Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like WUSTL has been falling in prestige over the past decade. While the schools in the Forbes list have been rising. I wouldn't be surprised is WUSTL became like Tufts in the next 10 years, Top 40 known as a good school, but not a highly desired one.

Agree

Washu has so much money that would never happen. Schools that wealthy can leverage their wealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.

If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.

If this were the case, these schools would be 65% white and include substantial rural blocs. Instead, they are max 35% white undergrad and trending downward. The goal is to look like a UN or WEF symposium, unfortunately.

More racist trolling. This site is not the KKK college forum. Go spew this nonsense and lies elsewhere. Fight for white rights type of a guy you are. Asians students are out performing white and other non white students which is why Asians are over represented at the top schools compared to their population size here in the states. Resulting, whites and other non white groups are underrepresented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

This is racist trolling. The Ivy League still has the top professors and students. Have you ever heard of yield rates? Same with professors. When students cross admit at the Ivies and these “Forbes made up list” schools, they choose the Ivies. This fact alone assails your claim. Ivies did not all of a sudden start offering spots to talented international or diverse students. Racists like you are trying to attack the top schools based upon your apparent alt right perceptions and tendencies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.

If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.

DP but UMC white kids don’t get anything. Colleges think they’ll be fine wherever they go and pass right over them. It’s WEALTHY white kids who get in. And PP doesn’t seem to have a problem with it - calling it an expressway is a dig. Breathe.

A cross section of America would have a lot more Latinos and Whites and less Asians and AA.

Elite colleges should not look like “a cross section of America” - they should look like the demographics of who got over 1400 on the SAT - about 45% Asian, 45% White, 8% Hispanic, 2% Black.

it should be neither. The SAT should not be the driving demographic of admissions. The best overall applicants should be represented.

The best overall applicants will have SAT between 1400 and 1600, duh.

Doesn't mean the best applications will follow those demographic patterns, however. You're also missing the priviliged dumb aka athletes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.

If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.

DP but UMC white kids don’t get anything. Colleges think they’ll be fine wherever they go and pass right over them. It’s WEALTHY white kids who get in. And PP doesn’t seem to have a problem with it - calling it an expressway is a dig. Breathe.

A cross section of America would have a lot more Latinos and Whites and less Asians and AA.

Elite colleges should not look like “a cross section of America” - they should look like the demographics of who got over 1400 on the SAT - about 45% Asian, 45% White, 8% Hispanic, 2% Black.

it should be neither. The SAT should not be the driving demographic of admissions. The best overall applicants should be represented.

The best overall applicants will have SAT between 1400 and 1600, duh.

I see that people continue creating imaginary (yet remarkably rigid) college hierarchies based on extremely loose criteria that they themselves don't understand.

For those who value rankings, WashU was never ranked below #20 for over three three decades (1992-2023). Last year, it was ranked #15 before USNWR overhauled its criteria. I don't know how one can continue to revere such rankings given their arbitrary changes. Shouldn't one conclude that USNWR used a flawed methodology for the prior 30 years? Do you really believe that in 2023 USNWR has developed the definitive ranking system that will be used indefinitely for the following decades? Tip: It hasn't. It will continue to reconfigure its methodology annually so that its rankings are sufficiently different that it can sell a different product each year. And, in another decade, it'll do a bigger configuration, like it did last year, to keep things fresh.

Forbes is no different. In fact, it's probably worse. For example, it ranked Pomona as the #1 overall college/university in 2015. But in its most recent rankings, it ranked Pomona as the #36 (right behind BYU). Of course, Pomona didn't change; Forbes' methodology changed and has done so continually. The only reasonable conclusion is that Forbes' rankings are largely horseshit because it is continually changing its methodology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.

If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.

DP but UMC white kids don’t get anything. Colleges think they’ll be fine wherever they go and pass right over them. It’s WEALTHY white kids who get in. And PP doesn’t seem to have a problem with it - calling it an expressway is a dig. Breathe.

A cross section of America would have a lot more Latinos and Whites and less Asians and AA.

Elite colleges should not look like “a cross section of America” - they should look like the demographics of who got over 1400 on the SAT - about 45% Asian, 45% White, 8% Hispanic, 2% Black.

it should be neither. The SAT should not be the driving demographic of admissions. The best overall applicants should be represented. Unfortunately form most applicants, the colleges have their own missions and your 1600 is the least of their interest compared to what you down and how you can prove you're elite.

Anonymous wrote:Emory, Vandy, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Rice, CMU, and WashU are lower Ivy Plus. Same as Cornell.

What is this lower Ivy crap? There are many highly selective schools in this country where you can get a great education. You are just a prestige chaser. I got just as good of an education at Wesleyan as my sister did at Harvard. Stop with this ranking nonsense already. Insecure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this in another thread, and am curious about your thoughts. I see Rice, Emory, and Vandy are there but not WashU? Their acceptance rate is below 20%, there SAT scores are well into the 1500's, so what happened?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1202042.page

Not feeling WashU.

Missouri isn't a first rate college destination.

Unlike Baltimore, New Haven, or South Chicago? 🙄

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this in another thread, and am curious about your thoughts. I see Rice, Emory, and Vandy are there but not WashU? Their acceptance rate is below 20%, there SAT scores are well into the 1500's, so what happened?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1202042.page

It is a dumb list . WashU should be on it. Before the screwed up rankings this year, they were always T15-20, and still are.

WashU peer schools didn't drop that much. Georgetown 0 spots, Notre Dame, Rice and Emory 2 spots, Vandy 5. WashU 10. It's obvious WashU was gaming the rankings.

I think you mean Columbia was gaming the system as there was clear evidence for that

It’s hard to trust any stats Columbia releases now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop pumping up an IVY safety. It is not good. And there is no such thing as new Ivy. There are 8 Ivies and Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech. Duke is right below. Chicago there too. Nothing else is worth what is approaching 100k a year. And for publics, only michigan, Cal, UVA, and now UCLA are really worth it. There are only a handful of SLACs worth it. Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Swarthmore, Barnard (only because of Columbia association).

The ivies are not a single entity. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Duke are better than half the ivies. Similarly, a school like Rice or Vanderbilt could be seen as a peer to lower ivies like Dartmouth or Cornell.

Nah

I don't think that you understand the new realities... talented kids who would have been at the Ivies a short time ago are now at other schools, since many spots are going to international students, children of migrant workers and homeless individuals, etc. They must choose elsewhere and the caliber of a number of schools has risen in comparison to the Ivies. It is the same with faculty. Top schools are desperate to diversity their faculty, yet by far the majority of people graduating with PhDs are white, so those smart white graduates have to go somewhere. A new landscape...

What is really happening is the expressway for white, upper middle class kids has ended and now the student bodies will look more like a cross section of the USA.

If you have a problem with that, that is a you problem. No one is guaranteed a spot at an Ivy and the idea that white upper middle class parents are upset about it is quite a tell.

DP but UMC white kids don’t get anything. Colleges think they’ll be fine wherever they go and pass right over them. It’s WEALTHY white kids who get in. And PP doesn’t seem to have a problem with it - calling it an expressway is a dig. Breathe.

A cross section of America would have a lot more Latinos and Whites and less Asians and AA.

Elite colleges should not look like “a cross section of America” - they should look like the demographics of who got over 1400 on the SAT - about 45% Asian, 45% White, 8% Hispanic, 2% Black.