<p>Vandy has quite a bit of a drinking/Greek scene. NU has a substantial Greek scene, but it's much, much smaller, and you'll have less drinking issues there. Also, Northwestern is ridiculously good in terms of the social sciences.</p>
<p>NewEngSocSciMan:</p>
<p>I'm curious, have you ever even been on the Vanderbilt campus? The poster is looking for opinions from people who are personally familiar with these two schools.</p>
<hr>
<p>US News and World Report 2008:</p>
<p>Northwestern % students in fraternities: 32%
Northwestern % students in sororities: 38%</p>
<p>Vanderbilt % students in fraternities: 34%
Vanderbilt % students in sororities: 50%</p>
<p>I don't know about the housing situation at Northwestern, but at Vanderbilt, only a few officers in the fraternities (max 6) actually live in the houses, and none of the sorority members do. They live in the dorms.</p>
<p>There is too much drinking, IMO, on both campuses. I'm told (by current undergraduates) that it is easily avoidable, however, on both campuses.</p>
<p>NU has one of the top econ programs in the nation (just underneath those at UChicago, Stanford, MIT, Harvard ).</p>
<p>As for psych NUs program is considered top 20-25 (not as strong as its sociology program).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Collegebound, there is close to a 100 point difference between SAT ranges and averages at Caltech (1470-1570) and Stanford (1340-1540). I guess Stanford students are far inferior to Caltech students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldnt say far but overall, yes.</p>
<p>Otoh, Caltech has much smaller class sizes, offers full merit schollies and doesn't have to worry about fielding a mass of competitive sports teams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there is close to a 100 point difference between SAT ranges and averages at Caltechand Stanford. I guess Stanford students are far inferior to Caltech students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actually i would say yes, even though he never used the phrase "far inferior." he said "substantially higher."</p>
<p>stanford, despite its existent prestige, is hardly very selective despite having a low admit rate. Duke has higher test scores than Stanford, and Stanford is largely comprised of in-state students, indicating that it's selectivity is largely derived from its status as a "must apply" for any good student in california.</p>
<p>Caltech is a ridiculously elite institution (and is also very small) and I would certainly contend that caltech students on the whole are greatly superior to stanford's student body as a whole.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is too much drinking, IMO, on both campuses. I'm told (by current undergraduates) that it is easily avoidable, however, on both campuses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i would agree with what you said but i don't think there is "too much" drinking. Dartmouth, Princeton, and Duke are all known for their balanced social scenes and it is a big reason why many of these schools are picked over schools with reputations for being less fun, e.g. columbia or university of chicago.</p>
<p>NU econ is good, but as for "just below Stanford, harvard, uchicago, MIT," i think it is safe to assume that honor would sooner go to Princeton, Berkeley, Penn, Columbia, Yale...</p>
<p>
[quote]
stanford, despite its existent prestige, is hardly very selective despite having a low admit rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>... lol</p>
<p>
[quote]
Duke has higher test scores than Stanford
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, because test scores are all that go into admissions, right?</p>
<p>(If Stanford wanted an average of 2300 on the SAT, it could. Hell, I see plenty of people on CC with 2350+ rejected from Stanford. It cares a lot more about other factors than SAT, and we all know how much Duke loves the SAT.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford is largely comprised of in-state students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's simply a regional inevitability. Northeastern schools tend to attract more students from the northeast. I'd bet that UChicago and NU have a large portion of Chicago students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
indicating that it's selectivity is largely derived from its status as a "must apply" for any good student in california.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You really can't make such conclusions with so little information. It's obviously not a "must apply" for any good student in CA, or else it'd have a lot more students applying. Plenty of great students don't apply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Caltech is a ridiculously elite institution (and is also very small) and I would certainly contend that caltech students on the whole are greatly superior to stanford's student body as a whole.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, it's precisely this sort of comments that make me really dislike CC sometimes...</p>
<p>
[quote]
NU econ is good, but as for "just below Stanford, harvard, uchicago, MIT," i think it is safe to assume that honor would sooner go to Princeton, Berkeley, Penn, Columbia, Yale...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, NU econ is really that good. Probably better than MIT, possibly worse than Columbia. Berkeley, MIT, and Penn all have business schools that take away from the strength of their econ programs as many econ students are really pre-business. NU is exceptionally strong in this regard, offering some of the best business qualities and premier economics education together.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, NU econ is really that good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think anyone's contending that it isn't good. It's definitely a top-ten program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Probably better than MIT, possibly worse than Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would contend the opposite.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley, MIT, and Penn all have business schools that take away from the strength of their econ programs as many econ students are really pre-business.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn't detract from their econ programs at all. If anything, it improves them, as the business program attracts a lot of students. Many of the students who go to Berkeley intending to do business end up not getting in and doing econ instead.</p>
<p>
[quote]
NU is exceptionally strong in this regard, offering some of the best business qualities and premier economics education together.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The exact same can be said of the other schools that ilovebagels listed, perhaps even more so than NU.</p>
<p>Here's the top fifteen from the NRC ranking:</p>
<p>1 Harvard 4.95
2 Chicago 4.95
3 MIT 4.93
4 Stanford 4.92
5 Princeton 4.84
6 Yale 4.70
7 Cal Berkeley 4.55
8 Penn 4.43
9 Northwestern 4.39
10 Minnesota 4.22
11 UCLA 4.12
12 Columbia 4.07
13 Michigan 4.03
14 Rochester 4.01
15 Wisconsin 3.93</p>
<p>And the undergrad ranking from Gourman:</p>
<p>MIT
Chicago
Stanford
Princeton
Harvard
Yale
U Minnesota
U Penn
U Wisc Madison
UC Berkeley
Northwestern
U Rochester
Columbia
UCLA
U Michigan Ann Arbor</p>
<p>Seems my perceptions were about right.</p>
<p>At the undergrad level we're really quibbling about subtle differences between top schools. If you look at the grad level, Northwestern was ranked 8th nationally in the last US News review, just ahead of Penn (9th) and a few ahead of Columbia (11th).</p>
<p>If you look at publications in top economics journals, Northwestern does even better, ranking just behind Harvard, Chicago and MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[Stanford]cares a lot more about other factors than SAT
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ohhh... and caltech doesn't? you always make these arguments based on anecdotal testimony and qualitative assertion, while your arguments are always belied by the facts and available data.</p>
<p>there is no way that you can make a case that Stanford, a school with 44% in state students and an SAT range of 1340-1540 is not "substantially" less selective than caltech, a specialty engineering school with 32% in-state students and an SAT range of 1470-1570, where 25% of the students have a perfect math score on the SAT.</p>
<p>but oh, that's right, you can point to unsourcable, apocryphal conjecture that stanford for some reason admits less qualified applicants than caltech by choice, because they "care more" about other factors, in your opinion.</p>
<p>well, actually, let's look at admissions considerations for each school:</p>
<p>Stanford:
SS record: V. important
Class rank: V. important
GPA: V. important
Standardized test scores: V. important</p>
<p>Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2006-2007</p>
<p>Caltech:
SS record: V. important
Class rank: considered
Standardized test scores: V. important</p>
<p>so it seems your unfounded assertions are in fact explicitly inaccurate, straight from the admissions offices themselves</p>
<p>
[quote]
ohhh... and caltech doesn't?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not saying it doesn't. The omitted clause in that sentence was "than SAT," not "than Caltech."</p>
<p>
[quote]
you always make these arguments based on anecdotal testimony and qualitative assertion, while your arguments are always belied by the facts and available data.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Anecdotal testimony? Where have I said any anecdotes? By the way, I hope you realize the inherent illogicality of what you just said -- if something is a "qualitative assertion," it cannot be described by quantitative data.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there is no way that you can make a case that Stanford, a school with 44% in state students and an SAT range of 1340-1540 is not "substantially" less selective than caltech, a specialty engineering school with 32% in-state students and an SAT range of 1470-1570, where 25% of the students have a perfect math score on the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You really don't seem to know how to interpret numbers very much. (By the way, Stanford has 25% of its students with higher than a 780 on SAT, which is about 400 students, way higher than Caltech's incoming class. I'm sure Stanford has more perfect-scorers on the math section than Caltech.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
you can point to unsourcable, apocryphal conjecture that stanford for some reason admits less qualified applicants than caltech by choice
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Less qualified? You keep making these conclusions, and none of it makes sense. Your definition of qualified is numbers, which is clearly not the definition of those at Stanford, or at Caltech, or of counselors, students, college officers -- hell, of anyone on this site. You made this same argument about NU, but sorry to tell you, it still doesn't work. You're just going to have to deal with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
because they "care more" about other factors, in your opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's common knowledge. Here's one article on it:</p>
<p>Stanford clearly cares about more than just SAT scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so it seems your unfounded assertions are in fact explicitly inaccurate, straight from the admissions offices themselves
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, you jump to conclusions without thinking. For one, the scale offered by the CDS is small; most of the factors are going to be "very important," but that's the highest you can go on the scale. For another, Stanford puts all as "very important" because one factor can outweigh another; it all depends on the student. So if the student doesn't have a very high math score, but does have excellent ECs and honors/awards, he/she could get into Stanford. They couldn't get into Caltech. In contrast, Caltech will take students who simply have a high math score, without many ECs/honors/awards. And of course they lower the bar for females. It's clear that Stanford is picking the right people, given the sort of people they produce.</p>
<p>Stanford is more selective than Caltech. You'd be hard-pressed to find many people worth their salt on admissions who'd disagree with that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anecdotal testimony? Where have I said any anecdotes?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Hell, I see plenty of people on CC with 2350+ rejected from Stanford."</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, Stanford has 25% of its students with higher than a 780 on SAT, which is about 400 students, way higher than Caltech's incoming class.
[/quote]
what does this have to do with anything, stanford is seven and a half times the size of caltech, where did you read me say "the worst student at caltech is better than the best student at stanford" ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
our definition of qualified is numbers, which is clearly not the definition of those at Stanford, or at Caltech,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>correct me if i'm wrong but did they both not list standardized testing scores as a "very important" factor in admissions?</p>
<p>i skimmed the article, your assumptions are predicated on the idea that stanford cares about well-rounded students while caltech does not, which is clearly inaccurate. knowing that they both weigh a well-rounded application into their admissions criteria, there is no reason for stanford to then have significantly lower test scores other than the fact that admissions there is less competitive than at caltech, which i don't even know how (or why) you would argue with.</p>
<p>anyway, i don't care enough about this argument to continue it. you are clearly in the wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
Anecdotal testimony? Where have I said any anecdotes?</p>
<p>"Hell, I see plenty of people on CC with 2350+ rejected from Stanford."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Notice that I said that in parentheses; as such, it's an aside, not supposed to be support for my claims.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what does this have to do with anything, stanford is seven and a half times the size of caltech, where did you read me say "the worst student at caltech is better than the best student at stanford" ?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The idea is, Stanford has Caltech-caliber students and many more students who excel in other areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
correct me if i'm wrong but did they both not list standardized testing scores as a "very important" factor in admissions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, what is so difficult to understand? *Standardized test scores are not the only thing that goes into admissions and thus are not the only factor in determining whether a student is "qualified."<a href="By%20the%20way,%20notice%20that%20it's%20qualified,%20not%20quantified;%20students%20need%20qualities,%20not%20just%20numbers.">/I</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
your assumptions are predicated on the idea that stanford cares about well-rounded students while caltech does not, which is clearly inaccurate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that Caltech does not care about well-rounded students, so yeah, what you just said is inaccurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you are clearly in the wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As soon as you come up with some convincing evidence, perhaps I might take your argument (which, as it stands, is clearly nonsensical, both by my judgment and by the judgment of those who know even a little bit about admissions, which you apparently don't) a bit more seriously.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The idea is, Stanford has Caltech-caliber students and many more students who excel in other areas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>for once, we agree, but i wasn't trying to claim otherwise if that's what it sounded like</p>
<p>^^ it did.</p>
<p>Such minute differences don't have an effect on undergrad, really. Do you really think a Georgetown professor would simply be less able to explain low-level economic theory than an ivy league prof?</p>
<p>I think the difference lies largely in the surrounding opportunities rather than in the basic education.</p>
<p>elsijfdl,</p>
<p>stanford is way more competitive than its stats indicate. when i was at stanford, the two girls that i often did group projects with were caltech grads. they also had a good friend from caltech. i am sure they all had very high stats but i doubt they were well-rounded enough to get into stanford. also, my friend (northwestern grad) finished his phd at caltech couple years ago. we hung out couple times in Pasadena and to him, caltech students were kinda weird socially. based on my anecdotal experience, caltech seems to care less about ECs.</p>
<p>elsijfdl, Caltech students are not smarter than Stanford students. Caltech places more weight on some criteria and Stanford places more weight on other criteria. Overall, but schools have remarkably accomplished students. Like I always say, it is very naive to rate an entire student body with thousans, if not tens of thousands of students, by simply looking at one criteria.</p>