Wall Street Journal Feeder Ranking

<p>slipper,</p>

<p>if you bothered to read what the poster ACTUALLY wrote before they posted that list:</p>

<p>
[quote]
"In deference to IvyGrad, I'll post again a bell curve of colleges and universities based on a grading system. Of course the various factors to determine the grade remains comparable; the best in everything gets the A+, etc. Here goes (in alphabetical order):"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You would have realized that they were clearly referring to my preference for a TIER or GRADE rank system as opposed to a numerical rank system. Where do you assume that the list had anything to do with my own version of what colleges should be in what tier or grade? </p>

<p>I mean you made a mistake, just admit it. Be a man is all I am saying. It's not that hard dude, everyone makes them.</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=83339%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=83339&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So, basically, you won't man up to making a mistake and making false accusations?</p>

<p>"AA is more complex than simply letting in minorities. At the corporate/ grad school level they use feeder schools like Morehouse as AA. Its much easier than finding people individually. So no cookie for you either!"</p>

<p>So these professional schools get chummy with the predominantly black schools, advertise to those Morehouse kids, to fulfill their 'diversity' obligations?</p>

<p>It's still ultimately AA, but instead of marketing to URMs all over, they market to specific black schools I guess.</p>

<p>mmm, hungry.</p>

<p>Hey man, sorry I misunderstood what was posted. Until you just brought this up I never realized my mistake. Sorry.</p>

<p>Ashern, that is exactly what happens.</p>

<p>slipper, no harm no foul. it's all good.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The WSJ feeder list along with the Revealed Preferences study confirm what everyone already knows (at least in the back of their minds if they don't state it out loud):</p>

<p>1) HYPS is justified.
2) The Ivies matter. Period.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes because we only see Ivies on that list, with absolutely no non-Ivy schools besides Stanford doing better. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>bananainpyjamas, don't you know that cornell, brown, dartmouth, columbia, and University of Pennsylvania are not ivies?
Gosh. People can be so ignorant.
;)</p>

<p>I agree with my comrade Bananainpyjamas. It is foolish to think the rest of the ivies (not HYP) always perform better than schools like Duke, Uchicago, Northwestern, etc. Duke has a 98%- 99% law school admit rate. Excluding HYP, which ivy can do better? The only one I see tieing up to that is probably Dartmouth. In fact, Duke is almost up to par with YPS in grad placement. So, I suppose Ivy doesnt always beget Ivy, now does it? :)</p>

<p>That is unless Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore got into the ivy league and I was not aware of it. :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
bananainpyjamas, don't you know that cornell, brown, dartmouth, columbia, and University of Pennsylvania are not ivies?
Gosh. People can be so ignorant.
;)

[/quote]

Silly me. Looking at that list, it's clear the "Ivies" Ivy_Grad referred to were obviously Williams, Duke, MIT, Amherst, and Swarthmore. Oh and Dartmouth too. :p</p>

<p>ashern, yeah I agree that the subjective nature of picking schools to be in the list will make the study innacurate...but having a sample of 10-15 is always better than having a sample of 5</p>

<p>Wait, the Ivy League is more than three schools? HUH?</p>

<p>The feeder ranking is particularly biased towards those universities whose professional schools were included in the samples. The methodology isn't perfect in that it doesn't account for the boost given to universities whose professional schools are used in the sampling (undergrads tend to want to remain at their alma mater for grad school). Harvard, for example, had all three of its professional schools included, which gave it a big advantage. Stanford would have done better if its own professional schools were used. None of them were, even though its med school is ranked 8th, its business school 2nd, and its law school 3rd. Princeton does remarkably well considering it doesn't even have any professional schools. The WSJ feeder ranking is a pretty accurate ranking, but it has its flaws nonetheless.</p>

<p>"This is my rationalization of this phenomenon:</p>

<p>The rich insure that their offspring recieve the best education possible. Also, the rich are generally smarter than poorer classes, for after all, that is partially or wholly why they are now rich (There are few truly old rich families). This intelligence is quite heritable, and thus also passed down to the children. If intelligence was perfectly heritable and nonrandom, the rich would probably be even more represented and social mobility would be even less. Agreed, some rich get in through devious measures like legacies or VIP or donating huge amounts of money, but those cases are quite the minority.
Intelligence almost always correlates with Income."</p>

<p>Though I disagree with almost everything you wrote, it doesn't matter. If you compared folks with similar stats (linked to incomes) and incomes themselves at non-Ivy schools, you will find that they do as well (or better) as "Wall Street Feeders" as those from the Ivy schools. The point being that it isn't the school that is doing the "feeding", but the family income.</p>

<p>um...i keep saying this...but if you do the math...just account for chicago law and the university of chicago, just with that one school, Chicago gets a 3 percent mark FOR ONE school. If you look at the ranking, 3 percent is already top 30. Then add Chicago law, it probably jumps up to 4-5 percent. I mean, since Chicago is a small school and has phenomenal grad programs, it gets an immediate edge in a ranking of this sort that accounts for class size. Also, you have to realize, from #25 to #15, we are talking about the difference between 3 percent and 6 percent. I wouldn't base a huge decision like this on this ranking. There is also a lot of factors you can't account for as well. For example, i know you claim that there is an east coast bias, well, for the most part, the best grad programs lie on the east coast. However, just by using Michigan law, business, Chicago law, business, this creates an edge to midwest schools such as Chicago and Northwestern. If you look at the profiles of any of these midwest programs, Chicago and Northwestern are the top FEEDERS to all of these programs. Just as Stanford wasn't used, take away Chicago law and business with the schools in question, you will see that Chicago and Northwestern WILL plummet down that ranking.</p>

<p>^ditto.</p>

<p>Its interesting that some of the top schools on that list don't have any of their own programs included in the survey schools - including all the LACs, MIT, Duke, Cornell, and Brown</p>

<p>wat does ditto mean??</p>

<p>
[quote]
Duke has a 98%- 99% law school admit rate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The WSJ feeder rankings do not deny that.</p>

<p>Hey guys, did you notice that the "ranking" almost falls in line exactly with quality of the student body (with some obvious exceptions like the Techs, and Rice, the latter of which sends many students to med school but much fewer to law)? Could it be that the whole "grad placement" thing as far as schools go is overrated, ESPECIALLY for professional schools? Yes, someone from Harvard may get the nod if all things are equal (GPA, ECs, etc.), but all things are rarely equal, and the advantage is overblown. </p>

<p>Although reputation in field does matter for PhD admissions, this ranking has nothing to do with that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The rich insure that their offspring recieve the best education possible. Also, the rich are generally smarter than poorer classes, for after all, that is partially or wholly why they are now rich (There are few truly old rich families). This intelligence is quite heritable, and thus also passed down to the children. If intelligence was perfectly heritable and nonrandom, the rich would probably be even more represented and social mobility would be even less. Agreed, some rich get in through devious measures like legacies or VIP or donating huge amounts of money, but those cases are quite the minority.
Intelligence almost always correlates with Income."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Such fragile and meticulously crafted logic; it would be a pity to deny just one of the premises and observe the whole argument fall. It reminds me of Jenga.</p>

<p>for Rice's student body, I would have expected a strong showing. Student body wise, Rice is as strong as a place like Duke. However, as this shows, student body doesn't necessarily mean success in grad placement.</p>

<p>ohnoes, I agree. I say, if you are truly worried about admissions to professional schools and such, attend the most rigorous (ie high SAT scores, prestige overall and in a given area) school possible.
I'd say that berkeley, michigan, and UVA are all easily better than Morehouse and some of the other private schools.</p>

<p>:) Nspeds
Both of my two points are independent of the other's effectiveness. Even if intelligence was not heritable, the rich ensuring that their children attain the best education would still have an effect, though I have a feeling the education aspect is much more marginal compared to residual intelligence.</p>

<p>I could find data tying income to intelligence, but I'm lazy.</p>

<p>I agree with Chicago and Northwestern. At the top eastern grd schools I am aware of, Chicago and Northwestern aren't close to any of the Ivies.</p>