<p>^ "To the main point of the discussion, it wasn't that long ago (50s and earlier) that Columbia was considered in the same league with HYP."</p>
<p>Great point Denzera. I think University of Chicago people would say the same thing. Their decline seems to be more attributable to crime in South Chicago. </p>
<p>I believe UC Berkeley people could also insert their school into the same sentence. Their downfall is the relative lack of resources undergraduates have at a state school. </p>
<p>Columbia is not unique in having been whispered in the same breath as HYP long ago ...</p>
<p>Dwincho, I meant the Harlem Renaissance lol </p>
<p>mj93, Yale's undergrad students are definitely stronger than Columbia's - Columbia holds its own against Dartmouth, Duke, Penn, and Brown. Yale holds its own against Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton. Different levels of strength there.</p>
<p>Oh, yeah, I agree - I'm just talking about the median level of strength.</p>
<p>Like, I'm sure the middle 50% of Yale students are very similar to the middle 50% of Columbia students - but since we are forced to differentiate between such elite schools, very small differences still count as differences.</p>
<p>Yale's students are def better than Columbia Students? Wow, the logic is flawless...priceless and idiotic. I suppose you will now quote the small diff in SAT scores, and how many Rhodes have been won over the last few years. None of that affirms your foolish statement....Rhodes, Marshalls, Truman's etc are to a large degree a refelction of the resources a university dedicates to "dog & ponying" there students NOT the strength of the students when you are talking about the student bodies of Yale vs. Columbia. ...Although CU had a VERY strong showing in the Fulbrights this year becaue they have finally created an office dedicated to helping students prepare for the rigors of the application process for these scholarships. The students at HYPS, Columbia, Chicago, Duke are very similar and not Def better. Anyway....good luck.</p>
<p>yeah. Acceptance rate plays no role in prestige. Jeez, back in the day, harvard accepted 100% of their applicants and was still the most revered higher education in the world.</p>
<p>^^there was also less financial aid, so only rich kids went there</p>
<p>Hausdorff, I hear what you're saying .. but that small difference in SAT scores & small difference in level of achievement between the average Yale student and the average Columbia student gives Yale a <em>slightly</em> higher quality student body and a big boost in USNews Peer Assessment rankings.</p>
<p>Hausdorf - whats more idiotic, looking at available evidence...or pretending it doesn't matter. I wasn't going to talk about Rhodes, but probably national merit scholars, how many students go to top law/biz/med schools, and SATs. After all, if these numbers weren't important they wouldn't exist.</p>
<p>All of the top 10 or so schools are amazing schools with very talented students - however, when comparing them, even small differences are important because in reality they are all so close together. </p>
<p>Of course, you can check collegeboard.com or a number of sources of information to confirm that Yale students are better, albeit slightly, than Columbia students on average. </p>
<p>MJ - Peer Assessment rankings focus on grad school strength and overall reputation, not so much undergrad, so I never put much weight on it</p>