Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.

If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.

If this were the case, these schools would be 65% white and include substantial rural blocs. Instead, they are max 35% white undergrad and trending downward. The goal is to look like a UN or WEF symposium, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

WUSTL is sought after at our private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nope. Rice and Vanderbilt are good but they are not peers to any Ivy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find out why?

There probably isn't some specific data point. As always with college rankings, it's perception and groupthink. For some reason, Boston College is an it school this year. Who knows why. WashU not so much. And again who knows why. I'd guess WashU students are more academically gifted than BC students, but Missouri probably doesn't help. It's a great campus in a nice area, but it's not a desirable region. Missouri really needs to get it together. Tennessee has Nashville. Texas is Texas. But St. Louis, Missouri feels pretty remote and that affects things.

There is little difference between the students at BC, Wash, Emory, Vandy or any of the like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.

If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.

DP but UMC white kids don’t get anything. Colleges think they’ll be fine wherever they go and pass right over them. It’s WEALTHY white kids who get in. And PP doesn’t seem to have a problem with it - calling it an expressway is a dig. Breathe.

A cross section of America would have a lot more Latinos and Whites and less Asians and AA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

I think this observation is correct, based on watching my own child and their friends go through this. A lot of these kids would have been at Ivies/Stanford/MIT back in my day. They are still heading to great schools, but top 20 universities and SLACs, plus some really strong state schools instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nope. Rice and Vanderbilt are good but they are not peers to any Ivy.

Rice, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Berkeley, Notre Dame are all getting very good students these days. At least the equivalent of all the Ivies. The fixation on the Ivy League is a little dated.

[Anonymous]

Its a good school but not same caliber?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

Corrected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nope. Rice and Vanderbilt are good but they are not peers to any Ivy.

Yes they are they're low ivys along with the rest if the privates listed in forbes new ivy list, sans BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nope. Rice and Vanderbilt are good but they are not peers to any Ivy.

Rice, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Berkeley, Notre Dame are all getting very good students these days. At least the equivalent of all the Ivies. The fixation on the Ivy League is a little dated.

Michigan sneak...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its a good school but not same caliber?

To say WashU isn't the same caliber as Emory, Vandy, CMU, Notre Dame etc is CRAZY. One of the criteria for forbes, was employers naming the school. Those Employers probably didn't name WashU and were.more familiar with BC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

MIT is better than HYP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because no one will go to St Louis any more. Chicago of the south.

Huh? Chicago is great. STL is a dump. And the politics are crap.

Chicago - the part where U Chicago is - is a total dump. Is WUSTL in a crime-plagued ghetto like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this in another thread, and am curious about your thoughts. I see Rice, Emory, and Vandy are there but not WashU? Their acceptance rate is below 20%, there SAT scores are well into the 1500's, so what happened?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1202042.page

Not feeling WashU.

Missouri isn't a first rate college destination.