<p>Tied with MIT and UPenn</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>well-deserved…</p>
<p>I suspect assessing universities in bands might be both easier and actually more helpful than attempting specifically to ascertain if Yale is, for example, marginally better than Columbia. To illustrate and using US News’ just-released results:
Band 1: P, H, Y, C
Band 2: S, U of C, MIT, Duke Penn
and so forth</p>
<p>Furthermore, the many ties tend to created de facto bands.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I I would place Columbia in the same tier or as you call it “band” as HYP.</p>
<p>Harvard and Stanford are far and away the most comprehensive and high quality centers for education and research in the USA. THey have money, talent, and a wide breadth of academic offerings…The other top tier universities are really all about the same, with different schools having different strengths. Columbia,for sure, is not in the same league as Harvard or Stanford.</p>
<p>Top 15 of 3000 schools is still Top .5%. </p>
<p>Once you get to that level, does it really matter ? </p>
<p>Any of those schools in the top .5% of nationally ranked schools are still in the top 1% when you add in the best liberal arts, etc. </p>
<p>At that point, you just find the school that would be the best fit in terms of location, weather, living conditions, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On how many different boards were you planning to post this?</p>
<p>I hope the young minds reading this are discerning enough to realize the naivet</p>
<p>This is what I stated on Chicago’s forum about Kalaroma, who feels the need to trumpet Stanford and Harvard everywhere…</p>
<p>Kalorama
</p>
<p>Apparently Kalorama is a parent of a Stanford student and feels the need to spend an inordinate amount of time bashing other schools that can’t possibly offer as great an education as Stanford, or in his/her case, Harvard. I find it quite pathetic and embarrassing for anyone, especially someone who apparently attended an ivy undergrad and law school, to feel the need to make such statements. I am not a psychoanalyst but I suspect that Kalorama suffers from some sort of psychosis/insecurity complex and feels that the fact that his/her kid studies at Stanford as a way to make his/her life more meaningful or important or validates their existence in society. Bravo, to you! I am sure you have “My Kid goes to Stanford” stickers plastered all over your car…</p>
<p>Truly sad…</p>
<p>I think Stanford is arguably the best NOW, do not even wait 10 years (and I do not feel psychotic, nor have I or anyone in my family attended, so College Yahoo cannot attack me on those fronts).</p>
<p>But as much as we talk about “best”, the eye of the beholder sees and needs different aspects, and there is thankfully a substantial group of truly awe-inspiring universities and colleges that can be called the best. </p>
<p>Among the top 10, there are flavors but you’re arguing about the difference between sea bass and filet mignon. Favorites, yes; but “better”, no.</p>
<p>Ironically, what is actually happening is that the professorial and student talent is actually diffusing across more and more universities globally, making it increasingly difficult for a small number of universities to hold a monopoly on the talent. I suspect that we will see an increase in the number of most elite universities and greater parity in the quality of their faculty and student bodies. Where Stanford is likely to continue to have an edge is in those disciplines that directly feed Silicon Valley. However, even in those disciplines, Harvard and MIT, among others, continue to have substantial impact. My hope is that Duke will strengthen its academic base and attractiveness to the very best students sufficiently to become one of those most elite universities. It has some very compelling attributes that suggest the potential is there to achieve the highest levels of excellence.</p>
<p>No need for personal attacks. I have every right to my opinion. You know that Stanford is unqiue among the great American universities. And that all the other top schools would love to be in Stanford’s position.</p>
<p>@Kalorama - Yes, you have the right to your opinion. That does not mean that it is always appropriate to express your opinion. Also, others have the right to disagree with your opinion, as well as point out the agenda behind your offering your opinion.</p>
<p>I agree that Stanford is unique among the great American universities. However, Duke is unique among the great American universities. Also, Harvard is unique among the great American universities. You get my point…</p>
<p>I doubt that Duke would trade positions with Stanford. Being in North Carolina is part of the fabric of the character of Duke. Stanford has no equivalent to the Marine lab at Beaufort. Stanford’s love/hate relationship with Berkeley pales in comparison to Duke’s rivalry with Carolina. While Stanford offers proximity to the cutting edge technology of Silicon Valley, Duke offers a more genteel and diverse technology option in Research Triangle Park. Duke has the best Medical center in the state, arguably the entire Southeast US.</p>
<p>Note that I am not arguing that Stanford would trade positions with Duke. It has its own character embedded in its history, location, alumni and campus.</p>
<p>alicejohnson, Duke doesn’t need to game the rankings. What do you know about Duke? Did/do you even go there? There only needs to be one UChicago. I, as well as other alums, would not like to see Duke as a clone of Chicago. Our national and global footprint is already extensive and 7th is a fine ranking. We don’t need to compromise what truly matters in order to crack a higher order of the rankings.</p>
<p>“You know that Stanford is unqiue among the great American universities. And that all the other top schools would love to be in Stanford’s position.”</p>
<p>Kalorama, you do know that pride goeth before the fall. </p>
<p>You are entitled to your opinions - but you may want to think them through before you try to present opinion as fact. My guess is that the vast majority of the readers of College Confidential have the discernment to recognize specious representations for what they are. As long as continue to make such comments you will correctly be chastised.</p>
<p>Kalorama is a graduate of Brown, not Stanford. I don’t think it can be “pride” unless you have graduated from that school.</p>
<p>Also, two of my relatives graduated from Stanford’s graduate schools (two different schools). One is currently unemployed from a mid-level corporate job and the other runs a small business… definitely, nothing to brag about for their age. Not every Stanford graduate (even one with an MBA or a PhD) is going to be successful in his career. You make of your degree what you make of it. No one is going to shower you with offers just because you earned a diploma from Stanford.</p>
<p>Kalorama,</p>
<p>All schools have plusses and minuses, especially for undergraduate education. Here are a few articles from the New Yorker describing some of the downsides of Stanford, including visiting profs from silicon valley companies who lack teaching skills (but might fund a start up) and a critical mass of self-loathing, insecure students working themselves very hard and not enjoying life much.</p>
<p>Bottom line-=-this type of competitive, professional environment might be absolutely great for many talented undergrads, but certainly not all of them.</p>
<p>[Is</a> Stanford Too Close to Silicon Valley? : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/30/120430fa_fact_auletta]Is”>Stanford and Silicon Valley | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>[Silicon</a> Valley, Start-Ups, and the End of Stanford? : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/silicon-valley-start-ups-and-the-end-of-stanford.html]Silicon”>The End of Stanford? | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>[The</a> Trouble With Stanford : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-end-of-stanford-part-ii.html]The”>The Trouble With Stanford | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>A few more thoughts. Stanford and Harvard are preeminent among American universities at raising money. This alone puts them on the short list of great schools because money is a prerequisite to research, amenities, and quality professors. But unlike Harvard, which in the last decade has changed its GERs to encourage more focus on the liberal arts and rarely lets visiting professors teach classes, Stanford maintains a much more professional approach. Some examples include (1) a student body in which 25% of undergrads are eng’g majors, (2) less emphasis on the liberal arts and much fewer LA majors than many other top schools, (3) undergrad classes taught by visiting professors lacking training in teaching and often from nearby silicon valley companies, (4) research, curriculum, and forum/event choices heavily influenced by corporate contributors (some would argue Stanford has been captured by corporate interests), and (5) a four-year graduation rate of 80% that places it around #75 (by comparison Duke has an 87% 4-year grad rate).</p>
<p>[Highest</a> 4-Year Graduation Rates | Rankings | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate]Highest”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate)</p>
<p>I don’t think “4 year grad rates” are anything to brag about, especially if a student is taking a Gap year to travel, work or do something educational. </p>
<p>Besides… so many pre-med students graduate in four years only to follow that with a Post-Bac (1-2 more “pre-med” years in undergraduate school). Can a college truly qualify those students in the “4 year grad” rates? I don’t think so. It is flawed. And these kids doing post-bac work come from the top universities in the nation, too.</p>