Is this the Top 1-30 that everyone is referring to? I'm so confused when people reference T1 or T20 or T30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lists are worthless unless you have no clue what you want to study. Look at the program first and the school second.

Majority changes their major and/or track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think UCLA belongs. Their ROI is extremely low. One of the worst paid graduates. That’s why they did so poorly on WSJ’s ranking. Their students are too concerned with social life. In fact it’s the biggest reason I noticed why people want to go there.

Where did you notice this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Harvard
2. Stanford
3. MIT
4. Yale
5. Princeton
6. UC Berkeley
7. Caltech
8. Columbia
9. UCLA
10. U Chicago

11. Penn
12. Duke
13. Brown
14. UC San Diego
15. NYU
16. Michigan
17. USC
18. Cornell
19. UT Austin
20. UNC Chapel Hill

21. Johns Hopkins U
22. Dartmouth
23. Rice
24. Pomona
25. Williams
26. Washington U (St. LouisK)
27. UW Madison
28. Swarthmore
29. Vanderbilt
30. UW Seattle
31. Northwestern

This is (more or less) what everyone that matters in this conversation thinks:

https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/resources/universities/us-colleges-rankings/

Crimson? The international student scam organization?

I didn't know about scan but I do know they have a lot of students that have to choose between to schools so they have access to data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think UCLA belongs. Their ROI is extremely low. One of the worst paid graduates. That’s why they did so poorly on WSJ’s ranking. Their students are too concerned with social life. In fact it’s the biggest reason I noticed why people want to go there.

Where did you notice this?

Social media. Particularly those YouTube videos where people make their college decisions. Most common rationale for UCLA is “I worked so hard in high school, I don’t want to stress out too much in college and enjoy it”, or something to that effect. And it makes perfect sense when you look at their ROI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think UCLA belongs. Their ROI is extremely low. One of the worst paid graduates. That’s why they did so poorly on WSJ’s ranking. Their students are too concerned with social life. In fact it’s the biggest reason I noticed why people want to go there.

Where did you notice this?

Social media. Particularly those YouTube videos where people make their college decisions. Most common rationale for UCLA is “I worked so hard in high school, I don’t want to stress out too much in college and enjoy it”, or something to that effect. And it makes perfect sense when you look at their ROI.

Where exactly is this definitive ROI? Is it on one of UCLA's trading cards? Or did you pull it out of your fundament? But please tell us more about the empirical scholarship you've done on YouTube.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think UCLA belongs. Their ROI is extremely low. One of the worst paid graduates. That’s why they did so poorly on WSJ’s ranking. Their students are too concerned with social life. In fact it’s the biggest reason I noticed why people want to go there.

Where did you notice this?

Social media. Particularly those YouTube videos where people make their college decisions. Most common rationale for UCLA is “I worked so hard in high school, I don’t want to stress out too much in college and enjoy it”, or something to that effect. And it makes perfect sense when you look at their ROI.

At least per New York Times article below, UCLA ranked #1 among its peers in economic diversity (greatest percentage of poor folk) and social mobility ("This measure reflects both access and outcomes, representing the likelihood that a student at U.C.L.A. moved up two or more income quintiles). In other words, the ROI at UCLA is incredible if you account for the fact that it educates students with far less privilege than its peers.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-california-los-angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think UCLA belongs. Their ROI is extremely low. One of the worst paid graduates. That’s why they did so poorly on WSJ’s ranking. Their students are too concerned with social life. In fact it’s the biggest reason I noticed why people want to go there.

Where did you notice this?

Social media. Particularly those YouTube videos where people make their college decisions. Most common rationale for UCLA is “I worked so hard in high school, I don’t want to stress out too much in college and enjoy it”, or something to that effect. And it makes perfect sense when you look at their ROI.

At least per New York Times article below, UCLA ranked #1 among its peers in economic diversity (greatest percentage of poor folk) and social mobility ("This measure reflects both access and outcomes, representing the likelihood that a student at U.C.L.A. moved up two or more income quintiles). In other words, the ROI at UCLA is incredible if you account for the fact that it educates students with far less privilege than its peers.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-california-los-angeles

Ok fine. But why would an UMC or wealthy family sending kids OOS care about this data point? It just means there are thousands of kids there who are unconnected, not networked. It’s awesome that the underprivledged have this opportunity truly amazing but socioeconomic diversity is the last thing I am looking at when I’m looking at schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lists are worthless unless you have no clue what you want to study. Look at the program first and the school second.

Majority changes their major and/or track.

While that's true, the majority change majors within the same college. So, CS to Data Science (happens frequently as CS is a hard major). They usually don't change from CS to History or English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So apparently there are 40+ colleges in the Top 30 ...

Well, to be fair.: some are tied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think UCLA belongs. Their ROI is extremely low. One of the worst paid graduates. That’s why they did so poorly on WSJ’s ranking. Their students are too concerned with social life. In fact it’s the biggest reason I noticed why people want to go there.

There was an outside group who ranked by ROI, and I remember they put Towson State in the top 30 by that measure LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While acknowledging that this is a silly, navel-gazing exercise bereft of any empirical basis, below are my personal set of tiers, which are very loose. I honestly don't know how one can claim, as a very general matter, that Princeton is "better" than Harvard, Duke better than Brown, or Amherst better than Pomona. People get really upset because of a ridiculous obsession with ordinal numeration. Anyhow:

Tier 1: HYPSM

Tier 2: The remaining Ivies, Duke, CalTech, JHU, Northwestern, Rice, WASP

Tier 3: UCLA, Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, CMU, Georgetown, Notre Dame, WashU, Vanderbilt, Emory, USC, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, Mudd, CMC.

Tier 4: A bunch more really good schools that are very close to the Tier 3.

To be clear, all of the schools above are really, really good. Any kid who gains admission to any one of them is blessed. But people here always forget this as they take extreme positions in an effort to distinguish nearly identical schools.

Bingo. That’s as useful a ranking as you’re gonna find.

[Anonymous]

T30

Tier 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Chicago

Tier 2: Duke, Cornell, Columbia, Northwestern,Upenn, Brown, CalTech, Johns Hopkins, Williams, Amherst

Tier 3: Dartmouth, Rice, Vandy, GTown, Emory, ND, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Pomona

Tier 4: UCLA, UVA, Umich, USC, NYU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think UCLA belongs. Their ROI is extremely low. One of the worst paid graduates. That’s why they did so poorly on WSJ’s ranking. Their students are too concerned with social life. In fact it’s the biggest reason I noticed why people want to go there.

Where did you notice this?

Social media. Particularly those YouTube videos where people make their college decisions. Most common rationale for UCLA is “I worked so hard in high school, I don’t want to stress out too much in college and enjoy it”, or something to that effect. And it makes perfect sense when you look at their ROI.

At least per New York Times article below, UCLA ranked #1 among its peers in economic diversity (greatest percentage of poor folk) and social mobility ("This measure reflects both access and outcomes, representing the likelihood that a student at U.C.L.A. moved up two or more income quintiles). In other words, the ROI at UCLA is incredible if you account for the fact that it educates students with far less privilege than its peers.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-california-los-angeles

Ok fine. But why would an UMC or wealthy family sending kids OOS care about this data point? It just means there are thousands of kids there who are unconnected, not networked. It’s awesome that the underprivledged have this opportunity truly amazing but socioeconomic diversity is the last thing I am looking at when I’m looking at schools.

Do you have data showing that more privileged graduates from UCLA have lesser career outcomes? It's hard to compare apples to apples here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While acknowledging that this is a silly, navel-gazing exercise bereft of any empirical basis, below are my personal set of tiers, which are very loose. I honestly don't know how one can claim, as a very general matter, that Princeton is "better" than Harvard, Duke better than Brown, or Amherst better than Pomona. People get really upset because of a ridiculous obsession with ordinal numeration. Anyhow:

Tier 1: HYPSM

Tier 2: The remaining Ivies, Duke, CalTech, JHU, Northwestern, Rice, WASP

Tier 3: UCLA, Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, CMU, Georgetown, Notre Dame, WashU, Vanderbilt, Emory, USC, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, Mudd, CMC.

Tier 4: A bunch more really good schools that are very close to the Tier 3.

To be clear, all of the schools above are really, really good. Any kid who gains admission to any one of them is blessed. But people here always forget this as they take extreme positions in an effort to distinguish nearly identical schools.

Is Univ of Chicago tier 4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While acknowledging that this is a silly, navel-gazing exercise bereft of any empirical basis, below are my personal set of tiers, which are very loose. I honestly don't know how one can claim, as a very general matter, that Princeton is "better" than Harvard, Duke better than Brown, or Amherst better than Pomona. People get really upset because of a ridiculous obsession with ordinal numeration. Anyhow:

Tier 1: HYPSM

Tier 2: The remaining Ivies, Duke, CalTech, JHU, Northwestern, Rice, WASP

Tier 3: UCLA, Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, CMU, Georgetown, Notre Dame, WashU, Vanderbilt, Emory, USC, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, Mudd, CMC.

Tier 4: A bunch more really good schools that are very close to the Tier 3.

To be clear, all of the schools above are really, really good. Any kid who gains admission to any one of them is blessed. But people here always forget this as they take extreme positions in an effort to distinguish nearly identical schools.

Is Univ of Chicago tier 4?

Inadvertent omission. Chicago would be Tier 2.