<p>I certainly think that UWMadison should be included on any list of top research universities, and that’s not just because I’m from Wisconsin.</p>
<p>The Ivy League disbanding big time football ruined the sport in the Northeast. The Magnolia League would ruin all the good programs and spur disinterest among students and alumni in athletics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When Wildcats do get mild, they still scored 13 points, unlike the submissive teddy Bears that scored only 3 points in two of the games and was totally owned… :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only “elite” research universities on this list are M.I.T., Johns Hopkins and the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>CMU and WashU are pretty good.</p>
<p>The schools don’t all have to be of exactly the same academic caliber. I don’t think there are many people who would argue that, academically, Cornell is on par with Harvard or Yale, and yet they are all in the Ivy League.</p>
<p>
I’m guessing you’re still in high school. That sort of ignorant remark is more excusable in that case.</p>
<p>UAA is the league where a small number of private schools to form to enhance their reputations.</p>
<p>Currently, Brandeis, Carnegie Mellon, Case Western, Emory, NYU, UChicago, Rochester and Washington U belongs to league. John Hopkins was founder of the league before drop out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not ignorant. That doesn’t make it true.</p>
<p>But actually, few would argue that. ;)</p>
<p>I think this is pretty sufficient for a top-tier non-Ivy university list. [CC</a> Top Universities - College Confidential](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/cc-top-universities/]CC”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/cc-top-universities/)
However, the Ivy League is an athletic conference, not an academic tier.</p>
<p>This is dumb. Who cares? The Ivy League is an athletic conference which has a name that now goes far beyond its basic meaning.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s both. For those who insist Ivy League is <em>only</em> an athletic league ans nothing more, note that the term was in popular use for at least 20 years prior to the formation of the athletic league in 1954.</p>
<p>[Ivy</a> League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League]Ivy”>Ivy League - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>^nice. Citing Wikipedia.</p>
<p>^^Wikipedia is at least as authoritative as a bunch of random people on CC and quite possibly more so. Do you have an authoritative source that contradicts the wiki article?</p>
<p>
[Seeley</a> G. Mudd Manuscript Library : FAQ Ivy League](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/mudd/news/faq/topics/ivy_league.shtml]Seeley”>http://www.princeton.edu/mudd/news/faq/topics/ivy_league.shtml)</p>
<p>It was in popular use…to describe the schools “which had common athletic programs.”</p>
<p>“I’m guessing you’re still in high school. That sort of ignorant remark is more excusable in that case.”</p>
<p>Um? I hate to break it to pal, but there are not many people who are going to argue that Cornell=Harvard. Maybe it’s true (it probably is in engineering), but it doesn’t matter. Cornell is a fantastic school, in the top 15 in the country, probably in the top 40 of the world, but Harvard and Yale are still, by most metrics, seen to be better (again except engineering). Rankings don’t really have any effect on a school’s quality, and in reality you can probably get a much better education at an undergrad focused school like Dartmouth than at Harvard… but it doesn’t matter. At this point, reputation begets reputation, and Harvard is the one with the reputation. Stop being so sensitive, not everything is an attack. If you think common perception is that Cornell=Harvard/Yale, you’re just wrong.</p>
<p>
Likewise. </p>
<p>I have no affiliation with Cornell and thus have no need to be defensive; I simply dislike ignorant posts. I have posted in defense of WUStL, Duke, Michigan, and others when people make similarly ignorant comments about those schools.</p>
<p>It was fairly obvious you know little about Cornell. For instance, that it outranks Yale in the humanities. Shockingly, it has strong programs other than engineering. I meant this more as an observation than an attack. </p>
<p>You’re correct that most people perceive Cornell to be of lower quality than Yale and Harvard. As Baelor said, your post was essentially correct – most people won’t claim that Cornell is on par with those two, however true it might be (admittedly less so for Harvard).</p>
<p>One could certainly make a case for this inequality factoring in professional schools, since Yale and especially Harvard get a lot of recognition from their excellent law and medical schools. One could also make an argument from selectivity, which is where Harvard and Yale really shine. In the liberal arts, however, Cornell can and does compete quite capably with Harvard and Yale. Most people don’t realize that, snubbing Cornell in favor of the more selective and academically weaker Brown and Dartmouth, but it’s nevertheless true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone has posted the results of GRE/GMAT/LSAT/MCAT broken down on a per school basis and HYPSM grads lead the rest of the pact. If Dartmouth is claiming that they provide a better undergrad education, how come their grads fail in comparison to HYPSM grads in those exams? It was just a few points higher than Berkeley’s and Berkeley has like 8x more than Dartmouth has.</p>
<p>^ where was that posted? I am very interested in reading that</p>
<p>
As I have always said (and gotten attacked for), quality of education correlates much more closely to selectivity and academic quality than the size of the university.</p>
<p>Rice and Dartmouth are nice and small, but I find it dubious that they are inevitably better learning environments than Penn, Northwestern, or (yes) Berkeley. For people who prefer a small school with a reasonable array of courses and majors, of course, such schools are the way to go.</p>