Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both the article and the accompanying list of colleges vibe with what many have observed over the past decade or so. A lot of employers aren't impressed with the general caliber of Ivy grads in recent years compared to prior generations. And anyone who has gone through the college application process recently is very much aware that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are rarely choosing the best and brightest for admittance. They by and large have different institutional priorities these days. The real talent is going elsewhere and this list seems to reflect that. I think it's a pretty solid list of where high caliber students go presently.

Exactly.

Related: I think the longest lived harm to the prestige of the Ivy League from the current protests is going to result from the interviews with the student protestors. Even setting aside whether you agree with their position or not, I’ve never seen a more inarticulate bunch. They can’t put together a coherent sentence. I’ve seen lots of commentary — “this” is our best and brightest?

Agree, and while they don't represent the majority, the cat is out of the bag that they aren't super students that are 10 feet tall. There are plenty of run of the mill students there, many of which have definitely not heard the word no a whole lot.

Anonymous wrote:Both the article and the accompanying list of colleges vibe with what many have observed over the past decade or so. A lot of employers aren't impressed with the general caliber of Ivy grads in recent years compared to prior generations. And anyone who has gone through the college application process recently is very much aware that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are rarely choosing the best and brightest for admittance. They by and large have different institutional priorities these days. The real talent is going elsewhere and this list seems to reflect that. I think it's a pretty solid list of where high caliber students go presently.

Exactly.

Related: I think the longest lived harm to the prestige of the Ivy League from the current protests is going to result from the interviews with the student protestors. Even setting aside whether you agree with their position or not, I’ve never seen a more inarticulate bunch. They can’t put together a coherent sentence. I’ve seen lots of commentary — “this” is our best and brightest?

UCs are already “public ivies”. Also this list and the whole concept of public ivies is just stupid. We don’t need to make a list of good public schools and call them public ivies just to make people feel better. Let’s just call them for what it is: top public schools.

Also, some of the schools on this list are just laughable… anyways.

Anonymous wrote:So, this list was created by narrowing the field with standardized test scores and acceptance rates. Then they surveyed 300 subscribers from their Future of Work newsletter to determine which of top 32 should make it into the top 10? This will make a great marketing tool for these schools with banners bragging, "Named Forbes Public Ivy." These rankings need to go away.

That might be a legitimate criticism if that’s what they did. But it’s not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article and the list don't actually seem to have anything to do with one another.

Why wouldn't the list be a compilation of the top 10 public and top 10 private colleges that the respondents indicate where they hire the most graduates?

Makes no sense that it is just a list of schools with high standardized test scores (although, strange that they say if only more than 50% of the schools had kids reporting test scores...seems like that threshold should be much higher)...and not a list of where companies hire kids.

I don't know what questions were asked but, here's what they looked at:

we also screened with a selectivity yardstick (below a 20% admission rate at private schools, 50% at publics). And then from there, we took the 32 remaining schools and surveyed our hiring manager respondents about each one.

So, they cut the list to 32 schools through simply a selectivity yardstick and then asked the respondents? I still don't get it. Why wouldn't you ask the respondents to list the top 20 schools based on who they actually hire...which is factual and the hiring manager would know...get all those responses and then create the list based on the responses.

Why does it matter how selective a school may be. It's funny because they quote Mark Cuban who went to Indiana University and Kelley is a top ranked program...yet IU wasn't even an option for the respondents because it didn't make the cut down to 32 schools.

I don't know what companies they surveyed, but generally, hiring is regional. So, if they ask the question of "what colleges do you hire the most from", it may be skewed due to locality.

For example, Google hires a lot from San Jose State Univ because it's in the heart of SV (I work in tech, and full disclosure, I went to SJSU). But, SJSU doesn't make any "great colleges" list. So, if you ask Google what colleges they hire from, you'll get a skewed list.

That’s not the question they asked. Why do people attempt to rebut something they haven’t even read?

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious. The article says very clearly before it lists the private schools "Our analysis excluded schools with fewer than 4,000 students, the eight old Ivies and four Ivy-plus schools—Stanford, MIT, Duke and Chicago."...so basically it is just listing the US News Rankings minus these schools and the SLACs.

Lots of cope here. The survey shows that “hirers” are less likely to hire “Ivy” grads and more likely to hire from top tier state flagships and non-Ivy privates. So the article then answers the question: what schools fall into the latter categories?

From the article:

The conclusion: great state schools and ascendant private ones are turning out hungry graduates; the Ivies are more apt to turn out entitled ones. And in creating the latter, the Ivies have taken the value they’ve spent centuries creating—a degree that employers craved—and in just a few years done a lot to forfeit it.

“For some, they believe once they've got the sheepskin, that's their ticket. How dare you question my competency,” says Prager. “I've been running scared my whole life.” (Prager graduated from Stanford in 1969, before it was “Stanford.”) The billionaire energy trader turned philanthropist John Arnold echoed that sentiment on X last week: “I’ve had several conversations in recent years with people who hire undergrads for highly competitive jobs (tech, finance, consulting etc) that are moving away from the Ivies and towards flagship state universities, citing better cultural and professional fit.’’

So if the Ivies aren’t the Ivies anymore, which schools exactly are? Forbes decided to channel these hirers and determine the New Ivies, the 10 public universities and 10 ascendant private ones turning out the smart, driven graduates craved by employers of all types.

Anonymous wrote:more private school kids at BC and GU than HYP

but ….

Anonymous wrote:Ivies are loosing luster simply because the hiring managers are mostly 2nd tier elites or state uni grads. There aren't that many ivy grad hiring managers. There aren't that many ivy grads, period.

That said, the slippery slope here is that the 2nd tier universities are loosing steam as well. When the $90,000 price tag is factored in, their ROI is below that of state flagships. Next to the ivy pluses, state unis is the way to go. And the bonus is that there are more state uni grads hiring managers than 2nd tier elite grad hiring managers. They all pull for each other.
.

Data on this? The article compares the responses today vs. five years ago. Do you have proof that there are fewer Ivy grads with hiring authority now than 5 years ago? If so, that would be relevant to the degradation of the influence of the Ivy League by itself.

more private school kids at BC and GU than HYP

Anonymous wrote:Magazines do love their rankings. The methodology doesn’t really matter—any list, credible or not, will sell/draw clicks.

true, and dcum crowd also love their lists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended one of the schools listed, but throw shade on a methodology that excludes all California publics.

To California’s credit, their schools would likely have taken over the whole list!!

hard to say since they don't look at test scores, and the methodology did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both the article and the accompanying list of colleges vibe with what many have observed over the past decade or so. A lot of employers aren't impressed with the general caliber of Ivy grads in recent years compared to prior generations. And anyone who has gone through the college application process recently is very much aware that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are rarely choosing the best and brightest for admittance. They by and large have different institutional priorities these days. The real talent is going elsewhere and this list seems to reflect that. I think it's a pretty solid list of where high caliber students go presently.

If UMD continues the way it did this admission season, will they also fall off the list? UMD did not accept many high stat kids from MoCo this past admission season yet admitted MoCo kids with lesser stats. UMD has different institutional priorities these days as well.

I think that's true of any school. My very high stats kid was rejected at several of the public ivies, now at UMD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended one of the schools listed, but throw shade on a methodology that excludes all California publics.

To California’s credit, their schools would likely have taken over the whole list!!

I missed how they were excluded — acceptance % ?

No SAT/ACT scores.

Anonymous wrote:Both the article and the accompanying list of colleges vibe with what many have observed over the past decade or so. A lot of employers aren't impressed with the general caliber of Ivy grads in recent years compared to prior generations. And anyone who has gone through the college application process recently is very much aware that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are rarely choosing the best and brightest for admittance. They by and large have different institutional priorities these days. The real talent is going elsewhere and this list seems to reflect that. I think it's a pretty solid list of where high caliber students go presently.

If UMD continues the way it did this admission season, will they also fall off the list? UMD did not accept many high stat kids from MoCo this past admission season yet admitted MoCo kids with lesser stats. UMD has different institutional priorities these days as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended one of the schools listed, but throw shade on a methodology that excludes all California publics.

To California’s credit, their schools would likely have taken over the whole list!!

I missed how they were excluded — acceptance % ?