<p>From what you say, it sounds like you don’t understand what a “New Ivie” is. Its not a college that suddendly began offering only incredible students admission; it is a school outside of the original eight ivies that has shown incredible excellence in its admissions and educational standards. I completely agree with Newsweek that the incredible college of country that may not be 400 years old deserve recognition, which is what the title “new ivies” does.</p>
<p>I think that ParentofIvyHope may be talking about living, active alumni, where Stanford does stack up quite well. Stanford does not have the history of president after president, but with the growth of Silicon Valley, Stanford’s alumni are proving dominant today.</p>
<p>I think that New Ivy or whatever is silly, but more because the Ivies are not, were not, and never will be THE top 8 schools in the nation. They are 8 very good ones. There are other good ones, and some have been experiencing drastic recent improvements - BC, Tuft, WUSTL, and USC are common examples. So they are termed ‘new Ivies’. If you look at improvement relative to peers, some Ivies are actually the true ‘new Ivies’, Penn and Cornell have gotten much much more competitive seeming to benefit more from their Ivy status than in the past.</p>
<p>And I think that trying to say ‘x’ schools are better than another is a very difficult process - I could definitely offer a list of schools just as good as many Ivies for a 'new Ivy league(Stanford, MIT, CalTech, Duke, Northwestern, UChicago, Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Rice, Berkeley, UMich, etc.). However, I don’t see Dartmouth as a school that is comparable to Harvard. They should be in different classifications, due to the relative grad/ugrad ratios and focus. Also MIT and Caltech are superior to any Ivy in their focuses, but much weaker in their own ways, making ‘tech schools’ another segment.</p>
<p>Schools to compete with Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Penn, and Cornell(the research Ivies): Stanford, Duke, UChicago, Northwestern, Michigan, Berkeley</p>
<p>With Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown (the undergraduate focused Ivies): Rice, Georgetown</p>
<p>Top Tech schools: MIT, Caltech</p>
<p>Top LACs: Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Swat</p>
<p>Yes, many other schools are just as good as those I listed too. And that is the reason for these New Ivy lists - Northwestern competes with Cornell and Penn in many ways. Vanderbilt competes with Northwestern in many ways. And Emory and BC with Vandy. So, these schools are competing for the same students, especially as people apply to more schools.</p>
<p>If we reorganized the lists, into my 4 classifications, rather than the current 2, we would achieve a better ability to focus college searches. And we would see that in many ways Northwestern is better than Dartmouth or Brown, and Rice than Harvard. Or conversely, the advantages offered by a Dartmouth over an MIT. There are top schools in many distinct frames, and due to the fame of HYP and the residual glow given to the rest of the Ivies, we seem to overlook that Brown doesn’t offer much of a reputation as a research powerhouse, or Cornell as a haven for small classes. They are all exceptional, but in their own way. Just as many other schools, these ‘new Ivies’ are.</p>
<p>(now that I reread this, it is kinda wandering and circular, sorry)</p>
<p>I don’t think there is anything “new” here.
The schools Newsweek highlights (partly to sell magazines) have been excellent for some time. I think all schools, including the Ivies, have benefited from stronger and stronger enrolled classes. There may be 15 schools today, by the numbers, that are more difficult to gain admissions to than Yale was 10 years ago.
I don’t quite get how this thread devolved to defensiveness about Stanford, which needs no defense, IMO.
I guess I agree with the OP.</p>
<p>can someone specify what the new ives are?</p>
<p>What about Wesleyan?</p>
<p>Wesleyan isn’t considered a new Ivy but it is looked upon as a top LAC</p>
<p>I thought that this thread was going to be about how the term “New Ivies” gives too much credit to the real Ivy league. IMO, Ivy’s are overrated; they’re clearly all very good schools, but too many people are fixated on attending an Ivy league institution.</p>
<p>I can’t beleive it until I got to the final post I was considering writing it myself. But I agree more with DSC. I find it strange that somehow the Ivy’s are looked upon by many as superior to other good schools by default.</p>
<p>Seems to me that too many cc’s take Newsweek, BW, etc., rankings as truth. The purpose of the rankings is to sell magazines or newspapers. We need to keep that in mind when we look at these ranks. There are a lot of schools that are approximately equal in terms of providing an outstanding education. This issue is to find the best fit for the student.</p>
<p>OP - your argument has merit. But it’s not entirely true. The education at many of these schools has indeed improved substantially. Some schools did this by hiring away top deans and professors from the best schools, so you can even quantify the improvement somewhat.</p>
<p>Is it the faculty, or is it the peers?</p>
<p>There is no question that the USA has an embarassment of riches when it comes to higher education and the New Ivies term is just a lazy way for the media to describe the great proliferation of talent over the past 40-50 years from a relative handful of colleges to a situation today where we have roughly 30-40 “elite” colleges (combining national universities and LACs). This talent shows itself in both significantly improved student profiles at these institutions and in outstanding faculty on the staffs of many, many more colleges. </p>
<p>The old Ivies may have the historical advantage for faculty reputation, but I doubt that anyone would claim that they have a monopoly on the top thinkers. Professors move, but great ones also come into the profession as a result of the top PhD programs and other avenues, eg, from industry and enhance and enrich a much greater number of college campuses today. I also doubt that anyone would claim that the old Ivies offer the best classroom instruction (and this view has been around for several decades). </p>
<p>So, whether it’s old or new, we are blessed to have so many fine colleges that offer such a variety of undergraduate experiences. Top students have never had more choices.</p>
<p>Well, ParentOfIvyHope, I suppose with Princeton you’re right to some extent…they’re not good at law, medicine, or MBA, mostly because they don’t have programs in any of those areas. Princeton Law/Med/Business simply don’t exist!</p>
<p>Also, ParentOfIvyHope, your definition of success is ridiculously narrow. Yes, it’s easy to measure success by the number of Fortune 500 CEOs, but that’s only one way of many that someone can succeed.</p>
<p>And when you are measuring success of alumni by success in business, Stanford and MIT may seem a lot better – mostly because the best technical and business minds tend to gravitate toward places like these. HYP are not renowned for their engineering or non-existent undergrad business programs. However, they do tend to attract brilliant students in the humanities, social sciences and natural/physical sciences. Their contributions in terms of alumni are evident in the greatest academics, politicians, non-profit leaders and activists.</p>