<p>Columbia2007, Notre Dame is arguably one of the most underrated universities on this board. A quick glance at their statistics and you will see that there ACT range is a 31-33. For comparison, take a look at the University of Pennsylvania, which has an ACT range of 30-34. Some of you may scream that UPenn kids mainly use the SAT, which is true. However, Penn's admissions website clearly states that 21% ONLY submit the ACT. Also, remember that Notre Dame maintains these numbers while fielding one of the most successful athletic programs in the country.</p>
<p>Notre Dame has great academics, great alumni connections, and is vastly underrated on CC.</p>
<p>Torn, I would add that Notre Dame has an endowment of $4 billion, which is impresive given it's size. I personally don't like Notre Dame for obvious reasons (hehe), and I don't agree that Notre Dame is underrated because it is ranked in the top 20, but I do agree that it is an excellent university, worthy of its good reputation.</p>
<p>Of course Carleton and Grinnell are not vastly different from the likes of Kenyon or Macalester. All four are great institutions. In fact, I allude to this fact by pointing out that, at least in terms of name recognition, Carleton and Grinnell do not have a strikingly discernable advantage over Kenyon or Macalester. Do not misconstrue what I wrote as implying that the schools are "vastly different" from each other, like you claimed to have inferred from my text. </p>
<p>I have good friends at all of these institutions and to say that any one of them is outright "better" than another is ludicrous. I did indeed indicate that I believe Carleton and Grinnell to be better institutions with the disclaimer that it is my personal opinion and nothing more than that. Let me explain that my personal opinion is not unfounded. Look at the weight that alumni carry at Carleton and Grinnell, look at Grinnell's ability to throw money to the tune of whatever they feel is necessary to get the best of the best, look at Carleton's alumni list and the percentage of their students that continue on for advanced degrees. Let me also notify you that a mere 20 points is not what separates a Carleton/Grinnell alum from a Kenyon/Macalester alum. Look that up; you'll see more than a 20 point gap separates Carleton's average SAT from Grinnell's. But SATs are not everything anyway. It'd be superficial to put too much weight on them. </p>
<p>So you ask, then, why even bother to disagree with the authors' choices if it is based on personal preference? Good question; I'll explain. First, I can disagree because I can disagree. But that'd be too easy of an answer. Let me assert, then, that my personal preference likely echoes the masses'. Bold statement, sure. But when many people's preferences are of a similar bent, then it becomes more than just one person's preference judging another's. </p>
<p>Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. But this is all really silly to me when I do indeed view Kenyon and Macalester as excellent schools. Appease yourself for a bit...know that I absolutely agree with you and think very highly of Kenyon and Macalester. I did not mean to downplay their excellence.</p>
<p>I agree with you. I do feel the rankings are taking quality into consideration along with overall recognition. It is just that for some, I did not realize the recognition was quite as good as it may indeed be. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe anybody to be comparing Smith College with Princeton University. </p>
<p>And also, I'm not going to ask the old couple next door to me. I already know that one went to Harvard and the other went to Radcliffe, and I already know what the populous thinks of that other Cambridge institute. :) Just thought it was funny you mentioned old people next door; indeed, these two are quite knowledgeable about past perceptions of these institutions, I'm sure.</p>
<p>I'd have to echo Columbia2007 when I also point out that retention and graduation rate is not solely a direct reflection of an institution's quality. But I do not think University of Notre Dame (Note the correction; I don't know how I let a slip like that go in the initial post. Sorry about that.) is a bad institution---or even just an OK one. In fact, I think it's a quite good one. </p>
<p>Under much consideration, I formally retract my statement that Notre Dame is overrated. Instead, I'll say that many other institutions in the nation of equal calibre (in terms of quality of education) are not given nearly as much recognition. As such, I see why they did not make the authors' list of New Ivies. Let me also note here though that I am hardly filled with "visceral jealousy." That, sir, is a naive and outlandish comment on your part. </p>
<p>The reason for my retraction is because I've come to terms with that fact that, as TourGuide446 articulated, this list was composed by taking into consideration not only the educational quality of an institution but also the recognition that an institution carries with it. I don't deny that Notre Dame carries quite a bit of name recognition, so I can see why it made the list. The reason for its recognition, however, is another story, which, interestingly enough, is nicely corroborated in your text. Lest I delve into my thoughts on that and make you even more bitter, I'll step back and say, "I retract my statement. University of Notre Dame is not overrated when taking into consideration quality as well as recognition. In fact, I see clearly why it is on the list. And I'm not filled with jealousy. Perhaps I am over Harvard, but certainly not Notre Dame."</p>
<p>I think it's extremely important to remember that these rankings honestly mean nothing. The Ivy League means nothing. I strongly believe that saying college x should have been on the list if college y is is a horrible arguement. The point I'm trying to make is that one college isn't going to be the top college in every field. Penn might be the best at business while Hopkins might be the best at medicine. It's more important to know what the student is going to study rathern than the "overall" rankings of colleges. </p>
<p>On a personal note, I hate when people get all rilled (sp?) up b/c their college isn't on the list.</p>
<p>Although I can see how some people might be a little irked about their college not being on the list, but I figure that's just because of a bit of personal pride for their alma mater/current institution.</p>
<p>Tom121,
Newsweek isnt saying Macalester is better than Carleton, or Kenyons better than Grinnell. But you are saying that Carleton and Grinnell are better than Macalester and Kenyon. Thats just subjective and pointless. I would argue that all four fit into Newsweeks criteria and theyre so similarly great that its just a matter of preference, so nobody is wrong. </p>
<p>Now, I would see your point if the omission of those schools was glaring like if it was 5 Great Colleges in Arizona and it was ASU, NAU, Grand Canyon University, Prescott College and Embry Riddle, you would say why not U of A? That would be a glaring omission. But as I see it, youre expecting this list to be comprehensive when their criteria is so broad 25 is a ridiculously small number. </p>
<p>Whats wrong isnt the schools they picked but the concept of a list of the best colleges that seems irresistible to magazines. People should just look at this stuff holistically and make decisions as to which college to attend based on their own criteria, not news magazines.</p>
<p>The emotion, defensiveness, hurt feelings, passion, and bad logic in this thread make the average Affirmitive Action thread seem like a calm, rational chat about gardening while sipping iced tea on the veranda with Aunt Gladys.</p>
<p>I have to agree with you that it is impossible to fit 25+ exceptional colleges in a list that can only include 25 colleges. That is, indeed, a predicament that Newsweek solved by subjectively picking certain colleges/universities over other colleges/universities of equal or nearly equal quality and prominence. Is this right to do? Sure it is. Newsweek has every right to be the magazine that they are and selectively choose and create their list such that it provokes interest, contentment, and dissatisfaction in the public audience they address. That is business. That is reality.</p>
<p>As such, it is wise to do as you suggest: "look at this stuff holistically and make decisions as to which college to attend based on their own criteria, not news magazines." I fervently agree.</p>
<p>Can people still have a personal opinion as to what they consider to be "correct" or "incorrect" in a list of this nature? Absolutely. Should they have such an opinion and voice it if they choose? I hope so. </p>
<p>And I also hope that people don't ultimately berate others for sharing their opinions, as admittedly subjective as they might be, when their opinions are only counter to or questioning towards an already subjective list. Criticize and question others' opinions? Sure. Condemn them or denounce them? No, no, no.</p>
<p>You're too kind, Tom. Anyway, if you look at the states that the students at Carlton/Grinnell have tradionally come from as opposed to Kenyon/Macalaster, I'm guessing the former two have had a much more intense NATIONAL appeal for tip-top students than the latter two. Ergo, the former two are ALREADY on the list of schools with Stanford, MIT, Williams et al that have been longtime alternatives for top students nationally.</p>
<p>Alexandre, my best friend goes to UM-Ann Arbor. And while I constantly tell him how much my school is better in every single possible way, I must concede (on an internet forum, and not to him) that Michigan has a way better location (Ann Arbor > South Bend) and a way better social life. If they could only cut their class size (6,000 is way tooo many freshman for that campus) and somehow lower the percentage of Michigan residents from 66% to like 50%, the school would become ever more prestigious in the eyes of high school students.</p>
<p>ND is a good school but the general public does have a skewed view of ND's educational quality. The general public considers ND one of the best and most prestigious schools in country when in reality it is just a decent school academically (nothing outstanding about ND's academics...they don't have any program, department, etc. that puts them up in the tier that the general public considers them to be at) whose prestige mainly rides on the school's football program.</p>
<p>this is rediculous. not to join the cliche, but SKIDMORE??? KENYON??? come on. good schools, but well below the calibur of schools like the nescacs. where is trinity? COLBY and BOWDOIN but NO BATES COLLEGE? ive lost respect for news week</p>
<p>In the spirit of full disclosure, I think people on this thread should mention which college they went to, so we can tell in what context their comments are shrieked. I, for one, think the list is wonderful. (Boston College)</p>