<p>OK! I also have friends who attend ASU and since I think very highly of them, I tend to see ASU through glasses that are a bit rosier.</p>
<p>Xiggi- The ASU Application is different than the Barrett Honors College Application, which you fill out only AFTER you've been accepted to the University. I've only done the ASU app so far...</p>
<p>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>Abrandel, I have seen a number of these lists and I find that it is difficult to really assess them. An example of why this is the case is the University of Chicago which is universally considered to have one of the finest undergraduate programs. Having lived in Chicago/Hyde Park for a number of years; H went to Uof C for graduate work, I have spent a lot of time on the campus perusing both academic and other offerings. I do not believe it is underrated at all. It does have top rate academics, but the environment is not the same as many other schools that are just better rounded in terms of student body and interests. Not to say U of C is not trying to improve in this area. They have maintained a football team and have a great host of ECs for the student, but with the workload and type of students it has, it just is a much more focused place academically. Now if that is what you want, that is a nirvana, and it would be ranked first. But most kids want more in a school than this. Also many of the "tech" school are "underrated" for the same reason--schools like Case Western, Rensselaer, Rochester, to name a few. </p>
<p>I have always personally believed that Yale and Vassar were overrated with respect to their "aura" due to the the town/gown relationships. Now, I was just at Vassar with a bunch of kids a few weeks ago, and the school was without a doubt first rate. My own son has just been accepted to Yale, and I could not be happier. But neither New Haven nor Poughkepsie are towns that felt that their famous schools have treated them well, unlike a number of towns and communities that are proud to be a part of the college. I have known kids who have vehemently dissed JHU and Cornell as cut throat premed factories and hated the schools despite their very high rankings, and these are products of those very schools, and this in a number that stands out from the usual complainers. I would hesitate to recommend my alma mater to anyone for a variety of reasons even though it is a top ranked school, and this is a real issue, not just to me but to the college itself, as it is mentioned frequently in its magazine and alum mailings. (but never in its advertising materials to potential applicants!) When I visited schools with my oldest son, he picked up on many characteristics of some selective schools independent of the descriptions in the guides, and some of these things were enough for him to cross the schools off his list despite the fact that they were top rated schools where he had an "in" (he was an athlete). Those very traits ,however, are the same ones cherished by a different student and the reason why those schools are on the top of that list. </p>
<p>I am not sure what combination of things makes a school top rated. Not necessarily selectivity--there are many schools that are rated far lower or higher than that index. There is the "name" value, the academics, the amenties, many different things, but I certainly cannot come up with a composite. It would be interesting if you could come up with some system that would take all of these things into account.</p>
<p>Jamimom-</p>
<p>I totally agree there is no way to really rank any institution. Certainly, a clumping method would be better suited for such evaluation of relative academic strength, i agree, and my intention in drawing up the list was in no way to create a finite hierarchy of academic prowess between the nations finest schools. I would like to add to your comments that i think the college experience and the "value" of any particular education is very much what the students makes of it, and as such every student will have a different list. So, yes i agree with you whole heartedly, this is merely my list of who I feel offers the most, regardless of what the student does with it. Certainly we all have our own lists and none is perfect</p>
<p>I just really love party school, hence ASU making my list. As for putting Michigan on there, its really only because of the rivalry with the Buckeyes.</p>