Outcomes - Prestige and Perceptions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. I would never pay to send my kid to GMU. It was basically a commuter community college when I was growing up.

My friends who went there in the 90’s turned out to be a dentist, physician and consultant. They are not doing too badly and saved some money in the process.

Yes, the "when I was growing up" is the key to the first PP. It's 2021 and that is no longer the case.

There have been several high-ranking execs and politicals at my agency, who interact with Cabinet-Level and White House officials, and they all went to GMU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except those entering college in Fall of 2020 - they were given huge gifts of one, two or more places ahead of what they would have been during a "normal" year. SO many kids deferred, that opened up tons of spaces.

I am not claiming this is untrue, but I would like to know where the data supporting this statement is.

You just have to compare actual enrollment between 2019 and 2020 (and maybe 2018). If the actual enrollment number went down AND test score ranges also dropped that should give you some insight into where the students originally admitted (most likely with higher test scores) deferred allowing students with lower stats to take those spots. Lots of variables but might get at what you are looking for. Doubt any report what would answer your question directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except those entering college in Fall of 2020 - they were given huge gifts of one, two or more places ahead of what they would have been during a "normal" year. SO many kids deferred, that opened up tons of spaces.

I am not claiming this is untrue, but I would like to know where the data supporting this statement is.

You just have to compare actual enrollment between 2019 and 2020 (and maybe 2018). If the actual enrollment number went down AND test score ranges also dropped that should give you some insight into where the students originally admitted (most likely with higher test scores) deferred allowing students with lower stats to take those spots. Lots of variables but might get at what you are looking for. Doubt any report what would answer your question directly.

Just look at Section C2 of the Common Data Set which will tell you the number of kids admitted off the waitlist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

Or, you could start by realizing that there is no such thing as tiers. There are lots of great schools that are filled with more than any kid could possibly learn. Find one you like and can afford. That is all.

+1000000. Thank you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. I would never pay to send my kid to GMU. It was basically a commuter community college when I was growing up.

And that was what - 30 years ago? You do realize things change, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

Or, you could start by realizing that there is no such thing as tiers. There are lots of great schools that are filled with more than any kid could possibly learn. Find one you like and can afford. That is all.

+1000000. Thank you

The ordinal ranking of USNWR causes an inordinate focus on rankings often based minute differences on metrics, and those metrics often have nothing to do with outcomes or quality of education. They are much more based on inputs. A tier system like the "tier 1 = top 10, tier 2 = 11-25ish" is similarly arbitrary. Based on current USNWR, that would put Northwestern in Tier 1 and Duke in Tier 2. I can't see any justification for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

Or, you could start by realizing that there is no such thing as tiers. There are lots of great schools that are filled with more than any kid could possibly learn. Find one you like and can afford. That is all.

+1000000. Thank you

The ordinal ranking of USNWR causes an inordinate focus on rankings often based minute differences on metrics, and those metrics often have nothing to do with outcomes or quality of education. They are much more based on inputs. A tier system like the "tier 1 = top 10, tier 2 = 11-25ish" is similarly arbitrary. Based on current USNWR, that would put Northwestern in Tier 1 and Duke in Tier 2. I can't see any justification for that.

Well yeah, no one should consider the USNews ranking to be anywhere near definite.

People do not consider Harvard to be peers with Northwestern, so by definition they are not in the same tier.
Even a school like Caltech, which is ranked similarly to Northwestern, is going to be considered more elite/prestigious/impressive than Northwestern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh Yes, the way this board treats Emory as if it's a safety for every student with above a 1400, just to be surprised in March. It's less about perception and more about not wanting things to change. Because if schools like Emory and Vandy become very prestigious (they already are) then other schools will become less prestigious like north east LAC's or everyone's favorite public school UVA.

Emory and Vandy could not compete with UVA on student quality 30 years ago. That's FAR from the truth today.

Hey, I take offense! I was admitted to both. Chose Vandy. Loved it and hoping DC gets in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.

NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-ranking...world-university-rankings/2021
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #187, Georgetown #230)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-univers...ank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #111, Georgetown #120))

Even USNEWS has Cornell at #22 globally, while dropping Vanderbilt to #72 and Georgetown to #322
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.

We are talking about prestige and perception which is not -- and cannot -- be based solely on "undergrad". Views of a schools prestige is influenced by the interactions others have with a university in any and all of its facets (undergrad, graduate, professional, faculty, research, alumni, etc.).

You're wrong. See post 16:24 above. If what you're saying was somehow true, UT Austin must be more prestigious than Dartmouth and Brown. UT Austin's highly ranked graduate programs, its large alumni base, and global reach must mean it's more prestigious than Dartmouth whose medical school is ranked 45th. Most people in the know realize prestige of a university comes from it's undergraduate program, which is why Dartmouth is more coveted than almost all of the schools mentioned.

You sound like a clueless 18 year old who was just admitted to Dartmouth.

Nothing clueless about it karen. If graduate schools mattered for prestige then schools like UT Austin and U washington would be prestigious and schools like Dartmouth, Brown, and Notre Dame would not. Notre Dame also doesn't have any reputable graduate programs yet it's still Notre Dame and one of the most sought after schools in the nation. Just say your wrong if you have no argument to the contrary, instead of throwing insults.

I didn't have any prior interaction with Dartmouth before coming to DCUM, but nearly every single interaction on DCUM with a Dartmouth student/alum/booster has been hilariously negative and absurd. Needless to say, there's a reason why this pitiful school is crashing down on US News Rankings. Have fun holding onto whatever quickly diminishing notion of prestige Dartmouth has!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other way around is probably William and Mary in Virginia. The school has seen falling applications, drops in rankings, etc. but is still perceived as very prestigious by older individuals.

Miami of Ohio and University of Vermont followed the same trajectory, only a generation earlier. At some point time catches up and colleges can't rely on historic perceptions to recruit students when they have nothing else to show for it.

Incorrect. From 2004-2005 to 2020-2021, William and Mary had an 81% increase in applications with increases in applications in 14 of the 16 years. This year had a 23% increase in applications.

You are correct that William and Mary has had some decline in the USNWR national university ranking, where it went from 31 to 39 from 2004 to 2020, but it isn't alone. UVA went from 21 to 26th during the same period. USNWR is somewhat problematic for William and Mary because some of the ratings like financial resources are positively influenced by having medical schools and engineering schools, which William and Mary does not have, unlike almost all of the schools above it in the rankings. It has, however, remained close to the top and is currently 4th in quality of undergraduate teaching.

It not having an engineering school and medical school counts against it in the ranking, but it does so in reality as well, so you are only just supporting my argument.

This is the 21st century when healthcare and technology sectors are the driving forces of the economy.
Schools like MIT and Stanford have become as renowned as Harvard and perhaps surpassed Princeton & Yale due to their strengths in engineering and sciences.

Miami of Ohio is another school that doesn't have a medical or engineering school. It's also ranked very highly in the "undergraduate teaching" list. That's a bit meaningless in terms of prestige though. Looks like W&M is facing the same issue.

UVA dropped in the same period, it's also weak in engineering and sciences. Again, just adding to my point.

Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan and Georgia Tech have either stayed the same, or increased. Same for UT-Austin.

You can argue all you want that I supported your point, but when you start with the completely erroneous claim that applications have declined when in fact they have risen for 14 of the last 16 years and rose 23% this year, you have clearly undermined yourself and any subsequent claims you make. You need to own your mistakes and misstatement rather than trying to deflect.

You don't get any facts straight before you post. You say Miami of Ohio doesn't have an engineering school. That is wrong. You suggest Miami of Ohio and the University of Vermont were highly ranked (by US News) but they never were. They appeared in a book called The Public Ivies from the 1980s, but that was really just the view of one person and was never reflected in US News.

I never stated that Miami of Ohio or University of Vermont were ranked highly by US News. I said it was held in high regard in the past, and has since fallen off and lost its luster. Pretty sure USNews did not even do rankings in the 1980s.

That you are referencing a highly referred to book regarding "Public Ivies", which many universities still today use in their advertising material, only further helps my point about how Miami of Ohio and UVM were held in high regard once. As you yourself pointed out, USNews ranks both Miami and UVM rather low today, nowhere close to their supposed "Public Ivy" peers. Older generations will still consider Miami a prestigious school but middle-aged individuals today don't.

W&M is going through the same generational change. Middle-aged adults today consider it to be a prestigious school. It's falling out of popularity rapidly with younger adults. When those young adults become middle-aged, they will not view it as a prestigious school. Of course, the middle-aged adults that are then seniors still might, but they will be retired and will have no influence in the job market.

That is, of course, if W&M continues on its current trajectory. But the future outlook for small, public liberal arts colleges isn't very good. It may as well privatize, or pseudo-privatize as UVA has.

Where do you get this idea from? It's just not true. My DD is a W&M grad who lives on the West Coast, where here degree has served her very well. Her colleagues attended Ivies, Stanford, Berkeley, etc, and she fits right in.

Regarding WM's drop in the rankings a couple of years ago, here's a long explanation https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2018/changes-in-methodology-impact-wms-spot-in-u.s.-news-annual-list.php

Nice one! Have you considered stand-up comedy? You'd be amazing at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I went to HS in LA in the 80s. I don't think I'll ever be able to see USC as particularly prestigious.

+2 The kids from my hs that went to USC were mediocre students that couldn't get into UCLA, Cal or UCSD.

I graduated HS in Seattle in the early 90s. A lot of my friends were Asian and they all called it derisively “University of Spoiled Chinese”. Basically, where rich but mediocre Asians went because they could not get accepted to the more prestigious state schools. I remember it was even a safety for UW, if you could afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

Or, you could start by realizing that there is no such thing as tiers. There are lots of great schools that are filled with more than any kid could possibly learn. Find one you like and can afford. That is all.

+1000000. Thank you

The ordinal ranking of USNWR causes an inordinate focus on rankings often based minute differences on metrics, and those metrics often have nothing to do with outcomes or quality of education. They are much more based on inputs. A tier system like the "tier 1 = top 10, tier 2 = 11-25ish" is similarly arbitrary. Based on current USNWR, that would put Northwestern in Tier 1 and Duke in Tier 2. I can't see any justification for that.

Well yeah, no one should consider the USNews ranking to be anywhere near definite.

People do not consider Harvard to be peers with Northwestern, so by definition they are not in the same tier.
Even a school like Caltech, which is ranked similarly to Northwestern, is going to be considered more elite/prestigious/impressive than Northwestern.

I disagree. Caltech is a niche school, so it is apples and oranges. Dumb to put them in the same list at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. I would never pay to send my kid to GMU. It was basically a commuter community college when I was growing up.

My friends who went there in the 90’s turned out to be a dentist, physician and consultant. They are not doing too badly and saved some money in the process.

Yes, the "when I was growing up" is the key to the first PP. It's 2021 and that is no longer the case.

There have been several high-ranking execs and politicals at my agency, who interact with Cabinet-Level and White House officials, and they all went to GMU.

Anyone who wasn’t GOP trash?

It’s a school for RWNJs. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason Cornell was brought into the conversation was to dispute the notion that Vanderbilt is a regional school. The point was made that every school, even the best, have a strong regional pull. Cornell’s student body is one-third New York State and no one considers it a regional school. Arguing that Cornell is an international school further makes the point. By comparison, Vanderbilt admits nowhere near one-third of its students from Tennessee.

New York has three times as many people as Tennessee, so this is a terrible way to make the argument even though I agree that Cornell is not a regional school.

Part of Cornell is a STATE school so it is not like the other iveys

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't have any prior interaction with Dartmouth before coming to DCUM, but nearly every single interaction on DCUM with a Dartmouth student/alum/booster has been hilariously negative and absurd. Needless to say, there's a reason why this pitiful school is crashing down on US News Rankings. Have fun holding onto whatever quickly diminishing notion of prestige Dartmouth has!

If by "crashing down on US News Rankings" means bounding from 9 to 12 over the last 20 years, then yes.

No relationship to Dartmouth at all, but I recommend you keep your stupid bullshit to things that can't be disproved in 15 seconds of googling.