what criteria make a top college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The degree of association with the WASP establishment.

So this has not been a thing for more than 50 years.

+1

And yet there’s the Ivy League: an athletic conference deeply rooted in the WASP power and money of the past. Collectively, these eight schools are still one of the most coveted universities in the nation. Schools like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia have proven that they are one of the best research institutions globally, and yet there are also oversized LACs like Brown and Dartmouth that rely on their ivy label to retain their prestige.

Even though the WASP establishment is a thing of the past, our sense of prestige is still constructed around it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The degree of association with the WASP establishment.

So this has not been a thing for more than 50 years.

+1

And yet there’s the Ivy League: an athletic conference deeply rooted in the WASP power and money of the past. Collectively, these eight schools are still one of the most coveted universities in the nation. Schools like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia have proven that they are one of the best research institutions globally, and yet there are also oversized LACs like Brown and Dartmouth that rely on their ivy label to retain their prestige.

Even though the WASP establishment is a thing of the past, our sense of prestige is still constructed around it.

If they have proven they are among the best universities in the world (as most global rankings show) doesn't that confer "prestige?" What does the Wasp background have to do with it?

[Anonymous]

According to people in this forum, unless it is Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford, there are no good schools in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The degree of association with the WASP establishment.

So this has not been a thing for more than 50 years.

+1

And yet there’s the Ivy League: an athletic conference deeply rooted in the WASP power and money of the past. Collectively, these eight schools are still one of the most coveted universities in the nation. Schools like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia have proven that they are one of the best research institutions globally, and yet there are also oversized LACs like Brown and Dartmouth that rely on their ivy label to retain their prestige.

Even though the WASP establishment is a thing of the past, our sense of prestige is still constructed around it.

Ahh the "Dartmouth and Brown are oversized LACs!" idiot is back.

For those unfamiliar:

- He doesn't know what makes an LAC an LAC
- He doesn't know what makes a university a university
- He doesn't know much about the Ivy League and what it is
- He doesn't know anything about Dartmouth or Brown that wasn't on Junior's rejection letter
- He doesn't know much, if anything, about colleges, or anything else, that I can tell.
- He doesn't know these things despite being informed of them many times, which indicates he's got an agenda

So, proceed in reading his posts with caution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can't all be about how hard it is to get in....so what makes these top universities stand out?
Better professors or is it just great marketing attracting $$$ and therefore everyone wants to be associated with the prestige.
in other words, is a doctor, stock broker, journalist, engineer from Harvard better than one from University of MD?

On balance, yes.

No — it’s just that the first three will have had an easier route to grad school admission/job offers than a similar stats/profile UMD student. Don’t know about engineering.

What makes Harvard a great university? Faculty, research, $$, access to other resources including networks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can't all be about how hard it is to get in....so what makes these top universities stand out?
Better professors or is it just great marketing attracting $$$ and therefore everyone wants to be associated with the prestige.
in other words, is a doctor, stock broker, journalist, engineer from Harvard better than one from University of MD?

Part of it is obviously about the nature of the faculty and the students. There are going to be a lot more famous, high-powered people in any given room at Harvard than at your local Jesuit college.

But a lot of it is about history, inertia and marketing. Some state universities are actually higher-ranked than Harvard in some fields in terms of research, but Harvard is Harvard. It simply has more built-in name recognition than Ohio State. Graduates of top programs at Ohio State may be just as smart and well-prepared as graduates of a comparable program at Harvard, but even people like me who understand that Ohio State is better at some things than Harvard may have a gut reaction to the mention of Harvard that we wouldn’t have to a mention of Ohio State. My brain gets nuance; my gut is pretty simple-minded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The degree of association with the WASP establishment.

So this has not been a thing for more than 50 years.

+1

And yet there’s the Ivy League: an athletic conference deeply rooted in the WASP power and money of the past. Collectively, these eight schools are still one of the most coveted universities in the nation. Schools like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia have proven that they are one of the best research institutions globally, and yet there are also oversized LACs like Brown and Dartmouth that rely on their ivy label to retain their prestige.

Even though the WASP establishment is a thing of the past, our sense of prestige is still constructed around it.

Ahh the "Dartmouth and Brown are oversized LACs!" idiot is back.

For those unfamiliar:

- He doesn't know what makes an LAC an LAC
- He doesn't know what makes a university a university
- He doesn't know much about the Ivy League and what it is
- He doesn't know anything about Dartmouth or Brown that wasn't on Junior's rejection letter
- He doesn't know much, if anything, about colleges, or anything else, that I can tell.
- He doesn't know these things despite being informed of them many times, which indicates he's got an agenda

So, proceed in reading his posts with caution.

The question is whether this is started by someone who just hates Brown or part of a big, creepy public relations campaign managed by someone down the hall from whoever made Critical Race Theory into a tool Republicans use to try to pry potential swing voters away from the Democrats.

I think what happens is that some of the folks who design those campaigns live in the DMV area and test market campaigns here before they move the campaigns onto Facebook and Twitter.

The strategy here seems to be to get people to rank or grade universities; then to move people to talking about how colleges are mean and expensive, and how a degree in anything other than STEM or business is a scam; then to increase our resentment of how mean and expensive universities and SLACs are; then to give cover to a few Democrats in Congress who could be led to vote for new efforts to increase universities’ taxes or cut their revenue.

One result of a strategy like that is to reduce the number of intelligent, financially secure, respected people who can object when leaders do something bad. You get rid of the new Sakharovs quickly.

Another result is that maybe you can cut down the number of liberal and progressive people in places like Austin and Charlottesville enough to make the states a little more red.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to people in this forum, unless it is Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford, there are no good schools in this country.

+10000

sadly true

[Anonymous]

[b]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The degree of association with the WASP establishment.

So this has not been a thing for more than 50 years.

+1

And yet there’s the Ivy League: an athletic conference deeply rooted in the WASP power and money of the past. Collectively, these eight schools are still one of the most coveted universities in the nation. Schools like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia have proven that they are one of the best research institutions globally, and yet there are also oversized LACs like Brown and Dartmouth that rely on their ivy label to retain their prestige.

Even though the WASP establishment is a thing of the past, our sense of prestige is still constructed around it.

Ahh the "Dartmouth and Brown are oversized LACs!" idiot is back.

For those unfamiliar:

- He doesn't know what makes an LAC an LAC
- He doesn't know what makes a university a university
- He doesn't know much about the Ivy League and what it is
- He doesn't know anything about Dartmouth or Brown that wasn't on Junior's rejection letter
- He doesn't know much, if anything, about colleges, or anything else, that I can tell.
- He doesn't know these things despite being informed of them many times, which indicates he's got an agenda

So, proceed in reading his posts with caution.

The question is whether this is started by someone who just hates Brown or part of a big, creepy public relations campaign managed by someone down the hall from whoever made Critical Race Theory into a tool Republicans use to try to pry potential swing voters away from the Democrats.

I think what happens is that some of the folks who design those campaigns live in the DMV area and test market campaigns here before they move the campaigns onto Facebook and Twitter.

The strategy here seems to be to get people to rank or grade universities; then to move people to talking about how colleges are mean and expensive, and how a degree in anything other than STEM or business is a scam; then to increase our resentment of how mean and expensive universities and SLACs are; then to give cover to a few Democrats in Congress who could be led to vote for new efforts to increase universities’ taxes or cut their revenue.

One result of a strategy like that is to reduce the number of intelligent, financially secure, respected people who can object when leaders do something bad. You get rid of the new Sakharovs quickly.

Another result is that maybe you can cut down the number of liberal and progressive people in places like Austin and Charlottesville enough to make the states a little more red.

Is this a joke? Please remove your tin foil hat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can't all be about how hard it is to get in....so what makes these top universities stand out?
Better professors or is it just great marketing attracting $$$ and therefore everyone wants to be associated with the prestige.
in other words, is a doctor, stock broker, journalist, engineer from Harvard better than one from University of MD?

Part of it is obviously about the nature of the faculty and the students. There are going to be a lot more famous, high-powered people in any given room at Harvard than at your local Jesuit college.

But a lot of it is about history, inertia and marketing. Some state universities are actually higher-ranked than Harvard in some fields in terms of research, but Harvard is Harvard. It simply has more built-in name recognition than Ohio State. Graduates of top programs at Ohio State may be just as smart and well-prepared as graduates of a comparable program at Harvard, but even people like me who understand that Ohio State is better at some things than Harvard may have a gut reaction to the mention of Harvard that we wouldn’t have to a mention of Ohio State. My brain gets nuance; my gut is pretty simple-minded.

You picked a poor example by using Ohio State. UCB, Michigan, or UCLA would be a closer and more accurate comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The degree of association with the WASP establishment.

So this has not been a thing for more than 50 years.

+1

And yet there’s the Ivy League: an athletic conference deeply rooted in the WASP power and money of the past. Collectively, these eight schools are still one of the most coveted universities in the nation. Schools like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia have proven that they are one of the best research institutions globally, and yet there are also oversized LACs like Brown and Dartmouth that rely on their ivy label to retain their prestige.

Even though the WASP establishment is a thing of the past, our sense of prestige is still constructed around it.

Ahh the "Dartmouth and Brown are oversized LACs!" idiot is back.

For those unfamiliar:

- He doesn't know what makes an LAC an LAC
- He doesn't know what makes a university a university
- He doesn't know much about the Ivy League and what it is
- He doesn't know anything about Dartmouth or Brown that wasn't on Junior's rejection letter
- He doesn't know much, if anything, about colleges, or anything else, that I can tell.
- He doesn't know these things despite being informed of them many times, which indicates he's got an agenda

So, proceed in reading his posts with caution.

The question is whether this is started by someone who just hates Brown or part of a big, creepy public relations campaign managed by someone down the hall from whoever made Critical Race Theory into a tool Republicans use to try to pry potential swing voters away from the Democrats.

I think what happens is that some of the folks who design those campaigns live in the DMV area and test market campaigns here before they move the campaigns onto Facebook and Twitter.

The strategy here seems to be to get people to rank or grade universities; then to move people to talking about how colleges are mean and expensive, and how a degree in anything other than STEM or business is a scam; then to increase our resentment of how mean and expensive universities and SLACs are; then to give cover to a few Democrats in Congress who could be led to vote for new efforts to increase universities’ taxes or cut their revenue.

One result of a strategy like that is to reduce the number of intelligent, financially secure, respected people who can object when leaders do something bad. You get rid of the new Sakharovs quickly.

Another result is that maybe you can cut down the number of liberal and progressive people in places like Austin and Charlottesville enough to make the states a little more red.

You give him way, way, way too much credit. Remember Hanlon's razor:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.