Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree with PP about the impact on Asians, generally in our community they still aim for the same schools regardless of year-to-year shifts. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Penn, Duke, Columbia, are the ones I see are very popular and highly desirable amongst Asians in our area.

HYPSM, yes. Duke and Wharton, too. Not Columbia. Asians have always seen it Columbia as a fake, a backup school for stidents who couldn't get into actual elite schools. They are even more skeptical now that Columbia has been caught faking all its numbers.

Surprised to hear two billion people think that way, you learn something new every day.

If you are at the point where an IVY with one of the lowest acceptance rates isn’t elite enough for you, get mental health assistance.

Anonymous wrote:Lol Tulane is 72nd. I love it. All the DMV private school striver parents who can’t get their kids into Ivies have been sending them to a mediocre school instead. It’s great!

If that’s the sort of thing that gets you excited, you might want to pause & take a long look at how far you’ve come as a human being.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree with PP about the impact on Asians, generally in our community they still aim for the same schools regardless of year-to-year shifts. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Penn, Duke, Columbia, are the ones I see are very popular and highly desirable amongst Asians in our area.

HYPSM, yes. Duke and Wharton, too. Not Columbia. Asians have always seen it Columbia as a fake, a backup school for stidents who couldn't get into actual elite schools. They are even more skeptical now that Columbia has been caught faking all its numbers.

Columbia is more desirable than Duke

Lol Tulane is 72nd. I love it. All the DMV private school striver parents who can’t get their kids into Ivies have been sending them to a mediocre school instead. It’s great!

It’s very difficult to be admitted to any school in the T50 and many schools in the T100. The public schools that are favored under the new methodology are largely difficult admits for oos students. I think students that think the new ranking methodology will change the admissions landscape are out of touch with the current admissions reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of the shifts mean anything to employers. Some still want grads from certain schools (and the rankings don’t matter- Ivy is Ivy), some don’t care where you went. No one should consider these rankings more than top 20, top 50 and top 100. More analysis than that is a waste of time.

Oh yes Georgetown and Emory are peers to Vatech and Texas A&M.

VT and Texas A&M are actually better for Engineering/CS than Georgetown and Emory.

Anonymous wrote:Of course - why do you think that one Northeastern president made it his life/university's goal:

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014/08/26/how-northeastern-gamed-the-college-rankings/ (h/t to someone who posted this on another thread)

Northeastern actually made huge improvements on almost every major metrics such as outcome, retention rate, graduation rate, etc.
Those are at elite level. The old article actually basically says that while there are other schools cheating..

Anonymous wrote:Disagree with PP about the impact on Asians, generally in our community they still aim for the same schools regardless of year-to-year shifts. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Penn, Duke, Columbia, are the ones I see are very popular and highly desirable amongst Asians in our area.

HYPSM, yes. Duke and Wharton, too. Not Columbia. Asians have always seen it Columbia as a fake, a backup school for stidents who couldn't get into actual elite schools. They are even more skeptical now that Columbia has been caught faking all its numbers.

If USNWR had the final word on admissions, Princeton would always win cross-admit battles with Harvard and Stanford. But it doesn't.

I was talking with a few seniors the other day who mentioned that NYU dropped in ranking therefore they had a better shot. Hard to explain it didn't really work that way. But it doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:Wash U has two rounds of ED and a yield rate of 49%. That is a pretty bad yield.

That's because WashU was need-aware until 2022 when it became need-blind. Additionally, it has also included loans in its financial aid but has changed to a no-loan financial aid policy starting fall 2024.

Anonymous wrote:Wash U has two rounds of ED and a yield rate of 49%. That is a pretty bad yield.

Does anyone really want to go to Wash U? I know several kids who ended up there but they were all aiming higher and that did not work out for them

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wash U has two rounds of ED and a yield rate of 49%. That is a pretty bad yield.

Higher than UVA, which relies on instate students.

C’mon kids don’t fight.

Anonymous wrote:Wash U has two rounds of ED and a yield rate of 49%. That is a pretty bad yield.

Higher than UVA, which relies on instate students.

Wash U has two rounds of ED and a yield rate of 49%. That is a pretty bad yield.