<p>HYP is a cut above Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Caltech, Penn, Duke, <em>insert other top private school</em> so this discussion is pointless.</p>
<p>DYMN-CHPS overs top 15 schools except a couple (sound like Damn Chips)
D - Dartmouth, Duke
Y - Yale
M - MIT
N - Northwestern
C - Cornell, Columbia, CalTech,Chicago
H - Harvard, Hopkins
P - Princeton, Penn
S - Stanford.</p>
<p>These did not cover Brown and WUSTL</p>
<p>But I don’t think columbia would become richer than Stanford in our life time. Stanford alumni are more solid and generous to their alma mater school than Columbia alumni are. Stanford has also stronger professional programs. In fact, Stanford is top 3 in almost all professional programs - MBA top 1, law top 3, engineering top 2, education top 3 and medicine top 7. Stanford is also top 2 or 3 in postgraduate education. Professional as well as postgraduate education contributes very much to the overall image and brand power of the university. And Columbia’s professional and postgraduate schools, though excellent, are in a league below Stanford’s. I don’t think that will change in our life time.</p>
<p>Looks like PSCYH is winning out.</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>
That sounds pleasing if you’re from Columbia. But most people don’t think that way. MIT and Caltech will remain prestigious and are in a league above Columbia as they are selective, well-maintained, great in research and excellent in almost everything in what they do or offer. That’s precisely the case in the UK where both Imperial College and LSE are regarded neck-and-neck with Oxbrdge rather than those well-rounded universities such as UCL, Warwick, Durham or St Andrews. Imperial and LSE are “specialised schools”, but they are quite selecitve and best in what they do and offer.</p>
<p>
since when was Caltech ranked behind GTech? </p>
<p>The low yield registered at Caltech is due mainly to the presence of MIT, Stanford and Berkeley Engineering. And, of course, there’s HYP. Columbia and Caltech applicants don’t overlap. Caltech and those schools I mentiond, especially MIT and Stanford, do. But Caltech is rarely a “fall back” school unlike Columbia is for HYPSM applicants. Do you know of someone who’s treating Caltech as a 'fallback" school? I guess none. But we do often meet and hear students treating Columbia as a fallback school. And, i guess that will stay in our life time.</p>
<p>^^ Columbia is more selective then both MIT and Cal-tech… And offer everything great. Columbia is in a league above MIT and Caltech. I would just say Stanford and Columbia are equals. Not one above another.</p>
<p>^^one of my best friends at columbia turned down caltech, smart kid, but also wanted to have a life, caltech’s yield is pretty low indicating that it is a fallback school for some applicants, even if the classes are incredible tough and the research top notch.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t call Columbia a fall back school for hypsm, many top private and public schools in the US see columbia being the 2nd or 3rd (sometimes the most) selective school with their students. My highschool graduated many into top 10 schools, columbia definitely took as small and as elite a proportion as hypsm, it was a reach for pretty much anyone applying. Cornell is sometimes called the fallback school because of how large it is, but even that is now difficult for anyone to say.</p>
<p>^Most people have no interest in attending MIT or Caltech, not because they’re not tremendous schools, but because they’re “niche” schools (Caltech in particular). Among 2008 undergraduate degree recipients at MIT, ONLY 43 out of 1,217 undergraduates received degrees in the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Science (not including the 35 economics majors). It appears that NO ONE received a degree in a foreign language that year. MIT defenders will say that this data (from the MIT website) does not include double majors, because MIT only lists the “primary” major (which in all cases apparently, according to MIT culture, is the science, math or engineering major, as the humanities, arts or social science major is considered “secondary”).</p>
<p>I make no value judgment regarding whether the “sciences” are more worthy than the “arts.” Rather, for most (extrapolating from my own experience as an old guy, my kids and their friends, and major distributions at most colleges), the availability of strong “arts” programs is important to most. [In fact, I think this nation needs more scientists and mathematicians.]</p>
<p>This is why I personally have a hard time considering MIT or Caltech as top national universities.</p>
<p>I gues it’s safe to assume that nearly everyone at Caltech, MIT and Stanford have also been admitted to either of them and HYP. Very rarelyw ould you meet someone at Columbia who has been admitted to HYPSMC. Columbia does not have the brand power that HYPSMC have. The best and the brightest, the cream of the crop… generally fancy HYPSMC admissions, but not always Columbia, obviously. Would you really go for columbia despite having acceptances from HYPSMC? I doubt it.</p>
<p>
well, that’s just but one person. nearly everyone at Caltech has acceptances at any of HYPSM. Can’t say the same thing for Columbia - in general.</p>
<p>
Well, i’m sure those students at UPenn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown and chicago would also claim something like that. But we are talking about generality. In general, Columbia is in a league below HYPSMC in academic prestige. Maybe columbia offers better undergraduate experience or better academic quality. I don’t know. what I’m aying is – it’s brand power is not in the league of HYPSMC. And it will probably not change in our life time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you didn’t even go to Columbia so it’s kind of ridiculous to be making any such claims. Anecdotally at least tons of kids turned down HYPSMctech to come to columbia, I know several for every single one of those schools, I also don’t know very many people who are at columbia because they were turned down by one or several of those schools. Remember kids also exist at HYPSMctech who had columbia as their first choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Caltech, MIT, and Stanford do have plenty of cross-admits. but far from “nearly everyone” as you claim also gets into HYP (which can be clearly seen by the numerous results threads on CC)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and there’s a reason why i turned it down for Camrbidge. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>those students interested in caltech are also interested in princeton and harvard, both are great for physical sciences and computer science. those who are interested in caltech for engineering would also be interested in princeton for engineering. maybe caltech and yale applicants don’t overlap that much (except for maths, chem, physics and premed). but i guess it’s even worse for caltech and columbia, seeing that they are not in the same league in academic prestige.</p>
<p>
Those times are past and gone, RML. People who dwell on Peer Assessment and rankings have an unfortunate (though amusing) tendency to disregard reality. </p>
<p>I recently calculated 2014 admit rates. The RD admit rates at Columbia, Stanford, and Yale were 6.60%, 5.70%, and 5.21%, respectively. It is true that ED somewhat artificially lowers Columbia’s RD rate, but the same occurs for Stanford and Yale with SCEA, albeit at a slightly lower rate. Regardless, it’s perfectly clear that those institutions are equally selective for the vast majority of applicants (those applying RD).</p>
<p>These days, I would be about as surprised to hear of a Columbia reject getting into Yale as I would a Columbia admit getting rejected from Stanford – that is to say, not surprised at all. Heck, with Brown (~7.5% RD rate), Dartmouth (10% RD rate), and even Penn (~10.5% RD rate) steadily gaining in selectivity, the gap continues to narrow at an ever faster rate.</p>
<p>warblersrule86,</p>
<p>it is safe to assume that people apply (ED or RD) to Columbia because they knew they wouldnt’ stand a chance at HYPSMC anyway. columbia is selective. It’s one of the most selective in america. But the bestof the very best don’t aim for a columbia acceptance as much as they aim for HYPSMC. I’m talking about those beast students – math and or physics olympiad, etc, etc… Those people aim for HYPSMC.</p>
<p>I really think the linear view many seem to embrace regarding the admissions spectrum is misguided. My Columbia son has two close friends who are very happy at MIT and Harvard, respectively, notwithstanding that they were both rejected by Columbia. :)</p>
<p>RML, those “beast students” (math and/or physics olympiad) don’t aim for HYPSMC; they aim for MIT and Caltech (maybe Harvard and Stanford).</p>
<p>^ Agreed. I know many people attending H and Y who were rejected by Columbia.
But also quite a few who weren’t.</p>
<p>Based on acceptance rates at these top schools, the differences in perceived selectivity is really quite negligible.</p>
<p>@RML
ahem, “beast students” do not only include math/physics geniuses. there are science-oriented beast students who attend Columbia. But there are also many more beast students in the arts, political science, and theater/film at Columbia who chose the school over HYP.</p>
<p>what do you have against Columbia anyways?</p>