I thought Tufts was good, but . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. If you don’t care about class size, quality of undergrad teaching and whether classes are taught by TAs or professors, and care a lot about % of students who are Pell Grant eligible, then you need to send your kid to a huge state school and write off the medium sized privates (Tufts, Wake Forest, Tulane) and W&M, all of which got creamed by USNWR’s new DEI focus. Or, you could sit and ask yourself why colleges with higher average SATs/ ACTs and GPAs, with almost no TAs and small class size and high marked for undergrad teaching and ranked below schools with lower stats, huge classes, and TAs everywhere. Does that make sense? Is it what you want for your kid? Wake, Tulane, Tufts, WM— these schools didn’t suddenly become 20 spots worse in one year. They just don’t play the DEI game. Or, they don’t play it well.

Bingo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. If you don’t care about class size, quality of undergrad teaching and whether classes are taught by TAs or professors, and care a lot about % of students who are Pell Grant eligible, then you need to send your kid to a huge state school and write off the medium sized privates (Tufts, Wake Forest, Tulane) and W&M, all of which got creamed by USNWR’s new DEI focus. Or, you could sit and ask yourself why colleges with higher average SATs/ ACTs and GPAs, with almost no TAs and small class size and high marked for undergrad teaching and ranked below schools with lower stats, huge classes, and TAs everywhere. Does that make sense? Is it what you want for your kid? Wake, Tulane, Tufts, WM— these schools didn’t suddenly become 20 spots worse in one year. They just don’t play the DEI game. Or, they don’t play it well.

How did BC come out unscathed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. If you don’t care about class size, quality of undergrad teaching and whether classes are taught by TAs or professors, and care a lot about % of students who are Pell Grant eligible, then you need to send your kid to a huge state school and write off the medium sized privates (Tufts, Wake Forest, Tulane) and W&M, all of which got creamed by USNWR’s new DEI focus. Or, you could sit and ask yourself why colleges with higher average SATs/ ACTs and GPAs, with almost no TAs and small class size and high marked for undergrad teaching and ranked below schools with lower stats, huge classes, and TAs everywhere. Does that make sense? Is it what you want for your kid? Wake, Tulane, Tufts, WM— these schools didn’t suddenly become 20 spots worse in one year. They just don’t play the DEI game. Or, they don’t play it well.

So so true! B

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. If you don’t care about class size, quality of undergrad teaching and whether classes are taught by TAs or professors, and care a lot about % of students who are Pell Grant eligible, then you need to send your kid to a huge state school and write off the medium sized privates (Tufts, Wake Forest, Tulane) and W&M, all of which got creamed by USNWR’s new DEI focus. Or, you could sit and ask yourself why colleges with higher average SATs/ ACTs and GPAs, with almost no TAs and small class size and high marked for undergrad teaching and ranked below schools with lower stats, huge classes, and TAs everywhere. Does that make sense? Is it what you want for your kid? Wake, Tulane, Tufts, WM— these schools didn’t suddenly become 20 spots worse in one year. They just don’t play the DEI game. Or, they don’t play it well.

How did BC come out unscathed?

I thought it was the Pell grants?

[Anonymous]

I feel like many sophomore/junior parents start out the college admissions process thinking their kid will go to a top 20 and that schools are not good enough for their child, until their kid starts comparing their stats to the stats of admitted students. Its just way way harder to get into college now than when we applied. What you think of as a "bad" school may be way tougher to get into than you think...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Growing up in MA it was always quite clear that Tufts was much better than BC (and always got better MA students). There was no question.

This was my impression as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like many sophomore/junior parents start out the college admissions process thinking their kid will go to a top 20 and that schools are not good enough for their child, until their kid starts comparing their stats to the stats of admitted students. Its just way way harder to get into college now than when we applied. What you think of as a "bad" school may be way tougher to get into than you think...

Exactly.
And the GPA tiers are real.

Most of the sub-NYU schools are great! (Esp if it includes Tufts; GW; Wake; NE; Tulane etc)….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like many sophomore/junior parents start out the college admissions process thinking their kid will go to a top 20 and that schools are not good enough for their child, until their kid starts comparing their stats to the stats of admitted students. Its just way way harder to get into college now than when we applied. What you think of as a "bad" school may be way tougher to get into than you think...

Exactly.
And the GPA tiers are real.

Most of the sub-NYU schools are great! (Esp if it includes Tufts; GW; Wake; NE; Tulane etc)….

I guess we can also call them the sub-Rutgers (The State University of New Jersey) schools!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like many sophomore/junior parents start out the college admissions process thinking their kid will go to a top 20 and that schools are not good enough for their child, until their kid starts comparing their stats to the stats of admitted students. Its just way way harder to get into college now than when we applied. What you think of as a "bad" school may be way tougher to get into than you think...

Yep, wait for the scattergrams. It’s a bloodbath. And my child goes to a NE boarding school with amazing matriculations. To see the percentage that are just straight rejected with top stats each year is jarring to say the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like many sophomore/junior parents start out the college admissions process thinking their kid will go to a top 20 and that schools are not good enough for their child, until their kid starts comparing their stats to the stats of admitted students. Its just way way harder to get into college now than when we applied. What you think of as a "bad" school may be way tougher to get into than you think...

Exactly.
And the GPA tiers are real.

Most of the sub-NYU schools are great! (Esp if it includes Tufts; GW; Wake; NE; Tulane etc)….

I guess we can also call them the sub-Rutgers (The State University of New Jersey) schools!

Rutgers #40

Whooohooo!

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind that Tufts accepts a large share from the ED pool so if Tufts is your number 1 choice, you should ED the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP when were you applying to colleges? IME in the early 2000’s, Tufts was more desirable than BC because it would be grouped in with prestigious, culturally-similar SLACs like Williams.

I went to an elite high school close-ish to Boston and pretty much all of my friend group went to ivies, with some Gtown, Duke mixed in. In this environment Tufts was considered second-tier (out of let’s say 4) and totally respectable, while BU was definitely a safety and not too many people matriculated there.

I have never heard of “smaller version of Harvard” though and do think that’s hilarious.

Agree. Also went to an elite HS outside of Boston with a lot of Ivy admits.

Are you both talking about public or private?

[Anonymous]

BC has far surpassed tufts in Boston and nationally.

The value proposition is lacking at tufts and will continue to do so. It’s caught in no-man’s land

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like many sophomore/junior parents start out the college admissions process thinking their kid will go to a top 20 and that schools are not good enough for their child, until their kid starts comparing their stats to the stats of admitted students. Its just way way harder to get into college now than when we applied. What you think of as a "bad" school may be way tougher to get into than you think...

Exactly.
And the GPA tiers are real.

Most of the sub-NYU schools are great! (Esp if it includes Tufts; GW; Wake; NE; Tulane etc)….

None of these schools have a compelling proposition over BC, nova, SMU, CU-Boulder, UGA, UT-Austin, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like many sophomore/junior parents start out the college admissions process thinking their kid will go to a top 20 and that schools are not good enough for their child, until their kid starts comparing their stats to the stats of admitted students. Its just way way harder to get into college now than when we applied. What you think of as a "bad" school may be way tougher to get into than you think...

Exactly.
And the GPA tiers are real.

Most of the sub-NYU schools are great! (Esp if it includes Tufts; GW; Wake; NE; Tulane etc)….

None of these schools have a compelling proposition over BC, nova, SMU, CU-Boulder, UGA, UT-Austin, etc

Disagree.
Small class sizes and access to professors and Wall Street network?