<p>Interesting take, Alexandre. I think Vandy is definitely stronger than Emory, or Georgetown or most others in the group you have it in. I also think UCLA is equally strong as Michigan.
There’s a few other things I would probably adjust but those are the biggest things I noticed. To each his own though! : )
And yes Alexandre can have a gold star too! :D</p>
<p>Oh and wouldn’t you possibly include UCSD in group 5?</p>
<p>As you said allcapella, to each his own. I listed my criteria for my groupings. In the case of UCLA, I think they lack the wealth and financial stability that Michigan has. Its endowment is 3 times smaller, and with 90% of its students being in-staters, it cannot generate as much tuition income as Michigan, where in-state students make up 60% of the student population. That is the primary reason why I drop UCLA to group 4.</p>
<p>Finalchild, no PhD here. Grad = B.S. graduate. Did get MBA though…but not at Berkeley caliber school.</p>
<p>So looks like the the schools which repeatedly appear under contention are WUSTL, Rice, and Vandy. I’m sure individuals each have their faves they would argue but these 3 continue to be the ones getting moved ahead of or behind UMich. Would be interesting to have 50 OOS applicants where money is roughly the same take the optometry test where two finalists for those applicants are Michigan and each of the others. If my kid had each of those 3 scenarios I think I would be equally torn in each instance, meaning that my gut reaction is no discernible difference and that “they are about the same.” If I personally was accepted to all 4 of those schools I honestly have no idea what I would end up picking, and I’m guessing there would be factors irrelevant to rankings/quality that would end up pushing me in one direction or the other. </p>
<p>And also appears no one else wants to deal with LACs in the mix in terms of overall undergrad quality/experience. In the real-life scenarios for many of the applicants to elite universities the elite LACs very much are in the mix, so always separating them seems a little capricious (albeit understandable given the desire to keep categories nice and tidy).</p>
<p>finalchild, my groupings are not supposed to be a measure of popularity. I was admitted to three universities in group 2 and I chose to attend Michigan, knowing full well that it was a tiny notch below. Personal preference should play an important role in the decision making process on a personal level, but my groupings are based on other factors.</p>
<p>As for LACs, they do not belong in the same ranking as research universities. They are just as good mind you, only very different. LACs should have their own separate groupings. Let us be honest students who really like LACs typically do not appreciate research universities and vice versa because they are so different from each other.</p>
<p>1) Not talking about popularity. Talking about best overall UNDERGRAD experience.</p>
<p>2) Many elite students are choosing between a mix of elite universities AND elite LACs. In fact, I would be surprised if any less than 80% of elite applicants have some of both on their lists, so there IS relevance if only because students apply to both and then make judgments between them when acceptances come in.</p>
<p>I included “experience” as part of popularity. I even used the words “personal preference” to illustrate the concept of fit. So we are on the same page here.</p>
<p>I disagree that LACs and universities should be ranked together…or that they appeal to the same type of students. It is true that many apply to and consider LACs and research universities, but the majority have a clear preference one way or the other. As for ranking LACs and universities together, I just do not see how that would be possible. They are just too different. Like I said, LACs are just as good, but too different.</p>
<p>When in Rome, I suppose…</p>
<p>Here’s my opinion-</p>
<p>US Undergraduate Rankings:</p>
<p>Group 1: HYPSM
Group 2: Caltech, Chicago, Columbia, Duke
Group 3: Brown, Cal, Northwestern, Cornell, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, Penn, Vandy, Rice
Group 4: Michigan, UCLA, CMU, WUSTL, UVA
Group 5: Georgetown, Notre Dame, Emory, UNC, USC
Group 6: Tufts, NYU, Boston College, Rochester</p>
<p>Let me disclaim: this is solely my opinion and I respect those different than my own.</p>
<p>Why is Duke up ther with Caltech, Chicago, and Columbia? Academically, it’s not quite there.</p>
<p>As far as LAC’s go I agree with Alexandre - not so much on where they should be ranked…you guys are the experts on that - but on the appeal. I’m sure finalchild you know kids (maybe your own) that overlap as do I, but that is not the norm. Most top LAC’s are 1,000 - 2,000 total students…just tiny. My D goes to a very small, academically strong HS and 90% want to go to LAC’s, or as my D puts it, a continuation of HS. Very few overlap and most can’t fathom how anyone could go to a place the size of Michigan.</p>
<p>No right or wrong but the size differences are so vast in many cases that it causes major differences. Rice is pretty small and a few other research U’s under 10k students but even in those cases its usually at least 5x the size of LAC’s.</p>
<p>I have an argument all the time with my brother-in-law about college size and experience. He thinks people are nuts who don’t go to tiny colleges because of the individual attention, etc. In the end it is hard to argue that purely based on academics (and mainly liberal arts based) you can do better than the learning experience at top LAC’s. However, for those of us who believe a college experience is a chance to grow in many ways we like the combo of great academics and vast other opportunities. Clearly this could be its own thread and debate.</p>
<p>Rjk, I agree that Duke is the weakest in that group, but in my opinion Duke is borderline between group 2 and group 3, the former of which I opted to include it in.</p>
<p>I think we’re missing each other a bit here, and I’ll drop it after this.</p>
<p>I’m not making a pitch for LACs or suggesting what is better. I’m merely stating what I think mirrors reality. Kids and families, while recognizing the major differences category-wise between Michigan and let’s say Williams, don’t decide not to consider based on that. MANY kids do apply to both, and they are then faced with concrete, real-life decisions between a lower end Ivy and a top LAC or a top LAC and a top public (Michigan, UCLA, Cal, UNC, etc.). How many kids from NC, for example, make a hard choice between UNC and Davidson? Or Cal vs. Pomona? Or Swat vs Penn? Or Amherst or Middlebury vs Dartmouth or Brown? These scenarios happen frequently, and I’m guessing the decision is more complex than just 1800 students vs. 6000-7000 or 20K+.</p>
<p>And I’m also guessing that’s why there is so much rankings ambivalence here about the schools “in the middle” that are really there own category – the 3500-7000 students type of schools like Rice, Vandy, WUSTL…</p>
<p>So you all can say it’s wrong or “'too hard” to compare universities and LACs, but elite students do this every single year…in droves.</p>
<p>A student who is interested in attending a major research institution with it’s myriad of possiblities is likely going to suffocate at a smallish LAC. That is why they are difficult to compare.</p>
<p>“Rjk, I agree that Duke is the weakest in that group, but in my opinion Duke is borderline between group 2 and group 3, the former of which I opted to include it in.”</p>
<p>Why? What makes Duke different than those other schools you listed just below it in group three?</p>
<p>OK, I lied.</p>
<p>For the category purists, maybe you shouldn’t be trying to rank elite publics with elite privates which in many instances are more similar to the LACs. </p>
<p>How in the world with 1000 students does CalTech make the cut for categorization with Michigan and the like but LACs don’t?</p>
<p>RJ, your suffocation theory is irrelevant to the fact that many elite students do come down to a hard choice between elite universities and elite LACs, or do you believe this is something that only happens in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and a few other states?</p>
<p>In the IB program at my school in Oregon, most all of my friends applied to elite LACs in addition to elite privates. In terms of sheer education, I think top LACs rival some of the top half dozen research universities. I also think the majority of top applicants apply to a broad array of universities, and include both LACs and research universities. I personally know many high school seniors who are deciding between an LAC and a top research university right now. It is a reality that a lot of matriculating college freshmen entertain.</p>
<p>The problem, however, is that it does prove challenging to make a declarative list ranking research universities alongside their LAC counterparts. What criteria would be stressed in such a list? What methodology would be equally fair to both research universities and LACs? We all know all too well that rankings like USNWR can never please everyone, and I’d imagine this would be even more apparent if US News took a stab at a consolidated list ranking both LACs and Research universities together.</p>
<p>“For the category purists, maybe you shouldn’t be trying to rank elite publics with elite privates which in many instances are more similar to the LACs.”</p>
<p>Elite privates are typically research universities. That is why they have more in common with elite publics than true LACs. </p>
<p>“How in the world with 1000 students does CalTech make the cut for categorization with Michigan and the like but LACs don’t?”</p>
<p>See above statement.</p>
<p>“RJ, your suffocation theory is irrelevant to the fact that many elite students do come down to a hard choice between elite universities and elite LACs, or do you believe this is something that only happens in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and a few other states?”</p>
<p>I am saying that a student who applies to both types of colleges are typically looking for a smaller school environment somewhere along the way. That is what residential colleges at the larger schools provide, and what probably many of these students are looking into attending if they decide to go that route. Those students who want it all, know they are not going to get it at a true LAC. Although the LAC is enticing, I believe ultimately the elite research university wins out over the elite LAC for the majority of those types of students who are undecided. Remember the old addage, “You can make a big school small, but you cannot make a small school big.”</p>
<p>I guess we’ll just agree to disagree. As reddog endorses, it is a frequent choice in reality. And a kid staring at acceptance letters from Michigan and Swat has got a hell of a decision.</p>
<p>And I think some of you are overcomplicating ratings criteria. Forget all the inputs and outputs. Were the academic and social experiences rich and rewarding, and were you surrounded by quality kids and quality professors? Were you happy, and would you make the same choice again?</p>
<p>Here is a cold reality. Not even the brightest and most dynamic student can exhaust all of the resources available at the tiniest of elite LACs. Even there, they will not in 4 years take more than 5-10% of the available academic offerings. So, when a Michigan or UCLA or UNC boost massive resources, that is certainly great, but when it comes to an individual student what exactly does that mean? Let’s be honest, for some kids who do in fact choose a public elite over an elite LAC it’s probably more about the Big House and potential Final Four runs than the academic resources.</p>
<p>“And a kid staring at acceptance letters from Michigan and Swat has got a hell of a decision”</p>
<p>I agree. Swarthmore is very elite. It is not a typical LAC. It is one of the best. Those types of students are looking at HYPSM and other elite privates, not really a school like Michigan as much. Still, while I don’t have numbers to back me up, I would imagine that those LAC of Swats stature lose the majority of their cross admits to elite private research universities. I see your points and I do agree they seem valid.</p>
<p>“Let’s be honest, for some kids who do in fact choose a public elite over an elite LAC it’s probably more about the Big House and potential Final Four runs than the academic resources.”</p>
<p>Well that is a big part of what makes going to a larger public school desirable, isn’t it?</p>