When you say t50...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

Per USNews no it isn't. 🙂

RUTGERS #41
Ohio State #41
Maryland #44

Stay mad. 😝

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

I don't understand your complaint. GT is a fairly one-dimensional school, so as expected it ranks very high in STEM disciplines, but falls off the map in liberal arts.

This is no different than Carnegie Mellon often ranking top 5 in nearly every STEM discipline, but always taking it on the chin overall.

I don't think anyone interested in STEM picks Emory just because it's overall ranking is better...except maybe on the pre-med STEM track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

I don't understand your complaint. GT is a fairly one-dimensional school, so as expected it ranks very high in STEM disciplines, but falls off the map in liberal arts.

This is no different than Carnegie Mellon often ranking top 5 in nearly every STEM discipline, but always taking it on the chin overall.

I don't think anyone interested in STEM picks Emory just because it's overall ranking is better...except maybe on the pre-med STEM track.

By that logic, Yale, Chicago, and Dartmouth are also very one dimensional schools. They do fine in liberal arts, but fall off the map in engineering and cs and other difficult majors.

When it comes to rankings and such, there does seem to be an inherent bias against the more STEM schools - like Georgia Tech and CMU. I think it's because historically in America the higher classes looked down on those who studied science and engineering. Those were trades. And some of those biases continue. Yale has no business being a perennial top 5 school. Nor does Harvard. Given their resources, they are both very weak for STEM undergrad. Their high rankings are reflective of very antiquated biases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

I don't understand your complaint. GT is a fairly one-dimensional school, so as expected it ranks very high in STEM disciplines, but falls off the map in liberal arts.

This is no different than Carnegie Mellon often ranking top 5 in nearly every STEM discipline, but always taking it on the chin overall.

I don't think anyone interested in STEM picks Emory just because it's overall ranking is better...except maybe on the pre-med STEM track.

By that logic, Yale, Chicago, and Dartmouth are also very one dimensional schools. They do fine in liberal arts, but fall off the map in engineering and cs and other difficult majors.

When it comes to rankings and such, there does seem to be an inherent bias against the more STEM schools - like Georgia Tech and CMU. I think it's because historically in America the higher classes looked down on those who studied science and engineering. Those were trades. And some of those biases continue. Yale has no business being a perennial top 5 school. Nor does Harvard. Given their resources, they are both very weak for STEM undergrad. Their high rankings are reflective of very antiquated biases.

The problem with this analysis is twofold. One, liberal arts is much more extensive than “engineering and cs and other difficult majors.” Which is why a STEM-focused school would be more likely to be penalized than the other way around. And two, the types of schools you mentioned are actually quite good at the S and the M of STEM. You aren’t going to drag down a university simply because it doesn’t do engineering and CS well, and you aren’t going to boost a university just because it’s good in two areas (not saying GT and CMU aren’t good in other areas, just making a point).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

Per USNews no it isn't. 🙂

RUTGERS #41
Ohio State #41
Maryland #44

Stay mad. 😝

Brainless fool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

I don't understand your complaint. GT is a fairly one-dimensional school, so as expected it ranks very high in STEM disciplines, but falls off the map in liberal arts.

This is no different than Carnegie Mellon often ranking top 5 in nearly every STEM discipline, but always taking it on the chin overall.

I don't think anyone interested in STEM picks Emory just because it's overall ranking is better...except maybe on the pre-med STEM track.

By that logic, Yale, Chicago, and Dartmouth are also very one dimensional schools. They do fine in liberal arts, but fall off the map in engineering and cs and other difficult majors.

When it comes to rankings and such, there does seem to be an inherent bias against the more STEM schools - like Georgia Tech and CMU. I think it's because historically in America the higher classes looked down on those who studied science and engineering. Those were trades. And some of those biases continue. Yale has no business being a perennial top 5 school. Nor does Harvard. Given their resources, they are both very weak for STEM undergrad. Their high rankings are reflective of very antiquated biases.

Those "biases" aren't antiquated but rather reflective of learning as opposed to training. Engineering and CS are traditionally trained which is why large publics (which should be nowhere near any top ranking) excel in them. They are trades, not crafts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

I don't understand your complaint. GT is a fairly one-dimensional school, so as expected it ranks very high in STEM disciplines, but falls off the map in liberal arts.



This is no different than Carnegie Mellon often ranking top 5 in nearly every STEM discipline, but always taking it on the chin overall.

I don't think anyone interested in STEM picks Emory just because it's overall ranking is better...except maybe on the pre-med STEM track.

By that logic, Yale, Chicago, and Dartmouth are also very one dimensional schools. They do fine in liberal arts, but fall off the map in engineering and cs and other difficult majors.

When it comes to rankings and such, there does seem to be an inherent bias against the more STEM schools - like Georgia Tech and CMU. I think it's because historically in America the higher classes looked down on those who studied science and engineering. Those were trades. And some of those biases continue. Yale has no business being a perennial top 5 school. Nor does Harvard. Given their resources, they are both very weak for STEM undergrad. Their high rankings are reflective of very antiquated biases.

Those "biases" aren't antiquated but rather reflective of learning as opposed to training. Engineering and CS are traditionally trained which is why large publics (which should be nowhere near any top ranking) excel in them. They are trades, not crafts.

Or said another way: rigorous academics that directly lead to a job skill are a "trade" but rigorous academics that don't lead to a job skill are a "craft." I'm sure this "training" is good if done at MIT or an Ivy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

I don't understand your complaint. GT is a fairly one-dimensional school, so as expected it ranks very high in STEM disciplines, but falls off the map in liberal arts.

This is no different than Carnegie Mellon often ranking top 5 in nearly every STEM discipline, but always taking it on the chin overall.

I don't think anyone interested in STEM picks Emory just because it's overall ranking is better...except maybe on the pre-med STEM track.

By that logic, Yale, Chicago, and Dartmouth are also very one dimensional schools. They do fine in liberal arts, but fall off the map in engineering and cs and other difficult majors.

When it comes to rankings and such, there does seem to be an inherent bias against the more STEM schools - like Georgia Tech and CMU. I think it's because historically in America the higher classes looked down on those who studied science and engineering. Those were trades. And some of those biases continue. Yale has no business being a perennial top 5 school. Nor does Harvard. Given their resources, they are both very weak for STEM undergrad. Their high rankings are reflective of very antiquated biases.

This is a massive misconception. Harvard is ranked #17 in undergraduate computer science, they are top 10 in every Hard Science, top 10 in nearly every Math discipline, top 5 in Physics, ranked #27 in engineering overall, etc. I think you are thinking specifically of say CS and Engineering.

Princeton of course is top 10 in nearly every STEM area, as well as tops in the liberal arts.

Yale is definitely behind these schools for CS and Engineering but is definitely pouring a ton of $$$s into their STEM programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

I don't understand your complaint. GT is a fairly one-dimensional school, so as expected it ranks very high in STEM disciplines, but falls off the map in liberal arts.

This is no different than Carnegie Mellon often ranking top 5 in nearly every STEM discipline, but always taking it on the chin overall.

I don't think anyone interested in STEM picks Emory just because it's overall ranking is better...except maybe on the pre-med STEM track.

By that logic, Yale, Chicago, and Dartmouth are also very one dimensional schools. They do fine in liberal arts, but fall off the map in engineering and cs and other difficult majors.

When it comes to rankings and such, there does seem to be an inherent bias against the more STEM schools - like Georgia Tech and CMU. I think it's because historically in America the higher classes looked down on those who studied science and engineering. Those were trades. And some of those biases continue. Yale has no business being a perennial top 5 school. Nor does Harvard. Given their resources, they are both very weak for STEM undergrad. Their high rankings are reflective of very antiquated biases.

Our definitions of "falling off the map" are different. These schools are definitely top 50 in those disciplines, and some top 20.

GA Tech isn't even in the top 100 for some of these liberal arts/humanities fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

I don't understand your complaint. GT is a fairly one-dimensional school, so as expected it ranks very high in STEM disciplines, but falls off the map in liberal arts.

This is no different than Carnegie Mellon often ranking top 5 in nearly every STEM discipline, but always taking it on the chin overall.

I don't think anyone interested in STEM picks Emory just because it's overall ranking is better...except maybe on the pre-med STEM track.

By that logic, Yale, Chicago, and Dartmouth are also very one dimensional schools. They do fine in liberal arts, but fall off the map in engineering and cs and other difficult majors.

When it comes to rankings and such, there does seem to be an inherent bias against the more STEM schools - like Georgia Tech and CMU. I think it's because historically in America the higher classes looked down on those who studied science and engineering. Those were trades. And some of those biases continue. Yale has no business being a perennial top 5 school. Nor does Harvard. Given their resources, they are both very weak for STEM undergrad. Their high rankings are reflective of very antiquated biases.

Yale and Dartmouth are not one dimensional schools and have had STEM for a long time. Yale school of engineering was started in 1852. Dartmouth school of engineering was founded in 1867. Their CS programs are also very good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

BU is already T50 (low 40's).

Sorry. I meant top 40. Follow instructions above for top 40. America’s top 40 — Casey Kasem-like.

+100
That sounds right based on how parents and students decided.

But you don’t know for sure because your system doesn’t actually tell us.

Exactly. Ignore him.

Guys like him just don't want publics passing their mediocre privates.

Public’s are great if you want to get trained in a trade like CS, Accounting, or engineering. Large classes taught by TAs are not a great educational model if you want to learn to think and communicate, key skills higher up the food chain.

Those who know, know; the rest go to large public’s and think that they are getting an education but in reality are just being trained.

This is such a bad take if you actually know anything about the top large publics. Or even ones a bit further down. For starters, “large classes taught by TAs” does not describe the overwhelming majority of classes a kid will take, or maybe any classes at all in many cases. Just ignorance cloaked in smug faux knowledge.

I taught at a large public in my grad school days. The idea that undergrads are exposed to elite profs is pretty much not the case. The top profs did research with their PhDs mostly, that was their job. Most lower classes are taught by assistant professor though along with some PhDs needing extra money. I knew full professors who hadn’t taught any undergraduate classes in many years. It is a waste of their time.

Cool story. That has nothing to do with large classes though. And I went to a large public not so so long ago and had many associate and full professors, especially at the 300 and 400 level, including the head of a department, the dean of the honors college, and a former FTC chairman. And these were classes with fewer than 30 kids. It still happens today. It’s normal. While a few superstar professors may get out of it (and this is true at private research universities too, btw), most full professors are still required to teach an undergrad course once a semester or once a year.

This “large publics with hundreds of kids in every class taught by a 24 year old grad student” is mostly a DCUM myth, though far from the only one around here.

Not a myth…
I have taught at three t30 Publics, including one that most people here talk about often. I was not tenured. I now teach at private university. This is what my experience has been up to this point. At every one of these publics, the top professors rarely teach any Freshman/Sophomore classes. Some will teach Jr/Sr classes, but MOST will only teach graduate students. The vast majority of lower level classes are taught by a combo of non-tenured professors and PHd students. That is just how it is. At some publics the ‘big name’ tenured professor shows up two or three times a semester…..typically in the 1st class and then sometime mid-semester. The rest of the class is taught by his/her PhD Students.

At my private, one of the conditions was that I HAD to teach all 3 undergraduate courses (two entry level) and 1 graduate course. Im not supposed to let my grad students do anything other than be a TA. All tenured professors have to teach entry level classes.

It is a big difference. I know some here would like to pretend it is not, but it is. The larger the dept, the higher the likelihood you kids will have a PhD student or a non-tenured professors teaching them. My kid is now a Sophomore in HS and depending on his major, I will guide him accordingly.

This has been my experience as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

Emory is the only prestigious school in Georgia, and GT isn't better than Emory at all the STEM fields just Engineering, and Physics, and Emory doesn't have Engineering so that's not even a comparison.
Emory is ranked higher than GaT for undergrad and graduate school. So those STEM programs aren't helping GT all that much.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
(Emory 63 vs GT 70)

Emory has higher test scores, a lower acceptance rate, a students from better and wealthier backgrounds, and better placement in fields where prestige actually matters like Finance, law, even computer science ( Emory grads have higher salaries).
Emory grads have an median post grad salary 82k, while GT is 84k.
That's with Emory not having an engineering school, and having to rely on business and nursing grads. GT seemingly is underperforming for a STEM school when it comes to salary.
https://apply.emory.edu/discover/facts-stats/after-graduation.html

https://academiceffectiveness.gatech.edu/surveys/reports/georgia-tech-career-survey-salary-report-ay-2022-2023-public

You really missed the mark here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Take US News Top 50
2. Remove these 5: UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Illinois
3. Insert these 5: BU, Northeastern, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Rochester
There’s your top 50…

Remove Rutgers too which was ranked in the 60s, 70s every single year when things were sane

Rutgers is fine. As is UMD and Ohio State.

A little insulting to UMD to group it with those two schools, no?

I think that Georgia Tech should be insulted that Emory is ranked higher overall, making it the highest-ranked university in Atlanta. GT stands out as a truly elite engineering institution. It is ranked higher than any Ivy League school in engineering and graduates more engineers than all the Ivies combined. I will concede that Emory bests GT in graduating expensively educated students and likely provides a strong liberal arts education, but it's just a school. GT's impact in engineering and technology is unparalleled.

Emory is the only prestigious school in Georgia, and GT isn't better than Emory at all the STEM fields just Engineering, and Physics, and Emory doesn't have Engineering so that's not even a comparison.
Emory is ranked higher than GaT for undergrad and graduate school. So those STEM programs aren't helping GT all that much.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
(Emory 63 vs GT 70)

Emory has higher test scores, a lower acceptance rate, a students from better and wealthier backgrounds, and better placement in fields where prestige actually matters like Finance, law, even computer science ( Emory grads have higher salaries).
Emory grads have an median post grad salary 82k, while GT is 84k.
That's with Emory not having an engineering school, and having to rely on business and nursing grads. GT seemingly is underperforming for a STEM school when it comes to salary.
https://apply.emory.edu/discover/facts-stats/after-graduation.html

https://academiceffectiveness.gatech.edu/surveys/reports/georgia-tech-career-survey-salary-report-ay-2022-2023-public

You really missed the mark here.

What does it mean that Emory has student from "better and wealthier backgrounds"? I understand wealthier but I'm not sure what is a "better" background.