lols… triggered again:)
It’s always about money in higher ed. My point is that if Stanford had been located in Rochester, or Oregon, or Kansas City it’s endowment would not have been $22Billion+ and it would not be enjoying all the benefits that come with that big fat endowment.
Its not what Stanford primarily did, but the three factors that I mentioned along with some good administration that helped it. Serendipity, was very important in Stanford’s rise. Yale and Princeton were not blessed in that way.
Stanford was #1 in the inaugural USNWR rakings in 1983 and for several years thereafter. Never been lower than 6 I believe. It is no Johnny-come-lately.
While the order flips around a little bit, the rankings don’t really change. I think this year’s top 25 is the same as last year’s top 25.
But Harvard and Stanford are the ne plus ultras and you don’t need USNWR to tell you that.
For the 2021 cycle, Stanford had 81.9% yield (without ED) and 4.7% admit rate. Giving you a staggering YTAR (yield to admit ratio) of 17.4. Harvard was 84% yield (without ED), 5.2% admit rate. YTAR of 16.15. I don’t think anyone else comes close.
IMHO, YTAR is the purest measure of prestigiosity there is.
@sbballer interestingly, Harvard and Yale are not in top ten nobels since 2000. Stanford, MIT, columbia, UChicago and MIT lead.
@TiggerDad we each have our pets. As a Harvard I naturally gravitate to defending the new coming underdog.–.Uchicago.
@Chrchill - Same here, “as a Harvard”… 
To me, UChicago has always been a powerhouse, so I’ve never thought of it as an “underdog.” It’s NOT that UChicago has caught up with the USWNR; it’s the other way around.
@pupflier actually it is what Stanford did. the surrounding area that is now Silicon Valley was filled with orchards…Stanford set up the first university owned industrial park back in the 1950s… over 800 acres on the campus… now home to over 17k employees and 150 different companies… including Tesla HQ btw.
The wall street of VC Sand Hill Road is on the north side of campus. this did not happen without the foresight and vision of Stanford admin and faculty.
https://www.inc.com/peter-cohan/an-inside-look-at-stanfords-27-trillion-turbo-cha.html
@sbballer absolutely. No one has parlayed the business side of a university better than Stanford has.
“It’s always about money in higher ed. My point is that if Stanford had been located in Rochester, or Oregon, or Kansas City it’s endowment would not have been $22Billion+ and it would not be enjoying all the benefits that come with that big fat endowment.”
The Stanford Research Park opened in 1951. Stanford literally built it, and then they came. Stanford didn’t get rich because Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Scott McNeeley accidentally wound up hanging around Palo Alto in the late 1970s. Those guys were hanging around Palo Alto in order to be close to Stanford. If Stanford PARQ had been built in KC, then those guys would have been in KC.
Stanford has been masterful in commercializing technology. A model for all to emulate.
@northwesty “Stanford didn’t get rich because Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Scott McNeeley accidentally wound up hanging around Palo Alto in the late 1970s. Those guys were hanging around Palo Alto in order to be close to Stanford.” That’s not what I heard many stores about Bill and Steve; it seems to me that they were hanging around Xerox for early computer technology and concepts than Stanford. See here, the fact comes straight from horse’s mouth: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/02/28/bills-gates-apple-mirocsoft-copied-xexox/98519104/
@sbballer @northwesty The Valley exists because of Shockley, and a bunch of coincidences brought him to Stanford. First he alienated a bunch of folks at Bell Labs. Second he couldn’t get a foothold at Caltech or Washington DC. He was looking for a place to start his company and it could have been LA. Stanford did entice him to come to Palo Alto and that is what they did well, but he certainly would not have gone to Stanford if it had been in Kansas City and if he hadn’t started his company, the valley would almost certainly not have existed. So Serendipity played a role in Stanford ascendency.
If the conclusions of Cornell’s past research continue to be meaningful, Hamilton’s and Haverford’s substantial ranking drop may have a deleterious effect.
The Impact of U.S. News & World Report College Rankings on Admissions Outcomes and Pricing
Policies at Selective Private Institutions:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1759&context=articles
Haverford and Hamilton appear to be woefully underranked – they should probably actually be in Davidson & W&L’s places, or thereabouts. Wes, Vassar and Smith probably should be hanging around the top ten also. (which makes Wes another glaring misplacement…)
Stanford is too low at 5, probably, but their test scores lag behind HYP, Chicago, Caltech and a handful of others. They have the lowest admit rate, but not the most quantitatively accomplished class. That is part of the selectivity equation as well.
USNews can’t just give all of the top five to HYPSM every year, nor have they generally. Interlopers UChicago and Columbia, perhaps, deserve more respect than they receive. Instead of doubting the validity of their placement, maybe we should figure out where they excel that helps them to crack the top five.
What you have are seven schools (IMO; eight including Penn, which is fabulous) – HYP, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, and Columbia – who can make a strong claim for being top-five in academic and overall undergrad quality. They have to end up somewhere.
But while Hamilton, Wes, Haverford might be ranked 5-10 places too low and Stanford might be a couple spots too low (for undergrad…), nobody faces the plight of Reed. That is among the most intellectual and rigorous schools on earth and they are somewhere in the 70s or 80s among LACs. They refuse to play the game.
But if anyone reading this does not know the quality of Reed or has cast it aside as a school lacking quality due to its ranking, take a closer look. It isn’t for everyone, but if you want to work and you are a “life of the mind” type, Reed is up there with such stalwarts as UChicago and Swarthmore as schools well suited for you… at least in terms of academic vibe.
@Chrchill Don’t forget to add Cal on the nobel list
Not to put down Reed specifically, but the brilliant, deep thinking son of a good friend of mine is approaching 30 and is still struggling to recover from his heaving drinking-even heavier pot smoking- years as a philosophy major at Reed. He has started 2 different grad programs in more “marketable” fields but is still having a hard time. He had near perfect SAT’s and grades and was wonderfully interesting to talk to as a twelve year old.
Maybe it’s just his path, though.
Lengthy but fun read:https://magazine.uchicago.edu/0110/features/abuse.html
.
That’s too bad. Maybe the social scene was just too much for him and he developed bad habits that are hard to break. Still, it’s a long life, and he has plenty of time to figure it out.
Lesson: No school is for everyone. Know yourself and apply to the schools that fit you best.
While I’m here, here is my largely unchanged (and unscientific) undergrad U ranking:
- Princeton
- Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale
- UChicago, Columbia
- UPenn
- Berkeley, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern
- Emory, Georgetown, Michigan, Notre Dame, Rice, Vanderbilt, UVA, Washington U
- UCLA, Carnegie Mellon, NYU, USC, Tufts
- About a dozen schools...
Now let’s see who I forgot… lol
Oh… Caltech. I have a hard time with them. Could be top-5, 5-10, or 10-15ish…
The cross-admit statistics with Stanford intrigued me, so I did a little research Stanford over Duke 84%/16%.
Stanford over Penn 73/27. Stanford over Ball State (Dave Letterman’s alma mater) 67/33.
There seem to be a bunch of smart people here. Do I have to tell you that everything you read online isn’t necessarily true? Including that the U.S. News number 10 isn’t necessarily better than 11?