Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

Stupid comparison. All four are great schools

Indeed, but the Vandy boosters and the like are the ones not liking the new methodology.

Because it is becoming harder to justify paying double or triple the money to go to these privates over a top notch state school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

I would take Vandy and WashU over UCLA and Berkeley any day. I’m not instate California and would also not want to sit in a class with 1000 other students

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

Not really. From a research funding and breadth of excellence in graduate programs and faculty standpoint there is no way Wash U or Vandy can compare to Cal and UCLA. So having this opinion is not "provincial".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

Stupid comparison. All four are great schools

Yea well, then why are Vandy, Wash U and others suddenly complaining about the rankings then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

^ typical DCUM wealthy poster who probably doesn't like the new methodology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

Stupid comparison. All four are great schools

Indeed, but the Vandy boosters and the like are the ones not liking the new methodology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my short time on this forum, the only “top” school that never gets bashed is Harvard. All other schools are Harvard wannabes

All non-Harvard Ivy League students are Harvard rejects

Not true. My kid chose Princeton over Harvard for the focus on the undergraduate education and the community.

Editorial only: Harvard is a brand and the place reeks of tourists and wannabes wearing Harvard swag.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

You must have gone to school in the west coast cause you sound quite provincial

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

Stupid comparison. All four are great schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Agreed. And c’mon, the rankings used to be biased in favor of factors that favor small rich private schools and now the factors are more balanced. Can anyone really quibble with a Berkeley or a UCLA being ahead of a Vanderbilt or a Wash U? Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

no, that's not what I"m saying. The point is that a lot of the wealthy families (typical DCUM posters) don't care about how well a school can educate the non wealthy. But, the vast majority of this country are not typical wealthy DCUM posters, and a ranking that looks like how well it can educate and provide a spring board for such students on towards a good career and future is much more applicable to the rest of the 95%ers than a ranking that purely looks at what $80K/year buys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.

So the bottom 95% gets financial aid? Good to know, we're 92nd percentile.

Anonymous wrote:In my short time on this forum, the only “top” school that never gets bashed is Harvard. All other schools are Harvard wannabes

All non-Harvard Ivy League students are Harvard rejects

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I’m saying is that the posters who obsess over “fit” are also taking the rankings into account. They’re just in denial. Using the engineering major above as an example, of course if you’re looking for engineering you look at schools that have the major - and you pick the highest one you can get into.

So when posters say “my kid is going to [insert name of obscure second tier private liberal arts college here] because it’s the best fit,” what they really mean is it’s the best school their kid got into with the major they want.

Just curious, how would you define a "top" school?

I’d start with “not a second tier liberal arts college.”

How far down on the National list do you define top?

Look, to be clear, I’m not saying you have to go to a top school. I’m saying you have to go if you CAN, and I don’t think there’s any reason to bullshit about “fit” when you can’t. You’re not at a non-top school because of “fit” - you’re there because it’s the best school you got into and that’s that. No reason to sugar coat it.

One of my kids did not go to a top school. She went to a pretty average state school. We’re proud of her regardless. But she doesn’t tell anyone she went there for “fit” and we don’t either. We say she went there because she got in with terrible grades but great test scores. We don’t say “she hated UVA and it just wasn’t the right fit.” That’s what parents who lie to themselves do.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's wonderful that colleges are generous with money and Pell Grants for those in need of financial assistance. I don't see how that factor makes a school more academically superior to any other school.

It's easy enough to educate wealthy kids and to have them go on to high paying jobs and become movers and shakers.

Much harder to that for kids who don't come from wealthy families. That's why IMO, that ranking kind of makes sense. The vast majority of people in this country aren't from the 5%.