<p>Dartmouth is certainly not overrated. If anything, it's underrated. Just look at all the people that insist on bashing it on its own forum on this website!</p>
<p>Underrated- Iowa, George Washington, Case Western
Overrated- eh</p>
<p>GW is underrated because on US news, they are hurt because they don't have many full-time profs, mainly because a lot of the profs are gov't workers and businessmen.</p>
<p>yep probably true, although its not WAY underrated IMHO, just a tad. i think it might be interesting to discuss what are the criteria for an "elite school"...If selectivity is the main qualification, then the Ranking system proposed several times on this board elsewhere is appropriate, however if we rank schools by their actual academic merit (as i believe we should), the ranking system should be re-ranked. Maybe we can rework the top. this is how mine would look:</p>
<ol>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford </li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Duke/Harvard</li>
<li>Columbia/University of Pennsylvania/Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>University of Chicago </li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Brown/Cornell</li>
<li> Northwestern/Dartmouth</li>
<li>CMU/UVA</li>
</ol>
<p>Some of the 11-20s in no particular order:
UND, UCLA, Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, UCB, UMich, Tufts, UNC, USC, William and Mary, Wake Forest, Caltech (maybe)</p>
<p>Here are my rationales:</p>
<h1>1: Princeton is the best of the best, the students are top, the faculty are top in the fields, and this is across the board. The campus is marvelous, the setting is ideal and academic, and their philosophy makes perfect sense (Borrowed a lot from the Oxford model)</h1>
<h1>2: Stanford is similar to Princeton in many ways (since it was founded by people with a PU affiliation). Their bright students and top faculty are known for "normal" character despite the caliber of the institution, a unique quality in 2004. The reason they are 2 and not 1 is the overall philosophy of Princeton, it seems to be more pervasive. Both Princeton and Stanford produce excellant research as well</h1>
<h1>3: Yale gets the edge over the 4s because its so solid all around. Its a bit lower than Princeton and Stanford because to me it doesnt have the same focus, and it has more week points in its academic departments, however the faculty and students are quite good and so are their professional school admissions rates</h1>
<h1>4: These schools standout compared to the rest of the country, largely because of the students. Both have top notch faculty, but the students set them apart. Why bump harvard down? To me their undergraduate programs are not consistant with their graduate school dominance and i felt their undergraduate opportunities are not on par with Princeton Stanford or Yale. I initially had Columbia at T-4 but bumped it down for being too strict on the core</h1>
<p>5: These schools excell despite their admissions rates (Columbia being the exception to the admissions rate thing). Columbia is here because of the faculty to a large extent, they are leaders in many fields, but are hurt because many of their top faculty dont affiliate with undergraduates. Having spent a good deal of time their and talked to Honors students, i dont feel they offer the same opportunities as a Princeton. Hopkins gets the bump because this is a ranking based on academics, and anyone in academia (or government, business, law, medicine (etc) for that matter) will tell you they have some of the best programs around. The opportunities available to undergraduates are tops. They are hurt a bit because of Bmore, but are boosted, not hurt, by grade deflation. UPenn i agree with USNWR, and probably could have been higher but is hurt by having the opportunities for undergrads, but not enough have access. </p>
<h1>6/7: Both UChic and Gtown as has been discussed warrant more respect than they get. They excell at so many levels, despite their weaker admissions numbers and I felt that their academic excellence, the way they prepare their students for the Real World, merits a higher ranking. I have UChicago the edge because i felt they are more thoroughly elite across the board, whereas Gtown has some weaker points</h1>
<h1>8: MIT is a fantastic school with amazing faculty and brilliant students. However, they are remarkably lop-sided and I dont think it would be fair to the other schools on this list to give them as a high a ranking, when they simply cannot compete in the humanities and social sciences (obviously), while Princeton, Duke and Hopkins to name a few can compete on the hard sciences and engineering.</h1>
<h1>9: Brown and Cornell are both excellent institutions who may catch a bad wrap because they are affiliated with the very top. Cornell isnt at the very top mainly because they are probably only top 3 or 5 in a handful of categories, but are very solid for the most part (with some weak points). Brown is where it is because of the past few years they've lost some faculty, and their admissions standards are odd, but overall it offers a unique and excellent undergraduate experience</h1>
<h1>10: These two schools seperate themselves from the 11-20s because of their ability to "make it happen" for undergraduates. However, they lack some of the commitment to programs particularly in research and science/math, that would put them even higher.</h1>
<h1>11: These two schools i chose to rank though out of the top 10 because they are both quite good and worthy of distinction from their peers. The main issue here is that CMU could offer more to the humanities (though they try hard to lump with hard science and engineering through interdisciplinary programs) and dont have the same dominance across the board in their professional production. UVA stands out to me among the top publics because it is a unique among them for research and can claim to be a top 3 or 5 in a few disciplines (history in particular, they are quite strong)</h1>
<p>Feel free to debate any of these with me, i'd love to edit my list and improve upon it</p>
<p>Any reasons why WUSTL would not be in the 11-20 category.</p>
<p>Your reasons for Dartmouth are exactly why it is underrated. What does research have to do with undergraduate excellence? It is exactly because Dartmouth is committed to undergraduates that it is a better school than people caught up with how often a school gets mentioned on the news want to give it credit for (can't speak for Northwestern, so I won't).</p>
<p>yes i forgot WUSTL, that was an accident, but it belongs in the 11-20s category IMHO...what does research have to do with undergraduates? a lot if you ask me. When i am talking about research i dont just mean in science but in social sciences and humanities too. First things first. I have a lot of experience in science research, and i've visited many universities and colleges and toured labs and talked to faculty, etc etc. The facilities at LAC, or any college including Dartmouth, just aren't going to compare to that of a major University. Secondly, with the "credit" it gets from the "news", universities are also able to bring cutting edge work, leading members of the professional communities and access to breakthrough techniques that a college just isnt going to have. Dartmouth doesnt even really belong on this list, it should be compared to Williams and Amherst, where i think it would fare well since its teachers (i use that word on purpose) are as good as they come. The students at Dartmouth are a big part of why it competes with the major universities, because they are, im opinion, among the very best, but they are also helped out by the ivy affiliation. I ranked Dartmouth relatively high, at least i think its high, because Dartmouth does very well in post-bac placement. i think its a fare position, but i would see an arguement for bumping it perhaps as high as 8 (because again they are pretty strong on the liberal arts side, making them a good comparison with MIT)</p>
<p>Learning is doing. If a student wants to get out and try out a profession, or research a particular field deeper, they would be better off doing so at Princeton than Dartmouth. That is not meant to detract from the stellar learning climate of the in-class education, but its truth</p>
<p>
How can you think that Rochester is overrated??? OK, you can say that I have some bias, but I think it is one of the finest instutions in the country. You really can't get such attention at any other institution that is such research oriented.... I think one of the reasons that they are so low is because of their admittance rate. For this year's rankings, the yield will be much higher and they probably won't accept anywhere near 50% for their regular decision. Really what are some of the reasons as to why you think UR is overrated?
But to show that I am just not going against all that you say, I do think that GW is underrated... I believe it has some great programs for people and should be pretty well respected. I would also say that Texas is underrated. I am aware that it is pretty good with business...</p>
<p>Although I don't care for an LAC's I think Reed is really really underated.</p>
<p>I agree. U of Rochester is underrated. Yes the admit rate is high. It has a low yield which demonstrates that it is not a first choice for many accepted students. Is it the weather? Isolated in snowy upstate NY? Besides having excellent science programs, they are highly regarded in poli sci and economics.<br>
The administration is striving to upgrade the reputation to be in the top 20-25 of national universities. Maybe they need to enhance their marketing and take a page out of WUSTL.</p>
<p>I would definately agree that the weather does play some factor in its ranking (which can sound pretty odd)
But look at the success that of their students that go on post-gradution.... They are in the top ten schools that have their kids get their terminal degree. That is definately showing that UR has many motivated students and that UR teaches them to strive for success. I think last year around 20% enrolled in ED (About 180/320) with a 50% admittance rate in RD(~5,000/10,000) and a class of around 970 meaning that their yield was around 18%... Now if this year about 400 enroll via ED and they accept only 3500 (if the "going there" student to "not going there" student ratio is the same as previous years of ~1:6.3, then they accept only 3500/10000 making their acceptance rate a ton "better" at 35% and yield of upwards of 24%... That would boost their rating a ton to what other colleges are like. It's really the weather that's killing them...</p>
<p>It seems to me that if we changed the subject from: What schools are better: I.E,,</p>
<p>Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Brown
Cornell
Penn
Columbia
Dartmouth
ad nauseum bla, bla, bla</p>
<p>And substituted: Who makes the best car: I.E.,</p>
<p>Mercedes
Porsche
BMW
Lexus
Cadillac
Accura
Bentley
ad nauseum bla, bla, bla</p>
<p>This discussion would not change much, other than becoming more meaningful.</p>
<p>"UVA stands out to me among the top publics because it is a unique among them for research and can claim to be a top 3 or 5 in a few disciplines (history in particular, they are quite strong)" - abrandel05</p>
<p>I normally don't join in on any ranking debate...but since you mentioned research and claimed UVa "stands out" above other top publics...</p>
<p>Okay, I'm in. Name one UVa graduate program that is in the top 5? in the top 10?... So far I can only find one - UVa's Law dept ranks #9; behind Michigan(#7) but ahead of UCB(#13).</p>
<p>UVa's graduate programs are anything but stellar... Medical School(#25); Clinical Psychology(#15); Public Health(not ranked); Chemistry(#47); Biological Sciences(#36); Physics(#38); Computer Sciences(#27); Economics(#26); Political Sciences(#34); Sociology(#38); Engineering(#39); Business(#12)... It is way behind UCB, Michigan or even Wisconsin in this category, all three truly have many top graduate programs in the US.</p>
<p>And what about UVa's famous history department? It's indeed one of the top programs(#15), but not better than UCB(#3), Michigan(#5) or Wisconsin(#10).</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. UVa is an excellent institution. It deserves to be ranked right up there, but not for the reason you mentioned. It's certainly not the best in research among top publics.</p>
<p>W&M is underrated I believe. We are probably one of the most efficient schools with our funding, and our funding will be increased soon. (W&M faculty salaries rank in the 25th percentile of peer institution... wow.)</p>
<p>and we have way too much grade deflation. =(</p>
<p>Ok Ill give you UC Berkley, that was a mistake on my part, it belongs at at least the same level as UVA, i missed that one, but remember we arent using conventional rankings for their programs, so the ranks you have there for UVAs departments are not usable. My reference to "top programs" was if we made up ranks for them, not meant to adhere to any already out there rank. The departmental ranks by USNWR and its constituents are horrendous and if you talk to people in the field, often way off base. But yes your right, UCB and UVA should be tied, throw UMICH Honors in there too, UWMadison is a step below but not too far</p>
<p>abrandel05,
I'm not questioning your ranking which I presume is comparing undergraduate programs. But if you measure research, you will have to tie in the graduate programs as well. The graduate rankings then become relevant. Btw, reseach was the only reason you gave for ranking UVa as #11.</p>
<p>I'm just saying that UVa is not better in research than UCB, Michigan or even Wisconsin. Btw, Michigan has one of the top undergraduate research programs (UROP) in the country.</p>
<p>Georgetown, Duke, Johns Hopkins and Penn are way too high...Michigan and MIT are way too low. Otherwise, I like your rating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can speak for Northwestern and I like where's it's ranked (well, maybe swap with Brown?). :) </p>
<p>Northwestern is pretty balanced and good across many things. Of the 6 schools (art sci, engineering, journalism, communication, education, and music), journalism is #1, communication is in the top 5 (every major within the school is top 5), education is in the top 10, music is in the top 10, and engineering is ranked #13 (US News undergrad ranking). That's pretty good to have 5 out of 6 schools in the top 15 (population-wise these 5 schools have half the undergrads).</p>
<p>In art sci, some are good and some are okay (relative to top programs). The strong (probably top 10/20) ones that I'd heard of are econ, chemistry, psychology, neurosicene and physiology, sociology, art history, history while from what I'd read/heard, anthropology, physics, foreign languages, math, and statistics are just okay and probably outside top 20.</p>
<p>Schools in California can have the most bias in the world against them, and guess what? We don't care cus we know we're the best.</p>