Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see a ranking of schools based on SAT scores, selectivity and starting salaries of students .


Outside the top ten I bet the list would be vastly different. Much more objective and accurate.

I think Forbes does this. Check it out. Many names from the USNWR list, but some surprising other names as well.

Starting salaries are irrelevant - start comparing about 10 years out. In my school. engineers made at least 50% more than anyone else at graduation. That changed a great deal over time.

NO because as everyone notes on here repeatedly after 10 years out the college you went to doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see a ranking of schools based on SAT scores, selectivity and starting salaries of students .


Outside the top ten I bet the list would be vastly different. Much more objective and accurate.

I think Forbes does this. Check it out. Many names from the USNWR list, but some surprising other names as well.

Starting salaries are irrelevant - start comparing about 10 years out. In my school. engineers made at least 50% more than anyone else at graduation. That changed a great deal over time.

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see a ranking of schools based on SAT scores, selectivity and starting salaries of students .


Outside the top ten I bet the list would be vastly different. Much more objective and accurate.

I think Forbes does this. Check it out. Many names from the USNWR list, but some surprising other names as well.

Even the National Rankings plainly favor comparatively small private schools. USC is the only Top 25 school with more than 15,000 undergraduates and one of only four larger schools in the Top 25 (with California, UCLA and Virginia).

It would be interesting to see how the top 1,000 students at Michigan or Wisconsin would stack up against the top 1,000 at any of these schools? My guess is that you'd find very little difference. The point being that differences in "averages" result from difference in mission and size. All top schools have extraordinary students, but the larger schools have more academic diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm not really talking about the top 10 colleges; you're right that they consistently excel in most rankings. More referring to statements based almost single-handedly on US News, like "USC is worse than Emory" simply because Emory is in the top 20 and USC is outside of it. Students overwhelmingly pick USC over Emory: http://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=University+of+Southern+California&with=Emory+University

Students rejected by UCLA and Cal pick USC.

Definitely true for in-state kids, however I'm not sure out-of-state applicants care that much,

USC is often grouped with the leading California public schools (Cal-Berkeley and UCLA), but USC is a private school that is considerably more expensive (and less cash strapped) than the public universities. As a consequence, USC has a more evenly balanced socioeconomic profile. Yes, the “University of Spoiled Children” is the school of choice for the well to do, but a large number of students from around the country come on full or partial scholarship, so there are more students from lower socioeconomic groups at USC than at UCLA or Cal. UCLA and Cal are preferred by cost conscious in state residents.

The schools are all highly selective, with acceptance rates of 16-18% and the demographics are similar in many respects 12-15% Hispanic, 3-5% African American. 12-15% international. The one big difference is that each of the schools is majority minority, UCLA and Cal are predominantly (about 1/3) Asian American whereas USC is about 40% white and 20% Asian American. Another big difference is campus location and atmosphere and student life. Three very distinct college experiences that are not at all fungible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see a ranking of schools based on SAT scores, selectivity and starting salaries of students .


Outside the top ten I bet the list would be vastly different. Much more objective and accurate.

That would be too logical and accurate. It would be a threat to the whole subjective system of goofballs.

LOL - goofballs


Then who would buy US News and keep them employed?

Now did UMC do?

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see a ranking of schools based on SAT scores, selectivity and starting salaries of students .


Outside the top ten I bet the list would be vastly different. Much more objective and accurate.

That would be too logical and accurate. It would be a threat to the whole subjective system of goofballs.

I'd like to see a ranking of schools based on SAT scores, selectivity and starting salaries of students .


Outside the top ten I bet the list would be vastly different. Much more objective and accurate.

Virginia did very overall in the Top 25 Public/Nationals with UVa, W&M and VATEch at #'s 3, 6 and 25 respectively. We're lucky to have so many good (and diverse) options in state.

The rankings are BS, more or less, but there is useful information in there that can help you figure out what student life will be like: How many students live on campus? How many join frats? How much of the faculty is full time? Tenure track? What percentage of students graduate?

US news is nonsense. They failed at the news business and the rankings appear arbitrary and confused. It's a mishmash of schools that are completely different with completely different missions. The Times and Shanghai lists appear more logical and objective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVa ahead of Michigan? According to DCUM, that just can' be!

and where was Maryland? Way down the list I suppose.

HAHA! And UVA in no. 3 place after UCLA and Berkeley for finest public unversity. https://news.virginia.edu/content/us-news-lists-uva-among-top-three-public-universities-27th-straight-year[b]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of local interest: American University rose 5 places to #69, with an admit rate of 26% (compared with 40% for GW, ranked #56). Maybe some admissions gaming going on there, but also a great new president who seems to be doing good things.

Keep on wonking.

Anonymous wrote:The list is garbage. The peer assessment score just have universities helping one another. Mortimer Zuckerman and the entire overpriced college system in this country is corrupt. Everyone making money from overpaid college administrations to people at the college board. The entire system is making money off of you and guess what it is corrupt at the top. Admissions clearly are bias and corrupt.

Actually, most of the top colleges spend more money on each student than they bring in with tuition and room and board. For ex, Amherst College spends nearly $100k on each student compared to full tuition and room and board around $70k though more than half of students receive financial aid and get an average of $52k/yr in grants (no loans).