Anonymous
05/12/2024 06:34
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Because no one will go to St Louis any more. Chicago of the south.
Anonymous
05/11/2024 22:59
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Just lower Ivies except Brown
Anonymous
05/11/2024 22:56
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia
The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.
Nah
I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...
We gave up columbia for rice.
Anonymous
05/11/2024 18:37
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:I saw this in another thread, and am curious about your thoughts. I see Rice, Emory, and Vandy are there but not WashU? Their acceptance rate is below 20%, there SAT scores are well into the 1500's, so what happened?
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1202042.page
It is a dumb list . WashU should be on it. Before the screwed up rankings this year, they were always T15-20, and still are.
Anonymous
05/11/2024 15:27
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).
The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.
Nah
I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...
What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.
If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.
Can you read the post without getting your buttons pushed? "Diversifying the classes" means that talented white and Asian kids need to choose other schools, hence the talent pool is spreading down the rankings. I can make other statements about the quality of those diversified Ivy classes (substantiated by data), but that wasn't the point of the thread.
And student bodies should NOT look like a cross section of the US because the vast majority of college ready high school students each year remains white and Asian. And don't get me started on the desire of schools to have every country represented in their class.
Anonymous
05/11/2024 13:12
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
The whole idea of an "Ivy-reject" school is so anachronistic. You might as well say that all non-Harvard Ivies are Harvard rejects.
Anonymous
05/11/2024 12:59
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:Of the other schools made the list, then they're better than the one that didn't. So Vandy, Emory, Rice, Georgetown are a step above Tufts, Washu, and NYU.
Do you not understand that one list doesn’t truly dictate order?
Anonymous
05/11/2024 09:36
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Of the other schools made the list, then they're better than the one that didn't. So Vandy, Emory, Rice, Georgetown are a step above Tufts, Washu, and NYU.
Anonymous
05/11/2024 08:43
Subject: Re:Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Ivy reject is such a stupid term. Ivies AND WashU have high stats kids enrolled. They are hard to get into, receive many applications, provide good education, have good reputations, etc.
Anonymous
05/11/2024 04:16
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:PP is saying the obvious that WashU historically was, and is, an ivy reject school. An ivy reject, by definition, cannot be the new ivy.
Try again.
Anonymous
05/11/2024 01:59
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).
The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.
Nah
I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...
PP is saying the obvious that WashU historically was, and is, an ivy reject school. An ivy reject, by definition, cannot be the new ivy.
Except… it seems like they are now the ones rejecting kids who are getting accepted at the Ivies.
Anonymous
05/11/2024 01:31
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).
The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.
Nah
I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...
PP is saying the obvious that WashU historically was, and is, an ivy reject school. An ivy reject, by definition, cannot be the new ivy.
At this point Ivy reject is such a broad category, they can't even corner that market.
Anonymous
05/10/2024 23:57
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).
The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.
Nah
I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...
PP is saying the obvious that WashU historically was, and is, an ivy reject school. An ivy reject, by definition, cannot be the new ivy.
Anonymous
05/10/2024 23:49
Subject: Re:Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
In my totally uninformed personal opinion that is worth absolutely nothing I demand that you Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).
Fixed that for you.
Anonymous
05/10/2024 23:44
Subject: Why didn't WUSTL make the Forbes new Ivy list?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).
The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.
Nah
I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...
What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.
If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.
DP but UMC white kids don’t get anything. Colleges think they’ll be fine wherever they go and pass right over them. It’s WEALTHY white kids who get in. And PP doesn’t seem to have a problem with it - calling it an expressway is a dig. Breathe.