Similar academics as Brown but not DI

John Utah wrote:

Brown Bear 81 wrote:

Im a alumni of Brown. None of these schools is as good as Brown. At Brown people need very good acedemics . At those other places some have good acedemics, some not so good acedemics and some bad acedemics. Remember this !

You are overstating the quality of Brown. But I can understand your bias as a graduate.

I am doing that . Before I went to Brown my vocabulary was small. Now it is big . This is true for everyone who goes to Brown .

Brown Bear 81 wrote:

John Utah wrote:

You are overstating the quality of Brown. But I can understand your bias as a graduate.

I am doing that . Before I went to Brown my vocabulary was small. Now it is big . This is true for everyone who goes to Brown .

Congratulations

John Utah wrote:

Brown Bear 81 wrote:

I am doing that . Before I went to Brown my vocabulary was small. Now it is big . This is true for everyone who goes to Brown .

Congratulations

Your welcome ?

more optimally wrote:

Williams

Amherst

Caltech

Reed

Haverford

many more

just look at liberal arts schools ya dingus

Bob the builder 637383 wrote:

Wesleyan

Tufts

Bowdoin

Pomona

Carleton

MIT

Reed? They don’t have intercollegiate sports.

Try Claremont-Mudd-Scripps.

Brown delivered my Christmas gifts.

Lol if you think Claremont, Harvey Mudd or Scripps are academically on the level of an Ivy League school, even Brown. They aren’t bad schools but nowhere near Brown.

Columbia undergrad wrote:

Lol if you think Claremont, Harvey Mudd or Scripps are academically on the level of an Ivy League school, even Brown. They aren’t bad schools but nowhere near Brown.

Honestly, what insight does anyone have into the academic standards at any schools besides the one they attend? We can all look at academic rankings but what does anyone of us really know about Brown vs Chicago vs the Claremont Colleges?

The Princeton professor proved that all colleges are the same. It does not matter which college you attend for earning potential.

True but the incomes were only equivalent for those kids who were accepted to elite schools or had high SAT scores but chose to go to other schools. In other words it doesn’t matter where you go to college if you’re smart or motivated...duh!

Also the article doesn’t account for where these students went to grad school or how many were overachieving asian kids rejected from Ivies and other top schools for being too ‘boring’

College is what you make of it...if you’re really motivated you’ll get more out of Carnegie Mellon than Slippery Rock. If you’re lazy you’ll be mediocre wherever you are. A 3.5 in CS at MIT is worth more than a 3.5 in CS at SUNY...sorry, just the truth.

The researchers stated facts. Yours is only one opinion which does not define truth. If you really attended Columbia, you would know that your individual opinion is only a hypothesis. The Princeton professor probably disproved his own opinion and hypothesis which would have been that a Princeton education is worth more than a Rutgers education but he discovered that it is not true. Sorry to disappoint you with your poor college choice unless that is if you are lower income and got a significant reduction in price.

You didn’t read the article, I guess...

The incomes were only equivalent for students with similar SAT scores/level of achievement. That doesn’t mean that the education at both schools is equivalent, just that smart and motivated kids will continue their success in college.

The articles concludes by saying that for lower achieving minorities and low income students, selective schools are probably better...did you see that part?

Conclusion:

If you’re smart and hard working, you’ll do fine at Rutgers. If not, you’ll probably do better at an Ivy because your education will be more rigorous and you’ll have more opportunities to network.

So earnings are equivalent for a smart kid attending Rutgers as they are from attending Princeton but you don't consider the educations to be equivalent? Most people have a bias toward Princeton and against Rutgers so if anything, I would view it as Rutgers may actually have to be better in order to overcome the bias in the hiring process. Ask the people on this site which college they think is better and most will say Princeton even though they have never set foot on either campus. As an earlier poster pointed out, how else do you judge the quality of education if not for the earnings of equivalent students? And the point about minorities is insulting but understandable. Rutgers has equal expectations for all of its students. If they fall behind and they are failing a class, they receive a failing grade. Maybe you are not aware that lower achieving minorities at the ivies receiving passing grades in all of their classes. So of course they will do better with their 3.0 GPA from Princeton than their 2.0 from Rutgers.

Haverford College has great academics and a very underrated coach in Tom Donnelly.

Wow! I find your thinking quite obtuse, if you don't mind my saying so. How does a state school that over extends their acceptance numbers and "weeds" out those who fail during their first year compare to a school that is selective and actually works at "educating" their students?

My own experience of going to an an Ivy school after going to a state school was remarkable to say the least. I survived the state school experience, while relishing the Ivy League education, due to professors at the Ivy school being committed to teaching and helping me grow intellectually. I can't say the same for my undergraduate experience where only a few of my professors had a positive impact on me. To name names, I went to Rutgers for undergraduate and Columbia for graduate school.

Overheard at an ECAC Hockey game...believe RPI vs. Brown, circa 1996:

"Brown is the color of sh*t"

Sounds like you are one of those successful graduates of Rutgers even though you don't realize it. Thank you for making the point. Interesting that you and the majority view an Ivy League education as superior but the equivalent students end up earning the same even though they have to actually overcome that preconceived notion by employers? That says to me that the Ivies are doing a poorer job of educating the top students than the rest of the schools are. Ivies are not committed to teaching. They are committed to social justice which they feel they have achieved by charging wealthy white families $75k per year while lowering the standards for blacks and having the wealthy families subsidize attendance. Giving passing grades is not synonymous with educating.

Read the study wrote:

Sounds like you are one of those successful graduates of Rutgers even though you don't realize it. Thank you for making the point. Interesting that you and the majority view an Ivy League education as superior but the equivalent students end up earning the same even though they have to actually overcome that preconceived notion by employers? That says to me that the Ivies are doing a poorer job of educating the top students than the rest of the schools are. Ivies are not committed to teaching. They are committed to social justice which they feel they have achieved by charging wealthy white families $75k per year while lowering the standards for blacks and having the wealthy families subsidize attendance. Giving passing grades is not synonymous with educating.

"Lowering the standards for blacks". Lol. Let me guess. Another Trump supporter who thinks because 5 generations of WASP men in his family walked into Ivy league schools simply by submitting an application that it's unfair that he and his kids can no longer do the same as easily. Notice I say as easily because the fact is all those squash, water polo, tennis, crew, equestrian, fencing playing rich kids, not too mention loads of legacies and children of the wealthy and influential are NOT all qualified. (e.g. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Al Gore's kid, Michael Ovitz's kid, Bill Frist's kid, etc., and yet, they continue to take the spots of many more deserving applicants.

The Ivies have been discriminating based on race. How can anyone support that?

No, we are the opposite of the profile that you created, My wife and I are first-generation college graduates who worked our way through and paid our own loans. We worked hard and are middle class. We have 2 sons who scored 35 on the ACT and near perfect scores on the SAT. They were great in band, they volunteered, they took many AP classes, and ran 4:15 in the 1600 junior year. They are white. They were both rejected by the ivies while they saw 2 black teammates score 29 and 30 on the ACT who were admitted.