<p>Skidmore? Maybe because I've lived in the South my entire life, I wouldn't know, but I don't think anyone that I know of has heard of that school. Where's schools like Vanderbilt, Tulane, and University of Chicago?</p>
<p>Vanderbilt is on the list of the 25 New Ivies. Chicago is specifically mentioned in the introductory paragraph as one of the established elites that the "New Ivies" are now somewhat competitive with. Tulane didn't make the cut. Blame it on the flooding. Don't sweat it...it's just Newsweek. I mean, what are the chances that a college list published by a weekly news magazine will be taken seriously by anybody?</p>
<p>TourGuide has it right. As an Ivy grad (Yale BA, Harvard MBA) with kids at UVA and ND, I see this article as having real value. There simply are not enough places at the "Ivies" plus schools that used to be considered comparable such as Amherst for all of the qualified applicants. I did more college research than any other parent in my group, and I knew about Middelbury, Bowdoin, Davidson, et al. But many of them did not. The article fills them in on what other really great schools are out there for kids with 1500 boards, great class rank, great ecs, etc., who for one reason or another - a lot of it luck - don't crack the Ivy entry barriers. And that label "Ivy" is really pretty ridiculous as a catch-all indicator of quality. Personally, I would have taken Yale or Harvard or Princeton over Virginia or ND for my kids had they wanted to go there and been accepted - but NOT Cornell, Penn, or Columbia, for example. And you ND bashers are really missing the mark - take a closer look at what kinds of kids are getting into and being rejected by ND. Their standards are very high. And then couple that with their graduation rate, their enthusisam and love for their school. I am VERY pleased and proud to have a child going there.</p>
<p>i agree. ND is where my best friend is, and he could not love it more. let it be known that he would be picked last in kickball so to speak, but is a national merit scholar. not everyone is a crazy jock, and everyone i know there is conscientious and divout</p>
<p>Eli/Bookiemon: In reference to my post, i was not bashing ND...I actually really like ND (applied and had a full-ride). I agree that the types of students getting into ND are outstanding (hence the newsweek article discussing how great students are now "overflowing" into these "new ivies") all I had said was that, in my opinion, ND doesn't have any outstanding programs or departments (can you think of any program or departments that are world-renowned, top 10, top 15 even?). I just think in the general population, ND is overrated academically. The general population considers ND to be much better academically than it actually is...it's definitely a top 30 school just not top 10 like the general population seems to think.</p>
<p>Eli, what's wrong with Columbia? It's basically Yale in a better city.</p>
<p>Anti-ND sentiment is a bit high here. The arguments used against it apply to Dartmouth, Emory, Vanderbilt, Rice, Georgetown, Brown, almost all LAC's, and to a lesser extent Duke. </p>
<p>ND is #11 in philosophy, to give a top-15. To be fair, it's primary purpose is undergrad. This is easy to forget, but the general population doesn't really have a top ten list because a very, very small percentage of the population cares what the top schools are. (University of Chicago)</p>
<p>Danielvojtash,</p>
<p>Arguments against ND should not be applied to "almost all LACs" when the whole premise of the anti-ND sentiment is that ND garners more positive attention from the general public than other institutions of comparable integrity (some here think this is because of its football program). LACs---all LACs, I'd venture to say---do not share the same level of national limelight that ND has. And LACs certainly don't have the same level of football teams. Point is, anti-ND sentiment should not be used against LACs.</p>
<p>...I can see why you think the argument might be applied to Brown though... (Disclaimer: I do think Brown is a fine institution, too.)</p>
<p>...I don't know if I quite agree with Columbia = Yale in a better city. They're so different of institutions, they're hard to compare. I agree, though, that NYC >> New Haven. </p>
<p>(MIT, btw)</p>
<p>I agree that ND gets undue attention. I'm arguing that relatively poor graduate departments have never stopped other schools from being prestigious in the public eye, i.e. Brown and Duke. (I know Duke has a few good departments, as does Brown for that matter).</p>
<p>I agree that Brown is very good. Like ND, it's essentially a plus size LAC.</p>
<p>I know they're different. Columbia and Yale are on exactly the same level as far as the quality of their various departments. That's what i meant when I compared it to Yale. I'd say it's basically Harvard in a better city, but Harvard dominates it in departmental quality. If Eli dislikes the type of school that Columbia is, it's hard to see why he'd send a child to Harvard. Since Columbia isn't actually worse than Yale and Eli clearly accepts the model of the research Ivies, I don't understand why he would be averse to sending a child to Columbia.</p>
<p>Top-15 #2- ND is #12 in divinity</p>
<p>Although controversial...</p>
<p>Top 15 #3: The Business School is number 3 (BusinessWeek ranking)</p>
<p>There is generational prejudice against Columbia because it dropped out of the "top of the crop" after 1968, only to have slowly resurrected itself through the 80s and 90s. There's no way anyone would have picked it over a Brown in 1978...even if someone would have in either 1958 or 1998. Any perspective significantly shaped by that 20 year period demerits Columbia significantly.</p>
<p>I agree that Columbia has climbed back to preeminence in recent years, and that Brown in a fine institution. Comparisons aside, however, I think that the premise of the article was good, but that it fell short on several fronts. The schools listed in the article vary in the quality of their education, as well as their student body. I also agree with previous posts questioning the logic behind grouping schools like Colby and Bowdoin with Boston College. In my opinion, Newsweek is somewhat of a "sensationalist" news source, creating a stir but failing to truly inform its readers (at least with this article).</p>
<p>It seems to me that this list is meant to emphasize up-and-coming schools in the academic arena, which is why schools like UChicago, Northwestern and Johns Hopkins were not included. Personally, I am an incoming freshman at BC, and I understand where the article is coming from-BC definitely fits the profile of a "new ivy" (as proposed in the article). I think calling them "new ivies" is a little sensationalist, though....why not just call them "underrated, up and coming schools"?</p>
<p>But I digress. I think people, however, are taking this too seriously.</p>
<p>i'm still trying to figure out why northwestern wasn't in there, if Wash U can be accepted as an new Ivy then why not northwestern...is there something wrong with it? I'm just wondering because that is my top school that i really want to go to and it seems like it isn't too good? hmmm.</p>
<p>Northwestern is just fine. If you let a silly list decide if you want to attend or not, maybe you should rethink applying...</p>
<p>I was THRILLED to see Tufts on the list, but what about Georgetown?</p>
<p>This thread is amazing. Most everyone is skipping the phrase "such as" that is in the first paragraph of the article. It is actually written as "such academic powerhouses as" which could be written as "academic powerhouses such as."</p>
<p>To wit, read it this way: A generation ago, elite schools were a clearly defined group: the eight schools in the Ivy League, along with academic powerhouses SUCH AS Stanford, the University of Chicago, MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>"Such as" is not all inclusive; it is a sampling. Therefore schools that are missing from both lists, that should clearly be at least part of the "New Ivy" list are implied to be on the "such as" list. These schools include: Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley, and Georgetown.</p>
<p>In the case of liberal arts colleges the key word is "like.":Smaller liberal-arts colleges—LIKE Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Swarthmore and Wesleyan—were the destinations of choice for top students who preferred a more intimate campus.</p>
<p>Again, schools that are missing from both lists (the liberal arts 'like" list and the "new ivy" list), that should clearly be at least part of the "new ivy" list are implied to be on the liberal arts "like" list. These schools include: Wellesley, Carleton, and Haverford.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the university list is much more clear in which schools are "missing" but should be included in the "such as" list than the schools missing from the liberal arts "like" list. For instance, should the "missing" seven sister schools be on the the liberal arts "like" list, the "new ivy" list, or are they truly not at the level of even the "new ivy" schools? This is more open to debate.</p>
<p>But the following schools are clearly implied to be part of the "old ivys" (academic powerhouses or smaller liberal-arts colleges that were the destinations of choice for top students who preferred a more intimate campus): Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley, Georgetown, Wellesley, Carleton, and Haverford.</p>
<p>I think people are trying to read way too much into the "such as" phrase to justify their own personal preferences, especially in the case of the LACs. I don't know why they thought to include Middlebury as a top 5 LAC, but they definitely intentionally did so. There's certainly nothing in that article to suggest that the authors think that W&L, Vassar, Haverford, Carelton have always been there, but that Bowdoin, Colgate, Colby, Davidson, Reed have just arrived now.</p>
<p>gellino: "I think people are trying to read way too much into the "such as" phrase to justify their own personal preferences, especially in the case of the LACs."</p>
<p>Not true in the case of the Universities. And as I have stated, the case for LACs is more difficult but historically Carleton and Haverford (and Wellesley) have indeed "always been there." It really is unfortunate that Newsweek didn't just list the missing schools:</p>
<p>But lets look at USNews as a rough guide
National Universities listed by Rank
(rank, peer assesment, *="such as" list, n="new ivy" list, ???=no listing)</p>
<ol>
<li> (4.9) * Harvard </li>
<li> (4.9) * Princeton</li>
<li> (4.9) * Yale</li>
<li> (4.5) * Penn</li>
<li> (4.6) ??? Duke</li>
<li> (4.9) * Stanford</li>
<li> (4.7) * Cal Tech</li>
<li> (4.9) * MIT</li>
<li> (4.7) * Columbia</li>
<li> (4.4) * Dartmouth</li>
<li>(4.1) n Wash U</li>
<li>(4.4) ??? Northwestern</li>
<li>(4.6) * Cornell</li>
<li>(4.6) ??? Hopkins</li>
<li>(4.4) * Brown</li>
<li>(4.6) * Chicago</li>
<li>(4.1) n Rice</li>
<li>(3.9) n Notre Dame</li>
<li>(4.0) n Vanderbilt</li>
<li>(4.0) n Emory</li>
<li>(4.8) ??? Berkeley
22, (4.2) n Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>(4.0) ??? Georgetown</li>
<li>(4.3) n Virginia</li>
<li>(4.3) n UCLA</li>
<li>(4.5) n Michigan</li>
<li>(3.6) n Tufts</li>
<li><p>(4.2) n North Carolina</p></li>
<li><p>(3.4) n Rochester</p></li>
<li><p>(3.8) n New York University</p></li>
<li><p>(3.5) n Boston College</p></li>
<li><p>(3.6) n RPI</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The peer assessments for all the ??? "missing" schools, with the exception of Georgetown, are above the peer assesments (reputations) of all the "new ivy" schools, with the exception of Michigan. And among schools not on the list, only Wisconsin at number 34 has a peer assessment (4.2) higher than Georgetowns (4.0). Also the rankings of Duke, Northwestern and Hopkins are above the rankings of all the "new ivys" with the exception of Wash U which we know only recently arrived on the scene. Berkeley and Georgetown are in the upper half of the "new ivy" pack with at least 9 "new ivy" schools ranked below them. It is just very difficult to believe that Virginia, UCLA, Michigan,Tufts, North Carolina, Rochester, NYU, Boston College and RPI are "new ivys" and Berkeley and Georgetown are also-rans.</p>
<p>For the Liberal Arts Schools:</p>
<ol>
<li> (4.7) * Williams</li>
<li> (4.7) * Amherst</li>
<li> (4.6) * Swarthmore</li>
<li> (4.6) ??? Wellesley</li>
<li> (4.4) ??? Carleton</li>
<li> (4.4) n Bowdoin</li>
<li> (4.3) n Pomona</li>
<li> (4.2) ??? Haverford</li>
<li> (4.3) * Middlebury</li>
<li>(4.0) ??? McKenna</li>
<li>(4.1) n Davidson</li>
<li><p>(4.3) * Wesleyan</p></li>
<li><p>(4.0) n Colgate</p></li>
<li><p>(4.1) n Harvey Mudd</p></li>
<li><p>(4.0) n Colby</p></li>
<li><p>(4.0) n Macalester</p></li>
<li><p>(3.7) n Kenyon</p></li>
<li><p>(3.4) n Skidmore</p></li>
<li><p>(3.9) n Reed</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Wellesley and Carleton are ranked above all the "new ivys" in both overall ranking and reputation. Haverford is behind only Bowdoin and Pomona among the "new ivys" but still is ranked above Wesleyan among the listed "like" top schools. After Haverford, your argument makes some sense.</p>
<p>And then to use Werner's method of *, N & ??? to the Brody "prestige" ratings:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard*</li>
<li>Princeton*</li>
<li>Yale*</li>
<li>Stanford*</li>
<li>Dartmouth*</li>
<li>MIT*</li>
<li>Amherst*</li>
<li>Williams*</li>
<li>Columbia*</li>
<li>CalTech*</li>
<li>Brown*</li>
<li>Duke ???</li>
<li>Penn*</li>
<li>Chicago*</li>
<li>Swat*</li>
<li>Northwestern???</li>
<li>Cornell*</li>
<li>JHU ???</li>
<li>Cal-Berkeley???</li>
<li>Bowdoin N</li>
<li>Georgetown ???</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd N</li>
<li>Michigan N</li>
<li>Wellesley ???</li>
<li>WUSTL N</li>
<li>NYU N</li>
<li>Notre Dame N</li>
<li>Carleton ???</li>
<li>UCLA N</li>
<li>Claremont McKenna???</li>
<li>UVa N</li>
<li>Pomona N</li>
<li>Middlebury *</li>
<li>Vassar ???</li>
<li>Colgate N</li>
<li>Wisconsin ???</li>
<li>UNC N</li>
<li>William & Mary ???</li>
<li>Vanderbilt N</li>
<li>Bates ???</li>
<li>Emory N</li>
<li>Smith ???</li>
<li>Wesleyan *</li>
<li>Davidson N</li>
<li>Grinnell ???</li>
<li>Rice N</li>
<li>Colby N</li>
<li>Texas ???</li>
<li>USC ???</li>
<li>Tufts N</li>
</ol>
<p>It's also interesting to note the "overlap schools" when indicated in the article.</p>
<p>Of the Newsweek "new ivies," the following didn't make the Brody prestige list:</p>
<p>BC
CMU
Kenyon
Macalester
Olin Engineering
Reed
RPI
Rochester
Skidmore</p>
<p>Winners and losers in all of this Newsweek latest listing, IMHO:</p>
<p>Winners: RPI, Rochester, NYU, UCLA, Colby, Macalester, Reed, UNC </p>
<p>Big Time Winners: Kenyon, Skidmore, Olin, Vanderbilt</p>
<p>Losers: Duke, Georgetown, Carleton, Claremont/McKenna, Northwestern, JHU, Vassar, Hamilton</p>
<p>Big Time Losers: Haverford, Washington & Lee</p>
<p>"But we already knew that about them schools" in the Newsweek list: Bowdoin, Harvey Mudd, WUSTL, Notre Dame, UVa, Colgate, Emory, Davidson, Rice, CMU, Tufts and BC.</p>
<p>Again, all of this is IMHO.</p>