<p>It's in print by a major publication. It's got to be true and generally accepted.</p>
<p>"It's in print by a major publication. It's got to be true and generally accepted."</p>
<p>ROFLMAO Thanks for the good laugh.</p>
<p>The article just seemed like an excuse to profile 25 good schools that most people on CC already know about, but the general public might not. I think the "New Ivy League" thing was more an attempt to draw interest (and it seems to have worked) rather than anything else.</p>
<p>i think it's a joke. schools like skidmore, kenyon, and macalester deserve no place on such a list while hopkins, northwestern, georgetown, Umich, and most top LACs (W&L, haverford, grinnell) are left out. i have a feeling that some goofy random connection to, say, skidmore (wow) existed with a staff writer or something; other than that, this list seems lacking of any logic.</p>
<p>I wouldn't say most of these schools are "top second-tier" - some of them are already top-tier, like Bowdoin, Tufts, Emory, etc. Some of them obviously can be argued the otherway, like NYU, Skidmore (especially -- isn't their SAT avg. in the 1200's?), or RPI.</p>
<p>But, as I've said, schools like WashU, Tufts, Bowdoin, Emory, Vanderbilt, and the Claremont Group have been highly selective for a while now, so in this case it is more about increasing their public recognition versus academic standing, which is already well-established. These schools are on par with Georgetown, Northwestern, etc. but just may not hold the same layman reputation. I've never heard that the schools I listed above were anything less than 1st-tier.</p>
<p>My very musically talented son ( age 14) who is equally talented in math and science, was pleased to hear about the double majors, the conservatory, etc. A friend of our family also has a kid with similar interests who has just enrolled there. We value that well roundedness, that tech ability with the outgoing extraverted poise and love of the musical community and all the great people in it, always growing musically, always giving back to the larger community.</p>
<p>This "25 New Ivies" List is so horribly flawed.</p>
<p>Why do the authors choose to put Middlebury up there with Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore? Why Middlebury?! It's a great school, but that is going out on a limb on their part.</p>
<p>And SKIDMORE?! You've got to be kidding me. </p>
<p>I also don't understand why WashU and CMU made it on the list. I feel that many people know of these two schools as being great institutions regardless of regional placement.</p>
<p>And then I also have a hard time swallowing Notre Dame University, which I believe is one of the most over-rated institutions in our nation. And for that matter, should NYU really be up there? Why not Vassar, which is arguably the better school, and much much much less well known. C'mon!</p>
<p>I strongly agree that University of Virginia, U of Rochester, Tufts, Rice, Reed, Olin, UNC-Chapel Hill, Bowdoin, and the Claremont Colleges (well, Harvey Mudd and Pomona, at least) are very nice choices made by the authors.</p>
<p>I feel as though the other institutions could have been replaced with better choices though. Macalester and Kenyon? Why not Carleton and Grinnell instead? It's not like they're waaay more popular than Macalester and Kenyon as far as the general public is concerned, but atleast they're better institutions in my opinion.</p>
<p>Colgate and Colby? What about Vassar and Haverford instead? I don't think they get enough credit, and I think they're both better institutions (though again this is arguable).</p>
<p>This list is just ridiculously frustrating. It's not entirely wrong; it's just not right enough. haha</p>
<p>Also, isn't UCLA getting enough credit. I find it a bit over-rated, and I don't think it's eclipsed by UC Berkeley. I think it's doing a fine job already, and I don't think it's a new Ivy. I'd almost venture to say that UCSD should be placed in the list instead, though I'm not so sure any of the UC schools are deserving of the list as they are either too well-known, or they aren't all that great compared to some other institutions. I mean, maybe Whitman College instead of a UC? Just a thought. I feel it's a bit of an under-rated college on the west.</p>
<p>Enough of my ranting. The list isn't going to change. Just thought I'd get it out of my system. haha</p>
<p>Well said, Tom121. and, btw...</p>
<p>And SKIDMORE?! You've got to be kidding me."</p>
<p>--Exactly my reaction, too.</p>
<p>If you open your windows, you can hear some weeping to the Northeast. I think it's because the "S" in HYPS now stands for Skidmore.</p>
<p>Pirt, UMich is on the list.</p>
<p>And once and for all, the the first paragraph of the article CLEARLY indicates that places like Hopkins, Northwestern, W&L, MIT, Vassar, Wellesley, Chicago, Georgetwon, Stanford, Duke, Williams, etc. were ALREADY on the radar of TOP students NATIONWIDE. The new 25 have been solid regionally for a long time and are only recently attracting a lot of top NATIONWIDE applicants for their undergrad programs. Could you guys please read the f'ing article before exploding?</p>
<p>TourGuide446,</p>
<p>Where does it say/imply that Vassar is up there with the others that you mention? I didn't see that in the article. If it is indeed in the article, I apologize for overlooking that; however, I did gather that the authors put institutions like Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and Middlebury up there as elite already. </p>
<p>"If you open your windows, you can hear some weeping to the Northeast. I think it's because the "S" in HYPS now stands for Skidmore."</p>
<p>...I can hear the weeping, too.</p>
<p>WorldbandDX,</p>
<p>Glad you share my point of view.</p>
<p>-Tom</p>
<p>It didn't specifically mention EVERY college that was ALREADY on the national undergrad radar, but you have to read between the lines a little bit. Northwestern and Johns Hopkins aren't specifically mentioned, either, but you gotta figure that if Notre Dame and Skidmore made it, Northwestern and Hopkins were ALREADY on the list.</p>
<p>The 7 Sisters schools (Barnard, Mt. Holyoke, Smith, Bryn Mawr, Wellesley, Vassar, and now-absorbed Radcliffe) have been on the radar for top national female students since at least the early part of the 20th Century. Even as a little kid growing up in a podunk town in Michigan decades ago, I was aware that the super-smart girl down the street went to Smith, and that a bright relative of mine went all the way to to Bryn Mawr. The 7 Sisters were and are considered legitimate undergrad alternatives to the top schools in the country by the top [female] students in the country. Hillary Clinton didn't go to Wellesley because she couldn't get into Cornell, if you know what I mean.</p>
<p>Ok, I am not sure if anyone else noticed this (or posted it, there are a lot of replies) but you can determine what the other schools grouped in as "powerhouses" with the Ivies are by looking at the overlap schools and just deleting which ones are on the list. So schools like Northwestern, JHU and Georgetown (among others) are already considered "ivy" caliber schools.</p>
<p>oh god, stop crying all of you just because your school didnt make it on the list. </p>
<p>Obviously schools like Northwestern are already considered at the same level as some of the other ivies...which may explain why the title of this article is 25 NEW Ivies...NEW Ivies...schools that may not have been considered Iveys until recently. </p>
<p>This article doesnt mean that Skidmore will be replacing your precious "HYPS" or whatever its called. It is the opinion of one magazine, not the end of your future as Ivey League graduates.</p>
<p>TourGuide446,</p>
<p>I follow your logic. It's obvious that some non-Ivy schools were included in the authors' Ivy-caliber list, no doubt. For example, I didn't raise a qualm about MIT not being on the new-Ivy list because I do indeed view it as of equal prominence as the "Ivies". Why if I didn't, I'd be heartbroken as it is the dear institution I currently attend. Sure, I buy that Georgetown, UChicago, JHU, Duke, etc. are already under national radar, too. Clear to see, indeed.</p>
<p>I, however, hadn't realized that colleges like Mt. Holyoke, Smith, Vassar, and Bryn Mawr were considered to be under the national radar, or of such a caliber. All are undeniably good schools, but none pull the weight that Barnard or Wellesley do in the group (at least not for me, although I have a fondness for Vassar). I guess the former group of four are eclipsed (to me, at least) by the latter group of two. It was, then, fairly easy for me to not see Vassar as an institution that was already under the national limelight.</p>
<p>Alternately (or additionally), perhaps this is because I personally don't view the former four institutions as schools deserving of the same level of distinction and recognition as others like Carleton and Grinnell (which, even if you read between the lines, is not implied to be under the national radar by any means). Then again, a school's caliber and its recognition are not necessarily positively correlated.</p>
<p>Point is that on many levels, these distinctions of recognition are largely subjective. I can clearly see one's point if one tried to argue, for example, that Bowdoin is an already distinguished and prominent institution. On one hand I agree, on the other I believe it could still use more recognition.</p>
<p>I hope you see my stance and perspective on this. The issue is hardly that I gave the article a cursory glance. </p>
<p>Still, Skidmore...my gooshness. I don't even know what to say... Oh, well. <em>sigh</em> Actrss100, it's not that I think Skidmore being on the list defames anything about my respective institution. I could care less about that. The point is that I feel other schools in the nation are more deserving to be on the list than Skidmore is.</p>
<p>Skidmore over Haverford, Brandeis, Oberlin, Carleton, Trinity, etc.?</p>
<p>SKIDMORE?! lol</p>
<p>I think this group of colleges isn't supposed to be all encompassing, or by any means a ranking. I think it's just 25 high quality colleges that are doing interesting things with education, although they might not be well-known as such by the general public. I think it's just ridiculous to be second guessing the inclusion or non-inclusion of specific schools. Its not like Bob Jones University is on there. On average, students at Skidmore arent as smart as students at Swarthmore, sure, but Skidmore is still a very good college. There are plenty of good colleges and its mostly subjective which ones are better. With a list of 25, obviously good colleges are going to be left off. If people want something more concrete just take the US News rankings and take off all the Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>And Tom121,
What makes Carleton and Grinnell better institutions than Kenyon and Macalester? Theyre very similar schools, isnt it just a personal preference as to which are better? Its not like the students at any of those schools are dramatically different, except perhaps for 20 points on the SAT. I cant think of any tangible reason Carleton is any better than Macalester, aside from personal preference. And if the only difference is personal preference why even bother arguing which is better?</p>
<p>I'd say that the point of that article is to generate buzz about schools that have top-tier academics but don't necessarily have national recognition. I don't know why Northwestern was left off that list, unless Newsweek thinks that NWestern already has enough national recognition. The term "new Ivies" is misleading, though. The Ivy League is nothing more than an athletic conference.</p>
<p>That said, I'm not necessarily sure that I want national recognition for my school. While it certainly would be nice to tell people where I go to school at not get "where is that?" or "need any soy sauce?" (I go to Rice), one of the things that sets these top-tier academic institutions without national recognition apart from those with national recognition is that the students there don't have the same sense of entitlement, and thus don't take themselves too seriously. I'm not sure I'd want Rice to have the same name recogntion as, say, Yale.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And then I also have a hard time swallowing Notre Dame University, which I believe is one of the most over-rated institutions in our nation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Notre Dame is overrated? In what way(s)? Academically? Did you read the statement "Notre Dame students are not slackers; 95 percent graduate in four years. (Only Harvard and Princeton have equivalent records.)" in this article that you are "reviewing"? </p>
<p>Just based on that stat alone, I would say you don't know what you are talking about, so there is no need for me to delve into the many other qualities of an ND education (I would bet its alumni network is among the best around, for starters).</p>
<p>And FWIW - it is the University of Notre Dame, not Notre Dame University. Based on that alone, I'd say that it is getting enough recognition.</p>
<p>IMHO, I think these kind of statements simply reflect a visceral jealousy on the part of those crowing the overrated chant.</p>
<p>Case in point - I was recently eating breakfast at a Southern California hotel with my family, and some middle-aged woman with a U of Texas shirt, who was seated next to us at another table, saw the USC shirt I was wearing (my nephew is a junior there) and she made what I would term a "one-upper" question of "Did you see this morning's USA Today college football rankings?" (which ranked OSU #1, UT #2, and USC/ND tied for #3/#4). </p>
<p>My response? "Oh, you're referring to my USC shirt? Yeah, I read it. And I'm just wearing this shirt from my daughter's recruiting trip there last year. She decided against applying there, even though her cousin is a junior there, and is instead going to attend ND."</p>
<p>Her reply? "I think ND's is way overrated" (remember we are talking football, not academics, here). With me not being afraid to verbally spar with anyone, I shot back "Well, Texas has lost their main offensive weapon, Vince Young, so I guess you could say the same for UT... besides, we're from Ohio and there's no doubt that OSU should be (emphasized) #1."</p>
<p>And with that last comment, she muttered something about "being a Cal family". then turned away from me without speaking to me again. I guess she expected to deliver a blow to my ego with "her" UT team's status, and when I retorted with "my" OSU team's status, that was a bit too much for her, because she wasn't laughing.</p>
<p>I just shrugged the whole encounter off as someone trying to boost their self-esteem by kicking someone else, which I interpret as the same motivation behind the post to which I am responding.</p>
<p><sigh> Can't we all just get along?</sigh></p>
<p>The problem with Notre Dame is inherent in your post: the hype has a lot more to do with football than the actual quality of one's education there. 95% four year graduation rate? Dropout rates at elite schools have more to do with one's finances than students gone AWOL or pure slackerdom. In any case it's the content of those four years that matter, not the rate at which diplomas are harvested.</p>
<p>Tom, this isn't about quality per se. It's about a blend of quality, and NATIONAL name recognition which elevates these 25 to a point where they have enough critical mass to be considered legit alternatives to top students--even those who aren't in their region.</p>
<p>For example, 30 years ago your top students in New York or New Jersey would probably have had to exhaust all sorts of options before they decided to go to U of Michigan for UNDERGRAD. Now you can imagine a very very bright honor student from Long Island getting a B in physics and blowing a few questions on the SAT and all of a sudden Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Brown, Williams, and Stanford are a longshot. All of a sudden he's looking at Vanderbilt, Kenyon, Michigan, Colby and Davidson.</p>
<p>Re the top women's colleges...again, nobody's saying Smith is as good as Princeton. But if you talk to people who were around in the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s, they will put the fame of the top women's schools into perspective. Just about EVERYBODY back then knew of those schools...they weren't "hidden" gems at all. They were referred to in movies, in radio shows, and on TV. They were synonomous with bright, classy, socially adept women. Ask your grandparents or the old couple next door about Radcliffe and Bryn Mawr and Vassar.</p>