<p>"In your first paragraph you acknowledged "Little Ivies" being below Ivies. In the second paragraph you state they are equals?"</p>
<p>I was simply stating the connotation of the phrase "little ivy." That's not my personal view, as stated later.</p>
<p>Ivy_Grad, I didn't discredit the ivies for their academic excellence. And the only reason they are called "ivies" is because of a sports division. Yes, they are all good schools, but they aren't on some pedestal above MIT, Stanford, etc.</p>
<p>Other than in terms of sports, the term "Ivy" is highly misleading. What do Dartmouth and Cornell have in common with each other that they don't have more in common with "non-Ivy" schools?</p>
<p>The reason I started this thread was to clarify what people referred to when defending the academic reputation of a particular school. In particular, a parent of a Trinity College student replied that "after all it is considered a little ivy " when the academic rep of the college was questioned when compared to an ivy caliber school.
I realize ivy leaque initially referred to the football status, however I believe alot of public perception of "ivy league" stems from a level of academic excellence, as well as, other benefits of those colleges, ie. networking, endowments, etc.
It seems that defending academic reputations of schools takes up alot of time on these boards. It would really be beneficial to hear what perceptions of the colleges are, real or manufactured, and get on to the fact that there are many ways to get a great education. Thank goodness all colleges are not the same, and individuals can find campuses that allow for growth both educationally and socially.</p>
<p>"Yes, they are all good schools, but they aren't on some pedestal above MIT, Stanford, etc."</p>
<p>Hoo, when people talk about Ivy-League, they usually mean Ivies + Near-Ivies (which automatically includes schools such as MIT, stanford etc.)</p>
<p>Growing up in the 50's and 60's, the term "little Ivy" was applied to a group of specific colleges, all of which were smaller, older, more established traditional male liberal arts colleges in New England. Specifically, these included: Williams, Amherst, Trinity, Colgate, Hamilton, and Hobart --- I don't recall the other schools similar to those - such as Union, RPI, Middlebury, Conn College, Wesleyan being on that list but I may be wrong. And Swathmore certainly was never on that list - possibly due to it's mid-Atlantic location more than anything else.</p>
<p>Then all these schools - along with the Big Ivy's, went co-ed - in the late sixties/early seventies. It's all kind of passe now, really.</p>
<p>Ivy grad, I am a Cornell grad and it is pretty evident that the Ivy league's reputation is overstated in this site. The Ivies are a group of great universities...8 of the top 40 colleges and universities in the nation. But there are 30 or so other colleges and universities that are just as good...some even better. Schools like Stanford, MIT and Cal are better than more than half the Ivies. Chicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, CalTech and Northwestern are as good as many of the Ivies. And I have not even started discussing the LACs and the other great research universities. I have been made moderator in thos site because I try to provide an even handed apporach to colleges and universities. I will not praise just one group. I praise all good universities. But to assume that the top 8 universities in the US magically happen to be members of the Ivy League is excrement. It is missleading, and it is unhealthy. There are at least 3-4 times as many great colleges and universities that do not belong to the Ivy League. And I do not appreciate your insinuations about my apparent lack of impartiality!</p>
<p>Alexandre is absolutely right. And as he can attest, Cornell is much more like Michigan, Berkeley, and Northwestern than it is like Dartmouth. Dartmouth is much more like Williams, Middlebury, and Whitman than it is like Cornell. And there are all kinds of shades in-between. To refer to both of them as Ivies only reflects that they are rich, selective, old, in the northeast, and play football against one another. It doesn't tell one much about them. (I happen to like 'em both, but for very different reasons.)</p>
<p>Mini, your comparison is actually excellent. I am often amazed at how similar Cornell is to Michigan. Both were founded with the same mission and purpose...to provide excellent education to students from all walks of life...no matter what they wish to study. Cal is very similar in that regard too, as is Northwestern. Dartmouth is indeed more like a LAC. </p>
<p>I would say that Michigan = 2XCornell and Dartmouth = 2X Williams! LOL</p>
<p>But all 4 are equally awesome schools...only very different.</p>
<p>Never heard of an ag school at Northwestern.</p>
<p>I thought the term was "potted ivies", back in the day. Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Listen, I don't want to get into some pointless flame with you. I actually respect a lot of what you say - you are obviously a very bright guy. The thing I have a bone to pick about is your seemingly default position of "Ah, Ivies are way overrated and publics are the best thing since sliced bread..."</p>
<p>You have to admit that when conversation ventures into this area, we can expect this kind of rhetoric from you (I'd rather not dig through your past posts to back-up this claim, frankly, the record speaks for itself).</p>
<p>Now to address some of your statements:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Schools like Stanford, MIT and Cal are better than **more than half the Ivies.
[/quote]
** </p>
<p>1) Stanford is equal to HYP no question.
2) But MIT? Hey, if you want an engineering career, of course - but BETTER for a general liberal arts education? totally beg to differ. I'd say a more fair statement is MIT is EQUAL to the Ivies (hence the popular usage of Ivies + S/M)
2) Cal better than MORE than half of the Ivies? There are 8 Ivy schools, therefore more than half = AT LEAST 5 schools. I'd like to hear which 5 schools you believe Cal to be better than. (given that we all agree that HYP is generally the top 3, one can assume that you mean that Cal is BETTER than ALL the following: Columbia, Penn, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell). Again, you are entitled to your opinion - but it is, frankly, quite a statement. I will leave it to the readers to decide whether your own statements are either objective and / or in line with popular opinion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, CalTech and Northwestern are as good as many of the Ivies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again. It's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. But, frankly, for you to claim that Michigan is Ivy level is a serious stretch. The most direct personal reference I have are my own peers who went to Michigan my graduating year in HS - they didn't have a prayer at the Ivies (much less HYP). </p>
<p>Does that mean that Michigan isn't a great school? Of course not. It is indeed one of the nation's great public U's - actually it is one of the nation's great U's period. Does that mean that there aren't top quality students at M who aren't equal to top quality students at the Ivies? Of course there are. But here is the point - if you take a selective sample from any of the top 50 schools in the US you could make a similar case. The point is about the levels of standard deviation across the ENTIRE population of those schools (i.e. the distribution of top quality (or low quality) students - is that a high or low occurance?). </p>
<p>The fact is, public U's face an inherent uphill battle when it comes to this issue. Public U's have an obligation to accept a certain % of in-state students (which decreases the overall potential diversity of any given incoming class - not to mention questions as to quality control), the obligatory recruitment requirements for highly sought after athletes (compared to the Ivies where there are no sports scholarships given), classroom size / student-to-faculty ratio, etc. etc. The point is also about overall school funding, resources dedicated to undergraduates (vs. many larger research oriented schools), quality of faculty and, of course, overall presitige and reputation.</p>
<p>It has been mentioned previously on this site, but I think a very revealing and compelling ranking is the study done asking a set of high caliber students across regions and demographics what THEIR preferences are:</p>
<p><a href="http://papers.nber.org/papers/w10803.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://papers.nber.org/papers/w10803.pdf</a></p>
<p>I think it speaks volumes.</p>
<p>Hey Ivy--
There's no need for such an edgey tone on a thread like this one. You could easily have made all your points minus the sneer. Alexandre didn't say the Ivies were "way over-rated." He said that their reputation was way overstated (I would have said over-valued) by some on this site; I took this to mean those who have an Ivy-or-nothing attitude about the so-called top schools, and there are more than a few out there. BTW, which Ivy did you graduate from?</p>
<p>
[quote]
At some point in the late 70s/early 80s, Wesleyan experienced (I'm told) quite a bit of financial turmoil, while Swarthmore got rich.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This may be true to the extent that all endowments started increasing rapidly in the 70s and 80s. However, my reading of Swarthmore's history would put a more accurate date for its period of wealth beginning sometime early in the century -- perhaps in the teens or twenties.</p>
<p>There were two successive presidents who pushed the board very hard for funding to pay top dollar to professors. This was also the period when their somewhat unusual honors program was implemented. That honors program and their "College Bowl" wins on TV in the 1950s were probably the two keys to establishing the college's academic repuation -- the former among the academic community and the latter among the general population (or at least the wealthy population who could afford TVs).</p>
<p>A couple of wealthy alum families started giving early in the century as well -- the Scott Paper Co family with an 1895 alum and the Clothier family of the Philly department stores "Clothier and Strawbridge" with multiple generations of alum, board members, and contributors.</p>
<p>When I was at Williams in the 1970s, I didn't know much about Swarthmore except that it was begrudgingly regarded at the time as the LAC that was academically tougher (and politically more activist) than Williams.</p>
<p>Driver:</p>
<p>You have to admit, though, it was a pretty impressive Ivy-sneer!</p>
<p>. . .willing to bet a few virtual dollars that Ivy<em>Grad's screen name would have been Harvard/Yale/Princeton</em>Grad had he gone to one of those three.</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>You assume too much. Never once have I made an "Ivy-or-nothing" claim nor do I believe as such.</p>
<p>I'll cut and paste a longer my own response to a similar discussions which sums up my views on the matter:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I love reading these rather smug claims such as "in the 'REAL WORLD' it doesn't matter where you went to school, all that matters is if you are doing a good job."</p>
<p>Well, a couple of points to add.</p>
<p>Of course job performance is the number one criteria in terms of career success, progression, opportunity, overall salary, etc. etc.</p>
<p>But let's ask a simple question here:</p>
<p>If employee A went to all of the "right" / "prestigious" schools (undergrad and graduate), why wouldn't the default assumption be that this person's likelihood of success (in whatever endeavor he/she is pursuing - in the professional world or otherwise) will be very high - particularly given his past record of success?</p>
<p>I think that would be a more than reasonable default assumption to make.</p>
<p>Now, will there be future Ivy graduates who will not amount to much? Of course. Will there be future graduates from so-called 2nd/3rd tier schools who will enjoy tremendous success? Of course.</p>
<p>But here is the thing. As an Ivy grad (under and graduate) I am kind of tired of "apologizing" for the acknowledgement that graduates of "prestigious" schools enjoy. Call me arrogant if you want, but I think it is justified. Fact is, I worked my tail off studying during prep school, undergrad and grad school. When others were enjoying their weekends or taking the path of least resistance, I was trying to challenge / better myself in any number of different ways (academic, EC, sports or otherwise).</p>
<p>There were of course costs / prices along the way, but net/net the benefits of my achievements vastly outweigh these considerations.</p>
<p>I have been extremely successful in my career and have just started a family (which is incidentally how I stumbled on this website - I am already close to putting away enough for my child's college AND graduate tuition - even factoring in extremely conservative rates on future return on investment. He is only 3 years old.)</p>
<p>The point? I had to work my A$$ off to get to the position I currently enjoy. My Ivy credentials did give me a certain boost, but it wasn't EVERYTHING. Those things didn't GIVE me my career. It's like anything in life - you get what you put into it - you have to earn it.</p>
<p>So doesn't this post contradict the importance of having an Ivy degree? Absolutely not. There is a reason employers spend a relatively large proportion of their recruiting time at the "prestigious" schools - these graduates are more likely to succeed than fail - they are more likely to have the combination of requisite intelligence and motivation than not have it.</p>
<p>Does that mean that students from other schools can't "make it"? Of course not. But that's not the point of this thread.</p>
<p>"Does prestige REALLY matter?"</p>
<p>I think it does. It never hurt me... and just like everything else I do in life - I do it 100% - at every step of my career, I've leveraged / maximized the vast and powerful network I have access to as a result of attending the "right" schools. It will certainly be a powerful resource that I can tap whenever I need in the future, and that is a comforting thought.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which Ivies? </p>
<p>Princeton (under) and Wharton (MBA)</p>
<p>
[quote]
. . .willing to bet a few virtual dollars that Ivy<em>Grad's screen name would have been Harvard/Yale/Princeton</em>Grad had he gone to one of those three.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong. Thanks for playing.</p>
<p>I chose "Ivy Grad" as my moniker b/c I am a grad of TWO Ivy institutions.</p>
<p>OK, case closed. Thanks for playing, Ivy_Grad. Get back to your homework.</p>
<p>Driver,</p>
<p>Where did you go to school? Or are did you even graduate from highschool?</p>
<p>I think its VERY SAFE to assume that Driver didn't attend an Ivy institution.</p>