What are your high stat kid’s safeties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super important that folks are conservative when it comes to definition of reach/safety/target for your student. Reaches are a dime a dozen. Targets can be elusive. Safeties can be hard to find.

Safeties are not difficult to find. Top 25% of scores/gpa, acceptance rate above 50% and a school your kid really wants to attend. Oh and show demonstrated interest to minimize yield protection chances.

The issue seems to be that many "high stats" kids don't want to attend anywhere but T20. Trust that they will go far even at a T50 school or T100 school.

Yes I understand that last point for sure. I would say a safety (to be safe, just my definition) would be as you say stats in the top 25% but acceptance rate even higher, like 60%plus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super important that folks are conservative when it comes to definition of reach/safety/target for your student. Reaches are a dime a dozen. Targets can be elusive. Safeties can be hard to find.

Safeties are not difficult to find. Top 25% of scores/gpa, acceptance rate above 50% and a school your kid really wants to attend. Oh and show demonstrated interest to minimize yield protection chances.

The issue seems to be that many "high stats" kids don't want to attend anywhere but T20. Trust that they will go far even at a T50 school or T100 school.

You say in the first paragraph that safeties are not difficult to find but then you also say that a safety is somewhere they want to attend. As you acknowledge in the second paragraph, that is the issue for many high stats kids and why they have trouble finding safeties.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Wake and Colgate really safeties? I have a kid at STA who is middle of the class. Those are his targets with Colgate being a high Target. Are they easier to get in than we think?

Based on acceptance rates alone, Wake and Colgate, and ANY school with below a 25% acceptance rate, are not safeties for ANYONE. This has been said many times before. Up to you how you define. Those of us who have been thru last year and this year just giving friendly advice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super important that folks are conservative when it comes to definition of reach/safety/target for your student. Reaches are a dime a dozen. Targets can be elusive. Safeties can be hard to find.

Safeties are not difficult to find. Top 25% of scores/gpa, acceptance rate above 50% and a school your kid really wants to attend. Oh and show demonstrated interest to minimize yield protection chances.

The issue seems to be that many "high stats" kids don't want to attend anywhere but T20. Trust that they will go far even at a T50 school or T100 school.

Yes I understand that last point for sure. I would say a safety (to be safe, just my definition) would be as you say stats in the top 25% but acceptance rate even higher, like 60%plus.

That's fair--but note I did say 50%+ for acceptance rate. You do whatever you think is best. Either way, it's important to realize that anything with less than 20% acceptance rate is a Reach for anyone, short of being a president's kid, major celebrity, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super important that folks are conservative when it comes to definition of reach/safety/target for your student. Reaches are a dime a dozen. Targets can be elusive. Safeties can be hard to find.

Safeties are not difficult to find. Top 25% of scores/gpa, acceptance rate above 50% and a school your kid really wants to attend. Oh and show demonstrated interest to minimize yield protection chances.

The issue seems to be that many "high stats" kids don't want to attend anywhere but T20. Trust that they will go far even at a T50 school or T100 school.

You say in the first paragraph that safeties are not difficult to find but then you also say that a safety is somewhere they want to attend. As you acknowledge in the second paragraph, that is the issue for many high stats kids and why they have trouble finding safeties.

Agree

but the reason they have issues finding a safety is because of societal pressures---parents, family, friends, etc who make it seem if you don't attend a T20 you are a loser and going nowhere in life. That needs to change. Once you eliminate those pressures a kid with stats for T20 schools should be smart enough to step back and evaluate a school and find a great one that's not T20. It can be done. In actuality the difference between a T20 and T50 school are not that much--there will be very smart kids at both and opportunities abounding. It's what you do once you get there that matters more.

My own kid found an amazing safety ---ranked in the 60s. It was a top 3 final contender up until the end. Why? Because it's a hidden gem that really is an amazing school. Had it been a normal semester school rather than 4, 7 week quarter school, my own kid would likely be there now. Basically my kid loved everything about it except the fast paced quarters and realize that as a procrastinator, this might not be the best overall environment. But my kid was also in at two T40 schools and seriously considered this other school. Why---because the differences are not that much overall---for them it was about the best fit. Ultimately they choose the best fit for them.

So yes, there are plenty of T100 schools that can be viable contenders for "safeties", and yes these can be found even in areas your kid actually wants to be. My own kid is at a school that is not the most exciting city, that was the only major turnoff for them. But overall it was the best fit, so they picked it and are very happy there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

. Why do you say that??
It's on par with many of the elite schools in major metrics.
It's actually under-ranked.

No, it’s not.
Here’s the Times Higher Education rankings (from two months ago) of the world’s 200 universities with the best reputations (as assessed by academics and administrators).

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2022/reputation-ranking#!/page/0/length/-1/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

56 US universities are on that list. Most of the highest ranked ‘national universities’ on USNWR’s list make this Times list, as do a number of stronger state flagships. Northeastern isn’t on that list. It’s a fine school, but it’s not seen as on a par with the best universities in the country.

Yiu can try to dismiss the finding - there are always individual zealots who say they know better than all the experts - but the fact is, when you get past Northeastern’s low acceptance rate (yes, a lot of kids want to go to school in Boston and like the pre-professional co-op programs) and the anomalously high ranking on the USNWR list (other credible ranking systems put Northeastern considerably further down on the list of top 100 or so schools), what the data and assessments show is that Northeastern is a fine school like so many others but not one of the very top schools in the country or even in the Boston area. Congratulations to the kids who get in, and with reasonable effort they’ll likely get a good education. But we don’t have to listen to boosters from comparably ranked GWU or Michigan State - or higher ranked Rochester or Case Western - try to browbeat DCUM into agreeing those schools are actually now among the top/elite schools in the country, and the unrelenting effort by Northeastern’s boosters to do so only ends up,paradoxically, drawing more attention to the abundant evidence that the university isn’t.

Why are you so passionate about the subject? You are embarrassing yourself.

DP but disagree. PP speaks for a lot of us. There is a lot of insecurity and campaigning about the school on this board. I have no feelings about the school at all and even I get tired of it.

+1

+2
The incessant NE hype is exhausting. And I never post about that school - but the above sums it up perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety: UMd

No interest in paying big $$ for a school that is not notably better than UMd (will be a Stem major). Therefore he took a swing at a few heavyweights and if it doesn't work out, UMd it is. 1530/4.3w, private.

I can't even imagine paying somewhere like BU (or many others) a truckload of money for an education that is not *notably and substantially* better or more prestigious than UMd and *is* notably less prestigious than HYP/Rice/Penn. And this is no knock on BU, its a very fine school probably better in some fields then UMd but is it 150-200K+ better?

+1
We feel the same way. Know someone who is paying a boatload of money to attend Northeastern (??) when they could have gone to their very good state school instead and gotten an excellent education for far less money.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Some kids really want to go to get out of the DMV to go to school. Mine included. If you have the ability to pay and your kid wants to go to school in Boston and Northeastern is the right fit and their top choice, then you send them to Northeastern. Or BU. Or wherever it is that they really want to be. Jeez.

DP here. I would want my child to attend college with students from all over the country and world. We are in VA. UVA is like 70% in state? My selfishness wants my child to stay close for college.

W
It’s less than 70% in state. What you fail to recognize is that VA is one of the most diverse states in the country (especially NoVA) due to the influx of international families and those from all over the country who come to work in DC. The non VA students are very geographically diverse as well.

But it's still largely students from VA. Everyone from my HS (Top HS in Henrico county) who went to UVA has stayed in VA. Most of my HS stayed in state, however I left and attended a T10. I haven't been back to VA except to visit family. I've lived all over the US. My spouse is from another country. Doubt any of that would have happened had I stayed at an instate school.

Sounds like going OOS for college was the right choice for you, but is your life "better" than those who choose to stay close to home? I just got back from visiting some of my wife's extended family in Sioux Falls, SD. Her relatives there (all educated in colleges in SD or adjoining states) are prosperous, content, happy and have strong connections within their communities. I've lived in 8 different countries and travelled extensively - I wouldn't trade that experience for anything. But am I happier or do I have a better quality of life for having done that? I don't think so.

Obviously my life isn't any better than theirs for choosing to leave "home". I never stated or implied that.

However, I am very happy my parents never restricted me and attempted to keep me instate just to keep me nearby.
Which they could have easily done---I could have attended Va Tech or UVA for free at that time and we didn't have much $$. But I attended a T10 which was T3 for one of my majors and T15 for the other and I came out with less than $10K in loans for 5 years. I worked my ass off to make it affordable---I only came home for winter break because I couldn't afford thanksgiving and spring break travel. So from a financial standpoint, my factory working, non-college educated parents could have easily encouraged me to stay close by. But they didn't---they allowed me to be me and pick what path I wanted to follow.

DP. You have posted the same thing over and over. We get it - you're glad you went OOS for college. Please consider a few things. Your experience is not everyone's. Some kids *want* to go to their in-state schools. Many, in fact. And those who do stay in-state are not somehow trapped in that state for the rest of their lives, as you seem to believe! They can go elsewhere for grad school, or for jobs. For instance, I went to a VA state school and have lived all over the world as an adult. My horizons are quite broad, thanks. My own kids are attending in-state schools and will be studying abroad and probably living elsewhere once they graduate. Or not. That's up to them. The point being, where one attends college in no way limits where they'll go afterwards.

[Anonymous]

NP. I have no opinions on Northeastern, but you plainly do not understand the list you linked. Multiple universities on the list do not educate undergraduates at all. Others are notoriously bad for undergraduates as they focus entirely on academic research and graduate education. I used to do admissions for a T20 graduate program, and there are universities on that list that were known for not preparing undergraduates at all for graduate school. A good research institute means very little with respect to undergraduate education. What you linked is a list of well-respected research institutes and graduate schools, because that’s what academic reputation is built on. It is not a list relevant to where good undergraduate students should attend.

Thanks for the irrelevant lecture. Actually, all the U.S. universities on that Times list educate undergraduates, and Northeastern in fact has a higher percentage of graduate students than many of the US universities on that list, so its omission is conspicuous. You may have different views of some of the schools that -- unlike NEU -- made it onto the Times list, but ultimately you're one (presumably truthful) person and the Times has conducted a survey of many, so notwithstanding your boundless self-regard, your views don't trump theirs. Furthermore, the point made by a PP was that Northeastern is now a peer of the elite US universities, and for all Northeastern's strengths, it simply isn't.

The Times survey was cited principally because it's one of the most recent, and Northeastern's absence provides pretty compelling evidence that it isn't considered one of the top US universities. One could alternatively look at this year's Times rankings of universities (not a poll of "reputations") (which ranked Northeastern as #52 US university in the country) or last year's final WSJ rankings (which ranked Northeastern at #86) or this year's Forbes rankings (which ranked NEU at #79). Those are solid rankings for NEU -- notwithstanding the inclination of DCUM commenters to disparage any school that isn't so-called "T30" or "T50" -- but it places Northeastern with strong colleges/universities rather than the very small number of elite universities.

I'm sure the Northeastern cheerleaders here can find reason to dismiss every single expert analysis that doesn't reaffirm their own view of the school, but ultimate a pattern does emerge that more objective readers can discern.

If you want to have a discussion of "where good undergraduate students should attend," you're welcome to start a thread, but that's not usually what's discussed here (e.g, note the virtually complete exclusion of SLACs from the discussion). Northeastern's advocates don't argue that it provides the best undergraduate education (which makes sense because its "undergraduate education" rankings aren't especially strong either) but rather that by various metrics NEU now ranks among the top universities in the country. It's a fairly subtle distinction but one that someone as smart as you can no doubt grasp, or pretend to.

And to be clear, I'm not a 'Northeastern hater" (a characteristically infantile accusation that ignores that i'm not disparaging Northeastern but rather some of the exaggerated or frankly untruthful claims some make about it). Northeastern's a very good school that provides a unique educational experience. But I'm honestly offended by the assumption that in unedited fora like this people can state an untruth aggressively and repeatedly (whether to talk up one college or talk down another) to serve their own purposes, and make it a new alternative fact out of it, and mislead the gullible when actually a lot is at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rose Hulman

Rose is our safety too. Visited. DS loves it. Decision time will be hard.

[Anonymous]

Agree w the acceptance rate/yield rate being super important for tire safeties. Of course a kid w truly high stats would get into a BU/BC or trinity/conn college if they EDed as they are well above the 75th percentile. But this type of school cares about those rates and know this kid won’t matriculate so may not waste an acceptance on an otherwise over qualified candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP. I have no opinions on Northeastern, but you plainly do not understand the list you linked. Multiple universities on the list do not educate undergraduates at all. Others are notoriously bad for undergraduates as they focus entirely on academic research and graduate education. I used to do admissions for a T20 graduate program, and there are universities on that list that were known for not preparing undergraduates at all for graduate school. A good research institute means very little with respect to undergraduate education. What you linked is a list of well-respected research institutes and graduate schools, because that’s what academic reputation is built on. It is not a list relevant to where good undergraduate students should attend.

Thanks for the irrelevant lecture. Actually, all the U.S. universities on that Times list educate undergraduates, and Northeastern in fact has a higher percentage of graduate students than many of the US universities on that list, so its omission is conspicuous. You may have different views of some of the schools that -- unlike NEU -- made it onto the Times list, but ultimately you're one (presumably truthful) person and the Times has conducted a survey of many, so notwithstanding your boundless self-regard, your views don't trump theirs. Furthermore, the point made by a PP was that Northeastern is now a peer of the elite US universities, and for all Northeastern's strengths, it simply isn't.

The Times survey was cited principally because it's one of the most recent, and Northeastern's absence provides pretty compelling evidence that it isn't considered one of the top US universities. One could alternatively look at this year's Times rankings of universities (not a poll of "reputations") (which ranked Northeastern as #52 US university in the country) or last year's final WSJ rankings (which ranked Northeastern at #86) or this year's Forbes rankings (which ranked NEU at #79). Those are solid rankings for NEU -- notwithstanding the inclination of DCUM commenters to disparage any school that isn't so-called "T30" or "T50" -- but it places Northeastern with strong colleges/universities rather than the very small number of elite universities.

I'm sure the Northeastern cheerleaders here can find reason to dismiss every single expert analysis that doesn't reaffirm their own view of the school, but ultimate a pattern does emerge that more objective readers can discern.

If you want to have a discussion of "where good undergraduate students should attend," you're welcome to start a thread, but that's not usually what's discussed here (e.g, note the virtually complete exclusion of SLACs from the discussion). Northeastern's advocates don't argue that it provides the best undergraduate education (which makes sense because its "undergraduate education" rankings aren't especially strong either) but rather that by various metrics NEU now ranks among the top universities in the country. It's a fairly subtle distinction but one that someone as smart as you can no doubt grasp, or pretend to.

And to be clear, I'm not a 'Northeastern hater" (a characteristically infantile accusation that ignores that i'm not disparaging Northeastern but rather some of the exaggerated or frankly untruthful claims some make about it). Northeastern's a very good school that provides a unique educational experience. But I'm honestly offended by the assumption that in unedited fora like this people can state an untruth aggressively and repeatedly (whether to talk up one college or talk down another) to serve their own purposes, and make it a new alternative fact out of it, and mislead the gullible when actually a lot is at stake.

Thank you for being so calm and articulate, you are my hero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP. I have no opinions on Northeastern, but you plainly do not understand the list you linked. Multiple universities on the list do not educate undergraduates at all. Others are notoriously bad for undergraduates as they focus entirely on academic research and graduate education. I used to do admissions for a T20 graduate program, and there are universities on that list that were known for not preparing undergraduates at all for graduate school. A good research institute means very little with respect to undergraduate education. What you linked is a list of well-respected research institutes and graduate schools, because that’s what academic reputation is built on. It is not a list relevant to where good undergraduate students should attend.

Thanks for the irrelevant lecture. Actually, all the U.S. universities on that Times list educate undergraduates, and Northeastern in fact has a higher percentage of graduate students than many of the US universities on that list, so its omission is conspicuous. You may have different views of some of the schools that -- unlike NEU -- made it onto the Times list, but ultimately you're one (presumably truthful) person and the Times has conducted a survey of many, so notwithstanding your boundless self-regard, your views don't trump theirs. Furthermore, the point made by a PP was that Northeastern is now a peer of the elite US universities, and for all Northeastern's strengths, it simply isn't.

The Times survey was cited principally because it's one of the most recent, and Northeastern's absence provides pretty compelling evidence that it isn't considered one of the top US universities. One could alternatively look at this year's Times rankings of universities (not a poll of "reputations") (which ranked Northeastern as #52 US university in the country) or last year's final WSJ rankings (which ranked Northeastern at #86) or this year's Forbes rankings (which ranked NEU at #79). Those are solid rankings for NEU -- notwithstanding the inclination of DCUM commenters to disparage any school that isn't so-called "T30" or "T50" -- but it places Northeastern with strong colleges/universities rather than the very small number of elite universities.

I'm sure the Northeastern cheerleaders here can find reason to dismiss every single expert analysis that doesn't reaffirm their own view of the school, but ultimate a pattern does emerge that more objective readers can discern.

If you want to have a discussion of "where good undergraduate students should attend," you're welcome to start a thread, but that's not usually what's discussed here (e.g, note the virtually complete exclusion of SLACs from the discussion). Northeastern's advocates don't argue that it provides the best undergraduate education (which makes sense because its "undergraduate education" rankings aren't especially strong either) but rather that by various metrics NEU now ranks among the top universities in the country. It's a fairly subtle distinction but one that someone as smart as you can no doubt grasp, or pretend to.

And to be clear, I'm not a 'Northeastern hater" (a characteristically infantile accusation that ignores that i'm not disparaging Northeastern but rather some of the exaggerated or frankly untruthful claims some make about it). Northeastern's a very good school that provides a unique educational experience. But I'm honestly offended by the assumption that in unedited fora like this people can state an untruth aggressively and repeatedly (whether to talk up one college or talk down another) to serve their own purposes, and make it a new alternative fact out of it, and mislead the gullible when actually a lot is at stake.

Oh good Lord. Too much nonsense to wade through this late at night.

As you are so confident you both understand your link and US undergraduate education (see the bolded you wrote! So delightfully certain!), could you just tell me what undergraduate degrees #45 (University of California, San Francisco) or the, uh, “Mayo Medical School” offer? Also, while you’re at it, could you explain what and where exactly the “University of Massachusetts” and “University of Indiana” are, in that link you seem to think so highly of and that you understand so well? Also, perhaps, direct me to where I might find the “University of Campinas”?

I’d appreciate it ever so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. I have no opinions on Northeastern, but you plainly do not understand the list you linked. Multiple universities on the list do not educate undergraduates at all. Others are notoriously bad for undergraduates as they focus entirely on academic research and graduate education. I used to do admissions for a T20 graduate program, and there are universities on that list that were known for not preparing undergraduates at all for graduate school. A good research institute means very little with respect to undergraduate education. What you linked is a list of well-respected research institutes and graduate schools, because that’s what academic reputation is built on. It is not a list relevant to where good undergraduate students should attend.

Thanks for the irrelevant lecture. Actually, all the U.S. universities on that Times list educate undergraduates, and Northeastern in fact has a higher percentage of graduate students than many of the US universities on that list, so its omission is conspicuous. You may have different views of some of the schools that -- unlike NEU -- made it onto the Times list, but ultimately you're one (presumably truthful) person and the Times has conducted a survey of many, so notwithstanding your boundless self-regard, your views don't trump theirs. Furthermore, the point made by a PP was that Northeastern is now a peer of the elite US universities, and for all Northeastern's strengths, it simply isn't.

The Times survey was cited principally because it's one of the most recent, and Northeastern's absence provides pretty compelling evidence that it isn't considered one of the top US universities. One could alternatively look at this year's Times rankings of universities (not a poll of "reputations") (which ranked Northeastern as #52 US university in the country) or last year's final WSJ rankings (which ranked Northeastern at #86) or this year's Forbes rankings (which ranked NEU at #79). Those are solid rankings for NEU -- notwithstanding the inclination of DCUM commenters to disparage any school that isn't so-called "T30" or "T50" -- but it places Northeastern with strong colleges/universities rather than the very small number of elite universities.

I'm sure the Northeastern cheerleaders here can find reason to dismiss every single expert analysis that doesn't reaffirm their own view of the school, but ultimate a pattern does emerge that more objective readers can discern.

If you want to have a discussion of "where good undergraduate students should attend," you're welcome to start a thread, but that's not usually what's discussed here (e.g, note the virtually complete exclusion of SLACs from the discussion). Northeastern's advocates don't argue that it provides the best undergraduate education (which makes sense because its "undergraduate education" rankings aren't especially strong either) but rather that by various metrics NEU now ranks among the top universities in the country. It's a fairly subtle distinction but one that someone as smart as you can no doubt grasp, or pretend to.

And to be clear, I'm not a 'Northeastern hater" (a characteristically infantile accusation that ignores that i'm not disparaging Northeastern but rather some of the exaggerated or frankly untruthful claims some make about it). Northeastern's a very good school that provides a unique educational experience. But I'm honestly offended by the assumption that in unedited fora like this people can state an untruth aggressively and repeatedly (whether to talk up one college or talk down another) to serve their own purposes, and make it a new alternative fact out of it, and mislead the gullible when actually a lot is at stake.

Oh good Lord. Too much nonsense to wade through this late at night.

As you are so confident you both understand your link and US undergraduate education (see the bolded you wrote! So delightfully certain!), could you just tell me what undergraduate degrees #45 (University of California, San Francisco) or the, uh, “Mayo Medical School” offer? Also, while you’re at it, could you explain what and where exactly the “University of Massachusetts” and “University of Indiana” are, in that link you seem to think so highly of and that you understand so well? Also, perhaps, direct me to where I might find the “University of Campinas”?

I’d appreciate it ever so much.

Np - no dog in this fight but that’s a truly childish no-response response… just saying. Carry on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. I have no opinions on Northeastern, but you plainly do not understand the list you linked. Multiple universities on the list do not educate undergraduates at all. Others are notoriously bad for undergraduates as they focus entirely on academic research and graduate education. I used to do admissions for a T20 graduate program, and there are universities on that list that were known for not preparing undergraduates at all for graduate school. A good research institute means very little with respect to undergraduate education. What you linked is a list of well-respected research institutes and graduate schools, because that’s what academic reputation is built on. It is not a list relevant to where good undergraduate students should attend.

Thanks for the irrelevant lecture. Actually, all the U.S. universities on that Times list educate undergraduates, and Northeastern in fact has a higher percentage of graduate students than many of the US universities on that list, so its omission is conspicuous. You may have different views of some of the schools that -- unlike NEU -- made it onto the Times list, but ultimately you're one (presumably truthful) person and the Times has conducted a survey of many, so notwithstanding your boundless self-regard, your views don't trump theirs. Furthermore, the point made by a PP was that Northeastern is now a peer of the elite US universities, and for all Northeastern's strengths, it simply isn't.

The Times survey was cited principally because it's one of the most recent, and Northeastern's absence provides pretty compelling evidence that it isn't considered one of the top US universities. One could alternatively look at this year's Times rankings of universities (not a poll of "reputations") (which ranked Northeastern as #52 US university in the country) or last year's final WSJ rankings (which ranked Northeastern at #86) or this year's Forbes rankings (which ranked NEU at #79). Those are solid rankings for NEU -- notwithstanding the inclination of DCUM commenters to disparage any school that isn't so-called "T30" or "T50" -- but it places Northeastern with strong colleges/universities rather than the very small number of elite universities.

I'm sure the Northeastern cheerleaders here can find reason to dismiss every single expert analysis that doesn't reaffirm their own view of the school, but ultimate a pattern does emerge that more objective readers can discern.

If you want to have a discussion of "where good undergraduate students should attend," you're welcome to start a thread, but that's not usually what's discussed here (e.g, note the virtually complete exclusion of SLACs from the discussion). Northeastern's advocates don't argue that it provides the best undergraduate education (which makes sense because its "undergraduate education" rankings aren't especially strong either) but rather that by various metrics NEU now ranks among the top universities in the country. It's a fairly subtle distinction but one that someone as smart as you can no doubt grasp, or pretend to.

And to be clear, I'm not a 'Northeastern hater" (a characteristically infantile accusation that ignores that i'm not disparaging Northeastern but rather some of the exaggerated or frankly untruthful claims some make about it). Northeastern's a very good school that provides a unique educational experience. But I'm honestly offended by the assumption that in unedited fora like this people can state an untruth aggressively and repeatedly (whether to talk up one college or talk down another) to serve their own purposes, and make it a new alternative fact out of it, and mislead the gullible when actually a lot is at stake.

Oh good Lord. Too much nonsense to wade through this late at night.

As you are so confident you both understand your link and US undergraduate education (see the bolded you wrote! So delightfully certain!), could you just tell me what undergraduate degrees #45 (University of California, San Francisco) or the, uh, “Mayo Medical School” offer? Also, while you’re at it, could you explain what and where exactly the “University of Massachusetts” and “University of Indiana” are, in that link you seem to think so highly of and that you understand so well? Also, perhaps, direct me to where I might find the “University of Campinas”?

I’d appreciate it ever so much.

Np - no dog in this fight but that’s a truly childish no-response response… just saying. Carry on

I’m sorry that your champion has been shown to be a fool.

I am neutral on NEU, but I certainly don’t swan around throwing around links I quite clearly don’t understand at a basic level to make my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super important that folks are conservative when it comes to definition of reach/safety/target for your student. Reaches are a dime a dozen. Targets can be elusive. Safeties can be hard to find.

Safeties are not difficult to find. Top 25% of scores/gpa, acceptance rate above 50% and a school your kid really wants to attend. Oh and show demonstrated interest to minimize yield protection chances.

The issue seems to be that many "high stats" kids don't want to attend anywhere but T20. Trust that they will go far even at a T50 school or T100 school.

You say in the first paragraph that safeties are not difficult to find but then you also say that a safety is somewhere they want to attend. As you acknowledge in the second paragraph, that is the issue for many high stats kids and why they have trouble finding safeties.

Agree

but the reason they have issues finding a safety is because of societal pressures---parents, family, friends, etc who make it seem if you don't attend a T20 you are a loser and going nowhere in life. That needs to change. Once you eliminate those pressures a kid with stats for T20 schools should be smart enough to step back and evaluate a school and find a great one that's not T20. It can be done. In actuality the difference between a T20 and T50 school are not that much--there will be very smart kids at both and opportunities abounding. It's what you do once you get there that matters more.

My own kid found an amazing safety ---ranked in the 60s. It was a top 3 final contender up until the end. Why? Because it's a hidden gem that really is an amazing school. Had it been a normal semester school rather than 4, 7 week quarter school, my own kid would likely be there now. Basically my kid loved everything about it except the fast paced quarters and realize that as a procrastinator, this might not be the best overall environment. But my kid was also in at two T40 schools and seriously considered this other school. Why---because the differences are not that much overall---for them it was about the best fit. Ultimately they choose the best fit for them.

So yes, there are plenty of T100 schools that can be viable contenders for "safeties", and yes these can be found even in areas your kid actually wants to be. My own kid is at a school that is not the most exciting city, that was the only major turnoff for them. But overall it was the best fit, so they picked it and are very happy there.

Are you willing to share the name of the amazing safety school ranked in the 60s ? TIA