Forbes "New Ivy" List
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| This is just so incredibly stupid. |
Anonymous
Actually, if you look at their methodology, Johns Hopkins was not taken off the list. It was simply renamed from “New Ivy” to the “Ivy plus” category, which includes schools and such as the Stanford, MIT and Duke. |
Anonymous
|
So, these round out top 33:
13 in Ivy Plus 10 in New Private Ivies 10 in New Public Ivies Notable #1: no UCs are among the New Public Ivies. Notable #2: USAF is included, but USMA/USNA are not. |
Anonymous
| Good lord. What's up with latching on the Ivy label? There's 8 ivies and that's it. You can have ivies that are great schools and great schools that are great schools. |
Anonymous
So many stupid “lists”. What’s the point? |
Anonymous
DD is not applying to any ivies but she is applying to several on this list next year. The ones she'd be most interested in have roughly 3% acceptance rates now and she doesn't see the point in wasting her time applying to them, 10 or 12% is rejective enough lol. Maybe she'd get in? who knows. Her stats are strong, and she has over 1500+ SAT already in junior year and great ECs. But a lot of schools on this list do interest her a lot. |
Anonymous
From an employment standpoint, it’s actually very interesting. |
Anonymous
Well I've always said there's really 40 top schools in the so-called "Top 20" so this tracks. The reality is that there are probably 50 excellent schools and there's no rational reason to just narrow the focus to top tens or twenties. |
Anonymous
agreed |
Anonymous
Anti West Coast i see...observed by a Virginian. |
Anonymous
There is something about the data which is why no UC schools are on the list. I believe they won't include any test blind schools (why, I have no idea since it's supposed to be based on what recruiters say). |
Anonymous
|
While the idea of these lists can be silly, there's no doubt that these are excellent institutions with great academic reputations.
Our DC (sophomore now) would be luck to go to them! |
Anonymous
It makes sense. It's hard to confirm student GPAs without any external check. I believe UCs are starting to accept AP scores but they need something since student lack of preparation is showing up and professors have expressed frustration (most recently at UC San Diego). |
Anonymous
But it's supposed to be based on recruiter feedback. If recruiters hire tons of kids and are happy with them, not sure why it matters if they don't report SAT scores. Again, they literally are not included by Forbes because of the lack of SAT scores...no other reason. |
Anonymous
Stanford is already part of the "Ivy Plus" so it's notably excepted from consideration. They are looking for the new ivies, not those already in the group. I'm very happy not to see USC on this list. It's overhyped and doesn't belong IMO. UCs will rejoin the public ivy list when they move from fully test blind to test optional, which I hope they will do soon. Lots of odd admissions results are occuring without even some optional use of testing. ... as observed by a Californian. |