<p>This year, Columbia is once again 4th in the nation, though this time we're tied with Chicago.</p>
<p>Barnard is 28th. It was 33rd last year, though 26th the year before.</p>
<p>Rankings: National</a> University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges
Bwog: We’re</a> (Still) #4! – Bwog
Spectrum: Your</a> favorite news story of the year | Spectrum</p>
<p>When is the general posting population of College Confidential going to accept that the HYPSM rank/prestige acronym no longer reflects reality? S&M were displaced by Columbia several years ago in ranking, and yet the totemic weight of this anachronistic HYPSM acronym persists and prejudices much of the conversation about top universities on this board. It is a disinformational relic that deserves to be in the dustbin of history.</p>
<p>As a Chicago grad, I am thrilled. But I think it would be more appropriate to say Chicago tied with Columbia, as Columbia has precedence in the number 4 slot.</p>
<p>The HYPSMers are, of course, apoplectic because they remain completely unable to reconcile their outdated institutional prejudices with contemporary facts.</p>
<p>^ Okay, tone it down a little. HYPSM are still the leaders in prestige. No contest. Whether that prestige reflects quality is a separate argument, but HYPSM are certainly more prestigious than Columbia (and Chicago).</p>
<p>I don’t have to tone it down a little. HYP have historical precedent on their sides, of course. But Stanford and MIT are only more prestigious on CC. And the acronym reflects prestige AND rank. Stanford and MIT have slipped in the USNWR rankings over several years, therefore your assumption of superior prestige is questionable.</p>
<p>I attended Harvard for grad school and taught there. I received my BA from Chicago. From my perspective, the undergraduate education at Chicago is superior and more comprehensive than Harvard’s, despite Harvard’s prestige. And the Core Curriculum at Columbia, in place since 1919, is one of the jewels in American undergraduate education. The required breadth and depth of the Columbia and Chicago cores offer extraordinary educations to any students fortunate enough to be admitted. I will suspect that many who choose these schools do so because of the cores, and are less concerned about prestige than quality of education.</p>
<p>It clearly bothers some on CC that their own assumptions have been challenged by USNWR. So be it. The world changes. Get over it and stop being so defensive. Defensiveness is a sign of insecurity.</p>
<p>Yes, you do. Because you’re simply incorrect.</p>
<p>Stanford and MIT are more prestigious than Chicago and Columbia among the general population. It is not an assumption. I could retrieve a recent poll showing the margin of how much more prestigious they are (I think phantasmagoric referenced it a few times) if you want me to. I’ll even pull up their PA and GC scores tomorrow (as it’s quite late, and I really should be sleeping).</p>
<p>The truth is, you have nothing backing your argument but the US News ranking. While the ranking does reflect general prestige, it doesn’t tend to differentiate well within tiers. For example, Berkeley is surely more prestigious than WUStL but is ranked many spots lower. US News is not a prestige ranking, and that’s what we’re discussing here. I’m surprised you chose to attack S and M, since they are arguably more prestigious than even Princeton and Yale. If you think Chicago and Columbia are more prestigious among the general population, then you are not properly considering the evidence. Don’t let your personal bias cloud your judgment.</p>
<p>Regarding quality of education, which you seem to be arguing (even though I clearly specified prestige), Columbia and Chicago have a lot to stand on. But regarding prestige, there really is no question about it.</p>
<p>(I liked your little ad hominem at the end there, by the way. I’m not insecure, as I don’t currently attend any of these institutions. I’m just a high school student and avid debater.)</p>
<p>Prestige amongt the general population is also fueled by sports (Stanford and Cal win here) and by cool/nerdy Youtube videos of robots (MIT wins here) especially when prestige is “have you heard of this school?”. If you polled those working in higher education or who know at least the basics of admissions in the realm of selective private schools no one (or very few) would say that Stanford and MIT are more prestigious than Yale, Princeton, Columbia and likely not even UChicago. I mean I don’t care much about lay “prestige” cause of the whole sports issue, and regional bias is incredibly high.</p>
<p>^ You’re right, prestige is an imperfect measure of quality as it is subject to non-academic factors. And it’s true that among folks in higher ed, Chicago and Columbia are much closer to HYPSM in prestige (the PA scores reflect this–I’ll post them later if someone else doesn’t get to it first).</p>
<p>“I think the one place where I have been that is most like ancient Athens is the University of Chicago.” --Alfred North Whitehead, Harvard prof and Cambridge alum</p>
<p>This is why one asks smart people not uniformed members of the general public for their opinion.</p>
<p>Congrats to UChicago and Columbia, which have both long been at the top of American higher education.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/graduate-school/1358378-best-universities-1910-1925-a.html?highlight=1910[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/graduate-school/1358378-best-universities-1910-1925-a.html?highlight=1910</a></p>
<p>The people on this board who are so focused on prestige are the kind of people who are embroiled in the cheating scandal at Harvard right now and later go to jail for insider trading.</p>
<p>“Get over it and stop being so defensive. Defensiveness is a sign of insecurity.”</p>
<p>I lol’d.</p>
<p>RE: PA Scores</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14836305-post17.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14836305-post17.html</a></p>
<p>U.S. Presidents 2013 PA Scores
Stanford: 4.9
MIT: 4.9
…
Columbia: 4.6
Chicago: 4.6</p>
<p>Columbias prestige is clearly a flashpoint for many people. There are those who are invested in overstating it, and those who are invested in understating it. To me, a Columbia graduate, its a fruitless debate. The one clear thing is that, however prestigious, relatively or absolutely (is prestige only a relative concept?), the school is now, its getting more prestigious, thanks in large part to (with the exception of last year) ever lower admissions rates. If, one day, Columbia is substantially more difficult to get into than, say, Princeton or Yale, Columbia will be more prestigious. This is one reason HYP ferociously protect their admissions rates. They understand their accumulated prestige will instantly evaporate if they become known as easy or easier to get into.</p>
<p>Studious, in point of fact it is irrelevant what the general population thinks vis-a-vis prestige. When I was a Chicago undegrad in the late 1980s I was always surprised that very few members of the “lay public” had even heard of the University of Chicago. Did public ignorance in any way interfere with my receipt of an extraordinary education? No! When I applied to grad schools I just applied to three, Chicago, Harvard, and Yale. I was accepted to all three with extremely generous aid. This is because in the world of higher education Chicago had and continues to have a sterling reputation. It is a prestigious degree in the worlds that interest me: academics and the professional world. What misguided high school students believe – who only go by what people have heard of, or major brand names – is irrelevant to me and to everyone in the academic and professional worlds.</p>
<p>So, we can parse prestige if you would like. If you are asking about what your average everyday folk know, or gullible high school students, well, OK, the brand names of the schools you champion are better known than Chicago certainly, and Columbia maybe. If your arbiter of prestige is Joe and Jane average American, then on those terms only (again also including ill-informed and status obsessed high school kids), yeah some members of your mystical set may have more lay-person’s prestige. In layman’s terms MIT does not. Very few members of the general public have heard of it. I am not downgrading its extraordinary educational importance, as my father is an MIT grad. But you overstate because – given your post history – clearly aside from high school all you seem to do is read, post and argue (without facts on your side) on CC, where the bias of the kids who post is towards the mystical, totemic HYPSM. A mysticism that may fly here, but in the worlds of academia and the professions is irrelevant.</p>
<p>As for Columbia? It does not need my endorsement as a highly presitgious, exemplary academic institution. Columbia is an extraordinary school (I have family attending) and, for myself anyway, my own favorite Ivy for undergrad because of its curriculum, and I say this as someone who taught at Harvard. Columbia’s undergraduate education is far superior to Harvard’s in terms of required breadth and depth. </p>
<p>FYI, Columbia was recently rated by Newsweek the number 1 MOST RIGOROUS college in the United States. Harvard was somewhere in the top fifteen, but not even close to Columbia. It used to be said of Harvard, “the hardest thing is getting in.” But if all you want out of life is to brag about getting in someplace, with no intelligent thought to quality or rigor of academics, well be my guest, go for it.</p>
<p>Moreover, don’t confuse what is “popular” to “academic prestige.” If you study history of education, since its founding in 1892, Chicago, along with Columbia, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have consistently been ranked together as elite academic powerhouses. Nothing has really changed since the early 1900s to the present…other than the comical US News “rankings” that started in the 80s. I wouldn’t give too much credence to what is popular at the “moment.” Just because the layperson thinks Notre Dame, Georgetown, or USC are “great” institutions because they play either basketball or football well…or, the state or junior college educated guidance counselors who seem to consistently rank Columbia and Chicago low on their “popularity scale”…Need I say more?</p>
<p>Great points!</p>
<p>This site tracked the U.S. News rankings of the top 20 schools since 1983
[U.S</a>. News Best Colleges Rankings 1983-2013 - The Airspace](<a href=“The Air Space - Play beyond Reality”>The Air Space - Play beyond Reality)</p>
<p>Columbia’s rankings:
U.S. News 2013: 4
U.S. News 2012: 4
U.S. News 2006: 9
U.S. News 1983: 15
Cattell 1906: 2</p>
<p>I realize Columbia has a long tradition of success, but why did that waver to 15th place at the time of the 1983 rankings? 15th to 4th seems like a tremendous move to me.</p>
<p>It would be a “tremendous move” if that were actually the case. Your own data shows that Columbia went from #15 to #9, not #15 to #4!!! And, that “tremendous move” took, what, over 20 years? In point of fact, it went from #9 to #4, a much less “tremendous move.” The move from #15 to #4 was actually a thirty year long process.</p>
<p>Latest QS world university rankings!</p>
<p>[QS</a> World University Rankings - Topuniversities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2012]QS”>QS World University Rankings 2012: Top Global Universities | Top Universities)</p>
<p>Amongst the top 10, 4 are from UK!! (Cambridge, UCL, Oxford, Imperial - in that order!)</p>
<p>swingtime, as someone who is clearly so well-educated, I would expect a better argument from you. Funnily enough, I agree with almost everything in your post. I never made any claim to refute the majority of your thoughts (that Columbia is a fantastic school, that Columbia is rigorous, that Columbia doesn’t need lay-prestige on its side, etc.). Let me break this down for you:</p>
<p>Your first post: Claimed that HYPSM is no longer valid in terms of prestige (note that I’m not taking issue with the “rank” part, just prestige).</p>
<p>My response: It certainly is, and I have the evidence to back it up. As posted above, the PA rating reflects academic prestige (i.e. not lay-prestige), and Stanford and MIT are clearly superior in this respect.</p>
<p>I never made any claim regarding the comparative quality of these institutions–in fact, I clearly mentioned that prestige is not a good measure of said quality. All I posted was a response to your (inaccurate) claim that HYPSM is an outdated initialism with regard to prestige.</p>
<p>I’m not misguided, and I don’t lack evidence to back up my position. Throughout this thread, you have simply delved into myriad tangents that seem to be responding to some incorrect inference of yours that I was equating prestige with quality.</p>
<p>[2012</a> QS World University Rankings® Supplement – Free download | QS Intelligence Unit](<a href=“http://www.iu.qs.com/2012/09/11/2012qswur/]2012”>http://www.iu.qs.com/2012/09/11/2012qswur/)</p>
<p>contents/expert commentary</p>
<p>Here’s one reputation ranking that combines academic and lay prestige:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/reputation-rankings.html[/url]”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/reputation-rankings.html</a></p>
<p>H: 1
M: 2
S: 4
P: 7
Y: 10</p>
<p>Chicago: 14
Columbia: 15</p>
<p>By reputation index: </p>
<p>H: 100
M: 87.2
S: 72.1
P: 37.9
Y: 32.4</p>
<p>Chicago: 21.0
Columbia: 20.7</p>
<p>Here’s the methodology if you’re interested: <a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/reputation-methodology.html[/url]”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/reputation-methodology.html</a></p>
<p>It’s pretty clear that HYPSM are still more prestigious, regardless of how US News ranks them.</p>