Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 13:54     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Emory, Vandy, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Rice, CMU, and WashU are lower Ivy Plus. Same as Cornell.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 12:53     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
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.


+1
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 12:16     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
I think geographic undesirable plays a role (no one is staying in St Louis which is a pit) and also lack of a robust engineering program. Kids would rather go to Northwestern, USC, Vanderbilt
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 11:55     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Tufts and NYU also didn't make it. I thought at first the companies they asked about these schools lean toward businesses and businesses majors so washu and Tufts wouldn't be there, as businesses isn't their Forte. But NYU should be there is that's the case.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 11:40     Subject: Re:Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
OP- I was also surprised. Great school.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 11:06     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
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).


Not sure how you picked these specifically, and it will depend on expected return by major. In general, OOS at Cal and UCLA don't seem worth it. You just aren't getting your money's worth for what you are getting.


💯 agree.
Parents whose kids are there now agree.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 11:05     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:I feel like WUSTL has been falling in prestige over the past decade. While the schools in the Forbes list have been rising. I wouldn't be surprised is WUSTL became like Tufts in the next 10 years, Top 40 known as a good school, but not a highly desired one.


Agree
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 11:05     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
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).


Northwestern?
JHU?
Vanderbilt?
Rice?
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 11:00     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
I feel like WUSTL has been falling in prestige over the past decade. While the schools in the Forbes list have been rising. I wouldn't be surprised is WUSTL became like Tufts in the next 10 years, Top 40 known as a good school, but not a highly desired one.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 10:59     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
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).


Not sure how you picked these specifically, and it will depend on expected return by major. In general, OOS at Cal and UCLA don't seem worth it. You just aren't getting your money's worth for what you are getting.

Completely agree
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 10:57     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
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).


Not sure how you picked these specifically, and it will depend on expected return by major. In general, OOS at Cal and UCLA don't seem worth it. You just aren't getting your money's worth for what you are getting.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 10:42     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
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
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 10:38     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
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.
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 10:35     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
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).
Anonymous
Post 05/10/2024 10:17     Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
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