Harvard is no longer the dream school; here's what is
The Brief
A 2025 survey by The Princeton Review reveals MIT now tops the list as the most desirable "dream college," pushing Harvard to No. 2.
The survey, conducted with over 7,000 high school students, highlighted other popular schools like Stanford, Princeton, and Yale in the top 10.
Despite interest in top colleges, nearly 98% of applicants said they were concerned about the cost, with nearly half saying financial aid was "extremely" necessary.
A new report reveals Harvard University is no longer considered the ultimate "dream" school among current college applicants.
The 2025 report by The Princeton Review surveyed more than 7,000 students from high school students from all 50 states who were applying to college.
This year, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ranked as the top spot of most desirable colleges, according to the survey. Harvard fell to No. 2.
The 10 schools most named by students surveyed this year as their "dream college" were:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Harvard College (MA)
Stanford University (CA)
Princeton University (NJ)
Yale University (CT)
Columbia University (NY)
New York University
University of Michigan – Ann Arbor
University of Pennsylvania
University of California – Los Angeles
What they're saying
"We are truly grateful to the 235,000+ applicants and parents that have participated in our College Hopes & Worries survey over the years," said Rob Franket, the editor-in-chief of The Princeton Review. "Their feedback on their application experiences has provided important insights not only for our company but for all who are dedicated to helping students identify and gain admission to their 'best fit' colleges."
Despite the results, the ability to pay for the college was a top concern among students and parents.
By the numbers
Nearly all the respondents (98%) indicated they were planning to apply for financial aid. When asked how necessary financial aid would be to pay for college, nearly half (48%) chose the answer "Extremely" while 29% chose the answer "Very."
Dig deeper
Earlier this year, WalletHub released its 2025 rankings of the best US colleges and universities.
RELATED: Here are the best colleges in the US for 2025
The study analyzed over 800 higher education institutions across 30 different metrics, including student selectivity, cost, faculty resources, and career outcomes.
Top universities like Princeton, Yale, and Harvard continued to dominate, while smaller colleges like Swarthmore and Hamilton also made their mark. MIT ranked fourth on the list.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Hegseth to Face More Questions on Capitol Hill
The push for an inquiry is tied to a conference Harvard held as part of a broader 'Harvard China Health Partnership.' Secretary of State Marco Rubio is pushing to investigate whether Harvard University violated federal sanctions by collaborating on a health insurance conference in China that may have included officials blacklisted by the U.S. government, according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed by The New York Times. Mr. Rubio signed off on a recommendation to the Treasury Department last month to open an investigation, which experts and former Treasury officials said was an unusual attempt from a cabinet secretary to target a domestic entity for sanctions enforcement. Whether the agency within the Treasury that handles sanctions, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, opened an investigation in response was unclear — but such a move could expose Harvard to significant legal risks. Mr. Rubio's action is the latest example of the Trump administration's whole-of-government approach to bringing the Ivy League university to heel. President Trump has sought for months to impose his political agenda on Harvard by reshaping its curriculum, admissions and hiring processes. The effort initially relied primarily on accusations that university officials had not done enough to address antisemitism on campus. In recent weeks, however, the administration's focus has expanded to other issues, including allegations about Harvard's foreign ties, particularly to China. A potential sanctions investigation demonstrates how Harvard's problems with the government extend far beyond questions of whether the school will continue receiving federal funding. Mr. Trump and his allies appear determined to upend nearly all aspects of the institution, which has long symbolized the pinnacle of higher learning in the country and attracted influential scholars from around the globe. A spokesman for the Treasury Department declined to comment on a possible or pending sanctions investigation. A State Department spokeswoman also declined to comment. The health insurance conference, known as the Training Course on Health Financing, began in 2019 as a joint venture between Harvard, the World Bank and the National Health Insurance Administration, the arm of the Chinese government that oversees the state-backed health care system, according to the university's website. Over the years, training has focused on topics like 'innovative provider payment methods' and 'pricing and payment for internet health.' The university has promoted the event, which in some years has drawn upward of 200 people, as a key part of a broader 'Harvard China Health Partnership' inside its T.H. Chan School for Public Health. University officials have previously described the event as aimed at expanding access to high-quality health care for 1.4 billion people in China. Behind Mr. Rubio's sanctions push is the presence of officials from a Chinese state-run group called the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps at some, if not all, of the conferences since 2019. The X.P.C.C. is known in northwest China for building towns and running its own university and hospital systems. The group is also responsible for systemic human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in the region, according to the U.S. government. The Chinese government formed the X.P.C.C. more than seven decades ago as a paramilitary organization tasked with settling a distant region with many ethnic groups and some militias. The Treasury Department imposed sanctions on the group in 2020. Harvard has been conducting an internal review into the X.P.C.C.'s involvement at the conference, but it was unclear what details had been turned up, according to two people familiar with the inquiry who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal university deliberations. A Harvard spokesman declined to comment. An archived version of a Harvard webpage about the inaugural conference noted that participants in the training included the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. That event occurred one year before the U.S. government targeted the group for sanctions, but mention of the X.P.C.C. has since been deleted. A Chinese government website about the 2023 conference shows that participants that year — three years after the U.S. imposed sanctions on the X.P.C.C. — included Chinese health officials, scholars from 'top universities,' such as Harvard, and representatives of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. Still, the X.P.C.C.'s involvement in the conference only recently gained attention from Trump allies, after a report about Harvard's links to China published on April 22 by Strategy Risks, a New York-based intelligence company specializing in corporate exposure to China. The report was funded by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that has advised Republican policymakers. Since then, the report's details have been highlighted in news articles from conservative media outlets and public statements from Republican officials. On May 15, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas cited the Strategy Risks report in a letter to Mr. Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, urging an investigation into Harvard's public health school. On May 19, Republicans on the House education committee sent a request for records to Harvard about, in part, the X.P.C.C.'s involvement in the conference. On May 22, the Department of Homeland Security said that Harvard had 'hosted and trained' members of the group and included a link to a Fox News article about the House Republican records request in its news release. Image Secretary of State Marco Rubio, left, signed off on a recommendation to the Treasury Department, led by Scott Bessent, right, last month to open an investigation into Harvard. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times Investigations of potential sanctions violations could take months or years, while penalties range from a cautionary letter from the government to significant financial damages. Other cabinet secretaries — like the secretary of state — often coordinate with the treasury secretary on foreign individuals, groups or countries that they believe should be subject to sanctions. But it is atypical for the nation's chief diplomat to single out an American individual, group or company for a potential violation, according to John Smith, a former director of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Sanctions investigations, Mr. Smith said, are typically started after reporting in media or from companies, the intelligence community or law enforcement. 'I wouldn't say it's wrong or improper — I would just say it's unusual and not the usual course of business,' Mr. Smith said. Typically, after learning of a potential violation, the Office of Foreign Assets Control decides whether to open an investigation. If the office ultimately finds wrongdoing, the Treasury could impose civil penalties and recommend that the Justice Department pursue criminal charges. In particularly egregious instances, companies can be hit with civil and criminal penalties that come with fines as high as billions of dollars. Harvard has confronted a tumultuous two months since Mr. Trump set his sights on the school. In some ways, Harvard has been victimized by the success of its yearslong push to expand its global influence, which has abruptly crashed into the nationalist impulses fueling Mr. Trump's 'America First' agenda. Many of Harvard's attempts at inroads in China began relatively recently, when Washington was engaged with Beijing as a strategic and economic partner. China is now viewed more widely as an adversary, a shift that accelerated during Mr. Trump's first administration. Harvard brought an initial lawsuit against the administration in April, accusing the government of trying to assert control over the school with threats to cut federal funding. By then, the Trump administration had already blocked $2.2 billion in various grants. Since the lawsuit was filed, the university and its research partners have lost nearly another $1.5 billion in support from the National Institutes of Health, the Defense Department and other federal agencies. The university is also fighting in court over an effort from Mr. Trump and the Homeland Security Department to revoke visas from Harvard's international students, who account for about one-fourth of the student body, and bar them from the country. Harvard has been targeted by additional investigations from the Education Department, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Health and Human Services Department and the Justice Department. Isaac Stone Fish, the founder and chief executive of Strategic Risks, said he started his company in 2021 after working as a journalist in Beijing. In 2022, he published a book, 'America Second,' that traces the recent transition of the U.S.-China relationship, from economic partners to open rivals. Mr. Stone Fish said his report, cited by conservatives, should not be read as a 'blanket condemnation' of Harvard. He praised the university for pushing ahead on what he described as crucial research and scholarship into China. But he also argued that the X.P.C.C. was 'one of the world's most notorious organizations' and that the university's partnerships should be held to a high standard. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, speaking at a Bloomberg News event in Washington on Tuesday, defended the administration's punishing approach to Harvard and said it was a way to shift an ideological tilt she views as hostile to conservatives. Asked to summarize the administration's successes so far in its battle with Harvard, she pointed to the departure of two faculty members in March from the university's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. 'We have noticed that they did replace their head of Middle Eastern studies because they felt that they needed to make some adjustments there,' Ms. McMahon said. 'So we're pleased to see that.' All of the federal funding cuts for Harvard — and eight of the 10 federal investigations into the university — have happened since the professors left campus.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nvidia CEO says quantum computing is at an inflection point
PARIS (Reuters) -Quantum computing technology is at an inflection point, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang reiterated on Wednesday at the VivaTech conference in Paris. Quantum calculations could crack problems that currently would demand years of processing from Nvidia's most advanced AI systems. Quantum computing will solve "some interesting problems" in the coming years, Huang added. The CEO made similar comments in March at Nvidia's annual software developer conference when he spoke about the potential of quantum computing, walking back comments he made in January when he said useful quantum computers were 20 years away. In March, Huang also announced a new quantum computing research lab in Boston, set to collaborate with Harvard and MIT scientists.
New York Times
4 hours ago
- New York Times
OpenAI Seems to Be Making a Very Familiar, Very Cynical Choice
Last spring, Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, sat in the chancel of Harvard Memorial Church, sermonizing against advertising. 'I will disclose, just as a personal bias, that I hate ads,' he began in his usual calm cadence, one sneakered foot crossed onto his lap. He said that ads 'fundamentally misalign a user's incentives with the company providing the service,' adding that he found the notion of mixing advertising with artificial intelligence — the product his company is built on — 'uniquely unsettling.' The comment reminded me immediately of something I'd heard before, from around the time I was first getting online. It came from a seminal paper that Sergey Brin and Larry Page wrote in 1998, when they were at Stanford developing Google. They argued that advertising often made search engines less useful, and that companies that relied on it would 'be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.' I showed up at Stanford as a freshman in 2000, not long after Mr. Brin and Mr. Page had accepted a $25 million round of venture capital funding to turn their academic project into a business. My best friend there persuaded me to try Google, describing it as more ethical than the search engines that had come before. What we didn't realize was that in the midst of the dot-com crash, which coincided with our arrival, Google's investors were pressuring the co-founders to hire a more experienced chief executive. Mr. Brin and Mr. Page brought in Eric Schmidt, who in turn hired Sheryl Sandberg, the chief of staff to Lawrence H. Summers when he was Treasury secretary, to build an advertising program. Filing for Google to go public a couple of years later, Mr. Brin and Mr. Page explained away the reversal of their anti-advertising stance by telling shareholders that ads made Google more useful because they provided what the founders called 'great commercial information.' My senior year, news filtered into The Stanford Daily, where I worked, that Facebook — which some of us had heard about from friends at Harvard, where it had started — was coming to our campus. 'I know it sounds corny, but I'd love to improve people's lives, especially socially,' Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's co-founder, told The Daily's reporter. He added, 'In the future we may sell ads to get the money back, but since providing the service is so cheap, we may choose not to do that for a while.' Mr. Zuckerberg went on to quit Harvard and move to Palo Alto, Calif. I went on to The Wall Street Journal. Covering Facebook in 2007, I got a scoop that Facebook — which had in fact introduced ads — would begin using data from individual users and their 'friends' on the site to sharpen how ads were targeted to them. Like Google before it, Facebook positioned this as being good for users. Mr. Zuckerberg even brought Ms. Sandberg over from Google to help. When an economic downturn, followed by an I.P.O., later put pressure on Facebook, it followed Google's playbook: doubling down on advertising. In this case, it did so by collecting and monetizing even more personal information about its users. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
