Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?

[Anonymous]

No one is answering OPs questions...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is answering OPs questions...

Because it's impossible to answer.

[Anonymous]

Because WUSTL didn't have an intern at Forbes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this in another thread, and am curious about your thoughts. I see Rice, Emory, and Vandy are there but not WashU? Their acceptance rate is below 20%, there SAT scores are well into the 1500's, so what happened?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1202042.page

Missouri.

That's why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Emory, Vandy, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Rice, CMU, and WashU are lower Ivy Plus. Same as Cornell.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because WUSTL didn't have an intern at Forbes?

lol. I don’t get it either. Missouri is no more or less desirable than Tennessee or Texas, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Ivies are overrated

https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blog/cross-yield-rankings/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

The "talented kids" didn't get into the Ivies. All who apply can't get in.

It not for a lack of popularity.

The yield rates are a key indicator too.

Yeah, some might say " I didn't apply to Harvard. Wanted Notre Dame instead."

Ok.

[Anonymous]

Washu is overrated that's why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this in another thread, and am curious about your thoughts. I see Rice, Emory, and Vandy are there but not WashU? Their acceptance rate is below 20%, there SAT scores are well into the 1500's, so what happened?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1202042.page

Wash. U. is a serious, generous, fundamentally kind school that gives a lot of value per tuition dollar.

I had a work-study job in admissions at a top grad school and saw the director, who didn’t seem to be thinking about me, talk about how happy he was to get applications from. Wash. U. students.

St. Louis is a gorgeous, historic, affordable city.

But economic trends have been hard on St. Louis, and it doesn’t have the same kind of pool of deep pockets to access that NYU, Stanford or the Boston schools have.

It has amazing fundraising efforts and a huge tuition, but it has to work extra hard just to stay in place.

The benefit of that for the undergrads is that it knows it has to work hard to please them. It’s not a place where the faculty blow off the students or the cafeteria serves swill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

There are real ivies, ivy pluses, and now forbes fake ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

Ivy safety? My kid got into two Ivies, WL at WashU. Hardly a safety if I may say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.

If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.

[Anonymous]

You know you're talking about schools that historically belonged to the same sports league, right? Nobody ever talks about going to an ACC school