2018 USNWR Rankings Forum

[wiz]

I'm really happy with the quality of this thread. I think it's certainly the best UG prestige thread on TLS.

This is a terrible thread and you should be ashamed.

(Also Moneytrees you should learn to spell Carleton.)

I am genuinely ashamed of myself for partaking.

You have the power to euthanize us and make this stop.

[gwillygecko]

Actually, looking over the numbers, I'm not sure Duke is even the top school in the South anymore. Rice is getting better students and has almost double Duke's per-student endowment. When did this happen?/I feel so old.

Is this a joke? Duke will always be better than Rice. Regardless of inputs, Rice's name is pretty limited to Texas and the south. Duke has a much stronger national brand.

In my (non-Texan non-Southern) high school Rice was better known than Duke. This is all regional and contingent on who went where or where people they know went. This thread is stupid.

See I'm from the south (non-texas/non-NC) and it was the exact opposite. Duke was more impressive than Harvard in my community, and I had no idea what Rice was until grad school. This goes to show this whole discussion is stupid. In my hometown, it was literally Duke>Harvard>whatever southern state flagship >>> anything from the west coast (looking at you Berkeley).

where are you from that people consider duke more impressive than harvard? are you sure they werent talking about college basketball when they said that about duke?

[grades??]

Actually, looking over the numbers, I'm not sure Duke is even the top school in the South anymore. Rice is getting better students and has almost double Duke's per-student endowment. When did this happen?/I feel so old.

Is this a joke? Duke will always be better than Rice. Regardless of inputs, Rice's name is pretty limited to Texas and the south. Duke has a much stronger national brand.

In my (non-Texan non-Southern) high school Rice was better known than Duke. This is all regional and contingent on who went where or where people they know went. This thread is stupid.

See I'm from the south (non-texas/non-NC) and it was the exact opposite. Duke was more impressive than Harvard in my community, and I had no idea what Rice was until grad school. This goes to show this whole discussion is stupid. In my hometown, it was literally Duke>Harvard>whatever southern state flagship >>> anything from the west coast (looking at you Berkeley).

where are you from that people consider duke more impressive than harvard? are you sure they werent talking about college basketball when they said that about duke?

Im sure. I believe its because Harvard is just farther away and has an instantly recognizable name, but when you tell someone down here you are at/went to Duke, its an immediate OOOOOH. Harvard is obviously recognizable, but the Duke name just has more force. Im sure if you ask someone in New Hampshire Duke or Harvard, Harvard wins every time. It just goes to show how this whole discussion is regional. Sure Berkeley is a good school, but if you are in the South, the Duke name will carry more weight than Berkeley. If you are in Cali, I would expect Berkeley would carry more weight.

Edit for example, if you told someone where I am from you went to Dartmouth, I would highly doubt many people would know what the hell that is. Doesn't mean Dartmouth isn't an ivy, just goes to show this whole discussion is ridiculous. I wouldn't expect someone from Idaho to know that Vanderbilt is a great school.

[Moneytrees]

The thread started off promising enough, but took a turn for the worse when people started to claim Carlton > Berkeley. Like, sure, perhaps in one small sliver of the United States that may be true, and I'm sure Carlton is a prestigious school, but in what world does it have more general lay prestige than Berkeley? And in which ways is it stronger as an institution?

Let's keep it real, folks.

It's stronger as an institution by virtue of having more money per student and better students.

That's laughable. Berkeley has 7 times the endowment of Carleton. In no way can Carleton compete with Berkeley in terms of resources. Furthermore, this thread is supposed to be about lay prestige, and few people have heard of Carleton outside of the Midwest. I have no particular affinity towards Berkeley but come on.

[Hikikomorist]

Actually, looking over the numbers, I'm not sure Duke is even the top school in the South anymore. Rice is getting better students and has almost double Duke's per-student endowment. When did this happen?/I feel so old.

Is this a joke? Duke will always be better than Rice. Regardless of inputs, Rice's name is pretty limited to Texas and the south. Duke has a much stronger national brand.

In my (non-Texan non-Southern) high school Rice was better known than Duke. This is all regional and contingent on who went where or where people they know went. This thread is stupid.

See I'm from the south (non-texas/non-NC) and it was the exact opposite. Duke was more impressive than Harvard in my community, and I had no idea what Rice was until grad school. This goes to show this whole discussion is stupid. In my hometown, it was literally Duke>Harvard>whatever southern state flagship >>> anything from the west coast (looking at you Berkeley).

where are you from that people consider duke more impressive than harvard? are you sure they werent talking about college basketball when they said that about duke?

Im sure. I believe its because Harvard is just farther away and has an instantly recognizable name, but when you tell someone down here you are at/went to Duke, its an immediate OOOOOH. Harvard is obviously recognizable, but the Duke name just has more force. Im sure if you ask someone in New Hampshire Duke or Harvard, Harvard wins every time. It just goes to show how this whole discussion is regional. Sure Berkeley is a good school, but if you are in the South, the Duke name will carry more weight than Berkeley. If you are in Cali, I would expect Berkeley would carry more weight.

Edit for example, if you told someone where I am from you went to Dartmouth, I would highly doubt many people would know what the hell that is. Doesn't mean Dartmouth isn't an ivy, just goes to show this whole discussion is ridiculous. I wouldn't expect someone from Idaho to know that Vanderbilt is a great school.

I mean, it's sort of regional, but it's also sort of not. Sure, Duke might get more of a reaction in NC (not sure I really buy that, but whatever), but it's not like Harvard only gets the bigger reaction in New England, and the rest of the country is indifferent between the two. Every other part of the country recognizes Harvard as being more prestigious, and those in NC who are familiar with selective colleges are agreement with the overwhelming national consensus.

[grades??]

Actually, looking over the numbers, I'm not sure Duke is even the top school in the South anymore. Rice is getting better students and has almost double Duke's per-student endowment. When did this happen?/I feel so old.

Is this a joke? Duke will always be better than Rice. Regardless of inputs, Rice's name is pretty limited to Texas and the south. Duke has a much stronger national brand.

In my (non-Texan non-Southern) high school Rice was better known than Duke. This is all regional and contingent on who went where or where people they know went. This thread is stupid.

See I'm from the south (non-texas/non-NC) and it was the exact opposite. Duke was more impressive than Harvard in my community, and I had no idea what Rice was until grad school. This goes to show this whole discussion is stupid. In my hometown, it was literally Duke>Harvard>whatever southern state flagship >>> anything from the west coast (looking at you Berkeley).

where are you from that people consider duke more impressive than harvard? are you sure they werent talking about college basketball when they said that about duke?

Im sure. I believe its because Harvard is just farther away and has an instantly recognizable name, but when you tell someone down here you are at/went to Duke, its an immediate OOOOOH. Harvard is obviously recognizable, but the Duke name just has more force. Im sure if you ask someone in New Hampshire Duke or Harvard, Harvard wins every time. It just goes to show how this whole discussion is regional. Sure Berkeley is a good school, but if you are in the South, the Duke name will carry more weight than Berkeley. If you are in Cali, I would expect Berkeley would carry more weight.

Edit for example, if you told someone where I am from you went to Dartmouth, I would highly doubt many people would know what the hell that is. Doesn't mean Dartmouth isn't an ivy, just goes to show this whole discussion is ridiculous. I wouldn't expect someone from Idaho to know that Vanderbilt is a great school.

I mean, it's sort of regional, but it's also sort of not. Sure, Duke might get more of a reaction in NC (not sure I really buy that, but whatever), but it's not like Harvard only gets the bigger reaction in New England, and the rest of the country is indifferent between the two. Every other part of the country recognizes Harvard as being more prestigious, and those in NC who are familiar with selective colleges are agreement with the overwhelming national consensus.

I agree there are truly national schools- but literally a handful- Harvard/Yale to me and thats about it. But it doesn't mean some regions think their top school in their region is better than those two "national" schools. Also, I am not from NC, but another southern state. The overall reputation of Harvard might be stronger than Duke, but in my county, Duke is considered the better school than Harvard. Probably because people down there know Duke grads, but not really harvard grads.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The thread started off promising enough, but took a turn for the worse when people started to claim Carlton > Berkeley. Like, sure, perhaps in one small sliver of the United States that may be true, and I'm sure Carlton is a prestigious school, but in what world does it have more general lay prestige than Berkeley? And in which ways is it stronger as an institution?

Let's keep it real, folks.

It's stronger as an institution by virtue of having more money per student and better students.

That's laughable. Berkeley has 7 times the endowment of Carleton. In no way can Carleton compete with Berkeley in terms of resources. Furthermore, this thread is supposed to be about lay prestige, and few people have heard of Carleton outside of the Midwest. I have no particular affinity towards Berkeley but come on.

The point was per student; Berkeley has 20x the number of students than Carleton.

[wiz]

Top 10 colleges where alumni donate (by percentage of alums) are overwhelmingly LACs, with the exception of Princeton:

1. Princeton (63%)
2. Thomas Aquinas College (58.7%)
3. Williams (55.8%)
4. Bowdoin (55.7%)
5. Davidson (52%)
6. Wellesley (51.7%)
7. Middlebury (50.9%)
8. Carleton (49.8%)
9. Washington and Lee (48.9%)
10. Amherst (47.9%)

What do you LACers (hikko, nony, jbagelboy) think accounts for this? Is it because these schools attract the upper class, and they have more money to donate? Is it because they feel stronger ties to the school due to the smaller class sizes (similar to a private high school or law school) and professors who are more focused on connecting with students and less on pure research? Or do a higher percentage of students receive merit scholarships, so there's a pay it forward system in place?

Some combination of the above?

[BigZuck]

This is officially a Wiz/Hikko cage match now yes?

Aight I'm out

Okay seriously pls shame me until I stop

I am embarrassed and might have to take a post deleter to my post history soon

#hookem

[gwillygecko]

Actually, looking over the numbers, I'm not sure Duke is even the top school in the South anymore. Rice is getting better students and has almost double Duke's per-student endowment. When did this happen?/I feel so old.

Is this a joke? Duke will always be better than Rice. Regardless of inputs, Rice's name is pretty limited to Texas and the south. Duke has a much stronger national brand.

In my (non-Texan non-Southern) high school Rice was better known than Duke. This is all regional and contingent on who went where or where people they know went. This thread is stupid.

See I'm from the south (non-texas/non-NC) and it was the exact opposite. Duke was more impressive than Harvard in my community, and I had no idea what Rice was until grad school. This goes to show this whole discussion is stupid. In my hometown, it was literally Duke>Harvard>whatever southern state flagship >>> anything from the west coast (looking at you Berkeley).

where are you from that people consider duke more impressive than harvard? are you sure they werent talking about college basketball when they said that about duke?

Im sure. I believe its because Harvard is just farther away and has an instantly recognizable name, but when you tell someone down here you are at/went to Duke, its an immediate OOOOOH. Harvard is obviously recognizable, but the Duke name just has more force. Im sure if you ask someone in New Hampshire Duke or Harvard, Harvard wins every time. It just goes to show how this whole discussion is regional. Sure Berkeley is a good school, but if you are in the South, the Duke name will carry more weight than Berkeley. If you are in Cali, I would expect Berkeley would carry more weight.

Edit for example, if you told someone where I am from you went to Dartmouth, I would highly doubt many people would know what the hell that is. Doesn't mean Dartmouth isn't an ivy, just goes to show this whole discussion is ridiculous. I wouldn't expect someone from Idaho to know that Vanderbilt is a great school.

Fair enough, but regarding dartmouth, im not entirely sure dartmouth is better than duke. us news seems to prefer duke, for one.

[Moneytrees]

The thread started off promising enough, but took a turn for the worse when people started to claim Carlton > Berkeley. Like, sure, perhaps in one small sliver of the United States that may be true, and I'm sure Carlton is a prestigious school, but in what world does it have more general lay prestige than Berkeley? And in which ways is it stronger as an institution?

Let's keep it real, folks.

It's stronger as an institution by virtue of having more money per student and better students.

That's laughable. Berkeley has 7 times the endowment of Carleton. In no way can Carleton compete with Berkeley in terms of resources. Furthermore, this thread is supposed to be about lay prestige, and few people have heard of Carleton outside of the Midwest. I have no particular affinity towards Berkeley but come on.

The point was per student; Berkeley has 20x the number of students than Carleton.

Yes, but in terms of sheer financial resources, Berkeley is far superior. Cal also receives far more federal/private funding for research, obviously, which isn't reflected in endowment (at least I think that's the case). Using endowment to evaluate a school's strength is asinine.

[Npret]

Carleton. Not Carlton. Perfect.

[wiz]

The thread started off promising enough, but took a turn for the worse when people started to claim Carlton > Berkeley. Like, sure, perhaps in one small sliver of the United States that may be true, and I'm sure Carlton is a prestigious school, but in what world does it have more general lay prestige than Berkeley? And in which ways is it stronger as an institution?

Let's keep it real, folks.

It's stronger as an institution by virtue of having more money per student and better students.

That's laughable. Berkeley has 7 times the endowment of Carleton. In no way can Carleton compete with Berkeley in terms of resources. Furthermore, this thread is supposed to be about lay prestige, and few people have heard of Carleton outside of the Midwest. I have no particular affinity towards Berkeley but come on.

The point was per student; Berkeley has 20x the number of students than Carleton.

Yes, but in terms of sheer financial resources, Berkeley is far superior. Cal also receives far more federal/private funding for research, obviously, which isn't reflected in endowment (at least I think that's the case). Using endowment to evaluate a school's strength is asinine.

I'm pretty skeptical of using endowment per student as a metric to compare all schools after seeing how heavily LAC-skewed it is now.

[Hikikomorist]

The thread started off promising enough, but took a turn for the worse when people started to claim Carlton > Berkeley. Like, sure, perhaps in one small sliver of the United States that may be true, and I'm sure Carlton is a prestigious school, but in what world does it have more general lay prestige than Berkeley? And in which ways is it stronger as an institution?

Let's keep it real, folks.

It's stronger as an institution by virtue of having more money per student and better students.

That's laughable. Berkeley has 7 times the endowment of Carleton. In no way can Carleton compete with Berkeley in terms of resources. Furthermore, this thread is supposed to be about lay prestige, and few people have heard of Carleton outside of the Midwest. I have no particular affinity towards Berkeley but come on.

The point was per student; Berkeley has 20x the number of students than Carleton.

Yes, but in terms of sheer financial resources, Berkeley is far superior. Cal also receives far more federal/private funding for research, obviously, which isn't reflected in endowment (at least I think that's the case). Using endowment to evaluate a school's strength is asinine.

I'm pretty skeptical of using endowment per student as a metric to compare all schools after seeing how heavily LAC-skewed it is now.

Again, I'd only use it to compare LACs with other LACs, or NUs with other NUs.

[wiz]

This is officially a Wiz/Hikko cage match now yes?

Aight I'm out

Okay seriously pls shame me until I stop

I am embarrassed and might have to take a post deleter to my post history soon

#hookem

Fuck yeah

UT partners

GULC staff attorneys

[wiz]

The thread started off promising enough, but took a turn for the worse when people started to claim Carlton > Berkeley. Like, sure, perhaps in one small sliver of the United States that may be true, and I'm sure Carlton is a prestigious school, but in what world does it have more general lay prestige than Berkeley? And in which ways is it stronger as an institution?

Let's keep it real, folks.

It's stronger as an institution by virtue of having more money per student and better students.

That's laughable. Berkeley has 7 times the endowment of Carleton. In no way can Carleton compete with Berkeley in terms of resources. Furthermore, this thread is supposed to be about lay prestige, and few people have heard of Carleton outside of the Midwest. I have no particular affinity towards Berkeley but come on.

The point was per student; Berkeley has 20x the number of students than Carleton.

Yes, but in terms of sheer financial resources, Berkeley is far superior. Cal also receives far more federal/private funding for research, obviously, which isn't reflected in endowment (at least I think that's the case). Using endowment to evaluate a school's strength is asinine.

I'm pretty skeptical of using endowment per student as a metric to compare all schools after seeing how heavily LAC-skewed it is now.

Again, I'd only use it to compare LACs with other LACs, or NUs with other NUs.

The problem is that the dumb, non US News rankings lists group all schools together.

(But I guess the real dumb one is me for clicking the links and continuing this convo.)

[Hikikomorist]

Top 10 colleges where alumni donate (by percentage of alums) are overwhelmingly LACs, with the exception of Princeton:

1. Princeton (63%)
2. Thomas Aquinas College (58.7%)
3. Williams (55.8%)
4. Bowdoin (55.7%)
5. Davidson (52%)
6. Wellesley (51.7%)
7. Middlebury (50.9%)
8. Carleton (49.8%)
9. Washington and Lee (48.9%)
10. Amherst (47.9%)

What do you LACers (hikko, nony, jbagelboy) think accounts for this? Is it because these schools attract the upper class, and they have more money to donate? Is it because they feel stronger ties to the school due to the smaller class sizes (similar to a private high school or law school) and professors who are more focused on connecting with students and less on pure research? Or do a higher percentage of students receive merit scholarships, so there's a pay it forward system in place?

Some combination of the above?

Probably a combination of students from money and tight-knit environment, with the latter dominating. WUSTL gets the richest stidents, but they're absent from this list, and I don't think Thomas Aquinas students are particularly well-to-do.

[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.

I am so sorry I offended you. Truly I cannot say that enough. I know how deeply shameful it must be for you and your family that you went to Bentley, so I will drop the issue. Again, my condolences that you went to Bentley.

You didn't offend me. That would imply I care what you think.

[goldenbear2020]

The thread started off promising enough, but took a turn for the worse when people started to claim Carlton > Berkeley. Like, sure, perhaps in one small sliver of the United States that may be true, and I'm sure Carlton is a prestigious school, but in what world does it have more general lay prestige than Berkeley? And in which ways is it stronger as an institution?

Let's keep it real, folks.

It's stronger as an institution by virtue of having more money per student and better students.

That's laughable. Berkeley has 7 times the endowment of Carleton. In no way can Carleton compete with Berkeley in terms of resources. Furthermore, this thread is supposed to be about lay prestige, and few people have heard of Carleton outside of the Midwest. I have no particular affinity towards Berkeley but come on.

The point was per student; Berkeley has 20x the number of students than Carleton.

Yes, but in terms of sheer financial resources, Berkeley is far superior. Cal also receives far more federal/private funding for research, obviously, which isn't reflected in endowment (at least I think that's the case). Using endowment to evaluate a school's strength is asinine.

I'm pretty skeptical of using endowment per student as a metric to compare all schools after seeing how heavily LAC-skewed it is now.

How about educational spending per student? Williams spends $220 million per year to educate 2,100 undergrads (about $105k per student) while charging $53k tuition and receiving only ~$30k net tuition per student. The difference is funded mostly from alumni donations and endowment spending.

[Hikikomorist]

It's stronger as an institution by virtue of having more money per student and better students.

That's laughable. Berkeley has 7 times the endowment of Carleton. In no way can Carleton compete with Berkeley in terms of resources. Furthermore, this thread is supposed to be about lay prestige, and few people have heard of Carleton outside of the Midwest. I have no particular affinity towards Berkeley but come on.

The point was per student; Berkeley has 20x the number of students than Carleton.

Yes, but in terms of sheer financial resources, Berkeley is far superior. Cal also receives far more federal/private funding for research, obviously, which isn't reflected in endowment (at least I think that's the case). Using endowment to evaluate a school's strength is asinine.

I'm pretty skeptical of using endowment per student as a metric to compare all schools after seeing how heavily LAC-skewed it is now.

Again, I'd only use it to compare LACs with other LACs, or NUs with other NUs.

The problem is that the dumb, non US News rankings lists group all schools together.

(But I guess the real dumb one is me for clicking the links and continuing this convo.)

I can't help that Forbes misuses the data.

[wiz]

I can't help that Forbes misuses the data.

Hey man, you endorsed Forbes + the grad school feeder list.

I was half convinced you were a Forbes employee.

[Hikikomorist]

I can't help that Forbes misuses the data.

Hey man, you endorsed Forbes + the grad school feeder list.

I was half convinced you were a Forbes employee.

I didn't realize/remember they were using endowment figures. I think of theirs as the output-based metric.

Speaking of which, how would you weight inputs and outputs if you were to make your own UG ranking? Fifty-fifty?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Top 10 colleges where alumni donate (by percentage of alums) are overwhelmingly LACs, with the exception of Princeton:

1. Princeton (63%)
2. Thomas Aquinas College (58.7%)
3. Williams (55.8%)
4. Bowdoin (55.7%)
5. Davidson (52%)
6. Wellesley (51.7%)
7. Middlebury (50.9%)
8. Carleton (49.8%)
9. Washington and Lee (48.9%)
10. Amherst (47.9%)

What do you LACers (hikko, nony, jbagelboy) think accounts for this? Is it because these schools attract the upper class, and they have more money to donate? Is it because they feel stronger ties to the school due to the smaller class sizes (similar to a private high school or law school) and professors who are more focused on connecting with students and less on pure research? Or do a higher percentage of students receive merit scholarships, so there's a pay it forward system in place?

Some combination of the above?

It's a cult. People are VERY devoted to their schools. And the schools work very hard to establish this devotion. Classes are small, the schools are mostly in the middle of nowhere, you establish really close bonds with your classmates and professors, and by extension, the school.

[Hikikomorist]

I'd probably weight it 70/30 in favor of inputs. Inputs split 60/20/20 between SAT medians/endowment per student/yield. Outputs split 40/30/30 between median salary at graduation/median salary at 40?/feeder rate to M7/T13/top med programs.

[Hikikomorist]

Top 10 colleges where alumni donate (by percentage of alums) are overwhelmingly LACs, with the exception of Princeton:

1. Princeton (63%)
2. Thomas Aquinas College (58.7%)
3. Williams (55.8%)
4. Bowdoin (55.7%)
5. Davidson (52%)
6. Wellesley (51.7%)
7. Middlebury (50.9%)
8. Carleton (49.8%)
9. Washington and Lee (48.9%)
10. Amherst (47.9%)

What do you LACers (hikko, nony, jbagelboy) think accounts for this? Is it because these schools attract the upper class, and they have more money to donate? Is it because they feel stronger ties to the school due to the smaller class sizes (similar to a private high school or law school) and professors who are more focused on connecting with students and less on pure research? Or do a higher percentage of students receive merit scholarships, so there's a pay it forward system in place?

Some combination of the above?

It's a cult. People are VERY devoted to their schools. And the schools work very hard to establish this devotion. Classes are small, the schools are mostly in the middle of nowhere, you establish really close bonds with your classmates and professors, and by extension, the school.

This is huge. Almost like Stockholm Syndrome.