WSJ 2022 College Ranking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not true. The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government. USNews and Forbes focus more on incoming stats you can manipulate like acceptance rate.

This is dumb, the word leaders come mostly from HYP. For ed has a garbage methodology that uses cost of attendance divided by post grad salary, public schools are cheap for instate students thus public schools do better in the Forbes ranking.

"come mostly" - Penn, Stanford, Columbia, MIT have all produced more billionaires, high net-worth individuals, startup founders in tech, or Forbes 30 under 30 than either Yale or Princeton. The past two presidents went to Columbia and Wharton. Princeton hasn't graduated a single cabinet member since Donald Rumsfeld. So-called leaders like Tom Cotton went to Havard, Ron DeSantis went to Yale, and Ted Cruz to Princeton.

Maybe except for Rhodes, HYP grads have never dominated the top three of any awards outlined in the Forbes methodology at the same time: "MacArthur Fellowship, Nobel Prize, Breakthrough Prize, Lasker Prize, Fields Prize, Academy Awards, Oscars, Tony’s, NAACP Awards, Guggenheim Fellowship, major sport all-stars, Presidential Medals and Pulitzer Prizes."

The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?

+1. The squad is really incapable of either reasoning, or fact-finding.

I don’t think anyone from cares but why are you all trumpeting how the Forbes rankings show that Yale and Princeton are terrible when they are 2 and 3?

Classic HYP prestige defense squad move. You make a bold baseless claim and when facts don't work in your favor, you call them irrelevant or just "oh we don't care." Sounds very much like QAnon!

Honestly i'm not really impressed when someone humble brags about HYP. Remember, Jared "went" to Harvard, W "went" to Harvard and Yale, and a certain very stable genius "went" to Wharton.

I'm more impressed by the scrappy kid who got a full ride to U Mich and used their degree to do some good in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not true. The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government. USNews and Forbes focus more on incoming stats you can manipulate like acceptance rate.

This is dumb, the word leaders come mostly from HYP. For ed has a garbage methodology that uses cost of attendance divided by post grad salary, public schools are cheap for instate students thus public schools do better in the Forbes ranking.

"come mostly" - Penn, Stanford, Columbia, MIT have all produced more billionaires, high net-worth individuals, startup founders in tech, or Forbes 30 under 30 than either Yale or Princeton. The past two presidents went to Columbia and Wharton. Princeton hasn't graduated a single cabinet member since Donald Rumsfeld. So-called leaders like Tom Cotton went to Havard, Ron DeSantis went to Yale, and Ted Cruz to Princeton.

Maybe except for Rhodes, HYP grads have never dominated the top three of any awards outlined in the Forbes methodology at the same time: "MacArthur Fellowship, Nobel Prize, Breakthrough Prize, Lasker Prize, Fields Prize, Academy Awards, Oscars, Tony’s, NAACP Awards, Guggenheim Fellowship, major sport all-stars, Presidential Medals and Pulitzer Prizes."

The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?

+1. The squad is really incapable of either reasoning, or fact-finding.

I don’t think anyone from cares but why are you all trumpeting how the Forbes rankings show that Yale and Princeton are terrible when they are 2 and 3?

Classic HYP prestige defense squad move. You make a bold baseless claim and when facts don't work in your favor, you call them irrelevant or just "oh we don't care." Sounds very much like QAnon!

I'm very confused.

Point 1: "The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government."

Point 2: "HYP doesn’t collectively produce the most world leaders. When you have Yale with a mediocre business school and Princeton without any professional programs, it’s theoretically impossible."

Point 3: "Isn't outcomes what you really want to focus on? Who cares if all your incoming classmates were fancy prep students with inflated stats? What matters is how much "value add" a college provides in terms of getting their students ahead in life. So Forbes is spot-on by focusing on actual outcomes as opposed to "prestige" and "peer reputation" scores."

Point 4: "The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?"

All I was pointing out is that you all make the argument that (1) the Forbes ranking is based on outcomes and that this is the best ranking and(2) that it shows that HYP aren't that great, but the actual Forbes rankings have Yale and Princeton ranked 2 and 3. I assumed you wouldn't care, and it appears that you don't.

But by all means, call me QANON. Accuse me of ignoring the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not true. The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government. USNews and Forbes focus more on incoming stats you can manipulate like acceptance rate.

This is dumb, the word leaders come mostly from HYP. For ed has a garbage methodology that uses cost of attendance divided by post grad salary, public schools are cheap for instate students thus public schools do better in the Forbes ranking.

"come mostly" - Penn, Stanford, Columbia, MIT have all produced more billionaires, high net-worth individuals, startup founders in tech, or Forbes 30 under 30 than either Yale or Princeton. The past two presidents went to Columbia and Wharton. Princeton hasn't graduated a single cabinet member since Donald Rumsfeld. So-called leaders like Tom Cotton went to Havard, Ron DeSantis went to Yale, and Ted Cruz to Princeton.

Maybe except for Rhodes, HYP grads have never dominated the top three of any awards outlined in the Forbes methodology at the same time: "MacArthur Fellowship, Nobel Prize, Breakthrough Prize, Lasker Prize, Fields Prize, Academy Awards, Oscars, Tony’s, NAACP Awards, Guggenheim Fellowship, major sport all-stars, Presidential Medals and Pulitzer Prizes."

The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?

+1. The squad is really incapable of either reasoning, or fact-finding.

I don’t think anyone from cares but why are you all trumpeting how the Forbes rankings show that Yale and Princeton are terrible when they are 2 and 3?

Classic HYP prestige defense squad move. You make a bold baseless claim and when facts don't work in your favor, you call them irrelevant or just "oh we don't care." Sounds very much like QAnon!

I'm very confused.

Point 1: "The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government."

Point 2: "HYP doesn’t collectively produce the most world leaders. When you have Yale with a mediocre business school and Princeton without any professional programs, it’s theoretically impossible."

Point 3: "Isn't outcomes what you really want to focus on? Who cares if all your incoming classmates were fancy prep students with inflated stats? What matters is how much "value add" a college provides in terms of getting their students ahead in life. So Forbes is spot-on by focusing on actual outcomes as opposed to "prestige" and "peer reputation" scores."

Point 4: "The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?"

All I was pointing out is that you all make the argument that (1) the Forbes ranking is based on outcomes and that this is the best ranking and(2) that it shows that HYP aren't that great, but the actual Forbes rankings have Yale and Princeton ranked 2 and 3. I assumed you wouldn't care, and it appears that you don't.

But by all means, call me QANON. Accuse me of ignoring the facts.

The PPs are basically saying that actual value added should be the most important criterion rather than "prestige." For example, it seems that HYP didn't make you any less confused...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not true. The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government. USNews and Forbes focus more on incoming stats you can manipulate like acceptance rate.

This is dumb, the word leaders come mostly from HYP. For ed has a garbage methodology that uses cost of attendance divided by post grad salary, public schools are cheap for instate students thus public schools do better in the Forbes ranking.

"come mostly" - Penn, Stanford, Columbia, MIT have all produced more billionaires, high net-worth individuals, startup founders in tech, or Forbes 30 under 30 than either Yale or Princeton. The past two presidents went to Columbia and Wharton. Princeton hasn't graduated a single cabinet member since Donald Rumsfeld. So-called leaders like Tom Cotton went to Havard, Ron DeSantis went to Yale, and Ted Cruz to Princeton.

Maybe except for Rhodes, HYP grads have never dominated the top three of any awards outlined in the Forbes methodology at the same time: "MacArthur Fellowship, Nobel Prize, Breakthrough Prize, Lasker Prize, Fields Prize, Academy Awards, Oscars, Tony’s, NAACP Awards, Guggenheim Fellowship, major sport all-stars, Presidential Medals and Pulitzer Prizes."

The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?

+1. The squad is really incapable of either reasoning, or fact-finding.

I don’t think anyone from cares but why are you all trumpeting how the Forbes rankings show that Yale and Princeton are terrible when they are 2 and 3?

Classic HYP prestige defense squad move. You make a bold baseless claim and when facts don't work in your favor, you call them irrelevant or just "oh we don't care." Sounds very much like QAnon!

I'm very confused.

Point 1: "The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government."

Point 2: "HYP doesn’t collectively produce the most world leaders. When you have Yale with a mediocre business school and Princeton without any professional programs, it’s theoretically impossible."

Point 3: "Isn't outcomes what you really want to focus on? Who cares if all your incoming classmates were fancy prep students with inflated stats? What matters is how much "value add" a college provides in terms of getting their students ahead in life. So Forbes is spot-on by focusing on actual outcomes as opposed to "prestige" and "peer reputation" scores."

Point 4: "The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?"

All I was pointing out is that you all make the argument that (1) the Forbes ranking is based on outcomes and that this is the best ranking and(2) that it shows that HYP aren't that great, but the actual Forbes rankings have Yale and Princeton ranked 2 and 3. I assumed you wouldn't care, and it appears that you don't.

But by all means, call me QANON. Accuse me of ignoring the facts.

We’re not even the same poster, dear.

[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: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.

Not true. The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government. USNews and Forbes focus more on incoming stats you can manipulate like acceptance rate.

This is dumb, the word leaders come mostly from HYP. For ed has a garbage methodology that uses cost of attendance divided by post grad salary, public schools are cheap for instate students thus public schools do better in the Forbes ranking.

"come mostly" - Penn, Stanford, Columbia, MIT have all produced more billionaires, high net-worth individuals, startup founders in tech, or Forbes 30 under 30 than either Yale or Princeton. The past two presidents went to Columbia and Wharton. Princeton hasn't graduated a single cabinet member since Donald Rumsfeld. So-called leaders like Tom Cotton went to Havard, Ron DeSantis went to Yale, and Ted Cruz to Princeton.

Maybe except for Rhodes, HYP grads have never dominated the top three of any awards outlined in the Forbes methodology at the same time: "MacArthur Fellowship, Nobel Prize, Breakthrough Prize, Lasker Prize, Fields Prize, Academy Awards, Oscars, Tony’s, NAACP Awards, Guggenheim Fellowship, major sport all-stars, Presidential Medals and Pulitzer Prizes."

The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?

+1. The squad is really incapable of either reasoning, or fact-finding.

I don’t think anyone from cares but why are you all trumpeting how the Forbes rankings show that Yale and Princeton are terrible when they are 2 and 3?

Classic HYP prestige defense squad move. You make a bold baseless claim and when facts don't work in your favor, you call them irrelevant or just "oh we don't care." Sounds very much like QAnon!

I'm very confused.

Point 1: "The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government."

Point 2: "HYP doesn’t collectively produce the most world leaders. When you have Yale with a mediocre business school and Princeton without any professional programs, it’s theoretically impossible."

Point 3: "Isn't outcomes what you really want to focus on? Who cares if all your incoming classmates were fancy prep students with inflated stats? What matters is how much "value add" a college provides in terms of getting their students ahead in life. So Forbes is spot-on by focusing on actual outcomes as opposed to "prestige" and "peer reputation" scores."

Point 4: "The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?"

All I was pointing out is that you all make the argument that (1) the Forbes ranking is based on outcomes and that this is the best ranking and(2) that it shows that HYP aren't that great, but the actual Forbes rankings have Yale and Princeton ranked 2 and 3. I assumed you wouldn't care, and it appears that you don't.

But by all means, call me QANON. Accuse me of ignoring the facts.

The PPs are basically saying that actual value added should be the most important criterion rather than "prestige." For example, it seems that HYP didn't make you any less confused...

If this is what a HYP education gets you nowadays, then I’m sorely disappointed.

[Anonymous]

The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

[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: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.

Not true. The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government. USNews and Forbes focus more on incoming stats you can manipulate like acceptance rate.

This is dumb, the word leaders come mostly from HYP. For ed has a garbage methodology that uses cost of attendance divided by post grad salary, public schools are cheap for instate students thus public schools do better in the Forbes ranking.

"come mostly" - Penn, Stanford, Columbia, MIT have all produced more billionaires, high net-worth individuals, startup founders in tech, or Forbes 30 under 30 than either Yale or Princeton. The past two presidents went to Columbia and Wharton. Princeton hasn't graduated a single cabinet member since Donald Rumsfeld. So-called leaders like Tom Cotton went to Havard, Ron DeSantis went to Yale, and Ted Cruz to Princeton.

Maybe except for Rhodes, HYP grads have never dominated the top three of any awards outlined in the Forbes methodology at the same time: "MacArthur Fellowship, Nobel Prize, Breakthrough Prize, Lasker Prize, Fields Prize, Academy Awards, Oscars, Tony’s, NAACP Awards, Guggenheim Fellowship, major sport all-stars, Presidential Medals and Pulitzer Prizes."

The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?

+1. The squad is really incapable of either reasoning, or fact-finding.

I don’t think anyone from cares but why are you all trumpeting how the Forbes rankings show that Yale and Princeton are terrible when they are 2 and 3?

Classic HYP prestige defense squad move. You make a bold baseless claim and when facts don't work in your favor, you call them irrelevant or just "oh we don't care." Sounds very much like QAnon!

I'm very confused.

Point 1: "The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government."

Point 2: "HYP doesn’t collectively produce the most world leaders. When you have Yale with a mediocre business school and Princeton without any professional programs, it’s theoretically impossible."

Point 3: "Isn't outcomes what you really want to focus on? Who cares if all your incoming classmates were fancy prep students with inflated stats? What matters is how much "value add" a college provides in terms of getting their students ahead in life. So Forbes is spot-on by focusing on actual outcomes as opposed to "prestige" and "peer reputation" scores."

Point 4: "The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?"

All I was pointing out is that you all make the argument that (1) the Forbes ranking is based on outcomes and that this is the best ranking and(2) that it shows that HYP aren't that great, but the actual Forbes rankings have Yale and Princeton ranked 2 and 3. I assumed you wouldn't care, and it appears that you don't.

But by all means, call me QANON. Accuse me of ignoring the facts.

The PPs are basically saying that actual value added should be the most important criterion rather than "prestige." For example, it seems that HYP didn't make you any less confused...

that’s not what they were saying. Those are actual quotes from the PPs and they are focused on outcomes not value add. But please continue with personal insults. It’s a sign that you know I’m right.

[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:

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.

Not true. The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government. USNews and Forbes focus more on incoming stats you can manipulate like acceptance rate.

This is dumb, the word leaders come mostly from HYP. For ed has a garbage methodology that uses cost of attendance divided by post grad salary, public schools are cheap for instate students thus public schools do better in the Forbes ranking.

"come mostly" - Penn, Stanford, Columbia, MIT have all produced more billionaires, high net-worth individuals, startup founders in tech, or Forbes 30 under 30 than either Yale or Princeton. The past two presidents went to Columbia and Wharton. Princeton hasn't graduated a single cabinet member since Donald Rumsfeld. So-called leaders like Tom Cotton went to Havard, Ron DeSantis went to Yale, and Ted Cruz to Princeton.

Maybe except for Rhodes, HYP grads have never dominated the top three of any awards outlined in the Forbes methodology at the same time: "MacArthur Fellowship, Nobel Prize, Breakthrough Prize, Lasker Prize, Fields Prize, Academy Awards, Oscars, Tony’s, NAACP Awards, Guggenheim Fellowship, major sport all-stars, Presidential Medals and Pulitzer Prizes."

The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?

+1. The squad is really incapable of either reasoning, or fact-finding.

I don’t think anyone from cares but why are you all trumpeting how the Forbes rankings show that Yale and Princeton are terrible when they are 2 and 3?

Classic HYP prestige defense squad move. You make a bold baseless claim and when facts don't work in your favor, you call them irrelevant or just "oh we don't care." Sounds very much like QAnon!

I'm very confused.

Point 1: "The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government."

Point 2: "HYP doesn’t collectively produce the most world leaders. When you have Yale with a mediocre business school and Princeton without any professional programs, it’s theoretically impossible."

Point 3: "Isn't outcomes what you really want to focus on? Who cares if all your incoming classmates were fancy prep students with inflated stats? What matters is how much "value add" a college provides in terms of getting their students ahead in life. So Forbes is spot-on by focusing on actual outcomes as opposed to "prestige" and "peer reputation" scores."

Point 4: "The HYP prestige defense squad can't really hold on to their facts right? You do realize that there are tons of schools out there whose graduate outcomes are on par, if not better than HYP? What kind of world are you really living in?"

All I was pointing out is that you all make the argument that (1) the Forbes ranking is based on outcomes and that this is the best ranking and(2) that it shows that HYP aren't that great, but the actual Forbes rankings have Yale and Princeton ranked 2 and 3. I assumed you wouldn't care, and it appears that you don't.

But by all means, call me QANON. Accuse me of ignoring the facts.

The PPs are basically saying that actual value added should be the most important criterion rather than "prestige." For example, it seems that HYP didn't make you any less confused...

that’s not what they were saying. Those are actual quotes from the PPs and they are focused on outcomes not value add. But please continue with personal insults. It’s a sign that you know I’m right.

You really believe that other PPs think you're right?! Again, confusion seems to run strong with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

I don’t think it was ever implied in the thread that the public schools were on the same level as hypsm. Keep building your straw man! That’s one thing the prestige defense squad is good at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not true. The Forbes college list actually has the public universities at the top precisely because their ranking methodology gives greater weight to how many of a university's graduates become leaders in business and government. USNews and Forbes focus more on incoming stats you can manipulate like acceptance rate.

This is dumb, the word leaders come mostly from HYP. For ed has a garbage methodology that uses cost of attendance divided by post grad salary, public schools are cheap for instate students thus public schools do better in the Forbes ranking.

I'm pretty sure most "world leaders" attended schools in their home countries. The only American university with extensive global reach is Harvard. Yale and Princeton trail pretty quite far behind in global renown. You make them sound as if they are the three most reputable universities worldwide, while in fact, they aren't. Stanford and MIT are much more well known. You're just living in an anachronistic fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

I'm pretty sure most of the prestige defense squad attended LACs, since they have a really strong tendency of equating undergrad reputation with the overall quality of a university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public school boosters are crazy. UCB, UCLA, Michigan, UVA are no match for HYPSM. The public's have a hard time competing with the like of Emory, Vandy and the like.

For undergrad, true. But don’t generalize this fact and pretend that HYPSM are the best universities overall. Yale and Princeton are no match for Berkeley’s grad schools.

Exactly, so why is there is argument validating the Forbes ranking when we know UCB undergrad is not even better than Georgetown and their giant rats, let alone the best school in the country.

Did you not read the previous posts? It's about "added value" of an education to a low-income student or one on FA. The HYPSM do just fine on the list with their generous aid. I don't necessarily agree with that UCB is "not even better" than Georgetown. This is most likely a East Coast misconception. It's still perceived quite well on the West Coast and much more well known worldwide. Just like East Coasters don't see Stanford in the same level of the prestige as HYP until the early 2000s, and still is to this day.