<p>Does anyone know all of the colleges that are considered "little ivies" or "mini ivies"?</p>
<p>[Little</a> Ivies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ivies]Little”>Little Ivies - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>IMO there is a lot of variation within those schools listed as “little ivies”.</p>
<p>check
[America’s</a> 25 New Elite ‘Ivies’ - Newsweek](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/39401]America’s”>America's 25 New Elite 'Ivies')</p>
<p>^OMG I was JUST looking into that. So, I was actually thinking of something…
Where is Duke and Northwestern? Like they weren’t mentioned among</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet Duke is included in the overlap schools towards the end along with the Ivies. So what’s going on with Duke? And where’s Berkeley?</p>
<p>Why does everything happen to Duke in these forums? LOL</p>
<p>^ <em>Sigh</em> Can’t you read? It’s because in 2006, Northwestern and Duke weren’t considered elite, thus aren’t part of the “clearly defined group.” Look at the article date…</p>
<p>^I don’t understand…didn’t University of Chicago have like a 50% admit rate back then? How can that be prestigious?</p>
<p>Also, then why didn’t Northwestern, Duke, and Berkeley come under the “new Elites” if they weren’t clearly defined elite universities?</p>
<p>First of all, the article says “a generation ago,” not the state of things in 2006. Secondly, it says “such … as,” using those schools as an example but not necessarily an exhaustive list. Northwestern and Duke are pretty much universally seen as “elite” so they’re not mentioned in the article as “New Ivies” since this article is supposed to expose more “hidden” treasures and Northwestern and Duke aren’t hidden at all. Frankly, it’s somewhat silly to label schools as new Ivies as the Ivy League is technically just an athletic league. Yes, it also encompasses 8 really old schools that are traditionally wealthy and provide top notch academics too, but really the using the label “Ivy” makes no sense in my mind. I guess it has a better ring than “New Top-notch academic schools” and they want people to read the article…</p>
<p>I don’t like the idea of “X ivies” because it sets up the real Ivies as the standard of quality and sets up everything else as second best. I think we need to accept that all of the Ivies are excellent schools, but many non-Ivies are just as good as the Ivies. Stanford is definitely a peer of Harvard and Yale. Duke is definitely a peer of Dartmouth. JHU is definitely a peer of Brown. WashU is definitely a peer of Cornell. And so on…</p>
<p>Mini Ivies/New Ivies</p>
<p>The newest Ivy is Cornell (founded 1865). Dartmouth continues to have the smallest enrollment among the Ivies.</p>
<p>“^I don’t understand…didn’t University of Chicago have like a 50% admit rate back then? How can that be prestigious?”</p>
<p>You’re confusing prestigious and popular. U Chicago historically had a very self selecting applicant pool hence a high admissions rate. Anything “quirky” will self select, since you either groove on what Chicago is, or you don’t – but few people are neutral.</p>
<p>“also, then why didn’t Northwestern, Duke, and Berkeley come under the “new Elites” if they weren’t clearly defined elite universities?”</p>
<p>Because they were already elite, so they didn’t need to be tagged as “new.”</p>
<p>I have noticed you tend to be extremely literal in how you absorb info – are you aware of that?</p>
<p>What, did a new sports league pop up at the recent NCAA meetings? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Jack: part of the list of the “clearly defined group” can easily be lost on the cutting room floor. Cal-Berkeley, for example, would be on that list as would Duke and Northwestern. The author was trying to show that UCLA, for example, was now an “equal” to Cal.</p>
<p>“You’re confusing prestigious and popular. U Chicago historically had a very self selecting applicant pool hence a high admissions rate. Anything “quirky” will self select, since you either groove on what Chicago is, or you don’t – but few people are neutral.”</p>
<p>It’s really because UChicago was not very selective at the undergraduate level. It only became selective in recent years because of overflow from the Ivies. When students have little chance of getting into Ivies, UChicago suddenly became a decent backup option.</p>
<p>Ivy Plus (alumni clubs around the country) always includes Stanford and MIT and sometimes includes Duke and UChicago.</p>
<p>
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The only way UCLA is “equal” to Cal is when they resort to stealing Cal’s mascot and fight songs.</p>
<p>^^hey, I’m not saying I agree with that Yankee rag, but it was the point that they were trying to make-up.</p>
<p>I think it’s a matter of opinion. Where do top liberal arts colleges land? What about Amherst, Williams, Midd, Bowdoin ect?</p>
<p>Sent from my iPhone using CC</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How does a hypothetical 50% admit rate imply not prestigious?</p>
<p>Ivies, MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Northwestern, UChicago, Duke, Berkeley = TOP 15</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Debatable. Where’s Hopkins? I think that most would place it above Cornell and on the same level as Brown (imo US News underrates Brown a little). How does Berkeley beat out Georgetown, WashU, Carnegie Mellon, and USC?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How does the sun rise in the East. Ans: always has, always will. :D</p>