<p>
</p>
<p>I have heard that Sam Houston College was thinking of becoming an Insitute of Technology, but decided against it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am most definitely so yesterday as well. In terms of admissions cycles, ten year is a lifetime. But on a serious note --a bad idea in this effort to bring levity-- I think that Olin College is what is commonly used, and in normal circumstances, most people drop the “college” part and so I think that Olin is simply Olin just like Reed is Reed and Wellesley is Wellesley. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.olin.edu/about_olin/Default.aspx[/url]”>http://www.olin.edu/about_olin/Default.aspx</a></p>
<p>
I actually have a Sam Houston Institute of Technology T-shrt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That means a lot coming from you, Hunt, as you are one of the most prestigiostic posters I know. And it’s not just me who thinks that way. In fact, everybody does. So I know it’s true.</p>
<p>I am sorry, but I detect a strong East Coast bias in your study. West of the Mississippi, Stanford is equal to 1000 milliHarvards. I based this upon my own (equally scientific) observation that the kids I knew growing up in California were more likely to choose Stanford over Harvard when they were accepted to both. I have included all 3 subjects in my research.</p>
<p>Oh, that <em>is</em> sad, OHMomof2. At one time (say, about 7th grade), my daughter was considering Juilliard because she was strongly committed to becoming a concert pianist. Now she is strongly committed to not knowing what on earth she wants to do.</p>
<p>And from todays Harvard Crimson:</p>
<p>In Test of Student Bodies’ Cognitive Abilities, Harvard Comes in Second to MIT 7</p>
<p>By Neha Dalal Yesterday</p>
<p>The Massachusetts Institute of Technology edged out Harvard in a study comparing cognitive skills released earlier this month. Unlike other college ranking systems, this study analyzed results from online games that use neuroscience to measure five aspects that contribute to intelligence: speed, attention, flexibility, memory, and problem solving. [Harvard</a> News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com%5DHarvard”>http://www.thecrimson.com) for the rest of the story.</p>
<p>I hope you’ll soon establish a category for prestidigiosity. Though there are fewer choices (The College of Magic, The Magic College), you’d have to handle this with carefully.</p>
<p>Hunt, you need to include some collectivology for the relative quantity and distribution of milliHelens on each campus, or you will be overlooking the importance of the hot-babe factor for so many of today’s students.</p>
<p>Wharton could easily place second behind Harvard.</p>
<p>What I love about this thread (and the old one), is that even with such a silly scale–based entirely on my own subjective (but still scientific) perceptions, people still want to argue about where a particular school belongs on the scale.</p>
<p>This continues to prove, I think, that my ratings system is just as good as any of the others, if not better.</p>
<p>Don’t want to argue, just want agreement.</p>
<p>P.S. Your method looks like USNews–which is fine with me.
Another method would be by endowment–overall & per student.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl is probably referring to Altarcations, Gawker’s parody of NYTimes wedding announcements:</p>
<p>[Scoring</a> Sunday’s Nuptials: Everyone Who Got Married This Week Went to Harvard](<a href=“http://gawker.com/5540100/scoring-sundays-nuptials-everyone-who-got-married-this-week-went-to-harvard]Scoring”>Scoring Sunday's Nuptials: Everyone Who Got Married This Week Went to Harvard)</p>
<p>Harvard wins in the wedding announcement prestige category as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does this mean that the time to start an “over-rated and over-ranked prestigiosity list” has come. </p>
<p>No way a school from Philly can be ahead of Princeton or Yale. This ain’t about sandwiches.n This is about life changing rankings.</p>
<p>
The problem is separating prestigiosity from greediosity.</p>
<p>Good point, xiggi. Back to H,Y, then P with an asterisk after Harvard denoting Wharton’s true position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t get a swelled head over this, Hunt, but I’d rank your ratings systems above USNWR on its prestigiosity, since only those in the know know about it.</p>
<p>HYPPS or HYPWS does not ring true. We averted the disaster and monkey business of CHYMPS, and we can’t challenge the purity of HYPS. </p>
<p>Unless you can find a way to deprestigiosizing Princeton, we can’t accept the asterisk. Nor can we accept that motion to elevate Wharton. So sorry.</p>
<p>By the way, Hunt, for next year’s encore, we really do need a high school version. Can’t leave all the attention to the WaPo education guru.</p>
<p>Don’t despair, Axelrod–it is the constant claiming that certain schools (such as Wharton, Berkeley, etc.) deserve higher ratings on various lists that gives them such a high place on the prestigiosity list!</p>
<p>neuroscience study proves it. The ranking needs to be in milliMITs. I propose both Harvard and MIT start at 1000 milliMITs and then people need to start pointing out how NYTimes does not list MIT nuptials which can result in some deductions in prestigiosity.</p>
<p>I also nominate a separate Asian ranking of 998 milliMITs for Northwestern HPME.</p>