What’s interesting is that few can view a college beyond ranking because a magazine made a big deal about rankings to sell magazines.

Now, most people focus on rankings. It’s all made up.

Do you only drive a T20 car?
Do you only wear T10 shoes?

If you think about rankings, they are silly.

OP here. This is my final post. Some of you are caught up in some weird defense of the academies while no defense is needed. THEY ARE FINE SCHOOLS! But, while there may be the odd case of a kid turning down Harvard to attend the Naval Academy, that is atypical. While the academy students are smart, the numbers objectively indicate that they are - on average - less well-qualified than their peers ranked next to them.

Another data point: the academies explicitly state that an applicant must be in the top 40% of their class. While I understand that not every applicant is accepted, a student of that achievement level stands no chance of admission to WASP.

DCUM, prattle on!

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. No, I haven’t previously posted about service academies, and, yes, I respect their graduates.

My thoughts were more around the weirdness of ranking them amongst non-military LACs for all the reasons I posted earlier. Again, while the schools may be fine, their students objectively are less brainy than those at the other schools they’re ranked amongst. For a ranking, that’s weird. But, yes, I understand that USNWR can do whatever they want to do, even if it’s not helpful for someone choosing a college.

OP,
I teach IB at a school that regularly sends students to top schools and to academies.

Often, the students going to academies turned down top 20 schools.

You’re quite off in your assessment that they are less brainy. Not only are they brainy, they are disciplined and ready for a college experience that will test them in ways a traditional college will not.

^
Objectively less brainy? I don’t think so. Maybe they have less pretentious parents though.

This is OP. No, I haven’t previously posted about service academies, and, yes, I respect their graduates.

My thoughts were more around the weirdness of ranking them amongst non-military LACs for all the reasons I posted earlier. Again, while the schools may be fine, their students objectively are less brainy than those at the other schools they’re ranked amongst. For a ranking, that’s weird. But, yes, I understand that USNWR can do whatever they want to do, even if it’s not helpful for someone choosing a college.

I actually feel sorry for op. In her elitist rich white liberal city slicker bubble (you know, the kind of people that get dressed up to spend a Sunday at home), sending your kids to elitist rich white liberal lacs is something that is badge of honor in her social circles and worldview. She got her kids into them and is now realizing that society in general, outside of her bubble, has no idea what the schools are and doesn’t value them like she and circle does. And to top it off, now they’re being compared to the service academies…the horror!

OP,
You’ve posted this before, haven’t you?

Many of us find the academies extremely impressive. You don’t, and that’s fine. I’m fairly certain the academies will continue to earn people’s respect regardless of your opinion.

Moving on.

People on DCUM always seem so triggered by their high LAC rankings vs. average test scores, but military experience is super helpful for employment opportunities. I would think highly of a service academy graduate on a hiring committee - it takes a tremendous amount of discipline to graduate. I’m not even a Republican and I have this belief. Also the service academies actually require test scores, nowadays most LACs only have ~50% submitting scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cello is weird?

Nice!

It kind of is, though. Who picks cello when they can play violin? Unless...

Or guitar

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cello is weird?

Nice!

It kind of is, though. Who picks cello when they can play violin? Unless...

It's by Carnegie classification.

Anonymous wrote:USNWR ranks service academies amongst national LACs, but this makes no sense given their specialized purpose, the narrow opportunities for application, and their relatively low test scores.

Perhaps, they excel at upward social mobility, but the quality of student - based on test scores - pales in comparison to the schools they’re typically ranked amongst (LAC top 10). For example, most service academies have SAT 25/75 around 1200/1400. That means the top 25% of academy kids are the 25th percentile of the schools they’re ranked amongst. Makes no sense.

Thoughts?

I think it's their list so they can do whatever they want. They could rank schools by distance from the nearest Taco Bell if they wanted to. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is a group of people that create criterion of their choosing and publish the output. Thats it. Simple as that. This group's opinion is more more valid than your own as its just an opinion. I would say ignore it all and rank as you see fit for you.

Anonymous wrote:Cello is weird?

Nice!

Cello is weird?

So you tiger mom’d your kid through a bunch of ap 4/5’s, a very good sat, and weird extracurriculars like cello or fencing, and they picked a super fancy lac that no one outside the east coast tiger mom community knows about, and you’re upset they’re being compared to kids from Lmc or mc backgrounds at Annapolis and West Point. Got it.