Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

"Top private" parents feel the need to brag. They have a really odd demeanor. It's cringe. There is this strange sanctimonious tone. It's almost like they have to justify their kids choice.

Agreed. I think it’s probably the ones scraping by to afford their kid’s top private education who resent that there are kids paying less for their education and having a substantially better experience in the process.

I doubt the parents of kids getting full aid or the parents with FU money really care to attack the top public schools, but the ones who know they are there by the thinnest of margins (either financially or because their kid barely got in, or were accepted from a waitlist) seem to be pretty relentless in their effort to downplay the Berkeleys, UCLAs, and Michigans. I’d guess there are a lot of SLAC
and Cornell parents in the mix with the highest levels of insecurity, but who knows.

lol. the strawman is without pants. no one at the ivies or duke or stanford etc give two shits about michigan, berkeley. Except maybe when they are in berkeley and trying to avoid homeless.

Maybe so, but any intelligent grad of these schools understands that the top 5-6 publics and the top 3-4 LACS provide a top notch education that rivals the T20 privates, and for specific students could be a much better fit. There are differences and there may be more perks at privates just due to endowment per student and stu-faculty ratio, but there is no denying the top publics and top LACs are excellent.

Anonymous wrote:reminds me of this

https://imgflip.com/i/96kyhf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

"Top private" parents feel the need to brag. They have a really odd demeanor. It's cringe. There is this strange sanctimonious tone. It's almost like they have to justify their kids choice.

Agreed. I think it’s probably the ones scraping by to afford their kid’s top private education who resent that there are kids paying less for their education and having a substantially better experience in the process.

I doubt the parents of kids getting full aid or the parents with FU money really care to attack the top public schools, but the ones who know they are there by the thinnest of margins (either financially or because their kid barely got in, or were accepted from a waitlist) seem to be pretty relentless in their effort to downplay the Berkeleys, UCLAs, and Michigans. I’d guess there are a lot of SLAC
and Cornell parents in the mix with the highest levels of insecurity, but who knows.

lol. the strawman is without pants. no one at the ivies or duke or stanford etc give two shits about michigan, berkeley. Except maybe when they are in berkeley and trying to avoid homeless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:reminds me of this

https://imgflip.com/i/96kyhf

Lol imaging caring enough about this to spend time making a meme.

Anonymous wrote:reminds me of this

https://imgflip.com/i/96kyhf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

"Top private" parents feel the need to brag. They have a really odd demeanor. It's cringe. There is this strange sanctimonious tone. It's almost like they have to justify their kids choice.

Agreed. I think it’s probably the ones scraping by to afford their kid’s top private education who resent that there are kids paying less for their education and having a substantially better experience in the process.

I doubt the parents of kids getting full aid or the parents with FU money really care to attack the top public schools, but the ones who know they are there by the thinnest of margins (either financially or because their kid barely got in, or were accepted from a waitlist) seem to be pretty relentless in their effort to downplay the Berkeleys, UCLAs, and Michigans. I’d guess there are a lot of SLAC
and Cornell parents in the mix with the highest levels of insecurity, but who knows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

"Top private" parents feel the need to brag. They have a really odd demeanor. It's cringe. There is this strange sanctimonious tone. It's almost like they have to justify their kids choice.

Agreed. I think it’s probably the ones scraping by to afford their kid’s top private education who resent that there are kids paying less for their education and having a substantially better experience in the process.

I doubt the parents of kids getting full aid or the parents with FU money really care to attack the top public schools, but the ones who know they are there by the thinnest of margins (either financially or because their kid barely got in, or were accepted from a waitlist) seem to be pretty relentless in their effort to downplay the Berkeleys, UCLAs, and Michigans. I’d guess there are a lot of SLAC and Cornell parents in the mix with the highest levels of insecurity, but who knows.

Something tells me you downplay everything after the Berkeley's, UCLA's, and Michigan's. As a UCLA grad you seem like a snob.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

DP

And yet that is precisely what happened here. State schools like Berkeley, UCLA and a Michigan were repeatedly diminished by multiple posters purporting to have children in Ivies and top private schools.

Did you miss all of that? Try reading?

Same poster … just re-read myself … as I recalled, the surge of insecurity (dissonance, maybe?) from “top private” parents is palpable on every single page. Every one.

"Top private" parents feel the need to brag. They have a really odd demeanor. It's cringe. There is this strange sanctimonious tone. It's almost like they have to justify their kids choice.

Agreed. I think it’s probably the ones scraping by to afford their kid’s top private education who resent that there are kids paying less for their education and having a substantially better experience in the process.

I doubt the parents of kids getting full aid or the parents with FU money really care to attack the top public schools, but the ones who know they are there by the thinnest of margins (either financially or because their kid barely got in, or were accepted from a waitlist) seem to be pretty relentless in their effort to downplay the Berkeleys, UCLAs, and Michigans. I’d guess there are a lot of SLAC and Cornell parents in the mix with the highest levels of insecurity, but who knows.

Something tells me you downplay everything after the Berkeley's, UCLA's, and Michigan's. As a UCLA grad you seem like a snob.

DP but those are being cited frequently because they were the three highest ones in the ranking being discussed (and are usually the three highest publics in school rankings). But go further up in the back and forth and you also see Florida, Texas, UVA, and UNC mentioned.