<p>I eliminated because MIT took the spot as the top school for hardest to get into :P
as for my schools that I picked, which one do you say that take intoa ccount both undergrad and grad and I will look over them again. Because I distinctily remember 1 of them atleast saying: Undergraduate Research Universities and these were taken off sites that said Undergraduate school rankings.</p>
<p>I included the Princeton Review for two reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>Princeton was number two in the ranking and ahead of Harvard (the only other school which has multiple #1 rankings).</li>
<li>For purposes of ranking UNDERGRADUATE programs, I do not include MIT and CalTech because they are technical schools and do not offer many typical undergraduate liberal arts majors.</li>
</ol>
<p>I think you need to take a good look at each of the new polls you introduced to see what their rankings were comprised of. I could have easily mentioned other nat'l rankings putting P at #1, but I think after looking more closely at the rankings you produced you will see what I am talking about. Regards.</p>
<p>dont get me wrong. I'm not saying that Princeton is a bad school, its definately top 3 for research university undergraduate study. I know that each poll has a different formula, like The Atlantic Monthly that you mentioned. It ranks solely on admissions selectivity, median SAT scores, and class rank of applicants, but nothing about the undergraduate programs itself. As for other polls, yes its not hard to find other polls listing Princeton as #1, and harvard #1, it just depends on the formula they are using. A clear cut example is eliminating caltech and MIT because their specalty school, but then that raises the issues of LACs. Where do they come in play? Their definately great when it comes to liberal arts studies, since it seems like you are comparing undergraduate liberal arts majors.</p>
<p>That is a very good point. The LACs are very good schools and some (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc.) are fantastic. But admission to those schools by everyones measure is less selective than HYP.
But your point further adds fuel to the argument that Princeton is the nation's top undergraduate school. Princeton is similar to the top LACs in that unlike H&Y with large graduate programs, it has a total focus on undergraduates. The top professors teach undergraduates all the time and student interaction with them is tremendous as well (such does not exist at the big research grad schools). But unlike the LACs, Princeton has the resources of a major university. On a per student basis, it is the wealthiest college in the nation, and when you tour the campus you cannot help but see these resources put into use. That is the essence of what makes Princeton so good. It has the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>.
[quote]
The LACs are very good schools and some (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc.) are fantastic. But admission to those schools by everyones measure is less selective than HYP
[/quote]
I'm not so sure you are right about Amherst. They passed over the smarter kids at my hs who got into Yale and Pton and took someone who was popular but not real smart (nor athletic).</p>
<p>Yes I have also heard that as a knock on Amherst Mensa - that they will reject kids (particularly from the New Engalnd preps) who they feel are applying to their school as a back-up. (I am sure they will deny it, but I have heard that as well).</p>
<p>alphacdcd, every college does that below HYPSCM. Either that or offer you a boatload of money.</p>
<p>i was kind of surprised by princeton. our valedictorian (from a nj public school) got in ED.. nice kid, but doesn't really excel in anything besides academics. he does some clubs..</p>
<p>
[quote]
doesn't really excel in anything besides academics
[/quote]
Like why should they care about being a valedictorian and excelling in academically. I mean, it's only college...</p>
<p>i live in VA and UVA is nowhere near as prestegious as it is to other people. Its not really that much of a school if you ask me.</p>
<p>Princeton likes students who are bright, of course, but they are really into focused academics (inividuals displaying a passion in a particular academic area). Many students keep these passions to themselves (particularly in public school settings where displaying such gets you immediate dork status).
So don't be to quick to judge a book by its cover.
This is one way P separates (accept/deny) one 1600 scorer from another.</p>
<p>Princeton is a lot less selective than HYS. They purposely accept applicants who fall just under the academic threshold of Harvard, Stanford, and Yale in order to increase their yield. Just look at the revealed preference ranking done by the National Bureau of Economic Research. They show you a graph of the SAT Scores and grade of an applicant verusus his chances of admission. Apparently, at the very section of the graph where Harvard, Stanford, and Yale recruit most heavily, Princeton accepts the least. Princeton is afraid of competing with the big boys. See page 8 of trhe following pdf file. <a href="http://papers.nber.org/papers/w10803.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://papers.nber.org/papers/w10803.pdf</a></p>
<p>Even Princeton implicitly admits that it does not compete with Harvard, Stanford, and Yale. This year Princeton's yield went down the toilet, and Princeton wants to sugar-coat this dangerous decline in popularity by saying that:</p>
<p>"The University's admissions yield dropped five percentage points from last year, declining to a five-year low, but Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye said the drop is not a problem.</p>
<pre><code>The yield the percentage of accepted students who chose to matriculate at Princeton dropped from 73 percent in 2003 to 68 percent this year.
Rapelye said the decline is merely a consequence of a renewed focus in Princeton admissions: competing more directly with Harvard, Yale, Stanford and MIT for the best applicants.
"We're going for better students. We have more competition. We ought to be rejoicing that we're pushing that limit now," Rapelye said."
</code></pre>
<p>There you have it folks. Princeton is a paper tiger trying to compete with the big boys. HYSM > P.</p>
<p>Oh and the only reason Princeton is trying to once again compete with HYS is because US News dropped yield as a ranking component. Princeton shamelessly wants to keep its rankings up by maniuplating admissions. </p>
<p>" The drop in yield by itself cannot negatively affect Princeton's first-place rank in the popular U.S. News and World Report's annual college rankings. Yield was dropped as a factor of consideration one year ago, said Richard Folkers, director of media relations for the magazine."
<a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/10/07/news/10999.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/10/07/news/10999.shtml</a></p>
<p>This, combined with Princeton's history of hacking into Yale's admissions database by manipulating their students' social security numbers, makes me think the school is full of unethical cheaters/ manipulators. Why don't they have a top notch business school?
<a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=19454%5B/url%5D">http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=19454</a></p>
<p>ubermensch, Yale doesn't really have a top notch business school either. And Princeton has no law school or business school. Every school manipulates numbers.</p>
<p>It was a joke about how their unethical and manipulative nature would be good traits for business. :)</p>
<p>Law would be good for that too.</p>
<p>My vague order of things shaped by nothing in particular -- well, actually by rankings, gossip, snobbery (not my own) and personal preference --
(tech schools and LACs excepted)</p>
<p>Yale
Princeton
Stanford
Harvard (not as undergrad focused as above)
Columbia
Duke
Dartmouth
Brown
Chicago
Penn
Berkeley
Cornell
Northwestern
Michigan
Rice
Johns Hopkins</p>
<p>I find it funny how people are calling other people's opinions "wrong." I mean, is it that hard to believe that everyone doesn't agree with you? Where I live, Stanford isn't a big deal at all, only a couple kids have even ever applied to Stanford (and I go to a school that sends kids to MIT, Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia every single year). So I would put Stanford pretty low. But this board, dominated by Californians, it seems, would call me "wrong." Guess what, maybe I'm not wrong, maybe YOU'RE wrong.
So who's right?</p>
<p>Also, about Duke, it is a top school; if you use the fact that it has a decent basketball team to discredit the school, you're just ignorant (and maybe jealous...). Your beloved STANFORD is the one that wins that award for the best sports teams year after year, maybe THAT'S why it's so highly regarded...</p>
<p>I think if there were as many people from the South on this board as there are from the West Coast, the overall perspective of these forums wouldn't be so distorted to unfairly judge Duke.</p>
<p>actually I am suprised Emory is not up there given the sports awards it has gotten.</p>
<p>even though it is D3, it was ranked the #2 athletic/academic school in the country the last few years.
I am not certain but I believe stanford was the school just ahead of them</p>
<p>You have to include Georgetown high up on that list. For prestige, it's right up at the top.</p>