IzzoOne, the groupings I listed is specific to the overall quality of undergraduate research institutions (focused the quality of undergraduate education at research universities). I am sure there are going to be many different takes on which schools belong in which group based on personal opinion. Some value acceptance rate and SAT/ACT ranges above other criteria, while others choose other statistical data (which cannot be verified and are seldom reported with accuracy or consistency) to determine how those tiers or groupings should be composed. I am not basing it on personal opinion either. I am basing it on surveys conducted in academic circles. There are going to be preferences and biases based on personal opinion and interests, but I think the groupings provided by academe are a fair reflection of overall academic quality.
@prezbucky No we cannot. Penn is a “lesser” peer …
Dang it, I am not putting Penn back into Tier 3. It worked so hard to get into my Tier 2. Hehe
If any college-bound high schoolers are reading this thread, be it known that all the schools we are talking about here are very, very good and we are splitting hairs – and re-splitting those – when we talk about putting them in different tiers.
If you are lucky enough to get into any of these top-25 USN&WR schools, read up on their academics, environment, and social vibes so that you can figure out which among them suit(s) you best. What you want is to find the school that fits you the best.
Chrchill, I am a huge fan of Chicago’s, but I don’t see how you can say that Penn is a lesser peer. In some ways, Chicago will edge out Penn and in other ways, Penn will edge out Chicago. Both are truly exceptional institutions.
Spending is yet another dubious criteria - since it’s been shown that colleges say they spent $500M the previous year, which is true, but don’t tell US News that most of that went to athletic facilities. Now, I’m ok with a school putting money into athletics if sports is a huge part of the culture and especially if the money goes to non-revenue sports, but let’s not think that the school is going to hire more professors or support staff or build out the libraries.
And reputation the biggest criteria is actually reasonable since it’s the one thing that schools can’t manipulate. But it’s also the most inertial, say a particular dean thinks the ivies, stanford, chicago are the ten best schools every year, nothing is going to change in his or her rankings, maybe he or she mixes up things at 11 to keep things interesting, but basically nothing’s going to change at the top.
“why would top-notch students who could get into one of HYPSM, apply anywhere else ED, if they can get into one of those schools, they’re not applying ED to any other ivy. They may still choose to not attend one of HYPSM, but would definitely want the option.”
??? Not if they genuinely like a non-HYPSM school more. It seems to be beyond some people’s comprehension that all of the Ivies/equivalents offer a tremendous amount of resources and opportunities. More than enough for wherever they want to go. And the Near-Ivies and other elite privates aren’t far off either.
Furthermore,
- It’s easier to get in ED to an Ivy/equivalent than SCEA to HYPS (or M via any way).
- A lot of kids seem to overestimate their appeal to HYPSM.
We see this every year where the very top kids apply SCEA, the kids just below them apply ED to an Ivy/equivalent, the second group mostly get in, the first group mostly do not and have to go through the brutal RD round and many end up not getting in to any elite anywhere.
@Alexandre I just don’t think the “regular” Penn undergrad education (meaning non Wharton or engineering) is of the same caliber,. standards and rigor as either UChicago and Columbia College . These two are clear peers and they are a cut above Penn. USNWR has this right. so do all world university rankings,
As this thread clearly illustrates, there is only one college ranking that matters on CC.
This one:
“I just don’t think the “regular” Penn undergrad education (meaning non Wharton or engineering) is of the same caliber,. standards and rigor as either UChicago and Columbia College”.
I have to think, @Chrchill, that you must have been a student at all 3, then. After all, if such a strong statement was made by someone who doesn’t have deep intimate experience with the academics of all 3 schools, pretty much everyone would deem the person who made such a strong statement a pompous gasbag. Surely you must agree with that.
Mind you, I don’t even have a dog in this fight (and if I should have any bias, it would be towards the U of C).
@PurpleTitan I am reacting to the hostilities and obvious intellectual dishonesty of @Penn95 who is on a Chicago trashing mission. I don’t need to be a student at all three. I am making my well informed judgments from my lofty Harvard perspective …
@Chrchill: I can not judge Harvard’s academic rigor, but I certainly can see how people carry themselves, and certainly, on CC, I have observed that H seems to have produced a disproportionate number of alums that I would put in the “pompous gasbag” category (or perhaps it’s just that Harvard alums are more quick to name-drop their alma mater and thus identify themselves).
I have to commend you for this, though: your last post was hilarious. If you had tried to parody, I don’t think you could have done better. In fact, in the future, I suggest that instead of referring to “Harvard”, we should refer to that school in Boston by “lofty Harvard” instead. Instead of abbreviating by “H”, it should be “lH”. HYPSM should be lHYPSM instead. Or perhaps “lH & . . .YPSM” (to note that the “l” applies to only H and not YPSM).
@PurpleTitan Indeed. My biggest gripe s that folks take these issues and themselves way too seriously. Levity is far too rare on CC… I am an H grad, but I refuse to set foot in the H club for the very reasons you apty mentioned.
@PurpleTitan PS: Only Harvard matters, all the rest is just noise. Every now and then there is a little cockroach like Stanford, or MIT ( for some obscure engineering thing) or UChicago in English or near eastern studies. Who cares? Who notices? We just use our pointy H brogues and step on it. Harvard is like Frank Sinatra. Its H’s world and we are just lucky to live in it.
^ the reason prestigiosity is measured in milliHarvards 
@PurpleTitan this is the one takeaway that prospective applicants need to know. I’ll add that perfect stats ere not good enough to go SCEA, you need a lot more and a hook of two before I’d go that route.
"1. It’s easier to get in ED to an Ivy/equivalent than SCEA to HYPS (or M via any way).
2. A lot of kids seem to overestimate their appeal to HYPSM.
We see this every year where the very top kids apply SCEA, the kids just below them apply ED to an Ivy/equivalent, the second group mostly get in, the first group mostly do not and have to go through the brutal RD round and many end up not getting in to any elite anywhere."
theloniusmonk, most universities do not spend a penny of their resources earmarked for academic purposes on athletics. Revenue sports (Football and Basketball) and alumni donations specifically given to the athletics department cover the entire athletic department’s expenses.
@PurpleTitan - my premise was that if a student was good enough to get into one of (lofty)HYPSM, then they’re not going to apply ED anywhere else, even if someone isn’t going to attend the lofties (if I may), they’ll want that option.
I totally agree that if a school that offers ED is your first choice, apply there ED, avoid the stress of RD and enjoy more of your senior year. The acceptance rates between ED and RD now are at a point where you’re at a severe disadvantage applying there RD without a hook.
@Alexandre - do you have evidence on this, would be very interesting? Most athletic departments are not self-funded, they rely on student fees and money from the college, in addition to alumni donations.
Take this one to the bank based on numerous cases. Not doing ED strategically is suicidal. I have seen tragic cases where people did not do ED because they could not decide. They picked a safety for ED – shooting too low. They picked an untenable super reach – shooting too high., Pick a reach, but a sustainable one, and do ED.
If we can back up a minute …
how would one measure a university’s pompous gasbag density aka PGD?
Can it be expressed in milliHarvards?
Could US News use it to finally correct their bias against state universities?
Without hurting the Berkeley and Michigan rankings, I mean.