<p>1) Duke
2) Emory
3) Vanderbilt
4) Rice
5) UVA
6) UVA
7) Wake Forest
8) Florida
9) W & L
10) ????</p>
<p>This list is probably inaccurate, but the first few schools are my picks especially.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This list is probably inaccurate, but the first few schools are my picks especially.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not prudent; I would rank Rice higher than both Vanderbilt and Emory.</p>
<p>UVA twice?</p>
<p>UF and no W&M?</p>
<p>I would rank Rice either first or second. Neither Emory, nor Vandy are better than it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UVA twice?</p>
<p>UF and no W&M?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I concur, and what about UNC? I know I may be biased, but I think most people would consider a list of great southern schools that includes UF, W&L, Wake Forest, Emory, etc, and not UNC and W&M to be inaccurate.</p>
<p>I updated the list....I previously had a UVA which was supposed to be UNC!</p>
<p>1) Duke
2) Emory
3) Vanderbilt
4) Rice
5) UVA
6) UNC
7) Wake Forest
8) W & M
9) Florida
10) W & L</p>
<p>This list is probably inaccurate, but the first few schools are my picks especially.</p>
<p>These are the top 10 schools in the south:</p>
<p>Tier One -- Duke
Tier Two -- Vanderbilt, Rice, Davidson, Emory, UVA
Tier Three -- Washington and Lee, William and Mary, Wake Forest, UNC</p>
<p>UVa has the best law school and b-school in the South but at the college level William & Mary (aka "The Boot Camp of Academia" and "The College of Knowledge") predominates on tradition, commitment to academics and selectivity. W&M also has more per capita valedictorians, National Merit finalists and Rhodes scholars than Duke, Georgetown or Virginia (the other schools mentioned above are not in W&M's peer group).</p>
<p>Looks like we've got some Duke people weighing in above. Let me break it down for you. When I applied to colleges a few years back from a very elite Southeastern prep school I was accepted outright to Duke, Georgetown and Virginia but wait-listed at William & Mary. I'm sorry, but selectivity is the best arbiter of quality. USN&WR can try to discount state-supported or semi-private schools all they want but the market isn't buying it. W&M is the best buy in American education. Period.</p>
<p>Say what you will, but I don't think that any of these schools are so significantly better than the rest that the "Top Ten List" needs to be divided into tiers in and of itself (Duke particularly doesn't merit its own grouping - I'm extremely well acquainted with the school, having grown up in Durham and being closely associated with many friends and relatives who attend or have attended there, and believe me, while it's a great school, it's not as wonderful as its reputation suggests it is). It drives me crazy how people try to quantify the educations available at these schools in a passion of elitist frenzy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the other schools mentioned above are not in W&M's peer group
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think most people would disagree with you on that one. I don't support the skewed rankings systems either, but I don't think W&M is better than Vanderbilt, Rice, UNC, Emory, etc. Selectivity is a worthy factor to consider, but you're using an awfully small sample size, aren't you?</p>
<p>the fact that some colleges accepted YOU outright and one college waitlisted YOU does not mean that is the most selective, you keep looking at the same stats that the rest of us look at and arrive at a conclusion that is not supported by the facts( W&M is not more selective then Duke, Rice, Davidson, W&L etc.)- most students accepted by W&M would be rejected by the majority of the aformentioned schools. AS I said, W&M is a fine school, but it is not quite the sine qua non you think it is,</p>
<p>I have heard the W&M waitlist or rejection anecdote over and over and over again (ask around and you will see I am not lying). Yes, Duke, Rice and Davidson have slightly higher SAT averages but lower high school GPAs/class standing. At any rate, I don't think it is fair to throw the LACs into the mix (Rice is almost an LAC) since it is very easy for small population, relatively large endowment schools to "stack the deck" with high performing scholarship recipients.</p>
<p>Do you mean "primus inter pares" or "sine qua non?" I don't think the prior context supports your particular Latin citation.</p>
<p>mea culpa!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, Duke, Rice and Davidson have slightly higher SAT averages but lower high school GPAs/class standing. At any rate, I don't think it is fair to throw the LACs into the mix (Rice is almost an LAC) since it is very easy for small population, relatively large endowment schools to "stack the deck" with high performing scholarship recipients.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rice is academically not even close to an LAC, and is beyond comparison with W&M.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sorry, but selectivity is the best arbiter of quality. USN&WR can try to discount state-supported or semi-private schools all they want but the market isn't buying it. W&M is the best buy in American education. Period.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>'I'm sorry', but usually the best method for judging the quality of a program is by looking at the program itself; in that regard, there are many schools which exceed W&M's caliber. Moreover, using your experience to render such a conclusion is fallacious. </p>
<p>Reductio ad absurdum, since my friend was rejected from Rice, but admitted in Harvard, Rice must be better than Harvard...</p>
<p>Just another general point...while selectivity is a good point of reference, we have to keep in mind that some schools artificially inflate their selectivity by aggressively marketing themselves to under or barely qualified applicants, knowing full well that they'll likely reject them and thus inflate the number of students they reject (certainly not accusing W&M of this tactic...WUStL comes immediately to mind as an example). For those who are insistent upon the ego-massaging rankings systems, the multifactor approach of the USNWR is on the right track, but anyone who knows a little bit about that rankings system knows that it is stacked against good public schools by prioritizing things like alumni donations, endowment, etc. - areas where publically funded schools that subsidize residents' tuition cannot reasonably be expected to compete (UNC, for instance, was consistently ranked in the top 10 before the private schools managed to successfully bully the USNWR into skewing the rankings system in their favor). But really, think about...when you consider the sheer number of four year colleges and universities in this country, exactly how much worse can the #35 university be than the #5??</p>
<p>W&M is a great school with a great reputation...my college counselor actually suggested I consider it, but I ended up declining to apply (couldn't justify paying out of state prices when I had access to such a great public school in my own state).</p>
<p>Way back in this post Ole Miss was mentioned. I live in south ms and most of the decent students in my school go to either Ole Miss or MS state. I would rather go out of state but my school counselor is adament that Ole Miss' English program is close enough to on par with the schools being mentioned in this thread that it is not worth the extra cost to go elsewhere. I have serious doubts- anyone here even heard of Ole Miss' english program?</p>
<p>Ole Miss's English program has produced (or at least played host to) among others William Faulkner and John Grisham (he went to Ms State, too). So it's fair to say that Ole Miss's english program isn't too bad.</p>
<p>THanks. good to know</p>
<p>So if I was looking for typical southern culture & environment, decent or better academics, and big sports (probably SEC or ACC), which schools would be a good fit?</p>
<p>My favorites among the realistically sized state schools would be Clemson and Ole Miss. Did you see that Clemson crowd go nuts when they beat TAMU this weekend at Death Valley? A foaming sea of orange. Really awe inspiring if you are into that sort of thing.</p>