<p>I know the Ivy League is has excellent academic institutions...duh. But I dont know what is about that specific group of schools that hogs all the prestige. There is a sports conference(University Athletic Ass.) with 8 top schools ...i think emory, uchicago, case, nyu, and some others...why dont you ever hear them affiliated with their sports conference? </p>
<p>From what I've heard the Ivy's are a really crappy place to spend 4 yrs...in terms of location, student body, etc. Why do the Ivies have a < 20% acceptance rate and are worshipped if they are just as good as any other univ.?? Can anyone back this up or have any imput?</p>
<p>Oh, I think in terms of location and the student bodies the Ivies come out very well.</p>
<p>There are two equal but opposite problems with the Ivies: First, their defenders, many of whom seem to think that their getting admitted makes them one of the Elect, God's chosen on Earth, and that the Ivies are therefor superior to any other undergrad education. Then, many of their detractors seem to go after the Ivies by pooh-poohing places like Brown, Cornell, Columbia...the non-HYP schools...displaying <em>their</em> ignorance in turn.</p>
<p>You hear about the Ivies as a group first because they're headed by HYP and second because it's the only athletic conference with a top-bottom line-up of academic powerhouses. Big 10? Pac 10? $EC? Fuggheadaboutit.</p>
<p>The whole Ivy obsession, positive and negative, bespeaks an focus on labels over substance. Depending on the student and individual criterial, I think you can make arugments for "best fit" for any of about 20-30 universities and 10-20 LAC's without any significant compromise of educational experience. <em>Different</em> experiences, with various trade-offs, certainly. </p>
<p>My nominations for most pointless threads on this board would include those about the any of the Ivies vs. Stanford, CalTech, UC Berkeley, etc.</p>
<p>What's sad is that the people who are most obsessed with labels and ranking will most likely let other people also determine their careers, where they live, what cars they buy, and who they marry. (Sorry, dear, you're rated only #19 on looks and #37 on intelligence.)</p>
<p>All the ivies are very distinct from one another. I found Dartmouth to be an absolutely amazing experience very different from Columbia. Personally dont understand all the fuss over HYP, these are all great schools. Also, there are advantages to the Ivies, but not over Duke, Stanford, and the like.</p>
<p>i would have to agree with TheDad on this one. based on fit, there are many universities or LACs that can be considered the top. personally, i detested princeton when i visited, and harvard seemed like any run of the mill large university except for the fact that it was "harvard." i absolutely fell in love with brown when i went to visit, and i love it now as a student! what ****es me off is how many people on cc talk about brown as some dump. it's an amazing place for those who fit well at brown. for some, it may be the worst place to be. it all depends.</p>
<p>I think a lot of people say "Ivy" but what they really mean is america's most prestieges schools (Ivy's + MIT, Stanford, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke, etc). Those people who just care about going to an "Ivy" school and think those are a lot better than "non-Ivy" schools are on crack.</p>
<p>*Edit: People say "Ivy" when they talk about prestiege universities has a lot to do with their history. All of the "Ivys" were formed in the colonial days, while most other prestieges universities have been founded in late 19th century.</p>
<p>The ivy-league cannot be as good as it's cracked up to be, because the ivy league is not a school with a set of courses or profs.</p>
<p>Pick your favorite school, if it happens to be in the ivy league, it's an ivy league school.
The ivy league offers no courses. Only distinct schools that are in the ivy league do. Pick a school, not a conference.</p>
<p>When I was spending time at the Cornell Daily Sun, they had a column called "Around the Ivy's" that included news of other noteworthy schools (e.g. Berkeley, Chicago, and Michigan) that weren't members of the Ivy League. I remember a discussion between two editors regarding whether they should use the term "Ivy" in the broader colloquial sense; the guy in favor of the colloquial usage carried the day.</p>
<p>From what I've heard the Ivy's are a really crappy place to spend 4 yrs...in terms of location, student body, etc. Why do the Ivies have a < 20% acceptance rate and are worshipped if they are just as good as any other univ.?? Can anyone back this up or have any imput?</p>
<br>
<p>hmm ... two distinct thoughts in here</p>
<p>if you think all 8 IVY league schools would be crappy places to spend 4 years then don't apply.</p>
<p>why are the acceptance rates so low ... because they are eight, distinct terrific schools ... which are schools, along with a bunch of other top privates, publics, and LACs, that any student would be lucky to attend as an undergrad.</p>
<p>My suggestion is that you figure out what you're looking for in a school and if an IVY happens to fit that bill terrifc ... if not, that is terrific also</p>
<p>I think they're fantastic schools but get more hype than they deserve. First, if you don't like the Northeast, than why would you be attracted to an ivy at all? I agree with the OP. Duke (as I assume is your #1 choice) is just as/more strong than the ivies, but it's a very different environment.</p>
<p>I totally agree with the colloquial usage of the word. anyone who would chose and Ivy over Duke/ Stanford just for Ivy status is making a huge mistake. My issue though is its hard to draw the line. MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and Duke are no doubt Ivy caliber, but Berkeley, Michigan, Chicago I would argue (at the undergrad level) are not. Those schools are already recognized for their grad excellence already (in law, business, etc).</p>
<p>I agree with you except chicago. While it has an acceptance rate much easier than the others, it's where people go to study for 4 years. It truly owns the humanities. I think it is far above michigan/berkeley</p>
<p>You are right, although with Chicago likely comes Northwestern too...I would say those two are about equal in terms of undergrad experience, although different. Michigan/ Cal are much larger and less undergrad focused, essentially much less Ivy-like, experiences.</p>
<p>Now, we have come upon agreement. While I believe NU is of a lesser quality than chicago, it's close enough to belong in the same category with chicago. You really do have to draw the line at privates versus publics. They're too totally different (though neither is bad) experience</p>
<p>I completely agree. Regardless of what people say, going to a private school with a large endowment focused on undergrad education vs. a large research school with 15-20K+ students are very different experiences.</p>
<p>They truthfully are, and I think not enough people consider that. Publics might have programs equal/better than the elite private schools, but you won't have the same experience. If you aren't someone who is going to stand up for yourself, a large public is a horrible choice. Choose what's right for you, be it public or private, and know the differences</p>
<p>Duke is not at all a different experience than the ivies. It could not be more similar in look, feel, social life, student body.......a little warmer than most, but that's it.</p>