<p>I want to list the hardest colleges, not in terms of admissions, but in terms of their academics and staying enrolled. I'll throw out these 6.</p>
<p>Berkeley
MIT
CalTech
Penn
Cornell
Chicago</p>
<p>Cornell is known to be the hardest out of the ivy league.. mainly b/c it has that reputation of being the safety ivy school (quite an oxymoron) so they make the work extremely hard.</p>
<p>I know schools like CM have very high grade deflation so that might make it harder to stay in (or get good grades)..</p>
<p>I agree with that list, though I haven't heard so much about Penn in that respect.</p>
<p>I hear about Penn and Cornell being harder as the bigger schools in the Ivy League. Cornell's Engineering brings down many a gpa and then Penn has an engineering school and also Wharton which brings down grades.</p>
<p>At MIT it is virtually impossible to fail and flunk out. There are endless "second" chances, even years later. The school never abandons a student; once you're in they will make every effort to help you graduate.</p>
<p>Interesting. I don't find that hard to believe, actually. (Then again, 7% don't graduate.)</p>
<p>Reed should be near the top.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At MIT it is virtually impossible to fail and flunk out. There are endless "second" chances, even years later.
[/quote]
Between the two top aircraft engineers at my husband's company, they took 27 years to get through undergrad at MIT. But they did get through! :)</p>
<p>I think the 7% that don't graduate transfer elsewhere, for a variety of reasons, most of which aren't academic.</p>
<p>Here's one measure of "ease of staying enrolled" -- the 6-year graduation rates from the 2008 Fiske Guide:</p>
<p>Berkeley 87%
MIT 94%
CalTech 85%<br>
Penn 94%
Cornell 92%
Chicago 87% </p>
<p>I'm guessing that differences have more to do with financial aid, weather, student support services, quality of life, etc. than with the difficulty of the course work.</p>
<p>I would guess Army and Navy would be pretty tough.</p>
<p>Freshmen retention rate can also be used as an indicator of how well a matriculated student was matched with a particular school. But, for a variety of reasons, this only works well when evaluating the top 50 or so LACs and the top 50 National Universities. Of the six schools listed by the OP, Cornell has the lowest freshmen retention rate at 96%. The other five are at either 97% or 98%. These are very high rates which indicate that capable and motivated students are matched well by the admissions committee. In fact, these high retention rates are the norm for the top 50 schools in each category; this suggests that those who do not graduate in 4, 5 or 6 years did not do so due to other "non-academic difficulty" reasons. And clearly not for financial reasons. One reason that I have come across quite frequently is student dissatisfaction with a non-top 40 college or university that "bought" highly intelligent, motivated & accomplished students with generous merit scholarship money. In my opinion, it is usually best to surround yourself with the smartest, hardest working, most motivated peers if you are a student of top 40 ability. This is especially easy today with generous financial aid packages available to those in need of assisstance.</p>
<p>I always hear " Cornell is the easiest Ivy to get into, but the hardest to stay in".</p>
<p>The most recent graduation rates:</p>
<p>Berkeley 89%
MIT 93%
CalTech 89%
Penn 94%
Cornell 92%
Chicago 90%</p>
<p>Swarthmore and Cornell are pretty demanding. Some schools are very demanding but they have great students so the students meet the challenge and graduate. "Hardest to stay in" could refer to the workload and difficulty level, not just the graduation rate.</p>
<p>As far as graduation rate is concerned, the tech schools or schools with larges science/engineering components tend to have lower graduation rates relative to the ability of their students. The US News "overperformance" and "underperformance" measures this. "Hard to stay in" could mean graduation rates relative to SAT scores.</p>
<p>Then there are schools with low graduation rates because they enroll less capable students. These are also "Hard to stay in".</p>
<p>"...these high retention rates are the norm for the top 50 schools in each category; this suggests that those who do not graduate in 4, 5 or 6 years did not do so due to other "non-academic difficulty" reasons. And clearly not for financial reasons."</p>
<p>There may very well be financial reasons included in those rates. The FAFSA and CSS Profile do not accurately reflect every family's ability to pay and some kids undoubtedly have had to withdraw and finish at their less expensive state schools for financial reasons that are very real for their parents but ignored by financial aid offices .</p>
<p>Most of these school "reps" are long ago disproven fairy tales.</p>
<p>Careful about believing all you read on these threads.</p>
<p>What about BU? I've heard they have severe grade deflation problems there. They DO curve grades. Which makes it much harder for students who are borderline to stay in and actually do well.</p>
<p>Be careful not to confuse difficulty of course workload with grade deflation. When Princeton's grading was deflated a few years ago (admittedly from arguably inflated levels), workload, which was traditionally heavy, didn't change measurably. Princeton was a tough school then, it still is. Nonetheless, it remains a really hard place to flunk out of if any reasonable effort is put into academic work.</p>
<p>Curving is common in most schools in large introductory "weed-out" freshman lecture-based classes and certainly tends to limit A's. This is probably a bit less prevalent at LACs than universities for lots of reasons. Doesn't matter if we're talking microeconomics, calculus or organic chem. A non-curved class is no protection against C/D/F's and no guarantee of a boatload of A's. The absence of a defined curve only gives the professor latitude to hand out grades he feels are commensurate with the particular talents/work output (or lack thereof) of that individual class.</p>
<p>The major you select will generally tell you more about risk of failure than the particular school attached to that department.</p>
<p>
[quote]
this suggests that those who do not graduate in 4, 5 or 6 years did not do so due to other "non-academic difficulty" reasons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I would think the opposite, since freshman year, the students are taking mostly general prereqs and such. It seems they'd be more likely to drop out later on, once they reach upper-division courses, which are more difficult. Thus, the sophomore/junior year retention rates are probably lower.</p>