Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Well that’s great but it doesn’t make either better schools.

Sounds like I hit a sore spot. I’d rather not sit in a huge room where the TA teaches

Not all of us need our hands held so tightly

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

Well Cal doesn't have a medical school so that may be issue with just limiting to NIH funding. Here is a list of top R&D dollars at universities and half are public. Vandy and WashU are 24 and 25, kind of where they should be, no?

https://universitybusiness.com/r-d-research-and-development-billion-dollar-top-30-college-university-higher-ed-spenders/

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Well that’s great but it doesn’t make either better schools.

Sounds like I hit a sore spot. I’d rather not sit in a huge room where the TA teaches

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Are you really this uninformed? I’m referencing the two state schools that climbed highest and two of the top privates that dropped below them. I’m not picking schools at random.

You’re the one uninformed as you picked two public schools that went up on one ranking which looked at social mobility.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

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?

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

Well that’s great but it doesn’t make either better schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

If NIH funding was the most important thing, and the only funding available, then you'd have a point, but...

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?

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

Are you really this uninformed? I’m referencing the two state schools that climbed highest and two of the top privates that dropped below them. I’m not picking schools at random.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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".

Actually WashU had much more NIH funding than Berkeley or UCLA.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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:

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?

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

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?

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