<p>Wow, this new ranking ***** is lame.</p>
<p>Nothing really changed much unless you are referring to Penn > MIT or Dartmouth dropping from 9 -> 11.</p>
<p>Edit:
Does anyone here sincerely believe that at the undergraduate level, Penn can compete with MIT in terms of ANYTHING (peer assessment, SAT ranges, top 10% of HS, general quality of students, quality of professors, financial resources MIT =$8bil+)? But props to Penn for aptly gaming the system.</p>
<p>Those are what I am referring to.
And why is Brown 14??</p>
<p>
[quote]
DSC,
I agree with most of your locks, but does a Caltech with a student population of less than 1000 and a near complete focus on technical fields deserve a ranking among National Universities. No knock on Caltech, but I have never really felt like it (and maybe even MIT for similar reasons) belongs in the same ranking list as HYPS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with you, in that MIT and CalTech are quite different from HYPS, and similar to LAC's, should be separated in some way. However, if I am listing what schools are the best in the country, I can't leave MIT or CalTech off that list.</p>
<p>Thinking through my list once again, I think that Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona could be included in the top 10 hopefuls list. As I didn't exclude the tech schools. From an undergraduate perspective, which is the topic at hand, those 4 are comparable with the 8+ schools with wider ranging strengths, recruitment, prestige, and so on.</p>
<p>So, unless we are breaking down the schools into smaller groups, I stand by my list. If schools with a smaller breadth(tech, LAC, etc.) are being separated - then obviously you remove those schools. If not, those are clearly in the top 10 institutions in this country IMO,.</p>
<p>Brown always gets screwed in USNews.
Can someone rationalize in what metric/category Penn > MIT? and that in fact, Penn is not just gaming the system?</p>
<p>Looks like the same thing to me. Whateverrrrr</p>
<p>Anyway thanks hawkette and truzan, you have a very good point there. But you must keep in mind different people fulfill their potential in different ways. Some thrive on independent study, others prefer close engagement with profs, others large lectures with revision classes to boot and etc. The great thing about the US is that it has a category of schools for everyone, and it's kind of hard to objectify what is "better" than the other.</p>
<p>But I still think research opp per student (is there even a way of measuring that?) would be a good criteria to stick in, because I am also a believer in research accompanied with the usual undergrad studies. Maybe it should replace Peer review (grrr that's why my beloved Pomona is stuck on 7th grrr stupid East Coast bias ah well never mind).</p>
<p>LoL, I meant it as in... why did Brown move up</p>
<p>s snack,
Taken from the vantage point of the Education Establishment or Wall Street, I can see how you reach the conclusion that you do about the greatness of the Ivy colleges. But IMO it is a flawed line of thinking that is much too limited. </p>
<p>For starters, I am certainly NOT pretending that Emory, Vanderbilt, et al are valid comps to the non-HYP Ivies. They are very legitimate contenders for a wide universe of students, even now including students from the NE. These non-Northeastern colleges are at a major disadvantage among academics and history, yet they now compete effectively for many top students and statistically, the historical gaps in student quality with the non-HYP Ivies have very noticeably shrunk. Re the quality of their efforts to support undergraduate education, I suggest you look closer at how they dedicate resources, eg, Faculty Resources and Financial Resources as they compare well with these Ivies. </p>
<p>Re national appeal, I concede that these schools are at a deficit in the academic world, but in the corporate world and particularly in their home regions, IMIO these schools more than hold their own vs the non-HYP Ivies. If you have friends outside of the Northeast who did not get their undergraduate degrees from Ivy colleges, call them and talk to them about the reputations of these schools in the local markets. My experience is that those in the Northeast generally, and the Ivy group in particular, underrate the quality of what else is happening around the country and how highly regarded places like Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt, USC have become in their local markets.</p>
<p>Re the international comment, I did some work on this a while ago and evaluated the 2007 USNWR Top 20 National Universities. Using data from collegeboard.com (info not provided for Yale, Caltech, Wash U, J Hopkins), I found that three of the Ivies have clearly higher percentages of international students. But for the others, their numbers were very similar to what you'd find at Rice, Vanderbilt, Duke, Emory. Here is the whole list:</p>
<p>20% U Penn
15% Cornell
14% Columbia</p>
<p>10% Rice
10% U Chicago
10% MIT
9% Princeton
9% Harvard
9% Vanderbilt
8% Duke
8% Brown
8% Emory</p>
<p>7% Dartmouth
7% Northwestern
6% Stanford
4% Notre Dame</p>
<p>I did something similar on the source of top domestic students and the conclusion was that the top schools drew students from their home regions out of proportion to their percentage of the national population (eg, Cornell and Columbia had very high numbers from NY). This was not such a ground-breaking discovery, but it does dispel, or at least diminish, the idea that the Ivy schools are significantly more national than their less-known competitors. </p>
<p>The fact is that the quality has spread and now the student quality at these institutions is legitimately in the same league with the non-HYP Ivies. The biggest drivers of these changes in American education are pretty easy to understand:</p>
<p>1) the large numbers graduating from high school-3.4mm in 2007 alone and this is expected to stay at this level and go even higher
2) Number of students who scored above 1400 on the SAT: 70,000
3) Number of places at Ivy League colleges for entering freshmen-13,300
Number of places at the USNWR Top 20 National Universities-30,000</p>
<p>As you say, there are great colleges everywhere, but I disagree with your conclusion that 7 of the top 10 of them come from the Ivy League.</p>
<p>I would have liked to seen Yale above Harvard for UNDERGRAD. CIT really isn't a national university but whatever they are hardcore. UPenn definitely a legit top 5. Serves MIT right for their ridiculous affirmative action (finally caught up to them.) Duke solid school, they will have to listen to Columbia whine that Duke is ahead of them. Dartmouth deserves UChicago's spot for nothing else than Dartmouth would win nearly every cross-admit battle. Cornell and Brown really should switch. WuSL is in the business of manipulating/bribing USNWR.</p>
<p>Hawkette: for your information, Hopkins places an enormous emphasis on undergraduate research. In fact, research is the centerpiece to most, if not all undergrad education. It is strongly emphasized by Hopkins, across ALL majors. The research factor is most certainly NOT overrated at Hopkins. It is something that is emblematic of the entire Hopkins undergraduate experience. In fact, the very hallmark of Hopkins' philosophy is that research, combined with learning should be the core of the undergraduate academic experience. It is Hopkins' belief that the highest quality education can be accomplished best in a research environment; and this means across the board...not only in the sciences, but in the humanities, as well. This sort of training takes place under active researchers, on both the graduate, AND undergraduate levels. In terms of Hopkins' philosophy, education and research are inseparable, and this "inseparability" is a (if not THE) major feature of its academic culture.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with you, in that MIT and CalTech are quite different from HYPS, and similar to LAC's, should be separated in some way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT similar to LAC's ??? You must be kidding, right ?</p>
<p>Besides, why are you all wasting bandwidth discussing a bogus ranking ? Let's at least wait for the real thing tomorrow !</p>
<p>I think WUSTL is overrated.</p>
<p>Bruno---</p>
<p>Penn & MIT should switch
Chicago & Dartmouth should switch
Duke & Columbia should switch.</p>
<p>That would be more accurate IMHO.</p>
<p>bruno, he meant MIT and Caltech should be ranked or classified in a separate category, similar to the way LACs are given a separate classification in rankings. He did not imply that MIT is similar to LACs</p>
<p>It's about the punctuation man.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is something that is emblematic of the entire Hopkins undergraduate experience. In fact, the very hallmark of Hopkins' philosophy is that research, combined with learning should be the core of the undergraduate academic experience. It is Hopkins' belief that the highest quality education can be accomplished best in a research environment
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At a time when Ivy schools were still pretty much what we would call LACs today, JHU was actually the first university in the US to subscribe to the notion, based on the German model, that a strong research environment is a necessary condition for quality undergraduate education. Nowadays, this idea is universally accepted in all major countries, except in the United States which, ironically, is the country that produces approximately one third of the world's research output !</p>
<p>I don't like John Hopkins University. :)</p>
<p>Spelling mistake intended.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's about the punctuation man.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's right. I read it fast and didn't notice the next line. Sorry !</p>
<p>The reason behind irony is that good training and committed resources at the undergrad level (i.e. LACs) helps fuel outstanding research at the graduate level.</p>
<p>Another response for Hawkette: The "foolishness" that you refer to regarding PA is simply based on your opinion, not fact. It is interesting to me that people who have extremely high regard for their own opinions, have little regard for experts in other areas.
Referring to other posts, aspiring MBAs should not think that strong undergraduate grades and high GMATS are not critical to acceptance at top business schools. This does not negate the importance of the work experience, which is indeed, very important. But those grades and scores are critical, too.</p>
<p>I dare say most of the research output is done by grad students and more importantly the professors themselves - not the undergrads. I hear you, but that last statement of yours is not the best proof for your research advocacy.</p>