<p>Roger, I would certainly think you guys of all people would recruit ERAU, no?</p>
<p>I thought the article made a lot of sense because most students are not Ivy League bound nor do they want to be and they will be just as successful in college and later in life after college. I am not sure if most people that end up at an Ivy League school are there because they made that decision early on as their college goal, or if their parents made that decision for them at a very young age. We have neighbors that have two daughters at Harvard and they were never allowed much of a social life, no T.V., no stereo or radio, nothing to distract them from reading and studying and that worked for them if the parents goal was to get them to Harvard or the like. It just seems that many of these people that post here that are applying to these Ivy League schools seem to be stressed to the max during the admissions and acceptance process. If you truly know yourself and your abilities and that is where YOU want to be and you can get in then go for it.....if not....then find the place that is right for YOU and make your dreams come true there.</p>
<p>Yes, loslobos, we do...it is part of the targeted 88.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I usually agree with you on must subjects. However, Brown and Penn win cross-admits against places like Rice and Wash U on a consistent basis. They are definitely not losing students to Wash U and Rice and Chicago either. Chicago loses cross-admits to many of those schools in fact.</p>
<p>Dartmouth, Columbia comps would include Duke, U Chicago, Wash U, Rice</p>
<p>U Penn, Brown, Cornell comps would broadly include Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, USC, Tufts, Wake Forest</p>
<p>That is way off.</p>
<p>Penn/Brown consistently beat out Duke, Rice, and Wash U. Every cross-admit study confirms that. As much as I like NU, I am aware that students often choose Penn and Brown over it.</p>
<p>And to say that these schools are in the same category as Vanderbilt and USC is almost egregious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
“"The undergraduate at these schools is pretty much there to keep the streets paved. The money doesn't go toward the undergraduate budget. A student will face large classes, and teaching assistants instead of professors.”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, the truth of the matter is, this happens at most non-LAC schools. For example, if you think you'll face large classes and plenty of TA's instead of professors at the Ivies, think about what happens at most large public schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
“The top per capita producers of Ph.D.s in this country are in fact smaller colleges, most notably, the likes of Reed, Swarthmore, Caltech, Harvey Mudd, and Grinnell, Emory, Bates, Northwestern, and Morehouse”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One rebuttal that has been raised by others before regarding this issue is that many schools send plenty of students to top PhD programs because, frankly, they have to. Ivy grads often times have plenty of top-flight job opportunities right out of undergrad, whereas grads from other schools, not so much. </p>
<p>A related point is that the Ivy undergrad programs, frankly, are not incubators of future researchers and scientists the way that schools like Caltech or Reed are. Rather, the Ivy undergrad programs tend to be highly pre-professional, in that they inculcate a value system that encourages students to become lawyers, doctors, bankers, consultants, managers, and so forth. It has been said (and I agree) that the most important perk that the Ivies offer is the networking. Business success in particular is dictated greatly by who you know. </p>
<p>
[quote]
4. The Ivy League scares some kids to death (This is a pretty weak argument IMO. The strength of the student body is the single biggest consideration in an undergraduate experience at any college)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that this is a weak argument. If any schools should scare anybody to death, it's those rough tech schools that are notorious for running extremely harsh and merciless curricula, and will not hesitate to flunk you out. A certain aforementioned school in Pasadena immediately comes to mind. </p>
<p>
[quote]
5. Cutting edge tech employers may not be as enamored of the Ivy League brand
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but the problem with that argument is that even a lot of the best tech students don't really want to work for tech employers, instead opting for consulting and banking. For example, it's become something of a running joke at MIT that many of the best engineering students there will never work as engineers, instead opting for consulting or banking jobs. Think about that - these are some of the best engineering students in the world, and even many of them don't really want to work as engineers. The same thing happens at Stanford - many of the engineering students will opt for jobs in banking and consulting. </p>
<p>The sad truth of the matter is that, except for a handful of tech employers (notably Google, and maybe Microsoft, Yahoo, and a few others), a lot of tech jobs out there are, frankly, not that good, relative to what consulting and banking can offer. The tech jobs don't pay as well, they don't offer opportunities that are as interesting, they don't offer as great of potential of career advancement, in short, they're just not as good of opportunities.</p>
<p>Consider this quote from Time Magazine:</p>
<p>"Students at </p>
<p>NUGrad555,
In the battle of the cross-admits, you are probably correct in your perceptions. The largest pool of applicants comes from the Northeast which creates large psychological and physical barriers to these high schoolers going elsewhere. Coupled with a historical applicant pool dominated by Southerners (for Duke, Rice and Vanderbilt) and Midwesterners (for Wash U) and southern Californians (USC), this led to students coming primarily from those areas and not from the Northeast.</p>
<p>Over the last decade, we all know about the huge demographic swell which has pushed students to look at a broader universe of schools. Duke has been building a national student base for several decades and has long been a peer to the Ivies, but the others have expanded their geographic reach much more recently. As a result, Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, USC and a few other top schools outside of the Northeast have seen an increase in interest from students outside of their home regions. This has accelerated in recent years and their quality of students is now at a level that I would consider comparable to several of the Ivies. </p>
<p>Public perception and acceptance of this evolution remains uneven (your comments are a good example), but the statistical profile of the students attending these schools is now competitive. The Ivies may still win the cross admit battles most of the time (regionalism and prestige back home are powerful factors), but these non-Northeastern schools have flourished nonetheless in building stronger student bodies. IMO, Duke is clearly in the same bucket with Dartmouth and Columbia and Rice belongs there as well. </p>
<p>Rice is a school that statistically is very strong and I suspect that, were it physically located in the Northeast, would be enormously popular and would rank in the Top 10. Consider how its students compare with the Ivies that I grouped it with for 25/75 SAT scoring:</p>
<p>Rice 1330-1540</p>
<p>Dartmouth 1350-1550
Columbia 1320-1520</p>
<p>When you add in Rice's unique residential college system, attractive size (only 3049 undergrads), good weather (avg Feb hi/low is 67/48) and some outstanding athletics (their baseball team is currently ranked #3 in the country), you begin to get a sense of what a compelling choice Rice could be. It is certainly not as well known as Dartmouth and Columbia and would be less favorably received by Northeastern job markets of financial services and management consulting, but Rice has nothing to apologize for in how it compares with these Ivies. </p>
<p>I could make similar comparisons of Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Emory, USC and the others to the lower Ivies, and especially to Cornell. Their student bodies are every bit the quality of Cornell and arguably matches up with a very large portion of the student bodies at Brown and U Penn. Furthermore, several of these schools (Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, USC, and Wake Forest) offer a broader, and IMO perhaps better, overall undergraduate experience than these Ivies. They all offer all strong student bodies, good teaching environments, sometimes better weather, often more vibrant social conditions, and universally better athletics and all that comes along with that. I'd be happy to compare any of these schools with any of the lower Ivies (although I concede that I am stretching on Wake). These non-Northeastern schools may not win the majority of the cross admit battles today, but I think that that may say more about the students making this choice than it does about the relative quality of the product and experience that these colleges offer.</p>
<p>Most Ivy Leagues are Mostly Graduate: Yale,Princeton,Brown and Dartmouth are VERY undergrad focused, so how does that make sense? </p>
<p>Rankings Don't Usually Favor the Ivy-League: What? Penn/Wharton-Buisness, Cornell- Computer Science, Architecture, ILR, and Hotel Administration, Engineering</p>
<p>Brown-Very strong in Social Sciences</p>
<p>(not to sure about the other ivies)</p>
<p>Also, people tend to go to the college these chose because the college had a top-notch program for their major. What happens if the rest of the school is garbage? You will be graduating with a less-respectable degree. Where as with an ivy-league, lets say Cornell (cause that is where I am going), I could go there for computer science and switch and graduate with a degree in History. It will still be respected. Why, because while Cornell's history department may not be top 10, it is still great. Ivies tend to be great at everything, and be exceptional at a small few. EITHER WAY, you can't go wrong!</p>
<p>Grad Schools Don't Tend to Favor Ivy-Leaguers: This is not important if a person is like me and doesn't have any plans of going to Grad School. Also, just because some schools don't "tend" to prefer ivy-grads that doesn't mean that they "won"t".</p>
<p>The Ivy-League Scares some kids to death:
Rats can also scare some people to death. There are other schools, such as MIT, Stanford, University of Chicago, that scare other students to death as well. MIT, for example, has a higher suicide rate than some of the ivies, like Cornell. This is also the worst point of the argument.</p>
<p>Cutting-edge tech employers may not be as enamored of the Ivy League brand: If you aren't doing technology, than why does it matter. Once again, there will be tech employers who ARE enamored of the Ivy-League and some who will have attended the Ivy-League.</p>
<p>I agree with someone elses statement- he is failing to realize that the over-all quality of the schools are practically unparalleled. Additionally, the point about stress due to competition is ridiculous. There will be competition at other schools, as well. I am sure that UNC and Stanford have competitive students. Students at all colleges get stressed out at one point, especially around finals-time.</p>
<p>One rebuttal that has been raised by others before regarding this issue is that many schools send plenty of students to top PhD programs because, frankly, they have to. Ivy grads often times have plenty of top-flight job opportunities right out of undergrad, whereas grads from other schools, not so much. </p>
<p>It may be a rebuttal but it's not a good rebuttal...... </p>
<p>Only from a personal point of view…I didn’t send my kid to college to get a job….I sent her to get an education….</p>
<p>If getting a job is the mark of a great school the military academics beat all of the other schools…graduate from West Point and you have a guaranteed job…..with health insurance and housing….the down side is the health insurance may be needed and the housing may be in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world…</p>
<p>NUGrad - you are way off on Duke's cross admit rates with its peer schools. You might be referring to the NY Times hypothetical model that is based off of models from student surveys, but not real data. Real data would show that you are actually incorrect (and not just in terms of cross-admit battles, every characteristic of Duke puts it on par with, slightly ahead, or slightly behind Columbia, Dartmouth, Penn, and Brown)</p>
<p>In cross-admit battles: Penn, Dartmouth, Brown, Duke, and Columbia all fall into the same category. As do HYPSM with one another. </p>
<p>Cross-Admit data released from Duke's undergrad admissions office explicitly states that for the Class of 2008, 2009, 2010 (upper and lower range):
85 - 90% of crossadmits between Duke and HYPSM choose the latter
45 - 55% of crossadmits between Duke and Dartmouth, Penn, Columbia, Brown choose the latter
15-20% of crossadmits between Duke and NU, JHU, Cornell, Georgetown choose the latter</p>
<p>There you have it NUgrad. Of course, cross-admit data is just one way to verify what schools have comparable student body qualities.</p>
<p>HYP - Peer schools are MIT and Stanford
Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, Brown - peer school is Duke, maybe Chicago
Northwestern, JHU, Georgetown, WashU are all up there as well.</p>
<p>sexylikeascorpio and others tied to Cornell, Brown, and U Penn,
Lest my comments about Cornell, Brown, and U Penn be misinterpreted, I consider these great universities with many accomplished students. My point is that there now are many other schools around the country that are statistical peers to these Ivies and can offer academic experiences comparable to what one finds in Ithaca, Providence or Philadelphia... and potentially more.</p>
<p>Also, check out Collegeboard.com, the National Merit Scholarship website, WSJ feeder rankings, Newsweek, and Times Higher Education Supplement (particularly the global corporate survey) and then come back to this thread. All those sources will confirm that Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Brown fall in the same category (with Columbia doing better on Newsweek and THES, Duke better on feeder rates and National Merit, and Dartmouth sort of in between the two in every category).</p>
<p>"The undergraduate at these schools is pretty much there to keep the streets paved. The money doesn't go toward the undergraduate budget."</p>
<p>This guy really has no clue about how the Ivies are run. Most if not all of the top private schools spend more running the college than they collect in tuition. At every single one, the professional schools and the college have separate budgets and separate leadership, and money cannot shift between them. College alumni would storm the gates if their donations were transferred to the MBA program!</p>
<p>I can't speak for every Ivy, but at both Harvard and Yale, the college is by far the largest, oldest, and richest school in the university. Their size and wealth is reflected in their decision-making power. Whatever you may think of Larry Summers, that whole presidential fiasco proved that arts & sciences gets its way even when all nine of the professional schools stand in opposition.</p>
<p>The problem with this article and it's ilk is that it doesn't focus on the right thing. Is the Ivy League worth it? Yes, absolutely--any of those schools offers a great education. But the real question should be do you need the Ivy League--and the answer to that is a resounding no. I'm not quite sure what SexyScorpio meant, but the assertion that the Ivies offer an unparalled overall education couldn't be further from the truth, in my opinion. Sure, in absolute, exact quality, the education offered by the TOP Ivies is probably virtually unparalled, but in very near quality there are at least 50 schools on the National Universities and LACs lists that offer also offer a fabulous education, even if it may be one or two steps behind that of HYP or a few select powerhouse programs (e.g. Wharton). The fact that the Ivies usually win cross-admit battles is not particularly pertinent, in my opinion--prestige is highly alluring (including to myself!), but prestige does not necessarily indicate a significantly better education (we are talking UPenn vs WashU here, not UPenn vs. 3rd Tier school). </p>
<p>I feel that many at CC are guilty of making overly fine distinctions between the top Universities and LAC's--for example, I was told by one poster that Wellesley was "not even close" to Dartmouth in overall quality. That's ridiculous, as are obsessive attempts to deliniate between the top Universities and LAC's--sure, some are a bit better and/or more prestigious than others, but all are of an extremely high quality. In my experience, Ivy grads themselves--including but not limited to my own parents--are usually not so obsessed with how much better a #6 or 9 school is compared to a #14 or 17 school.</p>
<p>EDIT: Just want to make it clear--I'm not denying that the Ivies are fantastic schools. I'm just denying that they are the only ones (or that that designation only extends to Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and maybe Duke or UChicago if we're being generous).</p>
<p>Sorry buddy.</p>
<p>Who should I trust?</p>
<p>NY times study and revealed preference study or Duke's admission office?</p>
<p>Both studies clearly show how Duke loses to Cornell and definitely loses to UPenn. </p>
<p>And you are tryin to convince me that Duke beats Penn....not happening</p>
<p>Who should you trust? You should probably trust me. NY Times and revealed preference come from the same data set based on student surveys (from the Northeast) several years ago. The students who took these surveys already have their degrees.</p>
<p>Duke admissions office released ACTUAL data, not hypothetical. ACTUAL - that means its real, not a guess based on surveys. Which means its true. And I don't think the Duke admissions office would lie about facts like that - especially when Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Brown are in close competition with them and would probably pay attention to any egregious lies by Dean Guttentag (who, every year, releases the data). </p>
<p>So, who is more reliable...Duke Undergraduate Admissions office, or a data-set based off of high school student surveys of where they want to go to college (keep in mind that these schools are probably Northeast prep schools).</p>
<p>Here's another way to illustrate: Duke is an equal competitor with Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Brown - which would mean it attracts similar talent, yes? And clearly Duke students are of equal caliber, so ... logically...it attracts an equal amount of top students.</p>
<p>Sorry buddy. Should be obvious. Also, Penn=Duke, not Duke>Penn.</p>
<p>@advantagious, I said PRACTICALLY unparalleled, I belive that the quality of education is more or less the same within the top 25 schools. Some are obviously stronger than others in some areas.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess,
why is the yield then for Duke so low? I've read it is like 40% while Penn's is like 70%?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Posted by NUGrad:</p>
<p>Sorry buddy.</p>
<p>Who should I trust?</p>
<p>NY times study and revealed preference study or Duke's admission office?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Posted by thethoughtprocess:</p>
<p>Cross-Admit data released from Duke's undergrad admissions office explicitly states that for the Class of 2008, 2009, 2010...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you'd trust the NYT? TTP is saying that, based on Duke's undergrad statistics, about half of students admitted to both Duke and Penn choose Penn...no clear winner then.</p>
<p>I thought that that was what you might have meant, sexylikeascorpio. My intention was not to snip at you, just to point out my belief (which you seem to share :)). </p>
<p>College Yahoo, yield rate is not NECESSARILY indicative of a school's quality. Of it's desirability, it's prestige amongst students admitted? Yes, it is indicative of that. But prestige =/= quality. In fact, except for a very few schools (namely the Ivies, the Military Academies and Julliard!), a 40% yield isn't bad at all--a lot of top schools will have a yield around there. Especially now, when the most competitive applicants apply to more and more schools, yield rates are bound to be low for the many top schools that don't get knee-jerk deposits.</p>