Times 2026 Best Colleges for future Leaders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time? They still exist? I mean it’s cool that someone would make a list and think about this but it seems like it’d have no impact.

What metric should be impactful then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time? They still exist? I mean it’s cool that someone would make a list and think about this but it seems like it’d have no impact.

You could say exactly the same thing about USNWR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The population size person cracks me up.

Because?

[Anonymous]

I love that the only lacs are amherst, middlebury, smith and mount holyoke.

what say the wellesley, williams, swat and cmc boosters to this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The population size person cracks me up.

Yes, adjusting for population size makes no sense. Otherwise, you might make the crazy conclusion that Switzerland is wealthier than India.

[Anonymous]

What are “leaders”? Trinity and Villanova? Trinitys two most famous alumni are both Fox News anchors. Outside of the pope Villanovas most famous alumni are Toby Keith and Jill Biden. Is there anyone of note from Pepperdine that isn’t an actor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are “leaders”? Trinity and Villanova? Trinitys two most famous alumni are both Fox News anchors. Outside of the pope Villanovas most famous alumni are Toby Keith and Jill Biden. Is there anyone of note from Pepperdine that isn’t an actor?

Duke has Stephen Miller.

[Anonymous]

The ranking is based on "relevant subsidiaries". So it is unclear what happens if they dilute it with the rest of the school. For some schools, there are no relevant subsidiaries so I assume they consider the entire school.

[Anonymous]

Vanderbilt, Gatech, perform worse than I expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time? They still exist? I mean it’s cool that someone would make a list and think about this but it seems like it’d have no impact.

You could say exactly the same thing about USNWR.

Except that USNWR has been the gold standard in rankings since the 80s and no one gives a fig about other rankings except this person on DCUM who weirdly thinks every single one needs to beposted and discussed . Ask any college counselor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time? They still exist? I mean it’s cool that someone would make a list and think about this but it seems like it’d have no impact.

You could say exactly the same thing about USNWR.

Except that USNWR has been the gold standard in rankings since the 80s and no one gives a fig about other rankings except this person on DCUM who weirdly thinks every single one needs to beposted and discussed . Ask any college counselor.

That is like a gold standard for astrology

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ranking is based on "relevant subsidiaries". So it is unclear what happens if they dilute it with the rest of the school. For some schools, there are no relevant subsidiaries so I assume they consider the entire school.

Relevant subsidiaries means they are including Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School when assessing Harvard. So it favors schools with strong graduate programs. If no other subsidiaries are listed, there were no leaders outside of the core undergraduate program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times change. Does anyone think a Harvard or Stanford grad is a good hire today?

It seems to me that real talent is elsewhere in 2026.

Investment banks, consulting firms, biotech, FAANG, startups. . .

If they are 1 of the 38% getting disability accommodations at Stanford they won't be recruited for these jobs. Companies do not give employees extra time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times change. Does anyone think a Harvard or Stanford grad is a good hire today?

It seems to me that real talent is elsewhere in 2026.

Investment banks, consulting firms, biotech, FAANG, startups. . .

If they are 1 of the 38% getting disability accommodations at Stanford they won't be recruited for these jobs. Companies do not give employees extra time.

FAANGs are loaded with ADHD and kids on the spectrum. Both have unique advantages and do well in the culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The population size person cracks me up.

Yes, adjusting for population size makes no sense. Otherwise, you might make the crazy conclusion that Switzerland is wealthier than India.

Seriously, you’re stupid if you don’t understand the rational.