Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pomona, for sure.

Pomona decreasing in quality?

That PP has an ax to grind, clearly.

Pomona online is comparable to MIT or Harvard online courseware - free.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

UVA getting weaker? I'd argue UVA needs to increase percentage of students majoring in STEM. (And they are doing some things like the data science school.) It is well behind comparable schools in this regard. But not sure that means it is decreasing in quality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seven sisters schools

Sad but true

Especially the non-Wellesley/Barnard ones. Smith, MoHo, and Bryan Mawr are nothing like the used to be.

Disagree. They are great places to be an interested, curious student.

No one said they’re garbage but instead that they have dimmed which is absolutely true for obvious reasons.

Since the top universities are open to women and have been for decades now, the caliber of student going to a seven sisters school is just lower than it used to be since top students have more options. Most Bryan Mawr students now wouldn’t have gotten in 50 years ago. The women who would have gotten in then, go to Penn now.

There’s a possible yes and no to this. Because those schools also had a certain number of students who just came from families able to pay. Like the Ivy League, actually. So there were bright young women with no other options who could be very academic at these schools, and there were those who could pay. And sometimes, but not always, they were both. Right now, with options for limiting international students, they will probably miss some shining stars that came from underserved communities abroad.(and some full pays from abroad, too.) just saying: variety.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

This is such a weird/incorrect comment since UVa is a tier-one research university with extensive undergraduate and graduate programs in sciences, engineering, math, and medicine funded by vast funding and resources. If anything, the educational emphasis at UVa has shifted to stem fields in the last twenty-years to reflect the social/economic emphasis on these fields.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd = over $80K. And don't give me the "well the 'average' students pays ___ line If your EFC is high, you are going to pay full freight, as we did". "https://www.hmc.edu/admission/afford/cost-of-attendance/

The average award (for those who receive Fa) is 43k. If your efc is beyond Fa limits of course this doesn’t apply.

Harvey Mudd is extremely STEM intensive. That means a high cost structure, but also high earnings in many majors like computer science. If you are in one of those fields, it can still be a good value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All LACs below the top 20

Based on what, exactly?

Somehow LAC has become synonymous with expensive, non-STEM, and difficulty finding a job other than barista (and that was before Covid-19). In reality, most students at schools like UVA are in the school of arts and sciences. Students are top LACs major in STEM at rates higher than the national average, and if you look at schools like W&L, ROI and career earnings are right up there with top private research schools. Sometimes I think people have it in their mind that if they go to a public research school and major in social sciences or something like that, their kid's outcome will automatically be different than if they went to an LAC. That seems questionable logic to me.

I don't know how someone has not mentioned UVA. Little STEM. The VA schools with strong STEM just keep getting stronger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Returning to the original question, I would not spend out of state tuition to send my kids for undergraduate studies at one of University of California schools (such as Berkeley or UCLA) due to terrible budget concerns and overcrowding that cause kids to take 6 years to graduate, on average.

I don’t understand this comment. The four year grad rate at UCLA and Berkeley is 77% and 75% respectively. With the exception of UVA and W&M, that’s right on par with other top publics.

yeah but 77% is Terrible. UVa is like 94%.

Cmu is only 72%. Lehigh’s is similar but I can’t remember what it is

This is due to CMU's strong encouragement of multiple majors with little overlapping coursework.

I think many schools are decreasing in quality in the sense that they are completely bloated from an administrative standpoint (growth in administrators has been something like 3X faculty growth) and the schools have been shifting teaching loads from full time faculty to lower paid adjuncts at an alarming rate. There is huge waste in the U.S. system and Covid-19 is going to make schools finally take a look at it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pomona, for sure.

Pomona decreasing in quality?

That PP has an ax to grind, clearly.

Anonymous wrote:Pomona, for sure.

Pomona decreasing in quality?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental

You really are relentless, and wrong.

Interesting. I was just about to say the same and I'm a DP and an alum, but believe what you want to believe.

Well, the two kids I know there are getting great educations and are happy.

Do they know about Moody's downgrading the campus financial picture to a negative last December? The endowment is too small to make it through Covid.

Not the immediate PP. You’re a disgruntled alum, yet the Spring giving campaign was a success. The enrollment numbers have been growing year to year—it’s growing in popularity and sought after. Even under current circumstances my DC knows an incoming freshman willing to travel cross country. You do realize fundraising appeals are not inside information, right? We all get them from our schools, they all mention current events.

+1 I could name a couple schools with sub $25 million endowments. They’ll survive

Endowment matters, but what is more important is how in demand the schools are. If a school has a substantial endowment, but are drawing it down and discounting heavily to get students, it is ultimately on an unsustainable path. The endowment helps buy time to get on a better path.

Even public schools will be hurting. The states likely won't let them go under, but there is a massive revenue hit a lot of them have to absorb and state budgets are absolutely wrecked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Returning to the original question, I would not spend out of state tuition to send my kids for undergraduate studies at one of University of California schools (such as Berkeley or UCLA) due to terrible budget concerns and overcrowding that cause kids to take 6 years to graduate, on average.

I don’t understand this comment. The four year grad rate at UCLA and Berkeley is 77% and 75% respectively. With the exception of UVA and W&M, that’s right on par with other top publics.

yeah but 77% is Terrible. UVa is like 94%.

I don't think UVA 4 year is closer to 90%, which is excellent. It is one of UVA's strongest points in USNWR ranking. I'd cut some slack to Berkeley (and more so schools like MIT) because they have more students in some difficult majors (e.g. engineering) that are tougher to finish in 4 years.

Where is there proof that Berkeley and UVA are counting completions differently? The Common Data Set is supposed to make reporting more standardized.

Niche has a question on whether students agree it is easy to get the classes you want. UCLA (top ranked public in USNWR) is only 32% positive, Berkeley is 39%, UVA is 50%. These are all well below top privates, but shows UVA with an advantage there.

I think you should not send your kid OOS Berkeley or UCLA if you expect an undergraduate experience that is like what similar privates would be at the same cost level. You kid will get the same experience as in-state students, which is a stripped down model. These schools first and foremost focus on research and graduate programs. Undergraduate programs suffer in some ways for that. If you are OK with that fine, but you could argue you are getting a Honda in some respects for a BMW price.

Pomona, for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental

You really are relentless, and wrong.

Interesting. I was just about to say the same and I'm a DP and an alum, but believe what you want to believe.

Well, the two kids I know there are getting great educations and are happy.

Do they know about Moody's downgrading the campus financial picture to a negative last December? The endowment is too small to make it through Covid.

Not the immediate PP. You’re a disgruntled alum, yet the Spring giving campaign was a success. The enrollment numbers have been growing year to year—it’s growing in popularity and sought after. Even under current circumstances my DC knows an incoming freshman willing to travel cross country. You do realize fundraising appeals are not inside information, right? We all get them from our schools, they all mention current events.

+1 I could name a couple schools with sub $25 million endowments. They’ll survive