5 myths about the Ivy league

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest myth is that the Ivy League is some sort of association that means "schools that are the best." It's a football league, plain and simple.

There's no merit-based criteria for getting into it.

And there you have the biggest myth of all.

How is that a myth? It's literally true.

Do you honestly think Ivy League schools confer a better education than, say, MIT, Stanford, UChicago, etc.? Do you think they open more doors, career-wise, than those schools? If you do, you're sorely deluded.

Agreed. MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford all offer a better return on investment than the Ivy League. If you want prestige AND a good ROI, you should look outside the Ivy League.

https://www.payscale.com/college-roi

Jeff Bezos’s son goes to MIT. Bill Gates’ kids go to Stanford and u Chicago. These are people whose kids could go anywhere because of how rich they are. They didn’t choose Ivies despite having gone to Princeton and Harvard respectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest myth is that the Ivy League is some sort of association that means "schools that are the best." It's a football league, plain and simple.

There's no merit-based criteria for getting into it.

And there you have the biggest myth of all.

How is that a myth? It's literally true.

Do you honestly think Ivy League schools confer a better education than, say, MIT, Stanford, UChicago, etc.? Do you think they open more doors, career-wise, than those schools? If you do, you're sorely deluded.

Agreed. MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford all offer a better return on investment than the Ivy League. If you want prestige AND a good ROI, you should look outside the Ivy League.



https://www.payscale.com/college-roi

We looked at both of these schools and actually know someone who a) went to MIT as an undergraduate and b) teaches at Cal Tech. They both said the majority of students on both of these campuses are graduate students, so it has a different feel than a primarily undergraduate campus. Great schools, but just know going in what the flavor of the campus will be.

Nearly every R1 in America has a graduate population that dwarfs the undergraduate population—Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, etc. you name it.

Not Princeton

Total Undergraduate Graduate
Total 8,273 5,394 2,879

Not Brown

Undergraduate: 6,670
Graduate: 2,494

Not Dartmouth

Undergraduate: 4,410
Graduate/professional: 2,099

Not BC
UG 9358 Grad 3154

Not George Mason
Undergraduates 24,149 (2017–2018)
Postgraduates 10,358 (2017–2018)

Not Northeastern
Undergraduates 17,923 (Fall 2016)
Postgraduates 7,543 (Fall 2016)

Not RPI
Undergraduates 6,590
Postgraduates 1,329

Not Rutgers
Undergraduates 32,206 (2016)
Postgraduates 8,514 (2016)

Not Stony Brook
Undergraduates 17,474 (Fall 2018)
Postgraduates 8,762 (Fall 2018)

Not Berkeley (sorry)
Undergraduates 30,853 (fall 2018)
Postgraduates 11,666 (fall 2018)

Not UCLA
Undergraduates 32,403 (Fall 2018)
Postgraduates 13,025 (Fall 2018)

Sorry I got tired of looking, but at the ones I chose to check more than half had more UGs than grad students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parent of a HYP student athlete here. When my son went through the recruiting process he was offered likely letters/admissions support at several UAA schools, including WashU, UChicago and Emory. The UAA absolutely gives preference to top student athletes. So does the NESCAC. Division III recruits athletes. Many have student bodies that are 30%+ student athletes.

And the Ivy League is absolutely an athletic conference. But the comment that there is no merit-based criteria for admissions is 100% false. Look into the academic index agreement between the schools. It's math.

I’m not here to defend student athletes and admissions preferences but some of the “facts” stated here are flat out wrong. Seems folks make stuff up to just get others angry.

This is true but Athletes at D3 schools have much higher stats than there D1 counterparts. I have a feeling Vandy football or Duke basketball players, don't want to compete with Emory basketball players in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nearly every R1 in America has a graduate population that dwarfs the undergraduate population—Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, etc. you name it.

No. The U of Chicago is the one of the few that has more grad students than undergrad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest myth is that the Ivy League is some sort of association that means "schools that are the best." It's a football league, plain and simple.

There's no merit-based criteria for getting into it.

And there you have the biggest myth of all.

How is that a myth? It's literally true.

Do you honestly think Ivy League schools confer a better education than, say, MIT, Stanford, UChicago, etc.? Do you think they open more doors, career-wise, than those schools? If you do, you're sorely deluded.

Yeah, I do. Read the USNWR rankings.

http://www.thecollegesolution.com/15-things-to-know-about-u-s-news-college-rankings/

[Anonymous]

The central myth: Ivy league serves the most talented Americans.

Reality: They serve the wealthiest and most prepped Americans (if thats academically prepped or prepped playing 1000s of hours of a niche sport like squash or lacrosse)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a whole league of colleges that do not give athletic scholarships or significant advantage to athletes. They are in Division III and their conference is called the University Athletic Association (UAA). The students are truly called "student-athletes" with an emphasis on "student". I believe there are 8 schools in the conference including Carnegie Mellon, Emory, University of Rochester, University of Chicago, Brandeis, and Case Western. NYU and Washington University.

All are excellent schools

Exactly. Why are people so obcessed with their kids getting into an Ivy League school when there are other , better schools for their child to attend?

My theory is that they are from countries where the school are literally academically ranked. It is so different here than in most of the world and some people can't believe you can go to a no name college and end up CEO or managing partner of a big international law firm. You can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a whole league of colleges that do not give athletic scholarships or significant advantage to athletes. They are in Division III and their conference is called the University Athletic Association (UAA). The students are truly called "student-athletes" with an emphasis on "student". I believe there are 8 schools in the conference including Carnegie Mellon, Emory, University of Rochester, University of Chicago, Brandeis, and Case Western. NYU and Washington University.

Many of those schools will give preferences to athletes. Sorry to burst your bubble.