Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Columbia, MIT at the highest end. Also: Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, and, perhaps counterintuitively, Cornell. And among state schools, U Florida.

Ludicrous post listing already elite schools.

It's all relative. These are already blue-chip brands that are becoming better, more burnished. Most of the names being thrown around on this thread aren't schools that are "on the rise", but merely, "Oh, we just happened to learn about them recently and they seem like a good fit for my kid." You have to look at numbers over a concerted period of time; quality of students, teaching, and faculty; research output; and financial resources. In all these metrics, the aforementioned schools are doing excellent and have great positive upward momentum. Others within their tier, not so much.

What are examples of others within their tier that are lacking upward momentum?

The most obvious answer here is probably Dartmouth, but I'm sure there are a couple others. Some might argue Yale, but I'd really, really counter against that.

What is the argument for Yale?

Yale is lacking in Everything STEM, and the law market has declined.

+100
STEM is the future
STEM from T10-T30 even T30-T50 is more valuable than some liberal arts from Yale

So you are arguing about getting rid of liberal arts in colleges, nothing specific about Yale. Only a society with STEM education. To be frank, your argument is not even worth a serious response. You do not understand what a fulfilling human life is about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Columbia, MIT at the highest end. Also: Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, and, perhaps counterintuitively, Cornell. And among state schools, U Florida.

Ludicrous post listing already elite schools.

It's all relative. These are already blue-chip brands that are becoming better, more burnished. Most of the names being thrown around on this thread aren't schools that are "on the rise", but merely, "Oh, we just happened to learn about them recently and they seem like a good fit for my kid." You have to look at numbers over a concerted period of time; quality of students, teaching, and faculty; research output; and financial resources. In all these metrics, the aforementioned schools are doing excellent and have great positive upward momentum. Others within their tier, not so much.

What are examples of others within their tier that are lacking upward momentum?

The most obvious answer here is probably Dartmouth, but I'm sure there are a couple others. Some might argue Yale, but I'd really, really counter against that.

What is the argument for Yale?

Yale is lacking in Everything STEM, and the law market has declined.

+100
STEM is the future
STEM from T10-T30 even T30-T50 is more valuable than some liberal arts from Yale

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid to put schools that are already top schools on a list of schools on the rise. I guess it makes those who post them feel better that they climbed even further in debt I mean in the rankings.

What do you consider a top school?

Anonymous wrote:NC State

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again the facts that people need to know.
The Yale liberal arts degree itself is not valued in society and in the market that much.
You better have further plans like law school, PhD, or you don't care about money.

Besides if law school/medical school is your goal, undergraduate degree becomes much much less relevant.
People would care about where you got your law degree or medical doctor degree.
They would be careless about where you went for undergraduate.

Please stop. You are annoying and useless.

so don't aregue with the facts

You're not quoting any facts. You're just spewing all the talking points to serve your agenda and trying to see what will stick. You're the Northeastern booster from that other thread, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again the facts that people need to know.
The Yale liberal arts degree itself is not valued in society and in the market that much.
You better have further plans like law school, PhD, or you don't care about money.

Besides if law school/medical school is your goal, undergraduate degree becomes much much less relevant.
People would care about where you got your law degree or medical doctor degree.
They would be careless about where you went for undergraduate.

Please stop. You are annoying and useless.

so don't aregue with the facts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again the facts that people need to know.
The Yale liberal arts degree itself is not valued in society and in the market that much.
You better have further plans like law school, PhD, or you don't care about money.

Besides if law school/medical school is your goal, undergraduate degree becomes much much less relevant.
People would care about where you got your law degree or medical doctor degree.
They would be careless about where you went for undergraduate.

Please stop. You are annoying and useless.

Anonymous wrote:Again the facts that people need to know.
The Yale liberal arts degree itself is not valued in society and in the market that much.
You better have further plans like law school, PhD, or you don't care about money.

Besides if law school/medical school is your goal, undergraduate degree becomes much much less relevant.
People would care about where you got your law degree or medical doctor degree.
They would be careless about where you went for undergraduate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of an academic degree at a top school may not be money, but the earlier poster brought up salaries as a way to show that tech/STEM was more relevant than humanities. The response that a bigger picture would include a student’s larger vision, like going to law school and maybe Big Law, was just a way of saying, if salaries are the measure, a humanities degree, in the long-run, is valued and can compete. But I agree, first salaries are a poor measure of a school’s academic program.

People brought up law school, and pretend that the majority of the liberal arts graduates from Yale go to law schools, but it's far from the truth.

People don't need vague imaginations and time wasting.

Provide data and source - https://ocs.yale.edu/outcomes/#!

Are you a nutter?! Law school is an example, not the entire picture. And, the outcomes you reference are for next steps immediately following graduation. A lot of future law students don’t immediately go to law school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in summary, if you want to earn more money, enter a higher paying field?

That is some damned brilliant insight there! World changing. Eureka, you have found it!

Now everyone switch your major to brain surgery, quick!

Right. For first salaries, field, not school, is the primary factor. However, once you get past first salaries, school frequently matters, all else equal, particularly for more elite opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of an academic degree at a top school may not be money, but the earlier poster brought up salaries as a way to show that tech/STEM was more relevant than humanities. The response that a bigger picture would include a student’s larger vision, like going to law school and maybe Big Law, was just a way of saying, if salaries are the measure, a humanities degree, in the long-run, is valued and can compete. But I agree, first salaries are a poor measure of a school’s academic program.

People brought up law school, and pretend that the majority of the liberal arts graduates from Yale go to law schools, but it's far from the truth.

People don't need vague imaginations and time wasting.

Provide data and source - https://ocs.yale.edu/outcomes/#!