The Next Bandwagons: 2002 Subaru WRX vs. 2002 Mazda Protege5 and 2003 Toyota Matrix
[This story first appeared in the May 2002 issue of MotorTrend] Although there's no sign of their sales declining (yet), the days of conspicuously consuming, over-capacitized, underutilized sport/utilities are numbered. Should gasoline prices suddenly fall in line with those around the world, 5000-7000-lb trucks will be thick on the used-car lots. Sure, there'll always be those who still require heavy metal to tow a boat, horse trailer, or race-car carrier, but most of today's sport/utility buyers do none of that. When fuel gets truly costly, the most sensible and sporty vehicle for many current SUV drivers will be, as Europe has already discovered, the sport wagon. We saw a hint of the future popularity this type of versatile vehicle will enjoy with the '01 Chrysler PT Cruiser (we named it MotorTrend's 2001 Car of the Year).
Granted, there's a new classification of automobile on the horizon, so-called sports tourers or crossovers exemplified by the forthcoming '04 Chrysler Pacifica among others. These larger-than-wagon, smaller-than-SUV something or others will likely capture those who don't want the real or perceived stigma of a minivan nor the environmentally insensitive label associated with traditional sport/utilities-even those me-too car-based cute-utes. What's left are fun-to-drive, surprisingly useful, four-door sport wagons that'll catch the attention of young or young-minded buyers who value style, cargo capacity, performance, and price-probably in that order. Besides, they're even more fun to drive than some sports cars and sport sedans. Really.
0:00 / 0:00
The relatively low-cost examples we gathered for this comparo also should've included the upcoming 205-hp turbocharged Chrysler PT Cruiser GT (see "First Drive," this issue), but one wasn't yet available for testing. Conversely, instead of comparing a lower-priced, otherwise near-identical non-turbo 165-hp Subaru Impreza 2.5TS AWD Sport Wagon ($17,495), we decided to lob a few rounds over the bow of the oft-praised turbocharged WRX Sport Wagon ($23,495); this particular tester resides in our own One-Year Test fleet. It was fitted just this month with a set of optional plus-one BBS/Bridgestone Potenza boots at a seriously pricey retail cost of $3035, bringing the as-tested total to an artificially swollen $27,055. Price-hedging aside, the Mazda Proteg5 ($16,335 base) and Toyota Matrix XRS ($18,750 base) hold more than a few surprises for the more expensive, hot-rodded WRX.
The core values all three of these hatchback sport wagons share are four doors, fuel-efficient high-revving four-cylinder engines, flexible load-carrying capacity, manual transmissions, and higher-than-expected levels of handling prowess-hence the "sport" in sport wagon.
We asked each manufacturer to please send us its highest-output best-handling compact wagon, and as a result, the list of standard equipment swells over their lesser models. Common to each of the three wagons are standard CD stereo, leather/tilt wheel, foglights, remote entry, power window/locks, cruise control, four-wheel disc brakes, and sport-tuned suspension and wheels. Call it all the "basic good stuff" (BGS) package.
While the 2.0L/130-hp Protege5 comes in one flavor only, including the BGS package, it absolutely begs for a turbocharger. In addition to standard equipment, ours was optioned with an ABS/front-seat side-airbag package ($800), which requires also ordering a power moonroof ($700). The grand total, including destination fee, proved the least expensive at $18,315. While a 4A transmission is available, our five-speed manual was selected to keep the performance and fun factor as high as possible. No 17-in. wheels are currently available for the Protege5, however, a rather nice set is curiously standard on the snarky MP3 version of the Protege Sedan.
In contrast, the Toyota Matrix is available in three trim levels with a variety of options and powertrain configurations. The sportiest six-speed-manual front-drive Matrix XRS includes BGS standard equipment plus ABS with electronic brake distribution. The XRS's 1.8L/180-hp I-4, pinched from a Celica GT-S, tops the Mazda, however. Added to the tally are an upgraded in-dash six-CD stereo ($100), 17-in. wheels with performance tires (only $150), and front-occupant side airbags ($250) for a total of $19,867. A four-speed automatic is likewise available.
The less-expensive Matrix Standard and XR models are equipped with a lower-output version of the 1.8L motor, producing either 130 hp in FWD configuration or 123 hp with AWD. While FWD models are optioned with either a 5M or 4A transmission, the AWD model is available only with a four-speed automatic. Buzz kill, American style. This low-output/automatic/AWD rationale runs contrary to Subaru's lineup where the combination of high-output engine, manual transmission, and AWD is unique and exceptionally good fun.
We've already touched on the WRX's 227-hp turbocharged intercooled, flat-four "ringer" status of the threesome. However, as we intended, it's the most sporty engine/trans/driveline combo Subaru currently offers and represents the company's top-performing wagon. As a result, it's also the most costly at a base price of $23,495 and, like the others, includes the BGS standard equipment. But the WRX goes far beyond the others with full-time AWD (center differential and viscous coupling) with a limited-slip rear differential, ABS, racing-style front seats with side airbags, Momo steering wheel, and an aluminum hood with functional scoop. The only major available options our tester lacks are a 4A transmission-no thanks for this sport-biased test-and a premium-level stereo. The attractive, new 17-in. BBS wheels with Bridgestone Potenza RE011 performance rubber our wagon now wears are the only option we chose to add, bringing the total to $27,055. This may seem like a lot of money for an AWD wagon, but consider the only other AWD wagons available: Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and Volvo. Do you see a continent-biased trend there? With the European wagons ranging from $28,000 to $50,000, suddenly the WRX's price becomes more palatable-especially considering the Subaru tops them all in base horsepower.
If the Mazda Protege5 holds the most traditional wagon profile and proportions, and the Subaru Impreza WRX has a slightly taller greenhouse, then the Toyota Matrix, which is not spun off an existing sedan's body like the others, represents a new take on the wagon idea and is noticeably taller by about three inches and wider by nearly the same margin. Clever body design, including the Matrix's tapered rear windows and swooping sheetmetal crease flowing from lower front to upper rear, give it a far more compact, sporty look than its actual size. As we expected from initial eyeballing, its interior is far more voluminous and airy than the other two. Total EPA-provided interior volumes tell the tale, with the Matrix's 118.0 cu ft topping the rest of the crew by more than 5 cu ft.
It turns out that measuring useable cargo volume (both behind and with second-row seats folded) is a black art dependent on whose standards we follow: EPA, SAE, or manufacturer's estimates. As we've discovered in the past, each one measures differently, and the figures are sometimes deceiving and incomparable. For this reason, and we feel it's a critical part of this comparison, we tend to learn more from our own use of the vehicles and actually putting known quantities of stuff in their cargo areas.
That said, if we go by the manufacturer-supplied cargo-volume figures, it would appear the WRX is the winner. We suspect there's a measurement methodology issue here, because our real-world test using a full complement of band equipment, including three drums, cymbals case, three guitars, and a keyboard case, revealed the Matrix is far more capable of comfortably holding all the gear with room to spare (see photo). Unlike the other two, the Matrix utilizes a flat-folding 60/40-split rear seat and near-flat-folding front passenger seat to increase its already ample cargo capacity. While the other two also have 60/40 folding rear seats, the seatbacks in their down position remain slightly propped up due to their cushions meeting, plus neither has a folding front seat.
As a bonus, the Matrix features a rear-glass hinge (like some SUVs) in addition to its hatch opening, allowing a person to safely retrieve items that may have shifted during rapid transit and are in danger of falling out if the cargo door itself is opened. Another benefit of a glass opening is that it requires less swing-out space if the vehicle is backed near an obstacle.
Driver-seat comfort and bolstering have as much to do with first impressions as they portend a car's sporting intentions and abilities. From the moment we climbed into the Subaru, we knew something fun was afoot (or aseat). With high-thigh and deep-side bolstering, the WRX's racing-style front buckets mean business. They're also highly adjustable. The Mazda has similar though less purposeful seats up front that scored highly. While each of our editor's physical dimensions are different, we find the Matrix's driver's seat less supportive than the others and adjusts through a narrower range. That makes it difficult for us to find just the right combo of legroom and wheel-to-chest distance. If we set the legroom, the steering wheel is too close, and vice versa. If either the steering wheel telescoped or pedals were adjustable, it'd be easier to feel at home in the Matrix. Rear-seat accommodations actually do follow the tale of the measuring tape. From largest to smallest, we find the Matrix most comfortable, the Protege5 slightly less so, and the WRX almost a bit tight, though not objectionable.
Enough of content, cargo, and comfort. These are, after all, sport wagons and a blast to drive. It used to be four-bangers were just that: Small-displacement economy-minded little motors for commuter cars. Turbochargers, variable valve-timing, and high-revving multi-valve DOHC heads changed all that. Today's four-cylinder motors are cleaner than ever, they still sip at the gas pump, but you can also pump the gas pedal to make things more exciting.
All three wagons have high-revving capabilities, yet each manufacturer puts a different spin on the concept. The Mazda Protege5 is the cleanest-running here, earning a ULEV rating. While it lacks the absolute horsepower the other two offer, its 2.0L/130-hp inline-four (the only engine currently offered) runs on less-expensive regular-grade gasoline and returns the best EPA mileage figures of the three. The Protege5 does, however, offer a more useable amount of torque at a lower rpm than the Matrix: 135 lb-ft at 4000 rpm versus 130 lb-ft at 6800 rpm. Because of this around-town-rpm earnestness, we'd hardly say the Protege5 is slow--it's merely horsepower challenged. Still, it doesn't embarrass itself at the test track, returning a decent 8.82-sec sprint to 60 mph, and clips the slalom cones at a pace (66.4 mph) that would challenge most sports cars. No doubt the trick strut-tower brace and anti-roll bars aided in wagon's extremely flat and predictable nature. Equipped with ABS, the Protege5 comes to a halt from 60 mph in a respectable 124 ft.
Because the WRX's turbocharged LEV-status production 227-hp/2.0L was born to aid Subaru's World Rally Championship racing efforts, it's designed to be both powerful and torquey. Contrary to what one might expect from a turbo, its useable torque is not nearly as subject to engine rpm as the Matrix's naturally aspirated 1.8L, nor does it display too much turbo-lag. Perhaps because of the engine's flat configuration, or perhaps because the turbo wakes up at a usefully low rpm, we find the engine both civilized at low rpm and an absolute Mustang-slayer at full throttle. Get the launch technique just right, and the World Rallye Blue wagon jumps off the line and screams to a 5.86-sec 0-60-mph run-fastest of the group by almost a second and a half. Perhaps we were pinning too much hope on our expensive new tires and wheels, but the WRX's slalom speed (65.0 mph) increased by just 2 mph over the standard 16-inchers with all-season rubber. That's still outstanding, especially for a wagon.
On the downside, we've begun to notice those expansion joints and uneven pavement more with the shorter sidewalls, yet we really enjoy their crisper turn-in characteristics and far less tire howl than the mud and snow-rated tires they replaced. Tradeoff? Our only wish is that the WRX was available with a six-speed rather than the five it now has. Tightening up the gear spacing between 1 and 5 and adding an overdrive sixth gear (which is what Toyota tries to do with the Matrix) would solve the low-rpm lethargy we observe in nearly all small-displacement motors. Otherwise, it's as sporty a wagon as you can buy short of an Audi S6 Avant for close to $60,000.
By adding a muffler that approximates an exhaust note more often produced by aftermarket systems, the Matrix XRS's 1.8L/180-hp TLEV-spec engine sounds more aggressive than the other two. With an eyebrow-raising 9000-rpm redline, it's a car ready for the pages of Super Street magazine. Driving it around town, we find ourselves looking less at the tach for shift points and more to the momentum we feel in our seats and the tone reaching our ears. Occasional glances reveal we've been driving it comfortably in the 3000-6000-rpm range, which comes as a bit of a surprise. Sure, it sounds a little buzzy, but that's where it likes to perform. If we want to awaken the angry nest of wasps under the XRS' hood, we simply keep the pedal matted past the magical 6000-rpm VVTL-i changeover to its high-lift long-duration cam timing. There's plenty of wheelspin on tap if you want it, and moderating this tendency with a sensitive foot on the accelerator nets an SVT Focus-beating 7.26-sec 0-60-mph time (MT, April, 2002).
This alone would enthuse us because the low-volume high-tech 170-hp SVT is one of the most impressive front-drivers around. However, the Matrix XRS went on to nearly tie the same Focus with a truly fast 66.9-mph average speed in the 600-ft slalom. Finally, as if to add insult to injury, the pretentious, non-conformist Matrix stopped 4 ft shorter from 60 mph than the Focus in a world-class 114 ft. On those rare occasions when the upgraded stereo isn't being evaluated—we recommend the Propellerheads for full effect—we found the droning exhaust note a bit objectionable, especially at freeway speeds where its pitch changes little. Then again, attitude is part of this wagon's package.
We learned a great deal living with and driving these three wagons. First and foremost, the words 'wagon' and 'fun' can be used in the same sentence. Wagons are easier to park than SUVs, more fuel-efficient, better suited to carving up a curvy road, and, to some, better looking. Turbochargers are your friends, and performance tires are worth the money, especially if mud and snow aren't semi-present in your local climate. Don't trust government supplied measurements, and don't presume a Japanese wagon with the chrome letters 'WRX' on the rear hatch is a pushover.
Specifically, we learned to appreciate Mazda's Protegé5 for its bargain price of entry, the styling of a Lexus IS 300 SportCross (almost), and its extremely well-engineered suspension package that runs with the best of them yet doesn't beat occupants to a frothy foam. Bonus points for a clean engine plus good fuel mileage. What it lacks is the seat-up cargo space befitting a wagon, about 30 hp, and a 17-in. wheel package. Just the 10 horses and other goodies that already appear on the MP3 sedan would greatly increase its appeal.
We still, and absolutely, love our Subaru WRX Wagon. In the car's confidential logbook is written, 'Things I like: WRC Blue paint, sport seats, and slaying Mustangs. Things I'll forgive: All-season tires, lack of sound-attenuating materials, and self-inflicted poor fuel mileage.' The fact that WRX sales were off the charts last year indicates that it's truly caught on. Now, if it weren't for this darned hard-to-classify, do-almost everything-well, priced-to-fly-off-dealer lots Toyota Matrix, the mighty WRX would've been our first choice.
At the test track, the Matrix beats most of the best front-drivers out there, it swallows cargo like a moving van, and even the sportiest, most expensive example costs less than $20,000. Because the edgy look might not be for everybody, you can also buy a Pontiac version called the Vibe. While Chrysler may have hummed the right tune last year with the revolutionary PT Cruiser, leave it to Toyota to get the performance right, and design a new type of Bandwagon—then price it sensibly.
2002 Mazda Protegé5
Pros Lexus looks, Mazda price
Poised in the slalom
Runs on regular gas Cons Needs 20-50-hp bump
Little cargo room for wagon
Look-at-me yellow
2002 Subaru WRX Wagon
Pros 227 hp + AWD = fun
Quirky good looks
Racing front seats Cons Pricey wheel upgrade
Lively highway ride
We'd welcome a six-speed
2003 Toyota Matrix XRS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This millennial was rejected from 200 jobs—now he makes millions charging wealthy families six-figures to get their kids into the Ivy Leagues
Like many Gen Zers today, after graduating from college, Christopher Rim was rejected from more than 200 job applications—including at top firms like Goldman Sachs and BCG. But, he says, 'that was the best thing that could have happened to me.' Now, he's making millions disrupting the $3 billion college consultancy industry. How much would you pay to help your child get accepted into Harvard, Stanford, or MIT? $10,000? What about $100,000, or even $750,000? Hundreds of families are paying six-figure price tags to a young millennial named Christopher Rim to get their kids into their top college choices. As the founder and CEO of college admissions consultancy group Command Education, Rim has become a wizard of sorts for how to crack the Ivy League code. Over the last five years, 94% of his clients have been accepted into their top three college choices. And while the $3 billion college consultancy industry may sound like another leg-up the rich have to get their children into schools, Rim says it's about helping students reach their dreams and unlock their potential. After all, on average, only about 5% of pupils who want to go to an Ivy League school actually get in. 'You have one chance. That's it,' the 30-year-old tells Fortune. 'You can't go back to college or apply to these selective universities again.' Unlocking potential is something that hits home in Rim's own story toward success, both in his own journey trying to attend an Ivy League school as well as trying to find his footing as a young graduate. As a public high school student in New Jersey, Rim was told he'd never be cut out for an Ivy League institution. While he admits himself that he wasn't the smartest kid in his class, he had a mission to attend Yale University, and decided to apply even when his guidance counselor pleaded with him to settle for Rutgers University, an in-state public school. Out of the nearly two dozen students from his school who applied to Yale, he was the only one who got in—despite having a lower GPA than the rest. As a student, he kept the ball rolling by charging high schoolers $50 to edit their admissions essays and advising them on how to strengthen their resumes and 'authentically stick out.' After his first two clients got into MIT and Stanford, he realized he might have a gift, and thus Command Education was born in 2015 in his New Haven, Conn., dorm room. However, Rim still wasn't sure it was the key to a post-grad career. Then came the time to apply for jobs. 'I applied to over 200 jobs senior year. All my friends were getting jobs at Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, BCG, major corporations. I got none. I got zero,' he says. 'And that was the best thing to have that happen to me.' Instead of letting the rejection defeat him—like what happens to millions of young adults each year—Rim used it as motivation to help others reach their dream college, too. 'Everyone has this potential, and I was able to instill that confidence and belief and motivate them through the process,' Rim says. 'I think that was a major reason as to why my students succeeded, which, of course, led me to succeed with the business.' So far, Command Education has guided over 1,500 students into top-tier schools, with acceptance rates that soar far above the national average—more than seven times higher at places like Harvard, Caltech, and the University of Chicago. And with parents investing close to $100,000 on average for his services, Rim isn't just shaping student futures, he's built a booming business in the process. While he declined to comment on his company's revenue, his average fee and high demand would put that figure in the millions. (Rim also explained that the $750,000 price tag was a one-off example that included working with a student starting in middle school and having unlimited access to services.) With or without professional help, getting into a top institution is no easy feat. In fact, over the last decade, colleges have only gotten more selective in the students they accept. However, it's not because schools have gotten much smaller in size, it's because more students are applying. For Harvard's class of 2028, who just finished their first year of college, over 54,000 applicants battled for just 1,970 seats; an acceptance rate of 3.6%. That's up from about 37,000 applicants competing for 2,080 spots for the class of 2019, an acceptance rate of 5.6%. Even then, not all accepted students ultimately choose to attend that school. At the same time, college is only getting more expensive. Tuition and fees at private universities have increased by about 41%, when adjusted for inflation, according to U.S. News and World Report. And while some colleges have made attempts at softening the burden for many lower-income students—like Harvard making tuition free for families making less than $200,000—attending a top college remains an uphill battle for many students. However, Rim says services like his aren't making the process less equitable, but rather helping young people find their true calling. 'I know I am not helping my student take a spot away from a middle-class student or a lower-income family student,' Rim adds. 'I'm helping other wealthy families and their kids compete against other wealthy families.' And despite some students feeling that their degree wasn't worth the cost, Rim says demand is higher than it's ever been before. But young people are expanding their interests outside of the traditional Ivy Leagues to other top-ranked schools like Duke University, Vanderbilt University, and the University of North Carolina. 'If you want to get a specific job at a bank, consulting firm, or become a doctor or lawyer, your school is going to matter a lot,' he tells Fortune. But at the end of the day, he says it's about finding students' passions and interests. 'I really will never tell a student, join the debate team, join band club, join newspaper club, because we think that's what colleges want. In fact, it's the total opposite,' Rim says. 'Do what you want.' This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Can Only Buy 1 Cathie Wood Stock in 2025, It Should Be This
Cathie Wood, founder, CEO and chief investment officer of Ark Invest, continues to make headlines for her high-conviction approach to disruptive innovation. Her flagship fund, the Ark Innovation ETF (ARKK), has posted a 52.9% return in the past 52 weeks, reflecting investor confidence. Known for identifying transformational themes early, Wood maintains focused exposure to industries like genomics, autonomous technology, and blockchain. Within this context, Natera (NTRA) has drawn sharp relevance. The company leads in cell-free DNA testing and precision medicine, aligning directly with Ark's long-term thesis. CoreWeave Just Revealed the Largest-Ever Nvidia Blackwell GPU Cluster. Should You Buy CRWV Stock? AMD Is Gunning for Nvidia's AI Chip Throne. Should You Buy AMD Stock Now? The Saturday Spread: Statistical Signals Flash Green for CMG, TMUS and VALE Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! For investors seeking a stock that fits the Ark playbook, Natera may represent one of the most fundamentally aligned additions under Wood's current investment lens. Based in Austin, Texas, stands Natera (NTRA), a pioneer in the field of cell-free DNA and genetic testing. The $23.3 billion biotech firm's arsenal includes powerful offerings like Panorama for prenatal screening, Signatera for real-time cancer surveillance, and Prospera, which sharpens the lens on transplant rejection. Over the last three months, the stock has climbed 16.9%, leaving the broader S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) 5.4% gain behind. On May 8, Natera opened the books on its first-quarter, and the results exceeded Wall Street expectations. Investors responded swiftly, with the stock inching up 1.5% the same day. Natera posted $501.8 million in total revenues, a 36.5% year-over-year increase that soared past Wall Street's $443.3 million forecast. Behind those numbers were powerhouse operations. The company processed 855,100 tests during the quarter, up 16.2% year over year. Women's health volumes climbed meaningfully over the fourth quarter, but it was Signatera that stole the spotlight. The personalized, tumor-informed molecular residual disease test reached new heights, recording its highest volume quarter ever. Clinical volumes for Signatera grew 52% year over year, with a sequential gain of roughly 16,005 units over Q4, marking the most significant quarter-on-quarter growth to date. Gross margins landed at 63.1%, reflecting solid cost discipline. Moreover, Natera's net loss narrowed 1% from the year-ago period to $66.9 million. Also, the company managed to trim its loss per share by 10.7% to $0.50, outperforming analysts' projections of a $0.59 loss per share. As for liquidity, the balance sheet remained in good shape. Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash climbed to $973.8 million, up from $945.6 million on Dec 31, 2024. CEO Steve Chapman has made no secret of the firm's long-term vision. He believes Signatera could ultimately generate over $5 billion in annual revenue, and he emphasized that they are still playing in the shallow end of a much deeper market pool. In a move that reinforced this optimism, Natera has raised its full-year revenue guidance to between $1.94 billion and $2.02 billion. That is a $70 million boost from the midpoint of its earlier outlook, pointing to a 26% year-over-year growth. On the other hand, analysts expect the Q2 2025 loss per share to widen 100% year over year to $0.60. For FY25, the loss per share is projected to increase 37% to $2.10, but FY26 could bring relief, with a forecast 64.8% narrowing to $0.74, hinting that profitability may finally be within reach. Analysts seem to be singing in harmony when it comes to NTRA, marking it with a firm 'Strong Buy' rating. Out of 19 analysts following the stock, 16 have given it an enthusiastic 'Strong Buy' rating, and the remaining three have placed their bets on a 'Moderate Buy.' The average price target of $200.42 represents potential upside of 17.6%. Meanwhile, the Street-High target of $251 hints at a 48% climb from current levels. Such projections do not come lightly and often reflect deep-rooted confidence in future earnings momentum and strategic execution. On the date of publication, Aanchal Sugandh did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
