<p>Stanford
Yale
Princeton
Harvard</p>
<p>"I personally would never say this acronym to any of my friends because they actually go to those schools and they would just think I was a nerd and would not understand what I'm talking about."</p>
<p>Come on...I go to one of those schools and I made it up...but then again I've never used a CC acronym in everyday speech. It's equivalent to using LOL while having a conversation with your parents...it's just wrong.</p>
<p>the c in hypsmc does not mean chicago. chicago is a fantastic school, but its admit rate this year was over 30%. let it mean columbia or caltech or even cooper union, but do not let it mean chicago.</p>
<p>oxbridge shouldn't be compared to any set of american universities, no matter how elite. the undergraduate experience there (not to mention admissions) is as different as can be from the american one- even at harvard which used to be called "the university of cambridge" too.</p>
<p>27%</p>
<p>10char.</p>
<p>Not that it matters, but I never knew Harvard was originally called U of Cambridge and I can't find any evidence to support that. My unacademic search of wikipedia found that Harvard was "initially called "New College" or "the college at New Towne", the institution was named Harvard College on March 13, 1639, after a young clergyman named John Harvard, a graduate of England's Emmanuel College, Cambridge (a college of the University of Cambridge)."</p>
<p>And even though Oxbridge is undeniably quite different from HYPS, wouldn't PSYCHO arguably represent the 6 best non-tech universities in the world?</p>
<p>Tee-hee, PSYCHO!</p>
<p>Hehe...well, if people don't want Oxford to be included, why not just PSYCH? Same idea</p>
<p>"the c in hypsmc does not mean chicago. chicago is a fantastic school, but its admit rate this year was over 30%. let it mean columbia or caltech or even cooper union, but do not let it mean chicago."</p>
<p>This reminds of the thread that says UChicago's higher admittance rate than the other top ten schools means it should not be in the top ten. How awful.</p>
<p>i don't mean to disparage chicago (one of my own top choices) as an institution by saying it shouldn't be included in the hyps-xyzpq-etc acronym. the acronym hyps-etc is meant to refer to the schools which are the most selective. chicago, with a 27% admit rate (i stand corrected) and substantially lower gpa/testing numbers than hypsm and caltech, is not outstandingly selective.</p>
<p>let's compare, using last year's numbers for convenience:
columbia- 11% 1980-2300
cooper union- 11% 1250-1470 (extrapolate 1870-2200 on three-part)
caltech- 17% 2250-2350
chicago- 35% 1330-1530 (extrapolate 1990-2290 on three-part)</p>
<p>this provides fantastic support for the claim that chicago's applicants are self-selective. how else could chicago, with an acceptance rate 3 times columbia's, have almost identical sat numbers? this i don't dispute.</p>
<p>what i do dispute is the notion that admissions standards at chicago are as harsh as those at caltech, which this data implies to me should be the c in hypsmc--despite its relatively high acceptance rate. (why not columbia or cooper union? the location of both and the fact that cooper union is free depresses their acceptance rates.) the top quarter of chicago students do appear to be very like the top quarter of caltech students. but the bottom quarter of chicago students are nothing like the bottom quarter of caltech students. the difference between them on the three-part sat would be 260 points--equivalent to almost 90 points per section. </p>
<p>i think it's therefore relatively safe to say that chicago is capable of attracting a top quarter of students as good as the top quarter of hypsm. many of them are likely cross-admits with these institutions. where its claim to that acronym falls is in the bottom quarter (and perhaps even the bottom half) of its students. the 25th percentile at chicago would likely be the 2nd or 3rd percentile at caltech.</p>
<p>again, none of this is meant to denigrate chicago as an institution. it's one of the best in the world--but diehard chicago fans would do well to remember that institutional quality has no necessary relation to selectivity. how many nobel laureates do you guys have again? like 88?</p>
<p>PYSCHO wow thats awesome</p>
<p>i got one too</p>
<p>UPYOURS</p>
<p>U=UC Berkeley
P=Princeton
Y=Yale
O=Oxford
U=UCLA
R=Rice
S=Stanford</p>
<p>Hopkins like UChicago has a self selecting applicant pool. Only those that really know they want to go there for say premed or for whatever Chicago offers would apply.</p>
<p>It explains the consistently very qualified applicants they recieve every year. Whereas in the case of Harvard, you can expect 40-60% are just applying for the prestige, name, or just for the heck of it.</p>
<p>PHYSICs</p>
<p>Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Institutes of Technology, Columbia, s = schools, etc</p>
<p>I still like WHYPS</p>
<p>Wharton Harvard Yale Princeton Stanford</p>
<p>Hm, WHYPS… I like that one.</p>
<p>Actually, I like WHYMPS better</p>
<p>Wharton Harvard Yale MIT Princeton Stanford.</p>
<p>Can’t way to use that one in everyday speech in the coming years.</p>
<p>for anyone interested in IBanking</p>
<p>WHYMPS, DDS.</p>
<p>Wharton
Harvard
Yale
MIT</p>
<h2>Princeton</h2>
<p>Duke
Dartmouth
Stern</p>
<p>UPYOURS FTW, that’s what I will say when I apply and don’t get accepted into any of those shcools. LOL</p>
<p>Perhaps we need a standardized Periodic Table of Schools, with official acronyms. For example:
H: Harvard
Y: Yale
P: Princeton
S: Stanford
M: MIT
C: Caltech
Ch: Chicago
Cu: Columbia
Cr: Cornell
D: Dartmouth
Du: Duke
Pn: Penn
B: Brown
Bc: Boston College
Bu: Boston University
Mi: University of Michigan
Cb: UC-Berkeley
Co: UCLA
Wa: University of Washington
Ws: WUSTL
and so on</p>
<p>^ lol</p>
<p>why is ucla “Co”?</p>
<p>and USC would be Sc, definitely</p>
<p>So now we’re going international? Nice acronym though…</p>