WSJ 2022 College Ranking

[Anonymous]

Duke is too high on this list. Switch Duke and Princeton, swap Brown for Columbia and it makes more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Duke is too high on this list. Switch Duke and Princeton, swap Brown for Columbia and it makes more sense.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke is too high on this list. Switch Duke and Princeton, swap Brown for Columbia and it makes more sense.

Agree

I think where Columbia is is fine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke is too high on this list. Switch Duke and Princeton, swap Brown for Columbia and it makes more sense.

Agree

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke is too high on this list. Switch Duke and Princeton, swap Brown for Columbia and it makes more sense.

Agree

I think where Columbia is is fine

Here comes the Columbia SGS reject again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Duke is too high on this list. Switch Duke and Princeton, swap Brown for Columbia and it makes more sense.

The averaged rankings look just like this, which I think is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a public university in the top 20.

Because real life != message boards full of circle-jerking striver moms who couldn't afford (or couldn't get their kid into) private college and do nothing but wax on and on about how amazing their kid's public U is. In real life, the smartest kids at Virginia, Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan are JEALOUS of their friends at elite private colleges.

Not true at all. I went to one of those public universities and majored in a department that was ranked #1 nationally. Many of us actually felt sorry for the fools who paid 10X for a lower ranked major at one of those overpriced private colleges.

But yes, I'm sure their dorms were fancier and the gym had a floating river...

Frankly, the only reason the privates rank higher is because of gimmicks like artificially pumping applications so they can reject a higher percentage of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More accurate than US News. I'm safely assuming WSJ doesn't juke and social engineer their ranking with pointless diversity metrics.

Who do you think diversity metrics are "pointless?"

Corporate America certainly doesn't think they are. You know, the employers who will hire most of those graduates?

What a peculiar perspective you have. It's almost like ... you don't have a clue about the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a public university in the top 20.

Because real life != message boards full of circle-jerking striver moms who couldn't afford (or couldn't get their kid into) private college and do nothing but wax on and on about how amazing their kid's public U is. In real life, the smartest kids at Virginia, Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan are JEALOUS of their friends at elite private colleges.

Not true at all. I went to one of those public universities and majored in a department that was ranked #1 nationally. Many of us actually felt sorry for the fools who paid 10X for a lower ranked major at one of those overpriced private colleges.

But yes, I'm sure their dorms were fancier and the gym had a floating river...

Frankly, the only reason the privates rank higher is because of gimmicks like artificially pumping applications so they can reject a higher percentage of applicants.

Those private school students likely still had better placement after graduation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More accurate than US News. I'm safely assuming WSJ doesn't juke and social engineer their ranking with pointless diversity metrics.

Who do you think diversity metrics are "pointless?"

Corporate America certainly doesn't think they are. You know, the employers who will hire most of those graduates?

What a peculiar perspective you have. It's almost like ... you don't have a clue about the real world.

PP just has an agenda, if they actually looked they would notice US news and WSJ rankings aren't that different. Other than USC, and the 3 LACs, it's the same top 25 schools but in different order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke is too high on this list. Switch Duke and Princeton, swap Brown for Columbia and it makes more sense.

Agree

I think where Columbia is is fine

Here comes the Columbia SGS reject again!

I’m the poster who commented about the SGS at Columbia, not the above. I also think Columbia is rated too low by the WSJ. You think only one person here at DCUM makes negative comments about Columbia, and you keep calling me out for it. I suggest you seek a therapist for your obsession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke is too high on this list. Switch Duke and Princeton, swap Brown for Columbia and it makes more sense.

Agree

I think where Columbia is is fine

Here comes the Columbia SGS reject again!

I’m the poster who commented about the SGS at Columbia, not the above. I also think Columbia is rated too low by the WSJ. You think only one person here at DCUM makes negative comments about Columbia, and you keep calling me out for it. I suggest you seek a therapist for your obsession.

Columbia should be ranked about 10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke is too high on this list. Switch Duke and Princeton, swap Brown for Columbia and it makes more sense.

Agree

I think where Columbia is is fine

Here comes the Columbia SGS reject again!

I’m the poster who commented about the SGS at Columbia, not the above. I also think Columbia is rated too low by the WSJ. You think only one person here at DCUM makes negative comments about Columbia, and you keep calling me out for it. I suggest you seek a therapist for your obsession.

Columbia should be ranked about 10

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA #55

Sounds about right!

How much does rank really matter after a certain point?

Someone was posting lists of students at law schools earlier, I assume for the purpose of saying that these law schools are taking kids from the most prestigious universities they can get. That misses the point. They generally take kids with the highest stats, all other things being equal. Law school rankings are dependent on stats, and the schools know it. They aren't going to take a Yale kid with low LSAT and GPA over an Ohio State kid with a stellar LSAT and GPA. Of course, Yale kids tend to get high LSATs and GPAs because they were smart enough to be accepted to Yale, but they would have done the same if they had gone somewhere else.

The only thing you are overlooking is Goldman Sachs and company don’t recruit at Ohio State or Ohio Community College.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA #55

Sounds about right!

How much does rank really matter after a certain point?

Someone was posting lists of students at law schools earlier, I assume for the purpose of saying that these law schools are taking kids from the most prestigious universities they can get. That misses the point. They generally take kids with the highest stats, all other things being equal. Law school rankings are dependent on stats, and the schools know it. They aren't going to take a Yale kid with low LSAT and GPA over an Ohio State kid with a stellar LSAT and GPA. Of course, Yale kids tend to get high LSATs and GPAs because they were smart enough to be accepted to Yale, but they would have done the same if they had gone somewhere else.

The only thing you are overlooking is Goldman Sachs and company don’t recruit at Ohio State or Ohio Community College.

The premise doesn’t hold for law schools either.