Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been through this with multiple academically oriented students and they considered lots of things about different schools....it is strong in my interest, location, size, greek life or no, can I get in, etc......none of them ever cared about yield rate.

Not saying people care about yield rate (as part of their decision). Yield rate is rather an outcome of people's choice.

But people indirectly care about yield rate because that is what the internet used to distinguish HYPSM from the others, i.e when prestige is constructed by yield rates, it creates a never ending cycle to further boost schools with high yield rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been through this with multiple academically oriented students and they considered lots of things about different schools....it is strong in my interest, location, size, greek life or no, can I get in, etc......none of them ever cared about yield rate.

Not saying people care about yield rate (as part of their decision). Yield rate is rather an outcome of people's choice.

Clearly there is more to a school’s ranking than lay prestige, which is what yield rates largely measure.

Every year, when this list is released, DCUM turns into an episode of Downton Abbey with people nattering about the riff raff new rich acting above their station.

Anonymous wrote:I have been through this with multiple academically oriented students and they considered lots of things about different schools....it is strong in my interest, location, size, greek life or no, can I get in, etc......none of them ever cared about yield rate.

Not saying people care about yield rate (as part of their decision). Yield rate is rather an outcome of people's choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend the HYPSM acronym with yield rates, “daring” Columbia to change to SCEA and have a 70% yield rate is beyond insufferable. This is a typical chicken-or-egg fallacy that they use so it’s impossible for any school to join the acronym.

They believe that what separates HYPSM from the rest is their SCEA program and 70% yield rate. In other words, they believe that popular schools among laymen should be considered the best schools.

If you’re a high school student and you got into both Princeton and Columbia, chances are you are going to choose Princeton because it’s a “HYPSM school.” But since HYPSM is a term that is based on popularity, it creates a never ending cycle of reinforcing the HYPSM distinction.

The problem lies in that HYPSM was constructed out of measuring popularity through yield rates and early action programs. As long as those insufferable people don’t consider the academics of the schools, there would be no way for any school to join the HYPSM acronym.

So, please disregard any argument that uses yield rates to distinguish which school is better over another.

It's wayyyyy better than your empty and meaningless words.

Oh, p’shaw!

I have been through this with multiple academically oriented students and they considered lots of things about different schools....it is strong in my interest, location, size, greek life or no, can I get in, etc......none of them ever cared about yield rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love these threads! The subjective BS from posters about how they think schools should be ranked is always top-notch entertainment.

+1

Whole lot of feelings in these posts…

A whole lot of pathetic pieces of garbage in these posts...

On the one hand: the hostility toward schools like Columbia is absurd.

On the other hand: The rankings ARE relevant to borrowing money for college.

I’m pretty idealistic about the liberal arts and what an education is worth. But the rankings do have a bearing on what I’d be willing to borrow to pay the education for a typical great kid. If the competition was UVA for in-state tuition, the only schools I’d see as possibly being worth a lot more cash per year would be the top 10 schools here and a few SLACs.

Don’t know the obsession with guarding some stupid acronym or “tier” made up by insecure parents. They sound as if there’s some massive drop-off after HYPSM when in fact there really isn’t and it only lives in their imaginations. I’ve never heard the acronym being used in any formal, business, or even cocktail events. Can’t even find it on Wikipedia.

Idk why they can’t accept that these acronyms expand over time. It was only 10 years ago that HYP became HYPSM, and now it’s about to change to CHYMPS. Because it’s not an official acronym used by employers, schools, etc., there’s no good reason to defend it either. I guess people really like dividing schools based on yield rates, which is determined by how popular the school is, and not actually how good it is. Those who insist on defending HYPSM think of it as a popularity contest.

They could if they're confident enough to drop ED and still have 70%+ yield rate. FYI, Caltech doesn't have ED and its yield rate is 40%.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Students don’t choose based on how good a school is, but how popular it is to laymen, which are two different things. Caltech is a better institution for STEM than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. and yet their yield rate is 40%. That just shows that students don’t choose a school based on the strength of their academics. And that’s why to using yield rates as a measure of how good a school is doesn’t make sense at all.

The stem kids know to go to cal tech but why would an econ or history kid choose cal tech over other options? The rankings are based on a more general picture which is not that useful. The narrow lists would be of more use to a student that already has focused on a major and area if study.

The Econ or history kid wouldn’t apply to Caltech in the first place. So thinking that the 60% who didn’t choose Caltech are all non STEM students is simply false.

I really don't think the kids that want to attend cal tech are deterred by the yield rate.

Anonymous wrote:People who defend the HYPSM acronym with yield rates, “daring” Columbia to change to SCEA and have a 70% yield rate is beyond insufferable. This is a typical chicken-or-egg fallacy that they use so it’s impossible for any school to join the acronym.

They believe that what separates HYPSM from the rest is their SCEA program and 70% yield rate. In other words, they believe that popular schools among laymen should be considered the best schools.

If you’re a high school student and you got into both Princeton and Columbia, chances are you are going to choose Princeton because it’s a “HYPSM school.” But since HYPSM is a term that is based on popularity, it creates a never ending cycle of reinforcing the HYPSM distinction.

The problem lies in that HYPSM was constructed out of measuring popularity through yield rates and early action programs. As long as those insufferable people don’t consider the academics of the schools, there would be no way for any school to join the HYPSM acronym.

So, please disregard any argument that uses yield rates to distinguish which school is better over another.

It's wayyyyy better than your empty and meaningless words.

People who defend the HYPSM acronym with yield rates, “daring” Columbia to change to SCEA and have a 70% yield rate is beyond insufferable. This is a typical chicken-or-egg fallacy that they use so it’s impossible for any school to join the acronym.

They believe that what separates HYPSM from the rest is their SCEA program and 70% yield rate. In other words, they believe that popular schools among laymen should be considered the best schools.

If you’re a high school student and you got into both Princeton and Columbia, chances are you are going to choose Princeton because it’s a “HYPSM school.” But since HYPSM is a term that is based on popularity, it creates a never ending cycle of reinforcing the HYPSM distinction.

The problem lies in that HYPSM was constructed out of measuring popularity through yield rates and early action programs. As long as those insufferable people don’t consider the academics of the schools, there would be no way for any school to join the HYPSM acronym.

So, please disregard any argument that uses yield rates to distinguish which school is better over another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love these threads! The subjective BS from posters about how they think schools should be ranked is always top-notch entertainment.

+1

Whole lot of feelings in these posts…

A whole lot of pathetic pieces of garbage in these posts...

On the one hand: the hostility toward schools like Columbia is absurd.

On the other hand: The rankings ARE relevant to borrowing money for college.

I’m pretty idealistic about the liberal arts and what an education is worth. But the rankings do have a bearing on what I’d be willing to borrow to pay the education for a typical great kid. If the competition was UVA for in-state tuition, the only schools I’d see as possibly being worth a lot more cash per year would be the top 10 schools here and a few SLACs.

Don’t know the obsession with guarding some stupid acronym or “tier” made up by insecure parents. They sound as if there’s some massive drop-off after HYPSM when in fact there really isn’t and it only lives in their imaginations. I’ve never heard the acronym being used in any formal, business, or even cocktail events. Can’t even find it on Wikipedia.

Idk why they can’t accept that these acronyms expand over time. It was only 10 years ago that HYP became HYPSM, and now it’s about to change to CHYMPS. Because it’s not an official acronym used by employers, schools, etc., there’s no good reason to defend it either. I guess people really like dividing schools based on yield rates, which is determined by how popular the school is, and not actually how good it is. Those who insist on defending HYPSM think of it as a popularity contest.

They could if they're confident enough to drop ED and still have 70%+ yield rate. FYI, Caltech doesn't have ED and its yield rate is 40%.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Students don’t choose based on how good a school is, but how popular it is to laymen, which are two different things. Caltech is a better institution for STEM than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. and yet their yield rate is 40%. That just shows that students don’t choose a school based on the strength of their academics. And that’s why to using yield rates as a measure of how good a school is doesn’t make sense at all.

The stem kids know to go to cal tech but why would an econ or history kid choose cal tech over other options? The rankings are based on a more general picture which is not that useful. The narrow lists would be of more use to a student that already has focused on a major and area if study.

The Econ or history kid wouldn’t apply to Caltech in the first place. So thinking that the 60% who didn’t choose Caltech are all non STEM students is simply false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love these threads! The subjective BS from posters about how they think schools should be ranked is always top-notch entertainment.

+1

Whole lot of feelings in these posts…

A whole lot of pathetic pieces of garbage in these posts...

On the one hand: the hostility toward schools like Columbia is absurd.

On the other hand: The rankings ARE relevant to borrowing money for college.

I’m pretty idealistic about the liberal arts and what an education is worth. But the rankings do have a bearing on what I’d be willing to borrow to pay the education for a typical great kid. If the competition was UVA for in-state tuition, the only schools I’d see as possibly being worth a lot more cash per year would be the top 10 schools here and a few SLACs.

Don’t know the obsession with guarding some stupid acronym or “tier” made up by insecure parents. They sound as if there’s some massive drop-off after HYPSM when in fact there really isn’t and it only lives in their imaginations. I’ve never heard the acronym being used in any formal, business, or even cocktail events. Can’t even find it on Wikipedia.

Idk why they can’t accept that these acronyms expand over time. It was only 10 years ago that HYP became HYPSM, and now it’s about to change to CHYMPS. Because it’s not an official acronym used by employers, schools, etc., there’s no good reason to defend it either. I guess people really like dividing schools based on yield rates, which is determined by how popular the school is, and not actually how good it is. Those who insist on defending HYPSM think of it as a popularity contest.

They could if they're confident enough to drop ED and still have 70%+ yield rate. FYI, Caltech doesn't have ED and its yield rate is 40%.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Students don’t choose based on how good a school is, but how popular it is to laymen, which are two different things. Caltech is a better institution for STEM than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. and yet their yield rate is 40%. That just shows that students don’t choose a school based on the strength of their academics. And that’s why to using yield rates as a measure of how good a school is doesn’t make sense at all.

Because academics strength is only one out of many factors to a school’s reputation and attractiveness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love these threads! The subjective BS from posters about how they think schools should be ranked is always top-notch entertainment.

+1

Whole lot of feelings in these posts…

A whole lot of pathetic pieces of garbage in these posts...

On the one hand: the hostility toward schools like Columbia is absurd.

On the other hand: The rankings ARE relevant to borrowing money for college.

I’m pretty idealistic about the liberal arts and what an education is worth. But the rankings do have a bearing on what I’d be willing to borrow to pay the education for a typical great kid. If the competition was UVA for in-state tuition, the only schools I’d see as possibly being worth a lot more cash per year would be the top 10 schools here and a few SLACs.

Don’t know the obsession with guarding some stupid acronym or “tier” made up by insecure parents. They sound as if there’s some massive drop-off after HYPSM when in fact there really isn’t and it only lives in their imaginations. I’ve never heard the acronym being used in any formal, business, or even cocktail events. Can’t even find it on Wikipedia.

Idk why they can’t accept that these acronyms expand over time. It was only 10 years ago that HYP became HYPSM, and now it’s about to change to CHYMPS. Because it’s not an official acronym used by employers, schools, etc., there’s no good reason to defend it either. I guess people really like dividing schools based on yield rates, which is determined by how popular the school is, and not actually how good it is. Those who insist on defending HYPSM think of it as a popularity contest.

They could if they're confident enough to drop ED and still have 70%+ yield rate. FYI, Caltech doesn't have ED and its yield rate is 40%.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Students don’t choose based on how good a school is, but how popular it is to laymen, which are two different things. Caltech is a better institution for STEM than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. and yet their yield rate is 40%. That just shows that students don’t choose a school based on the strength of their academics. And that’s why to using yield rates as a measure of how good a school is doesn’t make sense at all.

The stem kids know to go to cal tech but why would an econ or history kid choose cal tech over other options? The rankings are based on a more general picture which is not that useful. The narrow lists would be of more use to a student that already has focused on a major and area if study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love these threads! The subjective BS from posters about how they think schools should be ranked is always top-notch entertainment.

+1

Whole lot of feelings in these posts…

A whole lot of pathetic pieces of garbage in these posts...

On the one hand: the hostility toward schools like Columbia is absurd.

On the other hand: The rankings ARE relevant to borrowing money for college.

I’m pretty idealistic about the liberal arts and what an education is worth. But the rankings do have a bearing on what I’d be willing to borrow to pay the education for a typical great kid. If the competition was UVA for in-state tuition, the only schools I’d see as possibly being worth a lot more cash per year would be the top 10 schools here and a few SLACs.

Don’t know the obsession with guarding some stupid acronym or “tier” made up by insecure parents. They sound as if there’s some massive drop-off after HYPSM when in fact there really isn’t and it only lives in their imaginations. I’ve never heard the acronym being used in any formal, business, or even cocktail events. Can’t even find it on Wikipedia.

Idk why they can’t accept that these acronyms expand over time. It was only 10 years ago that HYP became HYPSM, and now it’s about to change to CHYMPS. Because it’s not an official acronym used by employers, schools, etc., there’s no good reason to defend it either. I guess people really like dividing schools based on yield rates, which is determined by how popular the school is, and not actually how good it is. Those who insist on defending HYPSM think of it as a popularity contest.

They could if they're confident enough to drop ED and still have 70%+ yield rate. FYI, Caltech doesn't have ED and its yield rate is 40%.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Students don’t choose based on how good a school is, but how popular it is to laymen, which are two different things. Caltech is a better institution for STEM than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. and yet their yield rate is 40%. That just shows that students don’t choose a school based on the strength of their academics. And that’s why to using yield rates as a measure of how good a school is doesn’t make sense at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

1. Princeton University
2. Columbia University
2. Harvard University
2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
5. Yale University
6. Stanford University
6. University of Chicago
8. University of Pennsylvania
9. California Institute of Technology
9. Duke University
9. Johns Hopkins University
9. Northwestern University
13. Dartmouth College
14. Brown University
14. Vanderbilt University
14. Washington University in St. Louis
17. Cornell University
17. Rice University
19. University of Notre Dame
20. University of California, Los Angeles
21. Emory University
22. University of California, Berkeley
23. Georgetown University
23. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
25. Carnegie Mellon University
25. University of Virginia
27. University of Southern California
28. New York University
28. Tufts University
28. University of California, Santa Barbara
28. University of Florida
28. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
28. Wake Forest University

My thoughts: Columbia is not really at the same level as Harvard and MIT. Chicago is not at the same level as Stanford, which always appears underrated in USNWR. Hopkins is not at the level of Caltech and Duke. Why does UCLA continue to be above Berkeley? What does UCLA do better than Berkeley? The schools tied at 28 don't really seem any better than schools down around 40 or so. What would make UCSB better than UCSD or Texas or a number of other schools?

Nobody cares what you and your grandma think.

Spot on. Probably means fewer bragging rights for their kids

As a parent who visited 4 of the schools ranked at 28 in the past three years, I can easily see why those schools are all ranked 31 spots ahead of UMD. Stronger Academics, School Spirit, College Environment (UMD at College Park is a dump), Athletic Programs, Student Clubs, Research Opps/Internships, etc

Uhhh... Did you visit Cornell, Notre Dame, Wash U.? Cornell is in one of the most depressing towns with the weirdest, least friendly people on the planet. It's so depressing for a lot of students and the winters are like living in Antarctica, just with a bagel shop nearby. Notre Dame is in a small city that somehow still has massive gang violence problems, is basically a food desert, and whose only claim to fame is an RV factory and like six different crappy pizza places. Tons of poverty. Wash U? Well, you've been to St. Louis right? I went to Cornell and had job offers at Notre Dame and Wash U, so I know what I'm talking about. I didn't just "visit' as a parent. That said, yeah, College Park is trash. But that's not the reason for the rankings discrepancy

Why would you choose to go to cornell if you take no pleasure in snow or cold? That is on you. Ithaca and the finger lakes are very beautiful but you need to get out in it and not sit around complaining.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love these threads! The subjective BS from posters about how they think schools should be ranked is always top-notch entertainment.

+1

Whole lot of feelings in these posts…

A whole lot of pathetic pieces of garbage in these posts...

On the one hand: the hostility toward schools like Columbia is absurd.

On the other hand: The rankings ARE relevant to borrowing money for college.

I’m pretty idealistic about the liberal arts and what an education is worth. But the rankings do have a bearing on what I’d be willing to borrow to pay the education for a typical great kid. If the competition was UVA for in-state tuition, the only schools I’d see as possibly being worth a lot more cash per year would be the top 10 schools here and a few SLACs.

Don’t know the obsession with guarding some stupid acronym or “tier” made up by insecure parents. They sound as if there’s some massive drop-off after HYPSM when in fact there really isn’t and it only lives in their imaginations. I’ve never heard the acronym being used in any formal, business, or even cocktail events. Can’t even find it on Wikipedia.

Idk why they can’t accept that these acronyms expand over time. It was only 10 years ago that HYP became HYPSM, and now it’s about to change to CHYMPS. Because it’s not an official acronym used by employers, schools, etc., there’s no good reason to defend it either. I guess people really like dividing schools based on yield rates, which is determined by how popular the school is, and not actually how good it is. Those who insist on defending HYPSM think of it as a popularity contest.

They could if they're confident enough to drop ED and still have 70%+ yield rate. FYI, Caltech doesn't have ED and its yield rate is 40%.