<br>
<blockquote> <p>look for that chrysler promo for free access to it</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Ended. :(</p>
<p>could you please post the top 50 list for liberal arts college?many thanks!</p>
<p>its around here somewhere on one of the first few posts that were done</p>
<p>hey how does university of illinois chicago rank?</p>
<p>Anyone know the SAT range for Washinton&Lee?</p>
<p>W&L: 1320-1450.</p>
<p>You don't need USNWR for these type of stats. The school's own website, Princeton Review, collegeboard, collegedata, petersons all have this kind of info.</p>
<p>I just bought USNWR and it says the W&L SAT range is 1300-1450..</p>
<p>The data you gave me was old i think.</p>
<p>US News is actually one year back (data for last year's entering class), the info on W&L's site is for this year's entering class, so the 1320-1450 is current.</p>
<p>Ugh!!!! :(</p>
<p>I have two degrees from top schools and have been in the business world for the last ten years and IMHO, the following schools are overrated on this list:</p>
<p>(1) Penn and Duke (should not be ahead of Columbia);
(2) Washington U (who really has ever heard of this school?? In any case, no way should it be tied with Cornell and ahead of Brown, Cal, Michigan, Virginia, etc.)
(3) Northwestern (While it has a good b-school, should not be ahead of CMV)
(4) Tufts, ND, Emory (See #3 above).</p>
<p>At the end of the day, the list (in terms of prestige, which I think everyone is really talking about) should look like this:</p>
<p>1 - Harvard (without a doubt, the most prestigious and powerful university in the world)
2 - Yale (the second most)
3 - Princeton/Stanford
5 - MIT/Caltech (I don't see these two really be comparable to the others on the list because they are so highly specialized)
7 - Columbia/Cal/Chicago/Cornell
11 - Penn/Dartmouth
13 - Brown/Michigan/VA/Duke
17 - Northwestern/Hopkins
19 - BC/ND/G-Town
22 - Rice/Vandy/Emory</p>
<p>I think otherwise. </p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale/Princeton/Stanford/MIT</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn/Brown</li>
<li>Chicago/Cornell/Northwestern/Duke/Berkeley</li>
<li>Michigan/Hopkins/UVA/.....</li>
</ol>
<p>Huh...other than the fact that I think Berkeley, Cornell, Michigan, and UVa are ranked a little too high, porsche's list actually doesn't look too bad.</p>
<p>Undergrad-wise though, I would say:</p>
<ol>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Cal Tech</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>U Penn</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>U Chicago</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>UC Berkeley</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>UVa</li>
<li>WUSTL</li>
<li>U Michigan</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Tufts</li>
<li>UNC-Chapel Hill</li>
<li>USC</li>
<li>College of William and Mary</li>
</ol>
<p>Something like that. That's how I picture it in my mind anyway.</p>
<p>Hmmm...I'm glad US News is about facts and not opinions (besides PA)</p>
<p>the rankings considered how much alumni gave back. is that really a good indicator of the quality of the school? sure it may show that alumni from that school make more, but all it takes is one bill gates to donate a huge sum to a random school and have it be boosted to the top <em>coughchicagocough</em></p>
<p>Chicago didn't get a big donation this year. Alumni giving counts for only 5% of the score. Retention and peer assessment are the primary factors in the ranking.</p>
<p>Actually, the alumni giving rate does not measure the size of donations but rather, the ratio of alumns who donate. However, all that the alumni giving rate really measures is the ease with which the university can reach its alums (which is directly proportional with the size of the school) and how effective it is at convincing its alums to give back to the school (which is directly proportional with how long the university has actively pursued alums for money). </p>
<p>SCHOOLS THAT GREATLY BENEFIT FROM THIS:
LACs, small private universities and private universities with a faitful legacy system. The latter two have historically depended on alumni support to survive financially and given the small size of their alumni bodies, have had little trouble keeping up them. The former has had generations of family members atteding and the donations are a way to cement that legacy.</p>
<p>SCHOOLS THAT ARE HURT BY THIS:
Large state university. As it is, state universities have always benefited from state funding. Up until the 1950s, they were the wealthiest as a result of the generous state donations. However, by the 1970s, state funding declined dramatically and the cost of education had risen to the point where state universities were at a financial disadvantage. That's when state schools started pursuing their alums for money. By that point, privates had done so for generations. Add to this that most elite state schools (Cal, Michigan, UCLA, UIUC, UNC, Texas, Wisconsin etc...) are huge and reaching out to their alums is a logistical impossibility.</p>
<p>However, there is very little evidence to support a correlation between alum satisfaction and alum donation. </p>
<p>Some say that the alumni donation rate counts for only 5% of the total rank and as such, is insignificant. However, those 5 percentage points can make a university leap or drop as many as 10 spots in the rankings. Cal and Michigan would both be ranked around #15 if it weren't for the Alumni donation rate.</p>
<p>Anybody find Wake Forest at #30 (in US News) a little high?</p>
<p>I don't know much about Wake Forest myself. However, an ex-girlfriend of mine at Michigan (who went on to get a PhD in Economics at MIT) and is now living in Charlotte has dealt with many Wake Forest alums and interns and she has been very impressed by the calibre that the Demon Deacons are churning out on a frightningly consistant basis. Add to this the gorgeous campus, excellent sports tradition and very friendly (albeit too conservative for my taste) students, and you get a very well rounded, probably underrate university. We should keep in mind that very little separates #30 from #100.</p>
<p>Seems pointless to rank them one at a time. They seem to fall in general groupings (I know others have suggested this before). The groupings have nothing to do with academic quality (which I think is too complicated to rank). But I think the groupings reflect how people who are aware of colleges and their undergrad offerings would recommend them to other people. In other words, all the colleges in each grouping would be ROUGHLY equal in attractiveness to candidates. You wouldn't be questioned for choosing Columbia over Harvard, for example. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT CalTech, Columbia.</p></li>
<li><p>Chicago, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Berkeley.</p></li>
<li><p>Cornell, Michigan, Brown, Northwestern. Hopkins, Virginia.</p></li>
<li><p>Wash U., Carnegie Mellon, Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Tufts.</p></li>
<li><p>Brandeis, UNC, USC, William & Mary, UCSD, RPI, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, BC, Rochester, NYU.</p></li>
<li><p>Wake Forest, Lehigh, Case Western Reserve, Uof Wash, Texas, Penn State, Illinois.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Hi. I'm sorry if this has been asked-- I don't really want to look through 38 pages. Can someone please post the selectivity to LAC's? The top 20 will do. Thanks.</p>