<p>stanford and Chicago 4 sure. Stanford and Chicago undergrad are generally, imo, 2 of the very best undergrad university educations in the world, definitely tier 1 with HYP, if not better for undergrad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford and Chicago undergrad are generally, imo, 2 of the very best undergrad university educations in the world, definitely tier 1 with HYP, if not better for undergrad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, Stanford has one of the best undergrad education? Undergrad? Really? By that, I'm not talking about the prestige of the brand name or the networking or the recruiting. Just the education.</p>
<p>Look, my brother went to Stanford as a grad student, where he served as a TA for some undergrad courses. He says that Stanford undergrads are basically treated as second-class citizens, relative to the grad students and that a lot of profs, being fixated on their research, simply just don't care about teaching undergrads properly.</p>
<p>This is just a general state of affairs among most research universities. Harvard has the same problem. As reported by the Crimson, many Harvard undergrads feel marginalized by the grad students and complain about the uneven quality of the undergrad teaching. Many (probably most) Harvard profs are far more interested in research and publication than in teaching. </p>
<p>Look, if you want a true high quality undergraduate education, you're probably looking at the elite LAC's, or perhaps the LAC-ish universities such as Princeton or Dartmouth. Research universities provide a strong brand name, great networking/recruiting, and plenty of resources. But the actual undergraduate education is a different story.</p>
<p>sakky is exactly right, as a Teaching Fellow at Harvard I taught (granted, mid-1990s) many disgruntled undergrads; in fact, the Crimson had an article stating that 50% of upperclassmen were unhappy. Students come in w/ such high expectations that are so hard to meet. W/ so many frosh classes in Cambridge being huge and students having to rely on inexperienced fellows, if was 18 again (I did the big undergrad classes at UCLA) I'd try to head to a Wms, Amherst, Sweatmore, or even a Hamilton, Colgate, Kenyon, etc., etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Students come in w/ such high expectations that are so hard to meet.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe such high expectations would not be met anywhere else. </p>
<p>I also find it amusing that the overall environment as well as the amount of face time with professors isn't considered when comparing colleges on the basis of undergraduate EDUCATION.</p>
<p>pshhh mit/caltech are cooler than the ivies anyways ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also find it amusing that the overall environment as well as the amount of face time with professors isn't considered when comparing colleges on the basis of undergraduate EDUCATION.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but the problem of talking about 'overall environment' is that it is such a nebulous category that can include a wide variety of resources. </p>
<p>For example, if you're a city lover, then one could argue that any school in NYC offers a stellar environment. After all, the simple act of living in NYC provides access to a plethora of cultural, social, and economic opportunities that most students at any college could not ever dream of. For example, even the Harvard library system is not as big as the New York Public Library. Hence, to use that logic, one could argue that maybe CCNY offers a better 'environment' than Harvard does</p>
<p>People can and will argue about the quality of the undergraduate education at the Ivies vs. many of the top privates. In most instances and comparisons, IMO (and particularly after HYPSM), the academic and student quality differences are negligible among the UNSWR Top 20 national universities (and to a lesser degree among the top 30) and the USNWR Top 20 LACs. </p>
<p>However, when the question is modified to the "quality of the undergraduate experience" (which I think is the right question to begin with), then the differences among the various elite colleges and among the Ivies themselves are much more clearly seen. Together the factors of 1) great academic strength, 2) exciting/diverse social life; and 3) vibrant and high quality athletic life-will determine the quality of the undergraduate experience. When considered in this context, the differences between the nation's top-ranked colleges are oftentimes quite large. </p>
<p>IMO, in a ranking of colleges that offer the best overall undergraduate experience for excellent academics, superb social life and strong/active Division I athletic life, it is the Ivy League colleges that are second string. For many, many students, the best overall undergraduate experiences will be found at:</p>
<ol>
<li> Stanford</li>
<li> Duke</li>
<li> Northwestern</li>
<li> Rice</li>
<li> Vanderbilt</li>
<li> Notre Dame</li>
<li> UC Berkeley</li>
<li> Georgetown</li>
<li> U Virginia</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>U Michigan</li>
<li>USC</li>
<li>U North Carolina</li>
<li>Wake Forest</li>
</ol>
<p>One can argue about the order above, but the fact is that these are the only colleges among the USNWR Top 30 national universities and Top 20 LACs that have it all…including a very, very high satisfaction rate among their graduates.</p>
<p>It seems like flawed conventional wisdom on CC that a school's undergraduate program necessarily suffers if the school has a strong graduate program. I take issue with dealing in such absolute terms. As hawkette points out, the undergraduate education and experience are determined by much more than how many graduate students the professors are teaching.</p>
<p>Princeton deserves to be on that list hawkette.</p>
<p>^Yeah except Princeton is in the Ivy League.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems like flawed conventional wisdom on CC that a school's undergraduate program necessarily suffers if the school has a strong graduate program. I take issue with dealing in such absolute terms. As hawkette points out, the undergraduate education and experience are determined by much more than how many graduate students the professors are teaching.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I have always agreed that Princeton is a major research university that also runs a stellar undergraduate program - so much so that I often times think of it as a 'quasi-LAC'. Frankly, I think other major research universities should be more like Princeton.</p>
<p>ibtelling,
After I posted my list above, I thought more about which Ivy colleges might also belong on that list. My fear is that the list will be seen as anti-Ivy and that is not my intent as I consider those outstanding academic environments. But today many colleges can offer a similar or better level undergraduate academic product...and more in the social life and athletic life. </p>
<p>I also thought more about the list above and which Ivies deserve a place and I think you're right. Princeton belongs and probably more than any other Ivy. I'd say Dartmouth too if you counted only the social life (for the right fit student), but their athletic life is pretty awful. And U Penn would be a contender based on academics and possibly athletic life (due to basketball), but their social life lags (sometimes significantly) the colleges on the list. </p>
<p>If your experience is only the Ivy colleges, then my list probably does not make a lot of sense to you. But I urge you to speak with your friends who attended schools on my Best Overall list and compare the nature and the quality of their undergraduate experience, in and outside of the classroom, with any of the Ivies and especially the non-HYP ones. Talk to students who attend/attended Duke or U Virginia or Notre Dame or UC Berkeley or Rice or…literally any of these schools and you won’t hear a lot of folks pining to be in Ithaca or Providence or Philadelphia. They really love their undergraduate experience and their excitement and enthusiasm for their schools is enormous and it is real. These truly are unique and special environments that will produce great graduates with great experiences. And if they want the Ivy League, well, there’s always graduate school.</p>
<p>hawkette, it's also about the cost. Many attend ivys, get the brand name they are looking for, and land a cushy and well-paid job. No need to spend more money to get that pretigious qualification. Same for those who attend Duke, Stanford and co.</p>
<p>Ibtelling,
Just to give a little more perspective on where I am coming from, I see HYPSM and Duke (I know I am in a small minority here) as the premier colleges in America. The academic and national/international prestige argument for choosing any of these commonly trumps a student matriculating to other colleges. </p>
<p>But that trumping power diminishes rather quickly for the non-HYP Ivies as there are now a great number of other colleges (maybe 25-30 national universities/LACs) that can and do offer a similar level of academic quality and have similarly strong student bodies. So how do you pick among them? Obviously academic considerations will be the primary consideration and perhaps an individual school will have the perfect match for one’s field of study. But frequently the competing schools offer comparable departmental strength or more commonly, the prospective student does not know what he or she will major in. As a result, non-academic factors may weigh very heavily in the decision. </p>
<p>If the student takes the time to actually consider the overall undergraduate experience at one of the non-HYP Ivies with any of the colleges that I listed above, I think that he/she will learn the undergraduate experience is potentially quite different. That does mean better and it may not be for everyone, but it is different in the social life and athletic life that an undergraduate sees when he/she matriculates. My firm belief is that the more that students can learn about what they will experience as undergraduates on a college campus (Ivy and otherwise), the better they will be able to make the correct individual selection.</p>
<p>D.T.
Postgraduate employment options are important, but I believe strongly in the student quality at the schools mentioned above (many with student profiles superior to several of the Ivies). They will not be at any kind of cost disadvantage either during the college years or afterwards. There was the big prestige nudge that the Ivies historically enjoyed but which is now eroded by the proliferation of student quality across the country. The pie has gotten bigger and while the Ivies will almost certainly eat well from that pie, so too will many other colleges that also have outstanding student bodies. Don't be fooled by the prestige arguments as they are ephemeral. Choose an Ivy if you like it best and think it is the right fit for you. But if you are not familiar with these other colleges, I urge you and others to learn about them and I suspect you will be very pleasantly surprised at the great academic and non-academic undergraduate experience that they can offer.</p>
<p>^ lol, I love how u spent 3 pages basically writing a response to a meaningless sentence Ibtelling said</p>
<p>Stanford and WashU are probably better than some of the Ivies. Emory and Vanderbilt, I think, are on the same level as Rice, which is probably better than Tufts. Syracuse isn't that great, so I wouldn't consider that one even in the running. Tulane is kind of..... eh. Not that great. I never even hear of how great Rochester is, so eh. So, here's my list: </p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Washington</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
</ol>
<p>Caltech and MIT do offer some pretty good liberal arts courses, but they're not that great overall for liberal arts education. Their focus is science and that's what they do best and that's where most of their money goes (I don't think I've ever heard of them sending X person to St. Petersburg to study the Russian school of thought. They rather use the money to study how much bacteria can accumulate on a piece of food during the five second rule.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd say Dartmouth too if you counted only the social life (for the right fit student), but their athletic life is pretty awful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good grief, Hawkette -- how is their athletic life pretty awful? Something like 70% of undergraduates are on some sort of team. That's amazing to me.</p>
<p>I don't see how my sentence was meaningless, but w.e.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I completely agree with you. The top 25s are pretty much the same. Personally, my decision to go to a top-tier Ivy League has been based on testing exactly how far I'm able to challenge and push myself and see the direct result of my efforts. Hope that makes sense.</p>
<p>VeryHappy,
For starters, I like Dartmouth and the students who go there and I think it is a very unique place, but its athletic quality and scene, when compared to any of the 14 colleges listed above is very weak. It is not even remotely close.</p>
<p>The participation rate you mention is for three areas: 1) varsity sports, 2) intramurals and 3) club sports. I hope you know that many colleges also have high participation rates and significantly better facilities. Dartmouth's athletic teams are horrendous even by Ivy standards (ranking of 124th in the 2006-07 Directors Cup was last among the Ivies) and were the worst of any Division I college in the USNWR Top 30 national universities. The athletic quality and scene around their football and basketball events is extremely weak in comparison to any of the 14 schools listed above with the possible exceptions of Rice and Georgetown. (though both of these provide a much more exciting scene). Ice hockey (men and women) would be the only venue that has any buzz and they draw less for those games than most of the women's basketball games at the other colleges. </p>
<p>I’m not anti-Dartmouth, but to say that it is in the same “athletic life” league with the colleges mentioned above is either measuring something very different or has no understanding of the tremendous programs and excitement created by the athletic scenes at these colleges. Dartmouth is a great college and the bond that the school forges with its students and alumni is fabulous, but like the rest of the Ivies, its athletic environment and scene is nothing like what you’d find at a Duke-U North Carolina basketball game or a USC-UCLA football game or a Rice-Vanderbilt baseball game. The difference is real and, for many students, is an important consideration in where one chooses to go for four years and for whose athletic teams one roots for for fifty years or more. </p>
<p>Ibtelling,
It makes sense and, given your position at Yale, I think I was clear earlier how I prioritize HYPSMDu over the others. But the flaw in the thinking (particularly if practiced by a current high school student) is that this testing and challenge can only come at an Ivy college. They are great colleges. So are the others. And the range of experiences offered at the others may be even more personally satisfying and fulfilling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford and WashU are probably better than some of the Ivies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stanford is one of the Top 5 universities in the US. So no argument there. But I'd be interested in hearing which Ivies you believe to be inferior to WashU.</p>