Forbes "New Ivy" List

[Anonymous]

While the "new ivy" title is a bit of clickbait, these are excellent schools and it's no wonder employers are looking to them. It's interesting that some (37%) but not most are more likely not to hire at ivies due to perceptions of entitlement and lack of humility/arrogance and that they can get just as smart, hard-working kids at the next grouping of schools.

My kid does not care about labels (ivy, new ivy, ivy plus) but FWIW he's not that interested in applying to the ivies, he will apply to 1-2 so-called "ivy plus" schools, but he is very interested in many of these "new ivy" schools, particularly the private ones.

So these schools are popular with kids too, not just employers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason why UC schools (Berkeley, UCLA, etc.) are not on the list?

Forbes had an SAT cutoff for the list of schools they gave the c-suite to evaluate, so did not include the UCs because they are test-blind

How did they adjust for the % of test optional students?

They don't nor does USNWR

I do think US News should get an estimate for each TO school, instead of publishing the fake SAT score range reported.

How would they do that? They'd be making up a number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason why UC schools (Berkeley, UCLA, etc.) are not on the list?

Forbes had an SAT cutoff for the list of schools they gave the c-suite to evaluate, so did not include the UCs because they are test-blind

How did they adjust for the % of test optional students?

They don't nor does USNWR

I do think US News should get an estimate for each TO school, instead of publishing the fake SAT score range reported.

How would they do that? They'd be making up a number.

There’re different ways. They can back out the SAT scores of a subset of kids using PSAT scores, then use a model to extrapolate the scores by adding other factors. They can also supplement with pre-TO data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason why UC schools (Berkeley, UCLA, etc.) are not on the list?

Forbes had an SAT cutoff for the list of schools they gave the c-suite to evaluate, so did not include the UCs because they are test-blind

How did they adjust for the % of test optional students?

They don't nor does USNWR

I do think US News should get an estimate for each TO school, instead of publishing the fake SAT score range reported.

How would they do that? They'd be making up a number.

There’re different ways. They can back out the SAT scores of a subset of kids using PSAT scores, then use a model to extrapolate the scores by adding other factors. They can also supplement with pre-TO data.

This is now going to some crazy extremes that nobody would ever do. Nobody is going to provide specific kids' information to do what you are suggesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that the article is 90% about how these schools are incorporating AI into really everything throughout the curriculum.

Wasn't expecting that to be the thrust of it.

No it didn't. It just said the reality of AI is changing hiring. The quote I took away was “The most promising talents today are beginning to emerge from institutions that prioritize intellectual rigor over inherited prestige.” And - "That Ivy League-wariness persists, with 37% of respondents this year saying they are less likely to hire Ivy League grads than they were five years ago, and only 6% saying they’re more likely to do so."

Talent matters. And companies recognize that all the hooked this and that at Harvard and Princeton generally aren't great hires in 2026. Students at colleges that prioritize real talent tend to be better. I mean this is a pretty obvious observation for anyone that has been paying attention for the past five years.

Agreed and as someone who hires for a bank in NYC, we know we can get the same quality of graduate from these so-called "New Ivy" private and/or public universities. We have meetings where colleagues share how they've been more impressed by student from schools off this list. This is a very good list.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason why UC schools (Berkeley, UCLA, etc.) are not on the list?

Forbes had an SAT cutoff for the list of schools they gave the c-suite to evaluate, so did not include the UCs because they are test-blind

How did they adjust for the % of test optional students?

They don't nor does USNWR

I do think US News should get an estimate for each TO school, instead of publishing the fake SAT score range reported.

How would they do that? They'd be making up a number.

There’re different ways. They can back out the SAT scores of a subset of kids using PSAT scores, then use a model to extrapolate the scores by adding other factors. They can also supplement with pre-TO data.

This is now going to some crazy extremes that nobody would ever do. Nobody is going to provide specific kids' information to do what you are suggesting.

The college board is sitting on all the data. Shouldn’t they be the one to be transparent about aggregate scores?

[Anonymous]

Omfg this thread has got to be a joke. Don't you people have better things to do, huh, consultants and boosters? Omfg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omfg this thread has got to be a joke. Don't you people have better things to do, huh, consultants and boosters? Omfg.

The world is on fire and this is the discussion? With AI, why are your kids even going to college????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg this thread has got to be a joke. Don't you people have better things to do, huh, consultants and boosters? Omfg.

The world is on fire and this is the discussion? With AI, why are your kids even going to college????

In an already ridiculous thread you've managed to out-do us all on the absurdity scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While the "new ivy" title is a bit of clickbait, these are excellent schools and it's no wonder employers are looking to them. It's interesting that some (37%) but not most are more likely not to hire at ivies due to perceptions of entitlement and lack of humility/arrogance and that they can get just as smart, hard-working kids at the next grouping of schools.

My kid does not care about labels (ivy, new ivy, ivy plus) but FWIW he's not that interested in applying to the ivies, he will apply to 1-2 so-called "ivy plus" schools, but he is very interested in many of these "new ivy" schools, particularly the private ones.

So these schools are popular with kids too, not just employers.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the update 2026 list:

Private "Top Ten" new ivies (alphabetical order, not ranked):

Carnegie Mellon
Case Western
Emory
Georgetown
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Rice
Tufts
Vanderbilt
WashU St. Louis

Public "Top Ten" new ivies (alphabetical order, not ranked):

US Air Force Academy
U Florida
Georgia Tech
Michigan
UNC Chapel Hill
Purdue
UT Austin
UVA
William & Mary
U Wisconsin Madison

OK finally this is a great list. I'd be happy for my kid to go to any of these schools and several are already on the shortlist for next year. This is a strong list indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that the article is 90% about how these schools are incorporating AI into really everything throughout the curriculum.

Wasn't expecting that to be the thrust of it.

No it didn't. It just said the reality of AI is changing hiring. The quote I took away was “The most promising talents today are beginning to emerge from institutions that prioritize intellectual rigor over inherited prestige.” And - "That Ivy League-wariness persists, with 37% of respondents this year saying they are less likely to hire Ivy League grads than they were five years ago, and only 6% saying they’re more likely to do so."

Talent matters. And companies recognize that all the hooked this and that at Harvard and Princeton generally aren't great hires in 2026. Students at colleges that prioritize real talent tend to be better. I mean this is a pretty obvious observation for anyone that has been paying attention for the past five years.

Agreed and as someone who hires for a bank in NYC, we know we can get the same quality of graduate from these so-called "New Ivy" private and/or public universities. We have meetings where colleagues share how they've been more impressed by student from schools off this list. This is a very good list.

Never heard of this. If anything this is a recruiting concern. You clearly don’t work anywhere of importance, since your organization sounds tiny if these conversations are being had.

Agree!

[Anonymous]

It's unfortunate Boston College fell off the list the after the first year. It would be nice if they expanded the list a bit to include some other great schools. Also why aren't there any UC schools on the list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's unfortunate Boston College fell off the list the after the first year. It would be nice if they expanded the list a bit to include some other great schools. Also why aren't there any UC schools on the list?

Test Blind

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's unfortunate Boston College fell off the list the after the first year. It would be nice if they expanded the list a bit to include some other great schools. Also why aren't there any UC schools on the list?

Case Western should not be on the list!