Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More educated parents and students aren't blindly following US News rankings any more. Since their last release was so heavily mocked and with availability of information about a school's outcomes and strength of majors and strength of students academic achievements, US News is a much more minor role player now than in the past.

Parents look at the cost of the school, the name brand of the school, the SAT averages of the school, the acceptance rate of the school and the outcomes of the school a lot more than some outdated magazine.

All of which are contained in....the USNews rankings! 🙂

It's a likely "first stop" for parents with other research options later. It is what it is.

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:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

Let’s face it…people are pissed about how Wake, Tulane, Tufts, William and Mary and a couple of others dropped in USNews.

So, fine, let’s use Niche:

- Wake is 48 vs 46 USnews
- Tulane is 69 vs 63 USNews
- Tufts is 47 vs 37 USNews
- W&M is 74 vs 54 USNews



Once more…these schools’ best rating are USNews. Niche, Forbes, WSJ, world rankings…they are all worse.

The only pissed people are either alumn morons who just follow the rankings. Anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that new ranking methodologies are idiotic and it has negatively impacted these schools.

Only a blind IDIOT with no knowledge of history would NOT consider these schools T50.

A PP mentioned a historical ranking. Yes. Over the last 50 years these schools have been ranking in the top50. So YES, for purposes of discussing a t50, these schools are often mentioned….

Looking at the rankings of the four schools listed, W&M and Tulane are not currently Top 50 schools. I don’t keep track of yearly changes to ranking methodologies and don’t have a deep understanding of historical college rankings. When I want to know where a school is ranked, I typically go to the US News website, as it seems to be the most widely used source for college rankings. For that reason, I feel comfortable using it as a reference.

Younger people, who may lack your knowledge of college ranking history and are just beginning their research, will likely not see Tulane ranked in the T50 and therefore may not consider it a T50 school. At some point, if a school is not ranked in the T50, then it simply is not a T50 school.

Maybe I believe that the old ranking methodology was flawed and placed too much emphasis on factors like class size and percentage of graduates completing their degrees in four years. Perhaps a more diverse student body actually strengthens the educational experience by fostering soft skills, which are critical in both educational and professional settings.

On that note, it seems you could benefit from developing soft skills yourself—particularly in learning that effective communication doesn’t involve name-calling or ad hominem attacks simply because someone disagrees with you. Lastly, I find your use of the word "blind" problematic. Would a sighted individual make a better analysis of T50 schools simply by virtue of being sighted?

+1

The USNews ranking is for students and parents researching colleges TODAY. Not 20 years ago , or even 3 years ago. The alumni who don't like the current ranking because their private college slipped can STFU.

OK. . .but I don't care about percent of students with Pell Grants when I am considering schools.

Ok. Want a cookie or something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of a few exceptions or if you cant afford it, there is no reason for a DCUM striver family to send your kid to a State University to hang around the Plebe…

The elites are not hanging out with the Plebe….

You send your kid to Sidwell only to see him/her end up at a State School….OMG

What social meltdown.

This is the type of parent who has a meltdown when schools like Wake Forest or Tulane slip in the rankings. While both are perfectly fine institutions, they often serve as landing spots for wealthy but otherwise average students. So, where do you turn when your "Ivy backup" now ranks lower than Rutgers? I suppose you choose a because a pricey college the size of a small high school at least sounds exclusive.

Ivy backups are WashU, Vandy, Emory, Georgetown etc. Wake and Tulane and the backups to the backups

I'm pretty sure Vanderbilt is no one's backup these days.

A lot of students applly ED to WF and Tulane as first choice.

Tulane kind of forces you to apply ED anyways. 🤣

How the F a school force you to apply or apply ED 🥱

You wouldn't know hyperbole if it hit you in the face.

Applicants to Tulane know the deal.

Look at Tulane's ED acceptance rate ( close to 70%). Look up the EA rejections and immediate emails to switch to ED2.

All the students applied with their free will.
Wake the F up LoL

Tulane, Wake Forest, Case Western and even Washington University are often not the first-choice schools for many students prior to exploring the admissions landscape and understanding the advantages of Early Decision applications. How many students grow up dreaming specifically of attending Tulane, Case or Wake Forest? Likely very few. For many, choosing these schools as a first choice through ED is a strategic move, particularly for those whose academic credentials may fall short for more selective institutions.

That said, it's likely that many students do aspire to attend similarly ranked schools, such as Ohio State, Purdue, the University of Georgia, or the University of Washington. Institutions like Wake Forest, the University of Rochester, Tulane, and Case Western Reserve often attract students who may not have gained admission to top-tier private universities but still desire a college experience with an air of exclusivity and prestige.

Yes yes yes. This.

I think this is an accurate take

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of a few exceptions or if you cant afford it, there is no reason for a DCUM striver family to send your kid to a State University to hang around the Plebe…

The elites are not hanging out with the Plebe….

You send your kid to Sidwell only to see him/her end up at a State School….OMG

What social meltdown.

This is the type of parent who has a meltdown when schools like Wake Forest or Tulane slip in the rankings. While both are perfectly fine institutions, they often serve as landing spots for wealthy but otherwise average students. So, where do you turn when your "Ivy backup" now ranks lower than Rutgers? I suppose you choose a because a pricey college the size of a small high school at least sounds exclusive.

Ivy backups are WashU, Vandy, Emory, Georgetown etc. Wake and Tulane and the backups to the backups

I'm pretty sure Vanderbilt is no one's backup these days.

A lot of students applly ED to WF and Tulane as first choice.

Tulane kind of forces you to apply ED anyways. 🤣

How the F a school force you to apply or apply ED 🥱

You wouldn't know hyperbole if it hit you in the face.

Applicants to Tulane know the deal.

Look at Tulane's ED acceptance rate ( close to 70%). Look up the EA rejections and immediate emails to switch to ED2.

All the students applied with their free will.
Wake the F up LoL

Tulane, Wake Forest, Case Western and even Washington University are often not the first-choice schools for many students prior to exploring the admissions landscape and understanding the advantages of Early Decision applications. How many students grow up dreaming specifically of attending Tulane, Case or Wake Forest? Likely very few. For many, choosing these schools as a first choice through ED is a strategic move, particularly for those whose academic credentials may fall short for more selective institutions.

That said, it's likely that many students do aspire to attend similarly ranked schools, such as Ohio State, Purdue, the University of Georgia, or the University of Washington. Institutions like Wake Forest, the University of Rochester, Tulane, and Case Western Reserve often attract students who may not have gained admission to top-tier private universities but still desire a college experience with an air of exclusivity and prestige.

Yes yes yes. This.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of a few exceptions or if you cant afford it, there is no reason for a DCUM striver family to send your kid to a State University to hang around the Plebe…

The elites are not hanging out with the Plebe….

You send your kid to Sidwell only to see him/her end up at a State School….OMG

What social meltdown.

This is the type of parent who has a meltdown when schools like Wake Forest or Tulane slip in the rankings. While both are perfectly fine institutions, they often serve as landing spots for wealthy but otherwise average students. So, where do you turn when your "Ivy backup" now ranks lower than Rutgers? I suppose you choose a because a pricey college the size of a small high school at least sounds exclusive.

Ivy backups are WashU, Vandy, Emory, Georgetown etc. Wake and Tulane and the backups to the backups

I'm pretty sure Vanderbilt is no one's backup these days.

A lot of students applly ED to WF and Tulane as first choice.

Tulane kind of forces you to apply ED anyways. 🤣

How the F a school force you to apply or apply ED 🥱

You wouldn't know hyperbole if it hit you in the face.

Applicants to Tulane know the deal.

Look at Tulane's ED acceptance rate ( close to 70%). Look up the EA rejections and immediate emails to switch to ED2.

All the students applied with their free will.
Wake the F up LoL

Tulane, Wake Forest, Case Western and even Washington University are often not the first-choice schools for many students prior to exploring the admissions landscape and understanding the advantages of Early Decision applications. How many students grow up dreaming specifically of attending Tulane, Case or Wake Forest? Likely very few. For many, choosing these schools as a first choice through ED is a strategic move, particularly for those whose academic credentials may fall short for more selective institutions.

That said, it's likely that many students do aspire to attend similarly ranked schools, such as Ohio State, Purdue, the University of Georgia, or the University of Washington. Institutions like Wake Forest, the University of Rochester, Tulane, and Case Western Reserve often attract students who may not have gained admission to top-tier private universities but still desire a college experience with an air of exclusivity and prestige.

Anonymous wrote:More educated parents and students aren't blindly following US News rankings any more. Since their last release was so heavily mocked and with availability of information about a school's outcomes and strength of majors and strength of students academic achievements, US News is a much more minor role player now than in the past.

Parents look at the cost of the school, the name brand of the school, the SAT averages of the school, the acceptance rate of the school and the outcomes of the school a lot more than some outdated magazine.

Anonymous wrote:More educated parents and students aren't blindly following US News rankings any more. Since their last release was so heavily mocked and with availability of information about a school's outcomes and strength of majors and strength of students academic achievements, US News is a much more minor role player now than in the past.

Parents look at the cost of the school, the name brand of the school, the SAT averages of the school, the acceptance rate of the school and the outcomes of the school a lot more than some outdated magazine.

Anonymous wrote:More educated parents and students aren't blindly following US News rankings any more. Since their last release was so heavily mocked and with availability of information about a school's outcomes and strength of majors and strength of students academic achievements, US News is a much more minor role player now than in the past.

Parents look at the cost of the school, the name brand of the school, the SAT averages of the school, the acceptance rate of the school and the outcomes of the school a lot more than some outdated magazine.

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:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

Let’s face it…people are pissed about how Wake, Tulane, Tufts, William and Mary and a couple of others dropped in USNews.

So, fine, let’s use Niche:

- Wake is 48 vs 46 USnews
- Tulane is 69 vs 63 USNews
- Tufts is 47 vs 37 USNews
- W&M is 74 vs 54 USNews



Once more…these schools’ best rating are USNews. Niche, Forbes, WSJ, world rankings…they are all worse.

The only pissed people are either alumn morons who just follow the rankings. Anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that new ranking methodologies are idiotic and it has negatively impacted these schools.

Only a blind IDIOT with no knowledge of history would NOT consider these schools T50.

A PP mentioned a historical ranking. Yes. Over the last 50 years these schools have been ranking in the top50. So YES, for purposes of discussing a t50, these schools are often mentioned….

Looking at the rankings of the four schools listed, W&M and Tulane are not currently Top 50 schools. I don’t keep track of yearly changes to ranking methodologies and don’t have a deep understanding of historical college rankings. When I want to know where a school is ranked, I typically go to the US News website, as it seems to be the most widely used source for college rankings. For that reason, I feel comfortable using it as a reference.

Younger people, who may lack your knowledge of college ranking history and are just beginning their research, will likely not see Tulane ranked in the T50 and therefore may not consider it a T50 school. At some point, if a school is not ranked in the T50, then it simply is not a T50 school.

Maybe I believe that the old ranking methodology was flawed and placed too much emphasis on factors like class size and percentage of graduates completing their degrees in four years. Perhaps a more diverse student body actually strengthens the educational experience by fostering soft skills, which are critical in both educational and professional settings.

On that note, it seems you could benefit from developing soft skills yourself—particularly in learning that effective communication doesn’t involve name-calling or ad hominem attacks simply because someone disagrees with you. Lastly, I find your use of the word "blind" problematic. Would a sighted individual make a better analysis of T50 schools simply by virtue of being sighted?

+1

The USNews ranking is for students and parents researching colleges TODAY. Not 20 years ago , or even 3 years ago. The alumni who don't like the current ranking because their private college slipped can STFU.

OK. . .but I don't care about percent of students with Pell Grants when I am considering schools.

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:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

Let’s face it…people are pissed about how Wake, Tulane, Tufts, William and Mary and a couple of others dropped in USNews.

So, fine, let’s use Niche:

- Wake is 48 vs 46 USnews
- Tulane is 69 vs 63 USNews
- Tufts is 47 vs 37 USNews
- W&M is 74 vs 54 USNews



Once more…these schools’ best rating are USNews. Niche, Forbes, WSJ, world rankings…they are all worse.

The only pissed people are either alumn morons who just follow the rankings. Anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that new ranking methodologies are idiotic and it has negatively impacted these schools.

Only a blind IDIOT with no knowledge of history would NOT consider these schools T50.

A PP mentioned a historical ranking. Yes. Over the last 50 years these schools have been ranking in the top50. So YES, for purposes of discussing a t50, these schools are often mentioned….

Looking at the rankings of the four schools listed, W&M and Tulane are not currently Top 50 schools. I don’t keep track of yearly changes to ranking methodologies and don’t have a deep understanding of historical college rankings. When I want to know where a school is ranked, I typically go to the US News website, as it seems to be the most widely used source for college rankings. For that reason, I feel comfortable using it as a reference.

Younger people, who may lack your knowledge of college ranking history and are just beginning their research, will likely not see Tulane ranked in the T50 and therefore may not consider it a T50 school. At some point, if a school is not ranked in the T50, then it simply is not a T50 school.

Maybe I believe that the old ranking methodology was flawed and placed too much emphasis on factors like class size and percentage of graduates completing their degrees in four years. Perhaps a more diverse student body actually strengthens the educational experience by fostering soft skills, which are critical in both educational and professional settings.

On that note, it seems you could benefit from developing soft skills yourself—particularly in learning that effective communication doesn’t involve name-calling or ad hominem attacks simply because someone disagrees with you. Lastly, I find your use of the word "blind" problematic. Would a sighted individual make a better analysis of T50 schools simply by virtue of being sighted?

+1

The USNews ranking is for students and parents researching colleges TODAY. Not 20 years ago , or even 3 years ago. The alumni who don't like the current ranking because their private college slipped can STFU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of a few exceptions or if you cant afford it, there is no reason for a DCUM striver family to send your kid to a State University to hang around the Plebe…

The elites are not hanging out with the Plebe….

You send your kid to Sidwell only to see him/her end up at a State School….OMG

What social meltdown.

This is the type of parent who has a meltdown when schools like Wake Forest or Tulane slip in the rankings. While both are perfectly fine institutions, they often serve as landing spots for wealthy but otherwise average students. So, where do you turn when your "Ivy backup" now ranks lower than Rutgers? I suppose you choose a because a pricey college the size of a small high school at least sounds exclusive.

Ivy backups are WashU, Vandy, Emory, Georgetown etc. Wake and Tulane and the backups to the backups

I'm pretty sure Vanderbilt is no one's backup these days.

A lot of students applly ED to WF and Tulane as first choice.

Tulane kind of forces you to apply ED anyways. 🤣

How the F a school force you to apply or apply ED 🥱

You wouldn't know hyperbole if it hit you in the face.

Applicants to Tulane know the deal.

Look at Tulane's ED acceptance rate ( close to 70%). Look up the EA rejections and immediate emails to switch to ED2.

All the students applied with their free will.
Wake the F up LoL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of a few exceptions or if you cant afford it, there is no reason for a DCUM striver family to send your kid to a State University to hang around the Plebe…

The elites are not hanging out with the Plebe….

You send your kid to Sidwell only to see him/her end up at a State School….OMG

What social meltdown.

This is the type of parent who has a meltdown when schools like Wake Forest or Tulane slip in the rankings. While both are perfectly fine institutions, they often serve as landing spots for wealthy but otherwise average students. So, where do you turn when your "Ivy backup" now ranks lower than Rutgers? I suppose you choose a because a pricey college the size of a small high school at least sounds exclusive.

Ivy backups are WashU, Vandy, Emory, Georgetown etc. Wake and Tulane and the backups to the backups

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of a few exceptions or if you cant afford it, there is no reason for a DCUM striver family to send your kid to a State University to hang around the Plebe…

The elites are not hanging out with the Plebe….

You send your kid to Sidwell only to see him/her end up at a State School….OMG

What social meltdown.

This is the type of parent who has a meltdown when schools like Wake Forest or Tulane slip in the rankings. While both are perfectly fine institutions, they often serve as landing spots for wealthy but otherwise average students. So, where do you turn when your "Ivy backup" now ranks lower than Rutgers? I suppose you choose a because a pricey college the size of a small high school at least sounds exclusive.

Ivy backups are WashU, Vandy, Emory, Georgetown etc. Wake and Tulane and the backups to the backups

I'm pretty sure Vanderbilt is no one's backup these days.

A lot of students applly ED to WF and Tulane as first choice.

Tulane kind of forces you to apply ED anyways. 🤣

How the F a school force you to apply or apply ED 🥱

You wouldn't know hyperbole if it hit you in the face.

Applicants to Tulane know the deal.

Look at Tulane's ED acceptance rate ( close to 70%). Look up the EA rejections and immediate emails to switch to ED2.