Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

Huh? Dozens of kids from our high school go to T25 privates OR UCB/Mich types. They still hang out when they come home. The kids at privates whether it be WashU or Chicago or Ivies all have had fun and are social, as are the flagship kids. The more competitive schools at the very top have a bit more competitive spirit but the ones who picked these were the ones at the very top of the high school and that is a good environment for them--they thrive with it. All of these students mention they rarely go out more than 1-2 nights a week and they all spend a large part of the weekend studying. Most are premed/stem so maybe that is why, but they are not lacking socially. That is how they describe the culture at their varied schools. The ones at the private schools do not have the 500+ lecture hall stories because they do not have more than one or two classes above 200.

UVA is ranked correctly

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

ivies and top private kids do not spend time thinking about state school choices they let go. quite the contrary

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Occam’s razor applies here, it seems - people get rejected, or see their kid(s) get rejected, and all of a sudden that school becomes the target of their ire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

That person keeps making that claim even though no one else is indicating it. Makes me think there is a bit of projecting going on there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

I never said that we are OOS …

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

you truly do go to extreme lengths to justify paying out of state tuition after the bitter sting of rejection

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by social experience and quality of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

If you don't think the above can be had at the top privates, you are the ill-adjusted one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Social experience, quality of life, and research budget don’t mean much to you, apparently. Checks out. College is a pre-professional trade school for your kid(s), and I’m sure they are happy, well-adjusted souls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience),[/b] the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

False. I have had one graduate ivy and one more than half through a t10private. Both provide the bold in spades. None of their high school classmates from fancy dc private have had anywhere near the same extent as the bolded , at UCLA and michigan. Big classes, no ability to get into labs or school-year internships early, no pay for said opportunities for the few who get them, too many competing to curry favor with the same professors in large first yr classes.

DP

Describe the application profile for your two kids, please. How well-rounded are they? ECs?

Unhooked white kids with 1520 and 1560, took the hardest APs the school offered, almost entirely 5s: I have listed the non-EC because that matters first and foremost. ECs : each had a different art activity they did for over a decade with awards regional/state, each had impactful volunteering outside of school, each had at least one club president, one had substantial school and statewide academic awards, one had local/school academic honors(rare at their school). Both had LOR that they were shown later that indicated best in the year or on one case best in many years. Most of the unhooked peers at their colleges have similar resumes, some a little less, and several friends there are even more impressive.

Following up …

- Unhooked white kid
- Full pay
- NMSF/F
- Large public HS, consistently ranked as one of Top 100 in the U.S.
- 15 AP classes, 6 honors classes, no DE
- 13 AP exams, 12x 5, 1x 4
- Varsity team sport, 4 years at Varsity level, 3 year starter, 2x state champion, junior and senior yr. co-captain
- Head of two clubs, one related to Varsity team sport and one related to academic interests
- Member of 4 other clubs associated with academic and/or volunteer interests
- Paid job related to Varsity team sport
- Two research internships at local major research university, both in area of academic interests
- Unweighted GPA below 25 - 75th percentile range
- Weighted GPA barely within 25 - 75th percentile range
- Lastly, essays were probably viewed as “very strong” aspects of the application

Details that didn’t matter for the UCs:
- 1600 on SAT, one-and-done
- LORs and counselor report were probably average-to-good, at best, because they tend not to be very impactful in a large public H.S., especially for a male student who doesn’t shine the apple, as they say

UCLA and Michigan seek applicants out that look like that ^^^, and the environment at those schools provides a great fit for kids like mine.

Your kids sound great, and hopefully the environment in the Ivy and the environment in the other Top 10 private are at least as fulfilling for them. I just know that satisfaction at that level would not have been achievable for my kid.

URL for their criteria/method, in the vain hope it will help folks...

"https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2025-methodology"

Anonymous wrote:aren't these really just based on things like patents and citations. UVa is pretty weak in graduate level science research. this why places like pitt crush it.

Read their actual criteria...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the hell happened to UVA?

These rankings are rigged.

All rankings are "rigged" in the sense that each uses different criteria.

UVa does not have a high enough % of non-US undergraduate students. This particular ranking, the "THE World Universities" list, factors that variable in.

Recall that the Commonwealth insists that VT, UVa, and W&M have VA residents for roughly 2/3 of total undergrads. That pushes all 3 schools down the list.

The same factor boosts many UK universities, because UK universities lose money on their UK undergrads and use numerous non-UK students (who pay much higher fees) to make their budgets balance.

Good try UVA supporter in explaining why UVA is ranked so low. If non VA residents is the reason why UVA is ranked low, then explain why UT Austin with its mandate for 90% of the school being in state. UT Austin much higher in rankings.

NP- You seem oddly intent on proving UVA is an inferior institution. OK, UVA is ranked embarrassingly low and is an inferior institution. Not sure what point you are trying to make but rest assured these rankings do not detract from the quality of education and outcomes and the subsequent high demand for a spot there. UVA will continue to be just fine in spite of your obvious ire towards it. Have a pleasant day.

UVA sucks for STEM/CS majors. Plenty who graduate and can't find jobs.

Laugh.