Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Interesting how Yale went down a notch.
They took 4 kids at our school last year. All legacies. Very strong students but nothing exceptional.
In the real world, they haven't gone down at all. Yale is still between #2 and #4, which is where it's always been.
Anonymous wrote:Interesting how Yale went down a notch.
They took 4 kids at our school last year. All legacies. Very strong students but nothing exceptional.
Anonymous wrote:Interesting how Yale went down a notch.
They took 4 kids at our school last year. All legacies. Very strong students but nothing exceptional.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Cornell dropped to #18, lol. It's basically not an Ivy league any more
We've never considered Cornell to be a legitimate Ivy League school. Yes, they're in our athletic conference. But not even close to being a peer school.
Cornel guy! Welcome back to you and your giant grudge! You have been missed!
+1. The "We" poster was obviously turned down by Cornell. Sorry about that.
Of course, for a number of undergraduate majors (engineering, CS, biomedical, architecture) Cornell is the highest ranked Ivy.
- a Princeton grad
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Cornell dropped to #18, lol. It's basically not an Ivy league any more
We've never considered Cornell to be a legitimate Ivy League school. Yes, they're in our athletic conference. But not even close to being a peer school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:63 St Johns
63 Reed
Expected for schools that refused to play USNews ranking game for years. Had they played the game, they would be in T20s.
Isn’t Reed burnt to a crisp by now anyway?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:USNWR is a cancer on the whole system. The rankings change for stupid reasons every year just so they can sell crap.
The dirty secret is that it generally doesn't really matter where you go to school for undergrad. Successful people will be successful no matter where they go. Without the added dumb pressure of USNWR rankings, college tuition would be lower.
Totally agree, and yet we all still are on this board obsessing over arbitrary garbage. The "cancer" we can't stop gawking at. It's like watching a train wreck. Just TRY to look away!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rankings are BS. People need to look beyond the prestige and ranking and find a college that truly is a good fit.
Agree, up to a point. I think we can all agree that the classroom dynamic is going to be different at, say, American and Stanford - I have no problem with someone saying that Stanford is going to be generally better for the people who can get in. But when you are comparing between a given school and one 20 spots higher or lower? Probably the higher-ranked school would provide a better education for most students, but there will be plenty for which it will be the reverse.
And the big difference is the student and what they do and take advantage of - I think many people would have made more of my spot at top 3 LAC; I got a good enough education but mostly floated through.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:UMD now ranked ahead of Penn State.
But behind Pitt.
And people here are also asking, "what is the appeal of pitt?"
It is a strong school!
Pitt and UMD are both much stronger academically than Penn State, yet PSU continues to have enormous appeal. Confusing!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:USNWR is a cancer on the whole system. The rankings change for stupid reasons every year just so they can sell crap.
The dirty secret is that it generally doesn't really matter where you go to school for undergrad. Successful people will be successful no matter where they go. Without the added dumb pressure of USNWR rankings, college tuition would be lower.
True, the elite will always be "Ivy Plus" schools: Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Duke and Chicago.
The real reason parents obsess over undergrad admissions is because of their dating pools. Too many dimwit losers at non-selective schools you don't want your rich son or daughter mixing with.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems a bit off to call the Naval Academy a liberal arts college.
I was curious about that as well. What is the culture at the naval academy? Are there a mix of liberal and conservative students there?
Liberal Arts refers to the graduation requirements. Students at LCs are required to take a wide variety of courses from different disciplines in order to graduate, in addition to their major. This is true of USNA, so yes, it is a liberal arts school.
That isn't how USNWR does its categories. It is based on Carnegie classification, not graduation requirements.
Yes, here is how they define it:
National Liberal Arts Colleges focus almost exclusively on undergraduate education and award at least 50% of their degrees in the arts and sciences.
Carnegie Classification: Baccalaureate Colleges—Arts and Sciences Focus.
Baccalaureate Colleges—Arts and Sciences Focus. There may be many National Universities with a similar curriculum at an undergraduate level, but they are not evaluated as National Liberal Arts Colleges because they are classified as Doctoral Universities with high or very high research.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-category-definitions
emphasize undergraduate education and award at least 50% of their degrees in the liberal arts.
since when is engineering a liberal art?
Focus on that 50% figure for a moment.