<p>Duke is a Roman Catholic school and Emory is Methodist.</p>
<p>Duke is not a Roman Catholic school. It was founded by Quakers and Methodists.</p>
<p>I think you've got most of them.</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>WUStL</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Emory</li>
</ol>
<p>I'd replace Tufts with Emory.</p>
<p>the ivy league is an athletic conference and many of the schools mentioned here are already ranked (or have historically been ranked) higher than part or much of the ivy league, so this really is a pointless question.</p>
<p>Why all the rules? Why not just name the "2nd string Ivy Leagues" as the next 8 best after the Ivies, regardless of religious affiliations or public/private or whatever?</p>
<p>Ya' know, guys, some of the schools on this list are better academically than some of the Ivies. (Heresy, I know.) </p>
<p>As elsijfdl said, the Ivy League is just an athletic conference, and all the schools in it are very old, because they were among the first schools in the country -- New England having been about the first part of the country that was settled by Europeans. (And Virginia, too.) </p>
<p>So there's nothing magical about the Ivy League; it's no different than the Big Ten, where some schools are excellent (UMich, Northwestern) and other schools less so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not just name the "2nd string Ivy Leagues" as the next 8 best after the Ivies
[/quote]
</p>
<p>the point is the ivies aren't the top 1-8 schools, they are already intermixed with many of the schools listed here.</p>
<p>Crossposted with elsijfdl; I agree, I agree.</p>
<p>I know. What I meant is that if you wanted to name another 8 under-Ivies, you might as well just choose the next best overall excluding the existing 8, regardless of whether some on your next list are actually better than ones on the original 8.</p>
<p>Chicago doesn't play football -- no one would want them in the same league.</p>
<p>Yeah, if this were an actual athletic conference, Duke, Stanford, and Northwestern would be dominant across all sports.</p>
<p>Isn't Duke religiously affiliated? And Northwestern, too?</p>
<p><em>ahem</em> Chicago does play football in the UAA conference. Some of the other UAA members have already been mentioned as being Ivy-esque... the UAA itself is like the Ivy League, in that all of the other member schools are of a very high academic quality (Emory, Rochester, CMU, NYU, Case, WashU, Brandeis).</p>
<p>I swear this topic is done at least once a month...christ</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't Duke religiously affiliated? And Northwestern, too?
[/quote]
Not officially. Though both have Methodist roots, neither is actually affiliated with the Methodist church.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not just name the "2nd string Ivy Leagues" as the next 8 best after the Ivies, regardless of religious affiliations or public/private or whatever?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One reason might be that some non-Ivy colleges are plainly better than some of the Ivy League colleges </p>
<p>Ivy</a> League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia </p>
<p>by any reasonable definition of "better."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't Duke religiously affiliated? And Northwestern, too?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>nope and nope</p>
<p>Ivy League schools, in addition to being an athletic league as mentioned previously, originally had ivy growing on many of their buildings.</p>
<p>It's time to come up with 8 top academic schools that have another useless thing in common...the "Railroad League" (schools located within a mile of a communter rail station?) or perhaps the "Green League" (only top academic schools with a commitment to recycling or CDL bulbs)?</p>
<p>Agreed; this topic pops up at least once a month.</p>
<p>This is a new and exciting thread.</p>