2018 USNWR Rankings Forum

[Hikikomorist]

This is probably the most important thing I have going on in my life: making sure people recognize Pomona's rightful place among elite LACs. Test scores and per-student endowment. Maybe not quite there yet in terms of lay prestige, but they deserve it and should get there. See them as the Stanford of LACs.

Per-student endowment has some serious non-prestigious outliers (Berea College, University of Richmond, Washington and Lee University), and I don't think anybody would consider Wellesley/Grinnell more prestigious than Chicago. Test scores still fall into the inputs category, but Pomona doesn't have the prestige of Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, which themselves don't have actual prestige by virtue of being LACs.

Stanford has been in the HYP tier for a while (or at least HYPSM) despite being founded four years after Pomona. Nobody really considers (or at least not many consider) Pomona to be Amherst/Williams level outside of Pomona alums, you, and (I'm guessing) nony's high school.

Agreed about LACs not having lay prestige or any real prestige on the PSYCHM level. Also agreed on there being problematic outliers, which is why per-student endowment is just a minor supplement to median test scores. I do think it's an input variable that's useful for tracking alumni success and available student resources.

I don't think they have prestige in general—not just at the top tier level but even at the Northwestern/Hopkins/Vanderbilt level. They have low acceptance rates and a decent following among people who are really into rankings and LACs and, I'm assuming, strong alumni loyalty, given the endowment, but I would still describe them as more of a cult than a prestigious group.

I agree that there are great student resources and people who attend get a phenomenal education (something something grade deflation and professors who aren't only focused on research), but there's just no way that seeing Swarthmore at the top of a resume (or dropping Pomona in a casual conversation) gets the same reaction as Columbia or Dartmouth.

I guess I just wouldn't conflate inputs like selectivity or even test scores with prestige. I do think it can be a decent prelude for future prestige/rankings, though those things take a while to catch up. When I was applying to college, Chicago's acceptance rate was in the mid 20s, and most people I knew would have taken any Ivy + Stanford/MIT/Caltech/Duke over Chicago. Now it's like Columbia level.

I'd also never compare LACs with national universities using per-student endowments. I'd only use it to compare LACs to other LACs or NUs with other NUs, and even then it would be a supplemental factor only. I disagree, though, in thinking that the very best LACs are on par with third-tier national universities in terms of real (people attending or having graduated from generally reputable colleges) prestige.

[wiz]

This is probably the most important thing I have going on in my life: making sure people recognize Pomona's rightful place among elite LACs. Test scores and per-student endowment. Maybe not quite there yet in terms of lay prestige, but they deserve it and should get there. See them as the Stanford of LACs.

Per-student endowment has some serious non-prestigious outliers (Berea College, University of Richmond, Washington and Lee University), and I don't think anybody would consider Wellesley/Grinnell more prestigious than Chicago. Test scores still fall into the inputs category, but Pomona doesn't have the prestige of Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, which themselves don't have actual prestige by virtue of being LACs.

Stanford has been in the HYP tier for a while (or at least HYPSM) despite being founded four years after Pomona. Nobody really considers (or at least not many consider) Pomona to be Amherst/Williams level outside of Pomona alums, you, and (I'm guessing) nony's high school.

Agreed about LACs not having lay prestige or any real prestige on the PSYCHM level. Also agreed on there being problematic outliers, which is why per-student endowment is just a minor supplement to median test scores. I do think it's an input variable that's useful for tracking alumni success and available student resources.

I don't think they have prestige in general—not just at the top tier level but even at the Northwestern/Hopkins/Vanderbilt level. They have low acceptance rates and a decent following among people who are really into rankings and LACs and, I'm assuming, strong alumni loyalty, given the endowment, but I would still describe them as more of a cult than a prestigious group.

I agree that there are great student resources and people who attend get a phenomenal education (something something grade deflation and professors who aren't only focused on research), but there's just no way that seeing Swarthmore at the top of a resume (or dropping Pomona in a casual conversation) gets the same reaction as Columbia or Dartmouth.

I guess I just wouldn't conflate inputs like selectivity or even test scores with prestige. I do think it can be a decent prelude for future prestige/rankings, though those things take a while to catch up. When I was applying to college, Chicago's acceptance rate was in the mid 20s, and most people I knew would have taken any Ivy + Stanford/MIT/Caltech/Duke over Chicago. Now it's like Columbia level.

I'd also never compare LACs with national universities using per-student endowments. I'd only use it to compare LACs to other LACs or NUs with other NUs, and even then it would be a supplemental factor only. I disagree, though, in thinking that the very best LACs are on par with third-tier national universities in terms of real (people attending or having graduated from generally reputable colleges) prestige.

I'd be genuinely interested in seeing what percentage of students who get accepted to, say, Columbia and Pomona actually choose Pomona over Columbia. And I think we both agreed that Columbia was second tier?

I get that top LACs have low acceptance rates and strong endowments per student because their alumni seemingly feel a stronger connection to the school than the average large university, but it's easier to fill a class of 1500-2000 students with 2300 SATs than 400-500 students.


E: I guess substitute Swarthmore for Pomona if it helps to stay on the same coast.

[Hikikomorist]

This is probably the most important thing I have going on in my life: making sure people recognize Pomona's rightful place among elite LACs. Test scores and per-student endowment. Maybe not quite there yet in terms of lay prestige, but they deserve it and should get there. See them as the Stanford of LACs.

Per-student endowment has some serious non-prestigious outliers (Berea College, University of Richmond, Washington and Lee University), and I don't think anybody would consider Wellesley/Grinnell more prestigious than Chicago. Test scores still fall into the inputs category, but Pomona doesn't have the prestige of Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, which themselves don't have actual prestige by virtue of being LACs.

Stanford has been in the HYP tier for a while (or at least HYPSM) despite being founded four years after Pomona. Nobody really considers (or at least not many consider) Pomona to be Amherst/Williams level outside of Pomona alums, you, and (I'm guessing) nony's high school.

Agreed about LACs not having lay prestige or any real prestige on the PSYCHM level. Also agreed on there being problematic outliers, which is why per-student endowment is just a minor supplement to median test scores. I do think it's an input variable that's useful for tracking alumni success and available student resources.

I don't think they have prestige in general—not just at the top tier level but even at the Northwestern/Hopkins/Vanderbilt level. They have low acceptance rates and a decent following among people who are really into rankings and LACs and, I'm assuming, strong alumni loyalty, given the endowment, but I would still describe them as more of a cult than a prestigious group.

I agree that there are great student resources and people who attend get a phenomenal education (something something grade deflation and professors who aren't only focused on research), but there's just no way that seeing Swarthmore at the top of a resume (or dropping Pomona in a casual conversation) gets the same reaction as Columbia or Dartmouth.

I guess I just wouldn't conflate inputs like selectivity or even test scores with prestige. I do think it can be a decent prelude for future prestige/rankings, though those things take a while to catch up. When I was applying to college, Chicago's acceptance rate was in the mid 20s, and most people I knew would have taken any Ivy + Stanford/MIT/Caltech/Duke over Chicago. Now it's like Columbia level.

I'd also never compare LACs with national universities using per-student endowments. I'd only use it to compare LACs to other LACs or NUs with other NUs, and even then it would be a supplemental factor only. I disagree, though, in thinking that the very best LACs are on par with third-tier national universities in terms of real (people attending or having graduated from generally reputable colleges) prestige.

I'd be genuinely interested in seeing what percentage of students who get accepted to, say, Columbia and Pomona actually choose Pomona over Columbia. And I think we both agreed that Columbia was second tier?

I get that top LACs have low acceptance rates and strong endowments per student because their alumni seemingly feel a stronger connection to the school than the average large university, but it's easier to fill a class of 1500-2000 students with 2300 SATs than 400-500 students.


E: I guess substitute Swarthmore for Pomona if it helps to stay on the same coast.

I'm not arguing for PAWS over Columbia; I'm arguing for PAWS being even with a place like JHU/WUSTL.

[wiz]

This is probably the most important thing I have going on in my life: making sure people recognize Pomona's rightful place among elite LACs. Test scores and per-student endowment. Maybe not quite there yet in terms of lay prestige, but they deserve it and should get there. See them as the Stanford of LACs.

Per-student endowment has some serious non-prestigious outliers (Berea College, University of Richmond, Washington and Lee University), and I don't think anybody would consider Wellesley/Grinnell more prestigious than Chicago. Test scores still fall into the inputs category, but Pomona doesn't have the prestige of Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, which themselves don't have actual prestige by virtue of being LACs.

Stanford has been in the HYP tier for a while (or at least HYPSM) despite being founded four years after Pomona. Nobody really considers (or at least not many consider) Pomona to be Amherst/Williams level outside of Pomona alums, you, and (I'm guessing) nony's high school.

Agreed about LACs not having lay prestige or any real prestige on the PSYCHM level. Also agreed on there being problematic outliers, which is why per-student endowment is just a minor supplement to median test scores. I do think it's an input variable that's useful for tracking alumni success and available student resources.

I don't think they have prestige in general—not just at the top tier level but even at the Northwestern/Hopkins/Vanderbilt level. They have low acceptance rates and a decent following among people who are really into rankings and LACs and, I'm assuming, strong alumni loyalty, given the endowment, but I would still describe them as more of a cult than a prestigious group.

I agree that there are great student resources and people who attend get a phenomenal education (something something grade deflation and professors who aren't only focused on research), but there's just no way that seeing Swarthmore at the top of a resume (or dropping Pomona in a casual conversation) gets the same reaction as Columbia or Dartmouth.

I guess I just wouldn't conflate inputs like selectivity or even test scores with prestige. I do think it can be a decent prelude for future prestige/rankings, though those things take a while to catch up. When I was applying to college, Chicago's acceptance rate was in the mid 20s, and most people I knew would have taken any Ivy + Stanford/MIT/Caltech/Duke over Chicago. Now it's like Columbia level.

I'd also never compare LACs with national universities using per-student endowments. I'd only use it to compare LACs to other LACs or NUs with other NUs, and even then it would be a supplemental factor only. I disagree, though, in thinking that the very best LACs are on par with third-tier national universities in terms of real (people attending or having graduated from generally reputable colleges) prestige.

I'd be genuinely interested in seeing what percentage of students who get accepted to, say, Columbia and Pomona actually choose Pomona over Columbia. And I think we both agreed that Columbia was second tier?

I get that top LACs have low acceptance rates and strong endowments per student because their alumni seemingly feel a stronger connection to the school than the average large university, but it's easier to fill a class of 1500-2000 students with 2300 SATs than 400-500 students.


E: I guess substitute Swarthmore for Pomona if it helps to stay on the same coast.

I'm not arguing for PAWS over Columbia; I'm arguing for PAWS being even with a place like JHU/WUSTL.

I guess I misunderstood "I disagree, though, in thinking that the very best LACs are on par with third-tier national universities in terms of real (people attending or having graduated from generally reputable colleges) prestige."

I think that's fair; I'd throw those schools in/around the WUSTL bucket. But it's still probably easier if separate out Amherst/Williams.

[jbagelboy]

This is probably the most important thing I have going on in my life: making sure people recognize Pomona's rightful place among elite LACs. Test scores and per-student endowment. Maybe not quite there yet in terms of lay prestige, but they deserve it and should get there. See them as the Stanford of LACs.

Per-student endowment has some serious non-prestigious outliers (Berea College, University of Richmond, Washington and Lee University), and I don't think anybody would consider Wellesley/Grinnell more prestigious than Chicago. Test scores still fall into the inputs category, but Pomona doesn't have the prestige of Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, which themselves don't have actual prestige by virtue of being LACs.

Stanford has been in the HYP tier for a while (or at least HYPSM) despite being founded four years after Pomona. Nobody really considers (or at least not many consider) Pomona to be Amherst/Williams level outside of Pomona alums, you, and (I'm guessing) nony's high school.

pomona college is more selective than swarthmore and williams, and roughly equally selective as amherst. the pomona alums I know all got into amherst as well (in addition to a couple Ivy's, not HYP) and turned it down.

pomona is like the elite tiny college for close call stanford rejects, just like amherst and williams are the elite tiny colleges for close call yale rejects. hikkomorists analogy is pretty solid

in reality, none of these schools have broad based "lay" prestige in the sense that most people have no idea what they are. but among those who know and care--graduate admissions faculty and signaling-sensitive employers--they are considered top notch.

[wiz]

This is probably the most important thing I have going on in my life: making sure people recognize Pomona's rightful place among elite LACs. Test scores and per-student endowment. Maybe not quite there yet in terms of lay prestige, but they deserve it and should get there. See them as the Stanford of LACs.

Per-student endowment has some serious non-prestigious outliers (Berea College, University of Richmond, Washington and Lee University), and I don't think anybody would consider Wellesley/Grinnell more prestigious than Chicago. Test scores still fall into the inputs category, but Pomona doesn't have the prestige of Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, which themselves don't have actual prestige by virtue of being LACs.

Stanford has been in the HYP tier for a while (or at least HYPSM) despite being founded four years after Pomona. Nobody really considers (or at least not many consider) Pomona to be Amherst/Williams level outside of Pomona alums, you, and (I'm guessing) nony's high school.

pomona college is more selective than swarthmore and williams, and roughly equally selective as amherst. the pomona alums I know all got into amherst as well (in addition to a couple Ivy's, not HYP) and turned it down.

pomona is like the elite tiny college for close call stanford rejects, just like amherst and williams are the elite tiny colleges for close call yale rejects. hikkomorists analogy is pretty solid

in reality, none of these schools have broad based "lay" prestige in the sense that most people have no idea what they are. but among those who know and care--graduate admissions faculty and signaling-sensitive employers--they are considered top notch.

(Pomona alum)

[wiz]

But in all seriousness, Pomona also has a smaller class size than Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, and I wouldn't base rankings on acceptance rate. For law schools, Penn has a lower acceptance rate than Columbia/Chicago, and WUSTL has a lower acceptance rate than NYU.

And almost all the competitive Yale rejects I know ended up going to a lower-tier Ivy rather than jumping straight to Amherst/Williams (although I do know a few Amherst/Williams people from high school). I'm kinda skeptical that the average applicant would get their Stanford rejection letter and jump immediately to Pomona rather than Caltech, MIT, Columbia, Chicago, etc. if they were geographically agnostic.

I could buy that some of the Pomona alums got into Columbia, but I'd still think that more Columbia alums got into Pomona (or more likely, didn't even bother applying because they were shooting for HYPSM + Columbia).

[dbalkaran]

A quick linkedin search on past employer McKinsey with school Bentley turned up 32 people. Same search for Columbia turned up about 200,000.

Bain turns up a whopping 78 for Bentley. Really crushing it.

Sorry for edits.

Columbia has significantly more alumni than Bentley on LinkedIn so yeah no shit. And again I didn't imply at any point that Bentley is better than an Ivy League, but to say Bentley is a bad school is just wrong. They do place well into the top banks, consulting and accounting firms especially considering the school was established in 1917 and you're comparing it to Columbia which has been around since the 1700s. I could really care less what you think however to get back to my original point before this pointless discussion was started undergrad prestige is stupid because aside form the Ivies there are very few schools that are considered top schools for multiple things. In general a 3.7-4.0 GPA regardless of where you went to undergrad is going to open doors for you.

[Hikikomorist]

But in all seriousness, Pomona also has a smaller class size than Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, and I wouldn't base rankings on acceptance rate. For law schools, Penn has a lower acceptance rate than Columbia/Chicago, and WUSTL has a lower acceptance rate than NYU.

And almost all the competitive Yale rejects I know ended up going to a lower-tier Ivy rather than jumping straight to Amherst/Williams (although I do know a few Amherst/Williams people from high school). I'm kinda skeptical that the average applicant would get their Stanford rejection letter and jump immediately to Pomona rather than Caltech, MIT, Columbia, Chicago, etc. if they were geographically agnostic.

I could buy that some of the Pomona alums got into Columbia, but I'd still think that more Columbia alums got into Pomona (or more likely, didn't even bother applying because they were shooting for HYPSM + Columbia).

IPEDS has yield rates for all the universities, but it's still for the fall 2015 class. Pomona's yield lags significantly behind Columbia's, but it's ahead of JHU's and comparable with Northwestern's.

[wiz]

But in all seriousness, Pomona also has a smaller class size than Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, and I wouldn't base rankings on acceptance rate. For law schools, Penn has a lower acceptance rate than Columbia/Chicago, and WUSTL has a lower acceptance rate than NYU.

And almost all the competitive Yale rejects I know ended up going to a lower-tier Ivy rather than jumping straight to Amherst/Williams (although I do know a few Amherst/Williams people from high school). I'm kinda skeptical that the average applicant would get their Stanford rejection letter and jump immediately to Pomona rather than Caltech, MIT, Columbia, Chicago, etc. if they were geographically agnostic.

I could buy that some of the Pomona alums got into Columbia, but I'd still think that more Columbia alums got into Pomona (or more likely, didn't even bother applying because they were shooting for HYPSM + Columbia).

IPEDS has yield rates for all the universities, but it's still for the fall 2015 class. Pomona's yield lags significantly behind Columbia's, but it's ahead of JHU's and comparable with Northwestern's.

Do you think there's selection bias?

[Hikikomorist]

Pomona also had the lowest admission rate and the highest yield out of PAWS.

[wiz]

Smallest class size + selection bias. Amherst and Williams are probs beating each other up for matriculants.

[Hikikomorist]

But in all seriousness, Pomona also has a smaller class size than Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, and I wouldn't base rankings on acceptance rate. For law schools, Penn has a lower acceptance rate than Columbia/Chicago, and WUSTL has a lower acceptance rate than NYU.

And almost all the competitive Yale rejects I know ended up going to a lower-tier Ivy rather than jumping straight to Amherst/Williams (although I do know a few Amherst/Williams people from high school). I'm kinda skeptical that the average applicant would get their Stanford rejection letter and jump immediately to Pomona rather than Caltech, MIT, Columbia, Chicago, etc. if they were geographically agnostic.

I could buy that some of the Pomona alums got into Columbia, but I'd still think that more Columbia alums got into Pomona (or more likely, didn't even bother applying because they were shooting for HYPSM + Columbia).

IPEDS has yield rates for all the universities, but it's still for the fall 2015 class. Pomona's yield lags significantly behind Columbia's, but it's ahead of JHU's and comparable with Northwestern's.

Do you think there's selection bias?

There are way fewer elite LACs than elite NUs, and they also have much smaller student bodies, so that might explain a lot of it, depending on the size of the only-LAC crowd vs. the only-NU crowd. On the other hand, I think the only-LAC/NU groups are much smaller proportionally among the pool of students applying to PSYCHM/lower Ivies/quasi-Ivies/PAWS. Hard to say for sure, though.

[wiz]

But in all seriousness, Pomona also has a smaller class size than Amherst/Williams/Swathmore, and I wouldn't base rankings on acceptance rate. For law schools, Penn has a lower acceptance rate than Columbia/Chicago, and WUSTL has a lower acceptance rate than NYU.

And almost all the competitive Yale rejects I know ended up going to a lower-tier Ivy rather than jumping straight to Amherst/Williams (although I do know a few Amherst/Williams people from high school). I'm kinda skeptical that the average applicant would get their Stanford rejection letter and jump immediately to Pomona rather than Caltech, MIT, Columbia, Chicago, etc. if they were geographically agnostic.

I could buy that some of the Pomona alums got into Columbia, but I'd still think that more Columbia alums got into Pomona (or more likely, didn't even bother applying because they were shooting for HYPSM + Columbia).

IPEDS has yield rates for all the universities, but it's still for the fall 2015 class. Pomona's yield lags significantly behind Columbia's, but it's ahead of JHU's and comparable with Northwestern's.

Do you think there's selection bias?

There are way fewer elite LACs than elite NUs, and they also have much smaller student bodies, so that might explain a lot of it, depending on the size of the only-LAC crowd vs. the only-NU crowd. On the other hand, I think the only-LAC/NU groups are much smaller proportionally among the pool of students applying to PSYCHM/lower Ivies/quasi-Ivies/PAWS. Hard to say for sure, though.

Yeah, I was thinking that Northwestern would be a safety for Chicago/Ivy applicants (many of whom don't even apply to LACs), which could explain their lower yield. Applicants who are seriously considering LACs probs do Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore/Pomona/whatever.

[Hikikomorist]

Smallest class size + selection bias. Amherst and Williams are probs beating each other up for matriculants.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, especially since Swarthmore actually comes closest in terms of yield, despite being slightly behind Amherst/Williams in most other metrics. I still think the totality of the statistics points towards PAWS as the correct tier.

Edit: Oops, Williams actually has a slightly higher yield than Swarthmore.

[wiz]

Smallest class size + selection bias. Amherst and Williams are probs beating each other up for matriculants.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, especially since Swarthmore actually comes closest in terms of yield, despite being slightly behind Amherst/Williams in most other metrics. I still think the totality of the statistics points towards PAWS as the correct tier.

I still like WASP.

[Hikikomorist]

Smallest class size + selection bias. Amherst and Williams are probs beating each other up for matriculants.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, especially since Swarthmore actually comes closest in terms of yield, despite being slightly behind Amherst/Williams in most other metrics. I still think the totality of the statistics points towards PAWS as the correct tier.

I still like WASP.

Yeah, in light of this discussion, that's probably the better acronym. In my defense, I remember seeing SAT medians that indicated Pomona had a significant edge there, but looks like they fell back to the pack/WAS closed the gap.

And people said this thread was a waste of time.

[goldenbear2020]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

[wiz]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

[Hikikomorist]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

[wiz]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

[Hikikomorist]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Combining these rankings in some way would probably produce results almost as good as the USNWR rankings. Forbes systemically overrates service academies, because it gives them credit for everyone being employed.

[wiz]

Also lol

What happened to school loyalty? More Yalies (40) are going to Harvard Law this fall than Yale Law (30).

[Hikikomorist]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

That's why the Forbes ranking is the perfect counterpart.

[wiz]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

That's why the Forbes ranking is the perfect counterpart.

I haven't looked into the methodology, but Forbes rankings still look too heavy on LACs

Also, lol at Notre Dame and Tufts T10 national universities (and BC #11)