<p>lol. Not to be an ass. But Penn undergrad really is sub par compared to the others. Even Harvard, who is notorious for its shafting of undergrads. 20 years ago, Penn was below 30th on the ranking, which in it of itself is worthless, but is still a general indicator of the school's success.</p>
<p>^^ lol</p>
<p>that posterx</p>
<p>Strawboy, 20 years ago Duke and WashU were ranked pretty low too. I guess they are able to overcome the past but not Penn.</p>
<p>I love having a great undergraduate education where brilliant professors know me on a first-name basis and even go out drinking with me. Or at least I loved it when I thought i twas a good undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Thank god you people have shown me the light.</p>
<p>Federal Science & Engineering Research Spending , per student 2004/FY03 (National Science Foundation)</p>
<p>Massachusetts Institute of Technology $41k
Yale University $30k
University of Pennsylvania $23k
Harvard University $21k
Dartmouth $21k
Columbia University $20k
Princeton $17k
Cornell University $14k (note, some of this at Cornell's medical school which is 300 miles away)
Brown $11k
University of California at Berkeley $7k
New York University $5k</p>
<p>Note: When adjusted for the relative number of science students/majors, the ranking looks a bit different. Example: MIT is 90% science students, so it would fall, while Yale is maybe 25-30%, so it would rise.</p>
<p>SAT Range 25/75 percentile
verbal; math and respective national rank</p>
<p>Harvard University 700-790;700-790 2
Yale University 700-780;700-780 4
Princeton University 680-770;690-790 6
Dartmouth College 670-770;690-780 8
Columbia University 670-760;670-780 11
University of Pennsylvania 650-740;680-760 19
Brown University 650-760;660-760 19
Cornell University 630-730;660-760 24</p>
<p>source? these stats do not agree with those posted on collegeboard and other sites.</p>
<p>Source is CEEB 2004, as cited in MUP Center's 2006 report.</p>
<p>PosterX, I think you had some interesting comments, but this one is a question mark:</p>
<p>?
you said:
"Stanford is very good, but at the undergraduate level I don't think it quite makes it into the top ten because it is too large. It's also gives out merit scholarships and placements based on athletics, which none of the other top 10 schools do, and which hurts its overall quality. I would still put it in the top 20, along with places like Dartmouth, Cornell, Harvey Mudd, Pomona, Haverford, Chicago and Columbia."</p>
<p>Stanford has a smaller class than most of the Ivies, and a ~1,600 per admitted class, it's not exactly huge. Also, they only have need-based scholarships, no merit. And while athletes do get in, not in big enough numbers to skew the admissions class. IMHO.</p>
<p>Hahvahd
Yale
Princeton
Columbia
Penn
Dartmouth
Cornell
Brown</p>
<p>first tier:</p>
<h2>Harvard - most talented undergraduate student body. most distinguished faculty. tops in the humanities, biological and physical sciences, and social sciences. tops in professional education - law, business, medicine. best brand name.</h2>
<p>second tier:</p>
<p>Yale - strong in the humanities and the arts but weak in physical sciences. second-class business school.</p>
<h2>Princeton - strong all around in arts and sciences but no professional schools.</h2>
<p>third tier:</p>
<h2>strong comprehensive research universities with good graduate and professional schools - Columbia, Penn, Cornell</h2>
<p>fourth tier:</p>
<p>liberal arts colleges with weak research programs, limited graduate/professional programs - Brown, Dartmouth</p>
<p>^^^ Not even worth discussing. </p>
<p>Yale
Princeton
Harvard
Brown
Dartmouth
Columbia
Penn
Cornell</p>
<p>NYTimes: You Don't Go to Harvard For The Teaching </p>
<p>"It’s well known that there are many other colleges where students are much more satisfied with their academic experience [than they are at Harvard]"</p>
<p>"The nation’s leading research universities have been looking for ways to better balance research and teaching for the past decade. Some institutions, like Yale and Princeton, are known for their commitment to both."</p>
<p>Hmmmm.....</p>
<p>1) Cornell.</p>
<p>Guess where I'm going? ;-)</p>
<p>Seriously though, it's difficult to simply rank the colleges, it depends on what field you're going into. For instance, Harvard Engineering isn't reputed to be as good as Cornell Engineering, Penn Business beats every other Ivy, etc. It all depends on what you're looking for in a school.</p>
<p>Everyone who's reading these rankings, don't take them too seriously, it's more of a fun game, where everyone demonstrates their own biases regarding 8 great universities.</p>
<p>ncody since when is a liberal arts environment with more environment make Brown and Dartmouth bad schools? Some may consider that an advantage at the undergraduate college.</p>
<p>A liberal arts curriculum is actually very advantageous, which is what makes Brown and Dartmouth so appealing. You're going for higher level learning, and nothing more, and the undergraduate level. Does it honestly matter what graduate facilities and programs the school offers when you're doing undergraduate work? Unless you are specifically doing a five-year continuous masters, then it does matter, but for most it doesn't. This is why I'm not in favor of cumulative rankings; a single ranking that tells me nothing, but rankings in separate categories tells me a lot. Then, I can pick out schools based on what is important to me.</p>
<p>they all suck.</p>
<p>Bob Jones University>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all ivies</p>
<p>Yes, Harvard has a powerful name, but if 18-year-olds are mature enough to look beyond that (and many are), the often realize that learning and the overall undergraduate experience are far superior at other places.</p>
<p>The NYTimes recently published an article on the teaching troubles at Harvard.</p>
<p>Full article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/education/10harvard.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/education/10harvard.html</a></p>
<p>Fair Use Excerpt:</p>
<p>"Joshua Billings is majoring in German and the classics. He says he has been fortunate to learn from great scholars who are also great teachers. But he also says that he did not learn much from two large lecture courses he took to satisfy requirements. He was one of about 500 students in one social sciences course led by a junior faculty member whose lectures, Mr. Billings said, were disorganized, repetitive and incredibly reductive.</p>
<p>We read good stuff, but I dont think the lectures added anything, he said. People were sitting there doing e-mails on their laptops.</p>
<p>He worked hard, he said, to get into small freshman and graduate seminars taught by renowned scholars. ... But, he added, he believes his experience is not the norm for Harvard undergraduates. I think many people spend a great deal of their time in large lecture classes, have little direct contact with professors, and are frustrated by poorly trained teaching fellows, he said."</p>
<p>This is pretty damning commentary, to say the least. You'll get better teaching at Yale, Dartmouth, or dozens of other places.</p>
<p>greatlakes is right. At Harvard, there are so many classes with 150 students. It's just pathetic, but you'll never find that at Dartmouth or Brown. I don't know about Yale, though, but I'd expect the same there.</p>