2022 Best Global Universities by City

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

Neither JFK, Newark or La Guardia have direct heavy rail access to the terminal; you have to get the AirTrain. New York is an international outlier in providing a one-seat ride from the city centre.

I'm beginning to think you've never actually been to New York, lol.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by nito

Neither JFK, Newark or La Guardia have direct heavy rail access to the terminal; you have to get the AirTrain. New York is an international outlier in providing a one-seat ride from the city centre.

None of this is true. All provide (or in the case of LGA, will soon provide) direct rail access to the city center.

Of course there isn't direct rail access from every terminal to the city center, but that's impossible in any major city with airports with multiple terminals. You cannot have a single train terminal serving multiple terminals. Doesn't exist anywhere. And you cannot have a single city center destination in a major city center. Also doesn't exist anywhere.

If you land in Paris, for example, you have to transfer within the airport to the RER terminal, and then the RER doesn't deliver you to the city center, without transferring at Gare du Nord or Chatelet. Paris has an enormous city center, so that would be impossible. The RER B line is east of the major business destinations, and most of the hotels.

And even if you ran separate rail lines from every terminal to the city center, would be impossible, bc there isn't one common center city location that would provide direct service for visitors. For example, Heathrow has excellent rail service to the city center, but Paddington Station is nowhere near the primary business and travel destinations, so a transfer is usually required.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

None of this is true. All provide (or in the case of LGA, will soon provide) direct rail access to the city center.

Of course there isn't direct rail access from every terminal to the city center, but that's impossible in any major city with airports with multiple terminals. You cannot have a single train terminal serving multiple terminals. Doesn't exist anywhere. And you cannot have a single city center destination in a major city center. Also doesn't exist anywhere.

If you land in Paris, for example, you have to transfer within the airport to the RER terminal, and then the RER doesn't deliver you to the city center, without transferring at Gare du Nord or Chatelet. Paris has an enormous city center, so that would be impossible. The RER B line is east of the major business destinations, and most of the hotels.

And even if you ran separate rail lines from every terminal to the city center, would be impossible, bc there isn't one common center city location that would provide direct service for visitors. For example, Heathrow has excellent rail service to the city center, but Paddington Station is nowhere near the primary business and travel destinations, so a transfer is usually required.

Yeah, even using Heathrow Express it'd take about the same amount of time to get from the City of London to Heathrow as it takes to get from Penn Station to JFK or Newark. Of course, going to Heathrow from Paddington Station is quick, but that's not exactly convenient to most of London. Penn Station is far more centrally located in New York.

Honestly, Heathrow Express seems kind of like a boondoggle. It's ridiculously priced and pretty inconvenient...

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

From my memory of high school in the mid-90s in the Midwest, the SAT was seen as the "private university test", and the ACT was seen as the "public university test".

As I didn't really have a solid game plan of what I was doing after high school, my guidance counselor said "just take both to cover all of your bases", so I did.

I'd say that most of the kids in my graduating class at my college prep Jesuit high school in suburban chicago took both, so I'm not sure that I'd agree that it was necessarily a north/south thing.

That's interesting...

Myself, growing up in southern California, nobody talked about the ACT. It was all about the SAT, and apart from myself, I don't know of any other person in my high school who took the ACT too. I didn't even know about the ACT until I started seeing prep books for them in bookstores when I was looking up study guides for the SAT.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

From my memory of high school in the mid-90s in the Midwest, the SAT was seen as the "private university test", and the ACT was seen as the "public university test".

As I didn't really have a solid game plan of what I was doing after high school, my guidance counselor said "just take both to cover all of your bases", so I did.

I'd say that most of the kids in my graduating class at my college prep Jesuit high school in suburban chicago took both, so I'm not sure that I'd agree that it was necessarily a north/south thing.

Yeah, I don't think it was really a north/south thing. That's just what the perception was. I don't really remember taking the ACT as even being an option.

it was pretty much ingrained into us that the ACT wasn't as "good". The middle states education commission (PA, NY, NJ, DE, DC, MD, PR) probably got paid by the College Board to promote the SAT over the ACT.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, I don't think it was really a north/south thing. That's just what the perception was. I don't really remember taking the ACT as even being an option.

it was pretty much ingrained into us that the ACT wasn't as "good". The middle states education commission (PA, NY, NJ, DE, DC, MD, PR) probably got paid by the College Board to promote the SAT over the ACT.

Yeah, my impression as a senior in Nevada was that the ACT was "easier" and not as "serious" but probably just College Board propaganda. Everyone applying to more selective schools I knew took the SAT...

[Gordo]

I took both, but I always heard (even by my high school counselor in Idaho) that the SAT was the east/west coast public/private test, with most middle America private schools also preferring/requiring it, and the ACT was just a middle America public school thing.

I don't remember either being easier than the other, but I know that I didn't actually submit the ACT anywhere (only ending up applying to schools in California and Massachusetts that only wanted the SAT).

[Shawn]

Massachusetts public schools in the mid-late 90s didn't mention that the ACT even existed. Want to demonstrate your chem or lit or physics knowledge to prospective schools? Pay for a bunch of SAT IIs. And/or take AP classes and get 4s or 5s on the exams.

[craigs]

I took the SAT and, while it has been many years, I just don't remember hearing anything about the ACT from my high school counselors.

[JManc]

We knew about the ACT (New York) but councilors didn't push it anything like the SAT's. I don't know of anyone who took (or registered for) it. I think the ACT is more prominent here in Texas.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Crawford

None of this is true. All provide (or in the case of LGA, will soon provide) direct rail access to the city center.

Of course there isn't direct rail access from every terminal to the city center, but that's impossible in any major city with airports with multiple terminals. You cannot have a single train terminal serving multiple terminals. Doesn't exist anywhere. And you cannot have a single city center destination in a major city center. Also doesn't exist anywhere.

If you land in Paris, for example, you have to transfer within the airport to the RER terminal, and then the RER doesn't deliver you to the city center, without transferring at Gare du Nord or Chatelet. Paris has an enormous city center, so that would be impossible. The RER B line is east of the major business destinations, and most of the hotels.

And even if you ran separate rail lines from every terminal to the city center, would be impossible, bc there isn't one common center city location that would provide direct service for visitors. For example, Heathrow has excellent rail service to the city center, but Paddington Station is nowhere near the primary business and travel destinations, so a transfer is usually required.

This conversation has gone way off tangent, but there are no trains from Manhattan that take you to either JFK, Newark or LaGuardia. With JFK and Newark, you board a commuter or subway train to an airport parkway station, and then transfer to the AirTrain people mover. Newark was due to be connected in a similar fashion but the AirTrain proposal has since been cancelled.

The goal of such services isn’t to provide a direct route to every possible final destination (which train does?), but to provide the most efficient way to transport millions of people to/from the city centre to airports. Hence the vast majority of major international cities have developed (and continue to develop) direct rail lines, whether it be metro, commuter, regional rail or dedicated express lines/services. Many of which also operate rolling stock with increased space for luggage.

Charles de Gaulle is served by RER (stopping and non-stop to Gare du Nord), TGV and regional train services, and from 2025 will be served by a dedicated CdG Express service. Granted the old T1 doesn’t have a dedicated station (accessible via a people mover from the nearby RER station), but for context, 70% of gates at CdG are located around the giant T2. London Heathrow is accessible from Central London not just via the Heathrow Express, but also the (slower) Piccadilly Line and TfL Rail. TfL Rail is the precursor to Crossrail (further increasing access across London) and of course there are plans for additional tunnels to increase access to the west and south.

Rail ridership from either Heathrow or CdG is 3x that of the JFK AirTrain via Jamaica and Howard Beach. Gatwick Airport station is a single station but busier than the likes of MNR’s Hudson line and many other New York commuter lines. Direct access to airports aren’t novelties but heavily utilised valuable assets. The real absence of such services to New York’s airports has more to do with a lack of integrated planning, the lack of sufficient paths on said corridors, and a lack of infrastructure investment to create those paths (at the airport, city and regional level).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

Rail ridership from either Heathrow or CdG is 3x that of the JFK AirTrain via Jamaica and Howard Beach. Gatwick Airport station is a single station but busier than the likes of MNR’s Hudson line and many other New York commuter lines. Direct access to airports aren’t novelties but heavily utilised valuable assets. The real absence of such services to New York’s airports has more to do with a lack of integrated planning, the lack of sufficient paths on said corridors, and a lack of infrastructure investment to create those paths (at the airport, city and regional level).

This is stupid, and I don't get why you're so intent to die on this hill. Heathrow and Charles de Gualle serve more passengers than JFK. Do you want to make another obvious point? lol.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, I don't think it was really a north/south thing. That's just what the perception was. I don't really remember taking the ACT as even being an option.

it was pretty much ingrained into us that the ACT wasn't as "good". The middle states education commission (PA, NY, NJ, DE, DC, MD, PR) probably got paid by the College Board to promote the SAT over the ACT.

Growing up in the Philadelphia area, the only people I knew who took the ACT were people who initially score poorly (or at least, not as good as they hoped to) on the SAT, as a secondary data point.

I also knew a good number of English as a second language folks who took it because for whatever reason.

[pj3000]

^ Yeah, that sounds similar to what I recall about the ACT. I don't remember knowing anyone who took it, but remember that it could be an option to consider if you don't do well on the SAT.

[nito]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This is stupid, and I don't get why you're so intent to die on this hill. Heathrow and Charles de Gualle serve more passengers than JFK. Do you want to make another obvious point? lol.

Pre-Covid-19, JFK handled around a fifth fewer passengers than Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle, but it’s not like JFK is a tiny airport to offset the gulf in rail access and usage, a situation that is only going to diverge further with the CdG Express and Crossrail. Investment in New York transport infrastructure lags behind its international peers which is why there is such a stark difference in connectivity.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by nito

Investment in New York transport infrastructure lags behind its international peers which is why there is such a stark difference in connectivity.

New York ain't got no "international peers". Ain't got no peers at all, homes!

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

Pre-Covid-19, JFK handled around a fifth fewer passengers than Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle, but it’s not like JFK is a tiny airport to offset the gulf in rail access and usage, a situation that is only going to diverge further with the CdG Express and Crossrail. Investment in New York transport infrastructure lags behind its international peers which is why there is such a stark difference in connectivity.

I've literally never heard anyone complain that there was not enough rail service to JFK. And that's because there is plenty of rail service to JFK.

[Pedestrian]

The WSJ and "Times Higher Education" top college rankings came out yesterday for 2022.

Here are the top 10 (use link for the rest)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/college...article_inline

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, I don't think it was really a north/south thing. That's just what the perception was. I don't really remember taking the ACT as even being an option.

it was pretty much ingrained into us that the ACT wasn't as "good". The middle states education commission (PA, NY, NJ, DE, DC, MD, PR) probably got paid by the College Board to promote the SAT over the ACT.

In the 1960s, it was as others have described: Most state schools used the ACT, private ones used the SAT. I'm sure there were exceptions but that was the general rule.

In the area you specifically mentioned, in Maryland, the U. of MD (College Park) used the ACT and Johns Hopkins used the SAT for example.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by pj3000

^ Yeah, that sounds similar to what I recall about the ACT. I don't remember knowing anyone who took it, but remember that it could be an option to consider if you don't do well on the SAT.

I only knew of it in Arizona because the college I wanted to attend accepted both. I vaguely remember the ACT being somewhat easier (I don't remember my score at all), but I'm also generally a shitty test-taker.