I thought Tufts was good, but . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Maybe so. I was just glad to see it didn't get clobbered in the new rankings (and also agree the rankings are a bit silly).

[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. It's 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...

I was disabused of the top 20 notion for my kids much earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The chances you get great front office jobs from those schools you mentioned (tufts, gw wake ne Tulane) is markedly smaller than full targets especially in 2024

This a purgatory group of schools. Once you get dinged from t20, it’s time to index for other attributes (while maintaining some level of academic quality) and not just blindly go to the “highest ranked” school you can get into.

[Anonymous]

I live in the Boston area and think Tufts, NE, BC, and Brandeis are all about the same in terms of connections to area jobs. If your DC is interested in finance or business, I would also say check out Providence College. I worked at Fidelity and many of my peers “went to school in Providence”. I assumed they meant Brown. But nope - Providence College. It seems that school has a good entry into Fidelity which is great starting base for an asset management career.

In terms of more national recognition, Tufts may have the edge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Threads created just to bash schools are so tiresome.

Tufts was ranked in the high 20s/low 30s for many years. The new US News ranking formula moved a lot of privates downward and publics upward. The quality of Tufts didn't change from 2022 to 2023.

+1

IYKYK. People who know do not post these ridiculous threads - but keep checking your "rankings", OP!

Nothing is worse than UVA strivers' posts,,

[Anonymous]

The BC booster is so off the wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The chances you get great front office jobs from those schools you mentioned (tufts, gw wake ne Tulane) is markedly smaller than full targets especially in 2024

This a purgatory group of schools. Once you get dinged from t20, it’s time to index for other attributes (while maintaining some level of academic quality) and not just blindly go to the “highest ranked” school you can get into.

Just have to disagree here.
I’m not hiring the kid from Indiana over finance at Wake…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The chances you get great front office jobs from those schools you mentioned (tufts, gw wake ne Tulane) is markedly smaller than full targets especially in 2024

This a purgatory group of schools. Once you get dinged from t20, it’s time to index for other attributes (while maintaining some level of academic quality) and not just blindly go to the “highest ranked” school you can get into.

Just have to disagree here.
I’m not hiring the kid from Indiana over finance at Wake…

Also small class size key for my kids….

[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.

Bingo

Plus 100 - not that you can’t get a good education at Rutgers by any means, and I think the obsession with rankings is a little silly but for me, it’s a question of where my DC will have a better experience both academically and socially. The mid size schools mentioned seem to me to offer much more in terms of focus on undergrads, mentoring, less bureaucracy etc…

No question some of these schools are $$$$ and in strictly an ROI sense maybe that doesn’t compute BUT you have to know your kid. I suspect many kids are going to do better, take advantage of more opportunities, etc at the smaller school and that may lead to a better outcome and ROI on an individual level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always thought Holy Cross was a top SLAC - based solely on the arrogance of an asshat cousin growing up who acted like he walked on water. I’m sort of annoyed with myself for assuming he was right.

Same here with Hamilton.

Nearly every sentence started with, “At Hamilton…” We were in our 30s when this was going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in the Boston area and think Tufts, NE, BC, and Brandeis are all about the same in terms of connections to area jobs. If your DC is interested in finance or business, I would also say check out Providence College. I worked at Fidelity and many of my peers “went to school in Providence”. I assumed they meant Brown. But nope - Providence College. It seems that school has a good entry into Fidelity which is great starting base for an asset management career.

In terms of more national recognition, Tufts may have the edge?

SHHHHH do not tell the ignorant locals, whose favorite past time is posting about "rankings" on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The chances you get great front office jobs from those schools you mentioned (tufts, gw wake ne Tulane) is markedly smaller than full targets especially in 2024

This a purgatory group of schools. Once you get dinged from t20, it’s time to index for other attributes (while maintaining some level of academic quality) and not just blindly go to the “highest ranked” school you can get into.

Just have to disagree here.
I’m not hiring the kid from Indiana over finance at Wake…

A similar student from Kelley and wake have the same front office opportunities

Terrible example

[Anonymous]

People want to let their kids pick a school that is the best match for what they want academically and socially, but the reality is that most families can’t carte blanche support that decision. This leads to disingenuous posts attacking school ratings and characteristics of schools that may or may not matter to someone.

My advice - set parameters and don’t allow your child to get excited about a school that you can’t afford or is not an option geographically.

[Anonymous]

The problem here is OP's inferior complex, not Tufts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The chances you get great front office jobs from those schools you mentioned (tufts, gw wake ne Tulane) is markedly smaller than full targets especially in 2024

This a purgatory group of schools. Once you get dinged from t20, it’s time to index for other attributes (while maintaining some level of academic quality) and not just blindly go to the “highest ranked” school you can get into.

Just have to disagree here.
I’m not hiring the kid from Indiana over finance at Wake…

Sure, but there are pretty people like you all over with different personal biases. Meanwhile successful companies hire for talent.