That is the real ranking.
We get the ground truth every year and it's reflected in the combination of acceptance rate + yield rate + cohort quality, and additionally retention rate + graduation rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of UGA when I think of T50.

Well, it is. #46 🙂

When any normal American thinks of UGA they dont think TOP 50…..sorry….most Americans dont even think about UGA….unless it is football….sorry.

Truth is, NO State School other that UCs and Michigan and maybe….UVA at t50…..and that is it…..it is private world….whether state people like it or not…

Whatever Tulane grad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of UGA when I think of T50.

Well, it is. #46 🙂

When any normal American thinks of UGA they dont think TOP 50…..sorry….most Americans dont even think about UGA….unless it is football….sorry.

Truth is, NO State School other that UCs and Michigan and maybe….UVA at t50…..and that is it…..it is private world….whether state people like it or not…

Normal Americans don’t think about this…sorry…most Americans don’t think about most universities…and can’t even name the schools in the Ivy League…sorry.

Truth is, when someone thinks about where a school falls comparatively…sorry…they look blindly at USNWR…sorry.

Nope, if that's the case USG would get relatively low acceptance rate with full of high stat kids. That's not the case... sorry.
Normal Americans pay good attention to what they pay especially something as big as college.
While USNWR is one of the most influential references, it's still a reference.

Every year, 10 million students collectively rank schools, apply, and commit. That is the real ranking.
We get the ground truth every year and it's reflected in the combination of acceptance rate + yield rate + cohort quality, and additionally retention rate + graduation rate.

The mental gymnastics on this are really something to behold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think of UGA when I think of T50.

Well, it is. #46 🙂

When any normal American thinks of UGA they dont think TOP 50…..sorry….most Americans dont even think about UGA….unless it is football….sorry.

Truth is, NO State School other that UCs and Michigan and maybe….UVA at t50…..and that is it…..it is private world….whether state people like it or not…

Normal Americans don’t think about this…sorry…most Americans don’t think about most universities…and can’t even name the schools in the Ivy League…sorry.

Truth is, when someone thinks about where a school falls comparatively…sorry…they look blindly at USNWR…sorry.

Nope, if that's the case USG would get relatively low acceptance rate with full of high stat kids. That's not the case... sorry.
Normal Americans pay good attention to what they pay especially something as big as college.
While USNWR is one of the most influential references, it's still a reference.

Every year, 10 million students collectively rank schools, apply, and commit. That is the real ranking.
We get the ground truth every year and it's reflected in the combination of acceptance rate + yield rate + cohort quality, and additionally retention rate + graduation rate.

The mental gymnastics on this are really something to behold.

Are you one of the fools blindly go by USNWR??