For Fellow Asians: What are the Popular Schools You've Seen Kids Looking at?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Eh I disagree, for undergrad Duke is pretty much as good as it gets. If you're looking at other rankings, just know in general rankings fluctuate every year. Last year Harvard was #15 on Forbes for example, but now it's #9 which is still a joke. And last year Duke was #5 on WSJ and #9 on Forbes. 
|
Anonymous
I went to Penn undergrad and Duke for grad school, so I feel somewhat qualified to answer this. Interestingly, I mostly agree, I think Duke is the better undergrad school and Penn is the better grad school. Generally I consider both law schools and med schools as peers with strong research and outcomes. Wharton MBA is significantly better than Fuqua though which I think is the main difference in grad school strength, and really a primary draw to Penn. For my own kid I would recommend for them to do Duke undergrad and Penn grad, which is the order for both institutions I also would have preferred. |
Anonymous
What people considering Duke and Chicago (and others) should be aware of is where they might end up as the rankings evolve. The main ranking institutions have undergone significant methodology changes recently that have hurt and will continue to comparatively hurt certain schools (many very good but maybe not quite elite private schools are the ones who are nervous). People should be aware that median 10-year earnings are lower at Duke than they are at schools like Penn, Dartmouth, Williams, and Georgetown. That doesn't mean Duke isn't a great school, it just means there is a lot more info than USNWR rank that people should consider. Rankings are great for grouping universities and Duke is one where people are divided as to which schools are truly its peers. You can go either way but make your assessment knowing the data and with your eyes wide open! |
Anonymous
TBH the median 10-year earnings mostly measure what regions the "average" students from each school settle in. Most of the ambitious kids at all these top schools get recruited out the gate to big cities and by 10 years into their career are receiving most of their compensation through bonuses, stock/equity, etc. which are not part of base salary measures and will fluctuate year-by-year. Of course tech still has a fairly high base salary, but many of the other high-earning professions like finance and consulting will not have the compensation properly reflected through salary. The 10-year base salary is more about the cost-of-living of where the more balance-oriented grads at these schools end up. So more kids who go to Rice will have low COL in Texas where the salaries may be slightly lower, but their dollar will go much further. Same with Duke grads in North Carolina, who can live extremely comfortably with a salary that the DMV would consider difficult to get by on. This would also apply for Northwestern grads who may not even settle in Chicago, but another part of the midwest where their $$ goes a long way. So, as for now, I just stick with US News for a ballpark approximation of where schools are and then look at things like salary with the appropriate context of where the school is. |
Anonymous
According to NCES, about 2/3 of undergrad Asian students receive some kind of grant, less than 10% different from white students. The average Asian grant was just over 20% more than for whites. So I think your theory that Princeton Review’s ROI methodology neglects the Asian market is simply wrong. WPI is not an LAC, it’s a university, so you are actually sharing evidence that even universities can have a lot of visiting profs. At least the undergrad is the priority of the prof, visiting or not, at an LAC. At a university, research and grad students will be. USNWR only recently started with CS rankings. When evaluating at the level of a dept, survey respondents will naturally favor those schools they have heard about most, which means the ones with publishing the most cited research, which will naturally be universities. But when evaluating at the level of an individual student, they favor those who actually learned the material the best and have already done research at the undergrad level. Some universities are great at both, but LACs disproportionately send alumni to grad programs for a reason. The students are more likely to have meaningful roles in undergrad research since there’s no competition with grad students. The faculty also spend more time with undergrads when there are no grad students, so the letters of recommendation are also more meaningful. There’s even evidence that grads of LACs finish PhD programs more rapidly because they enter better prepared. So decide whether it’s more important that your child attends a school where others are doing great stuff but themselves are less likely to get into grad school or they themselves are doing what’s going to improve their odds of going to grad school. If grad school isn’t of interest, LACs lose some of their appeal. Yes of course good students can get into grad school from anywhere, but I am speaking of bumping the odds. Haverford is a fantastic school by the way. I think most reading this thread would be very fortunate to have their child study CS there. They are generally among the top 10 for sending students to PhD programs. Per Payscale, they also have higher mid career earnings than many universities with USNWR top 50 engineering and top 50 CS rank, even without offering engineering themselves. Besides the above reasons to consider LACs a high quality learning environment, there’s also this reality: most people are incredibly unsophisticated shoppers of higher education. They erroneously conclude one ranking or low admit rates provides all the info they need to put together a college list. So they all apply to the same places with near perfect stats in a test optional, grade-inflated landscape, then are surprised to get rejected. There are more and sometimes better opportunities for those who dig deeper. |
Anonymous
| UVA, the Harvard of Virginia! |
Anonymous
A lot of truth in this post. I would take hed if I were you. Take heed. MY DC was accepted at several top SLACs (Haverford was one, but kid did not accept) where there were not "too many Asians." Other similar Asian kids (slightly more impressive ones) were shut out of 10 to 12 Ivy plus schools and and ended up at weak safeties. It was all in the strategy, not the qualifications, since all kids were very qualified. |
Anonymous
| I wish Asians would spread out more. Some of the “colleges that change lives” schools sound great but %age Asian is low at a lot of them. Having AA %age of at least 10% or more is ideal for a variety of reasons. Maybe they collectively should do some outreach to Asian Am communities. |
Anonymous
Many are interested in increased their diversity in a variety of ways and some provide good merit $$ with high stats. Grinnell and the MN LACs, Carelton included, can be good options! |
Anonymous
Yup, buying their students of color. They did in the 90s and it’s still going! |
Anonymous
If your high stats student is too proud to accept merit aid, then you can pay full price somewhere else. No one is forcing you to accept it. |
Anonymous
+1, it’s good Carleton is offering merit aid to recruit kids it wants, everyone wins. Many kids want the Carleton experience and making it affordable is a positive. |
Anonymous
LOL. |
Anonymous
Harvard of Central Virginia |
Anonymous
|
Anyone hear an Asian parent with kids who are more average students? My kids would be lucky to get into UVA, much less any of the typically listed schools, nor would they have the desire to apply.
|