Which colleges are considered top elite in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The STEM circlejerk happens too often here that I'm beginning to believe this is DCUD or DCU-kid's who get a C in their into engineering class and feel they're smarter than everyone else in the room. If you think you're smarter than everyone else in the forum, there's a great quote that is often used in STEM leadership circles that you'll love.

If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.

Further evidence of brain decay here. Somehow extrapolates thinking being smarter than one person is equivalent to entire room.

It becomes tiring seeing people talk so highly of STEM here when most of the majors can't even get you a good job.
-An ex- math major sick of explaining that no, software engineering isn't a "math" career and is very much a waste of skill, talent, and a degree.

Ah yes, such a waste. I'm sure most Software Engineers at FNG are crying at their 500k annual compensation.

No, they're crying of intense boredom and often need to move on to do something stimulating for once. I'd know, that's how I ended up back in DC from Cupertino and with much of my team leaving to start their own companies to finally get challenged in something. At least in finance you get massive data sets and a bunch of pressure, so it feels like you're doing something advanced.

i have a feeling you didn't actually work in tech as a SWE. Working with complex distributed systems and complex code is challenging. If you want actual cutting edge materials, you have the opportunity to join Google Brain or DeepMind along with a plethora of other ML based positions as well through the bay. And you're constantly working with data for products with users in the billions. Finance jobs are considered antiquated here for good reason - it's why those companies haven't innovated much and are getting disrupted. They don't attract top talent and pay comparably lower salaries as a result.

I'm not going to defend my career to you on a job board. You're just gonna have to not trust me, because what a massive waste.

Given the state of tech, focus on profitability and efficiency, plus AI, no one is sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

Sure. I can't tell if everyone on these forums speaks on things they have limited experience in, or if these are just the collected beliefs on tech. Most people in tech are not working in cool positions, even in FAANG. These are the things you hear from freshman who are going to work in IBM Watson and then you never see him again, cause he failed out of the intro CS001 class.

Meh, I've shared more than most on here that lends credence to my background without any ability to being doxxed. You not so much.

By bringing up one CS topic and then saying Finance is "antiquated"... Citadel and Goldman aren't too worried about losing quants anytime soon.

GS isn't in the same ballpark as Citadel for Quants. It's not like Jane Street or Two Sigma. Again, shows how little you know.

[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:The STEM circlejerk happens too often here that I'm beginning to believe this is DCUD or DCU-kid's who get a C in their into engineering class and feel they're smarter than everyone else in the room. If you think you're smarter than everyone else in the forum, there's a great quote that is often used in STEM leadership circles that you'll love.

If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.

Further evidence of brain decay here. Somehow extrapolates thinking being smarter than one person is equivalent to entire room.

It becomes tiring seeing people talk so highly of STEM here when most of the majors can't even get you a good job.
-An ex- math major sick of explaining that no, software engineering isn't a "math" career and is very much a waste of skill, talent, and a degree.

Ah yes, such a waste. I'm sure most Software Engineers at FNG are crying at their 500k annual compensation.

No, they're crying of intense boredom and often need to move on to do something stimulating for once. I'd know, that's how I ended up back in DC from Cupertino and with much of my team leaving to start their own companies to finally get challenged in something. At least in finance you get massive data sets and a bunch of pressure, so it feels like you're doing something advanced.

i have a feeling you didn't actually work in tech as a SWE. Working with complex distributed systems and complex code is challenging. If you want actual cutting edge materials, you have the opportunity to join Google Brain or DeepMind along with a plethora of other ML based positions as well through the bay. And you're constantly working with data for products with users in the billions. Finance jobs are considered antiquated here for good reason - it's why those companies haven't innovated much and are getting disrupted. They don't attract top talent and pay comparably lower salaries as a result.

I'm not going to defend my career to you on a job board. You're just gonna have to not trust me, because what a massive waste.

Given the state of tech, focus on profitability and efficiency, plus AI, no one is sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

Sure. I can't tell if everyone on these forums speaks on things they have limited experience in, or if these are just the collected beliefs on tech. Most people in tech are not working in cool positions, even in FAANG. These are the things you hear from freshman who are going to work in IBM Watson and then you never see him again, cause he failed out of the intro CS001 class.

Meh, I've shared more than most on here that lends credence to my background without any ability to being doxxed. You not so much.

By bringing up one CS topic and then saying Finance is "antiquated"... Citadel and Goldman aren't too worried about losing quants anytime soon.

GS isn't in the same ballpark as Citadel for Quants. It's not like Jane Street or Two Sigma. Again, shows how little you know.

So you know more about industry because you can name famous quant firms and hedge funds. It really wasn't a coherent point. If someone says "I don't think Latham & Watkins and Williams & Connolly are threatened by ChatGPT," it doesn't mean they know nothing about the legal industry lmao.

[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:The STEM circlejerk happens too often here that I'm beginning to believe this is DCUD or DCU-kid's who get a C in their into engineering class and feel they're smarter than everyone else in the room. If you think you're smarter than everyone else in the forum, there's a great quote that is often used in STEM leadership circles that you'll love.

If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.

Further evidence of brain decay here. Somehow extrapolates thinking being smarter than one person is equivalent to entire room.

It becomes tiring seeing people talk so highly of STEM here when most of the majors can't even get you a good job.
-An ex- math major sick of explaining that no, software engineering isn't a "math" career and is very much a waste of skill, talent, and a degree.

Ah yes, such a waste. I'm sure most Software Engineers at FNG are crying at their 500k annual compensation.

No, they're crying of intense boredom and often need to move on to do something stimulating for once. I'd know, that's how I ended up back in DC from Cupertino and with much of my team leaving to start their own companies to finally get challenged in something. At least in finance you get massive data sets and a bunch of pressure, so it feels like you're doing something advanced.

i have a feeling you didn't actually work in tech as a SWE. Working with complex distributed systems and complex code is challenging. If you want actual cutting edge materials, you have the opportunity to join Google Brain or DeepMind along with a plethora of other ML based positions as well through the bay. And you're constantly working with data for products with users in the billions. Finance jobs are considered antiquated here for good reason - it's why those companies haven't innovated much and are getting disrupted. They don't attract top talent and pay comparably lower salaries as a result.

I'm not going to defend my career to you on a job board. You're just gonna have to not trust me, because what a massive waste.

Given the state of tech, focus on profitability and efficiency, plus AI, no one is sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

Sure. I can't tell if everyone on these forums speaks on things they have limited experience in, or if these are just the collected beliefs on tech. Most people in tech are not working in cool positions, even in FAANG. These are the things you hear from freshman who are going to work in IBM Watson and then you never see him again, cause he failed out of the intro CS001 class.

Meh, I've shared more than most on here that lends credence to my background without any ability to being doxxed. You not so much.

By bringing up one CS topic and then saying Finance is "antiquated"... Citadel and Goldman aren't too worried about losing quants anytime soon.

GS isn't in the same ballpark as Citadel for Quants. It's not like Jane Street or Two Sigma. Again, shows how little you know.

So you know more about industry because you can name famous quant firms and hedge funds. It really wasn't a coherent point. If someone says "I don't think Latham & Watkins and Williams & Connolly are threatened by ChatGPT," it doesn't mean they know nothing about the legal industry lmao.

i have friends that work there and im familiar with their statistical ML based trading algos since I interned at one of the hedge funds.

You on the other hand come off as a petulant little child that tries to downplay the experience of others with limited experience of one's own.

[Anonymous]

Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest. [/quote

Michigan and UVA have very similar transfer acceptance rates with both in the mid 30’s. UVA offers ED, Michigan does not.

[Anonymous]

Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

Gamesmanship by very overrated schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

Gamesmanship by very overrated schools

Very much so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

I guess we can all agree that Columbia isn’t elite because 1/3 of its undergraduates attend the SGS. They are admitted at a 30% clip, yes THIRTY!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

I guess we can all agree that Columbia isn’t elite because 1/3 of its undergraduates attend the SGS. They are admitted at a 30% clip, yes THIRTY!

You said it, not me. Glad we can agree however.

[Anonymous]

Q: Which colleges are considered top elite in the US?
A: Depends on whom you are trying to impress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:any ivy league, Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, Duke, Chicago, Northwestern, Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona.

Below that non-ivies could be Hopkins, Georgetown, UVA, Michigan, and Cal Berkley. State schools by definition are less prestigious.

Berkeley and Michigan comes way before UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

Respectfully, do you know how transfers work?

And you understand that some people don't perform so well in HS and CC gives them a chance to prove they are worthy of admission?

And some choose 2 years at CC for financial reasons and don't even apply to the flagship until after?

Most importantly, why is this a hill to die on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

Forty, not “fourty.”