@merc81: And just to show how little spending per student means, at least at the LAC level, Amherst has had the worst science facilities in NESCAC for the last twenty years and it’s done nothing to its USNews ranking.
Okay, for fun, I would put Stanford as co-equal with Harvard. I would also move Brown above Cornell.
Then, for entertainment value, I would put Penn, Columbia and Chicago as co-equals, one notch above Duke. lol
If the list is by “prestige,” I’d move Chicago way down. No way it’s equal to something Columbia. Maybe among current kids, but not among those that have been in the business world for any amount of time (i.e., the decision makers).
Chicago simply doesn’t have the history to be ranked up that high. It was only a few years ago that it had a roughly 50% acceptance rate.
It’s managed to “work” the US News numbers by a lot of marketing, mass mailings, etc. to drive applications up and thus acceptance rate down. But this is a new thing. U of C needs a few decades to prove itself before it can be considered as prestigious as schools that have been prestigious for 200 years.
@8bagels Exactly, that’s why I put Chicago at 9, just one above its city counterpart NU
As far as US News rankings, those are easy to crack. If you just look at selectivity and endowment (per student endowment), you pretty much have their lists (National and National LACs).
There’s a few exceptions, but not many. They are basically just numerical lists of the most selective, best endowed colleges.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
@Much2learn I put Brown where it is because its lack of a really strong area. It also has a lower endowment when compared to the top 10 universities. Its acceptance rate is also where it is because of its inclusion in the Ivy league. Its a fantastic school and I wouldve applied for sure, but I think its well placed
lol
“It was only a few years ago that [Chicago] had a roughly 50% acceptance rate” (22)
During which years specifically? My research indicates that UC accepted one out of three in the late 1990s.
ND at 11, peeeshaw…
I think 50 was a little exaggerated but it was 41% in 2008
U of Cs acceptance rate as late as 2005 was 40.3%
They then hired a new Dean of Admissions, an expensive marketing company (Royall & Company), adopted the Common Application, started engaging in mass mailings, etc. and in 10 year drove the admit rate down.
Other schools have done the same. USC probably is the biggest example. They have been a marketing miracle, going from a glorified community college to a Top 25 in relatively short amount of time.
It’s always great how these threads devolve into a bunch of “my college could totally beat up your college” skirmishes.
Fiske reported UC’s acceptance rate at 33% in their 1999 edition. SATs: 1250-1460 (CR+M).
I think UChicago was underrated for years because they didn’t really play the ranking game. They have always gotten brilliant students. I think the 200 year old schools just don’t like upstarts from the Midwest. I have no dog in this hunt (no attendance for me or my kids at the top universities on this list), but I think U Chicago actually belongs above Duke & Penn.
From the official U of Chicago magazine, circa 1999:
“For years, the College’s acceptance rate—60 percent or more—has been significantly higher than that of many of the University’s peers, a number of which have acceptance rates as low as 20 percent. This year, for the first time perhaps ever, the College will admit fewer than half its applicants.”
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/9904/html/curriculum.htm
Note the last sentence in the quote above.
I rank this ranking #29 out of the 189 rankings I rank. Frankly.
That puts me in the top 20% @2muchquan haha
@8bagels “Now add in the WASP schools for a complete list!”
What are “the WASP schools”?
Yes, but UChicago had a VERY self selecting applicant pool, too. My dad said when he heard D2 was considering applying, “That is where the eggheads go!” Then he looked speculatively at D2, and slowly nodded. 
They were one of the last major universities to go to the Common App, too.