Where is Northeastern 😂

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Williams doesn't make the list... Surprisingly.

LAC's have lost a lot of standing over the past 30 years. DCUM won't admit it.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:Shocked at how high Northwestern and Michigan are.


Can someone compare these with the WSJ ROI listing?

That would only be shocking to someone who's living in a complete bubble, or living under a rock, or both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you see the number of schools with a score of 81 that are, inexplicably, given different rankings you realize this list is not very meaningful.

Agree that schools with a score of 82 (17 schools) or 81 (64 schools) should probably just be ranked together in the same group. This leaves us with a Top 19 group of schools of which Harvard is the clear leader.

Not sure how you get top 19 as a logical cutoff. I agree Harvard is the clear leader with a score of 100. It is a massive 10 points clear of 2nd place Stanford at 90 and 11 points clear of Penn at 89. Below that, no schools are separated by more than a single point from Columbia at 87 to the all the schools 100 that have a score of 81.

I suspect if you ranked Harvard Law School or Harvard Business School separately they would do great as well. Most of the schools toward the top are likely getting big boosts from the graduate components listed at the right. I'd like to see this ranking just based on undergraduates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[i]

The lack of service academies and NESAC schools. Both of those are very over represented per capita among politicians, CEOs and academics

The Military Academy is 44, and the Naval Academy is 82.

They say that they weighted for size, but I'm not sure they really went to the per capita level. The other thing is this appears to combine graduate school graduates with undergraduates. That will disadvantage schools without significant graduate programs.

+1 What do the do with the Williams kid who then goes to Harvard Law? How is that coded? This study is a hodgepodge that should best be ignored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only surprise is ASU (not knocking it; half of my husband's family went there and they're all brilliant.) I also thought Duke would be higher (and I'm by no means a Duke fan - I am just surprised to see them just a little above ASU.) I would also have expected GU to come in at 8 or 9, ahead of Michigan and Chicago.

GU is where foreign leaders go to school. Not US leaders….

True about foreign leaders. Untrue about US

Bill Clinton, Tenet, Petraeus, Leahy, Podesta, Kelly, McAullife, Buchanan, Durbin, Murkowski, Gates, etc.

All old. GU glory days have passed

These threads always sound like a bunch of children bickering about their favorite sports teams.

no not suprising. Most kids attending these schools are rich to begin with. I'd love to see the stats on kids who are NOT from extreme wealth and how well the fare. I'd like to see that stacked against kids from extreme wealth who go to state flagships.

Wealth is the driver of nepotism....err I mean leadership.

Anonymous wrote:When you see the number of schools with a score of 81 that are, inexplicably, given different rankings you realize this list is not very meaningful.

Agree that schools with a score of 82 (17 schools) or 81 (64 schools) should probably just be ranked together in the same group. This leaves us with a Top 19 group of schools of which Harvard is the clear leader.

When you see the number of schools with a score of 81 that are, inexplicably, given different rankings you realize this list is not very meaningful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This index is too "corporate and business oriented" (politicians and CEOs--why are they the bastion of leadership??). And how many people win nobel prizes each year--a tiny number: these are too esoteric to be useful as an indicator of "leadership". They need to include thought leaders in public policy, health, media, law, academia, literature, arts, and so on.

I agree.

Ummm no. Public policy is covered -- the others do not matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JMU isn't on the list? Shocking...

JMU is listed at #98 with a rating of 81. (Not sure if JMU is tied at #37 as all schools ranked from 31 to 100 all scored the same = 81.)

JMU is on the list and Virginia Tech is NOT on the list.

Anonymous wrote:Further confirming the prestige of a UVA degree at such a reasonable in state price. Man, I am so happy with my kids’ choice!

I wonder where UVA would rank without UVA law school included?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[i]

The lack of service academies and NESAC schools. Both of those are very over represented per capita among politicians, CEOs and academics

The Military Academy is 44, and the Naval Academy is 82.

They say that they weighted for size, but I'm not sure they really went to the per capita level. The other thing is this appears to combine graduate school graduates with undergraduates. That will disadvantage schools without significant graduate programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Rice good at?

Engineering and educating rich Texans who then go on to stay rich Texans

Bullshit. I know a ton of Rice grads in DC with very interesting non-stem jobs. You are flat wrong.

It's overrated