Florida named "New Ivy" by Forbes

Furman is solid. I think a few years ago a fast girl Hanna Steelman transferred from Furman to NC State.
The school reputation debate can go one forever. What cannot you run a a little faster and earn your championships, instead of wasting comparing school rankings and average SAT scores?

downvote me all you want. it is absurd to suggest that if someone taking, say, linear algebra, who was a high school valedictorian with a 1590, does better actual work on the same test (or probably harder) than the guy who was 50th in his class with a 1300 and went to state U, that state U guy gets an A for being smarter than average at his school, while we should nitpick valedictorian's work for an excuse to come up with Bs and Cs at yale.

in practice, that's what you're advocating. that kids who would blow the doors off your state school kid's work, be given B- or C+ because they are no longer the brightest kid at yale.

interestingly, from folks who talk smack about snobbery, one presumes your defense of such grading practices would be, "but they will know you are bright despite that tough grade.....you went to yale."

if you think about it, it's basically class warfare, wanting to take a grading whack at a yalie.

1) Federal aid is limited. Private loans are not. They are also far more predatory, and the primary culprit of major student debt.

2) State school has gotten expensive, but that $4-5k goes a lot further at a state schools. There are also scholarships that get around the lending limit, like Excelsior in NY (which applies to Binghamton on this list).

3) Well-endowed schools will always have more to give out, especially to athletes. That's why getting a real net price is extremely important when making your decisions. But for most students (especially those smart enough to get in, but not to get an academic scholarship), state schools tend to be significantly cheaper, and the best ones give you 99% of the value of an Ivy+

For the record, I personally think by far the best route is:

High school dual enrollment -> community college 1-2 years -> state school (transfer everything) 1-2 years -> best grad school that accepts you

With this path, you'll end up with an easier transition, likely a much better GPA, pay way less money, and in the end when a hiring manager looks at your resume, they see you went to an elite grad school and ignore everything else.

Athletics complicates things, my yardstick for that is: if you are good enough to get a big scholarship to ease the financial burden, go straight into the NCAA, otherwise follow the CC path and you'll probably get better offers with 1-2 more years of training (more NCAA coaches would take a 4:10 20yo than a 4:20 18yo).

Step 1 - Make instate tuition really cheap and subsidized in the 3rd largest state in the USA ($6K in state vs $28K out of state)

Step 2 - Offer Florida Prepaid programs which makes it even cheaper to go in state

Step 3 - Restrict undergrad classes and bring in a lot of foreign students

Step 4 - Become New Ivy just like California / UT-Austin / etc

Don't take the down votes so personally. People disagree with you. So what? Isn't that the purpose of a conversation?

You are making some assumptions: the Yale guy gets to Yale on merit, alone. You have read all the promotional material, no doubt. Not all true. Not all deserve to be there. Many embellish their accomplishments. I would argue that Georgia Tech has harder working students but Yale has smarter students, on average: based on personal experience - guess. What does that mean. If you spell out what the student has to get done and that takes a while, the GT guy is more likely to complete it. If you have an open question, the Yale guy is more likely to get further along. Then, there are some math problems that neither will get very far although the Yale guy will "think" he is farther along the he actually is. Then you run into someone from McGill, Waterloo, Ohio State or Boston College who will solve it out right. And that person might be an unassuming white girl of small stature who might simply not be very good at advocating for herself.

Have you heard the one about UChicago students writing Novels prior to entering college? Some go to an expensive private school. The College Counselor recruits some other parent to do a "good deed that will be returned in kind": what is that? Include this "smart, promising, kid from a gooood family" as a co-author on your next research paper. Meet and greet the kid and that's about it. So that kid gets into UChicago or Northwestern or Hopkins with research experience and that's how it works. If you are that parent who dares say No to the Counselor, then your kid will end up at Dryfield U.

When you hire someone, hire the person, not the school.

it doesn't matter if the loan limit is a bigger chunk of the possible cost of state school attendance -- if i then do very little for you beyond that. for undergrad i remember the state school offered pell, federal loans, a small academic scholarship (one downside to the place being huge is there are like infinite kids like you), and unless you are elite for their D1, so what that you are a pretty good athlete. the LACs were able to offer the same federal package plus massive amounts in various grants and scholarships. the LACs were $2000 out of pocket cheaper.

i then went to grad school and watched my state school price me out of affordability, at which point i was forced to transfer. state schools offer their kids limited financial aid resources as undergrads, and all the money goes into funded programs for grads. if you as a state school exceed the borrowing limit with your tuition, the students borrowing to attend are screwed, as you often won't be lessening the blow with any grants or scholarships to reduce costs.

decades ago when you could work and afford state school -- when we funded them right -- i like your argument. borrow vs. no-borrow. at this point with in-state tuition plus room and board heading $20-30k, it's borrow vs. borrow. i agree that supplemental private borrowing is bad. but if the private nets ahead and the borrowed amount is the same, dude, go private. my personal experience the undergrad state option was like the 5th best financially.

i dunno, maybe you can make this cheaper by going to the 2nd or 3rd tier state school that charges less, or juco, but at a point you're getting what you pay for on ROI.

i dunno, this convo is headed weird. ivies my understanding is several of them have gone tuition free below a parent income number. the NESCAC type baby ivy schools are loaded on endowments and meet a huge % of need. the issue is getting in. only a fool would have the right numbers for a better school and then go to a state school that meets 70% of need.

now if you can't get in the ivies, or the ivyplus first and second tier forbes oddly excluded, yeah, maybe you eventually consider UT or UF. but i don't consider them equivalents or even better financial bargains, unless dad is paying cash. it's a better bargain for doctor's kids who somehow didn't convert their upbringing into going to an ivy. who can afford school out of pocket. my parents chipped in squat and i wasn't paying sticker. for someone like that look at "% need met." it usually doesn't favor state, catholic, or weak schools IMO. it ironically favors good privates with strong endowments and big scholarship/grant funds. like, well, ivies making their schools tuition free below an income number. the question is getting in.

my experience when public vs private mattered was grad school, because if you do an unfunded program and are basically borrowing the cost of attendance, cheap + good may = better. but presumably the ranking was an undergrad ranking. in which case, unless a specific program is excellent, if i am carrying the same debt private or public, why go to a weaker state school?

Yeah, this article is stupid click-bait.

"Hey, the Ivies aren't sought after any more [really? applications numbers and hiring data say otherwise] so we're going to do a pseudo-scientific study to determine the 'New Ivies' but we're going to eliminate the most obvious elite non-Ivy universities [Stanford, MIT, Duke, etc] and all the elite liberal arts colleges [Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc] and, while we're at it, the elite UCs [Berkeley, UCLA] that are generally considered the best public universities in the country."

But, hey, people love college rankings stuff and it got 4 pages of comments on even LRC. The schools and their alums that aren't normally ranked highly especially lap this stuff up, which is why this is a genius marketing move by Forbes even though the premise of it is absurd.

^ Embittered Cornell reject, perhaps.

Cornell's engineering school is consistently ranked best among the Ivy schools. Same for the ag school. Its architecture school is usually ranked the top undergraduate program in architecture in the USA. And though people snicker about hotel schools, Cornell's is often ranked top in the USA. At the graduate or professional school level, the Cornell vet school is often ranked 1st or 2nd in the USA, its medical school ranks tied for 10th in the USA (with NYU's and Yale's according to USNWR). And a few years ago Cornell was selected over Stanford and others to establish a sci-tech campus in NYC on land donated by the city on Roosevelt Island. So there :P

Forbes wouldn't have mentioned UF if Valby weren't there.

Feelings hurt? You must be woke and you must be a joke......biatch!

Lmao Maryland. Forbes might be even worse than US News.

my limited ivy experience merits the "assumption" you are concerned about. there were some absolutely brilliant kids. smarter than anything at my LAC, even the brightest, top of the class kids. there were some grinders, but they were highly effective ones. a bright tier 1 LAC or state school kid could probably replicate grinder performance. the venn overlaps. however i assume the ivy kid is one place and the other kid their place because of test scores and/or different approaches to school-life balance.

pretending the 1600-with-a-4.0 kids don't include some absolutely brilliant ones is bull. it's taking false equivalency too far. when i hear some political folks talks smack about ivies and throw around grade inflation, they don't know how freaking brilliant the best kids at the best schools are.

the venn overlap area is more interesting. legacies are one obvious issue. the larger issue i felt like existed was "class." i have never felt so socioeconomically awkward. a lot of the kids i was around went to elite private schools and seemed to come from money. dressed well, etc. people had their little fun attacking affirmative action but seem oblivious to what percent of these type of schools are rich private school kids. along those lines, my cousin went from an elite private to an ivy-plus, with a lower SAT and easier classes than i took, which got me a good LAC.

anyhow, my point is that little or no one involved in the competition at that level is an idiot. they are usually super bright people. i don't know if you need many "C" grades if people insist on the grade discussion. but to me the more interesting question, undercut when affirmative action disappeared, is of who would actually accelerate most given ivy access. a subtle argument to be made here is some kids with good but not great SATs from elite private HS may actually have kind of wasted that education. similar to how tucker carlson went to all manner of elite private and boarding schools then somehow can only manage trinity, a meh nescac. which is a solid school but relative to the advantages he should have had? he should have been at yale. this issue of socioeconomic advantage is more insidious. legacy sucks but it's like we refuse to look at class.

but, anyhow, the pertinent point here was an ivy drudge was as bright as a really smart state school or LAC kid. you have to be mean or unfair to say the more average ivy kid needs a "C" for merely doing smart, competent work, and not genius work.

what i am saying on affirmative action is some kid who gets out of a horrible inner city school with a 4.0, tough classes, and manages a 1390 might have more raw talent than some kid with 50-100 SAT points on them right now but they went to private school and had every advantage to prepare for those tests, tutoring, etc.

i am glad folks are making an issue on legacies and such but it's weird when the same people who will say some really good runner from a runner factory has likely peaked in HS but don't see that in terms of education and class.

Translated

UF over Berkeley and William & Mary? Good list.

Your comment is the racist one.