<p>“I would think that most posters are discussing undergrad not grad.”</p>
<p>Yeah sure. The “lay” person on the street really differentiates between undergrad and graduate schools.</p>
<p>CalTech does not receive much respect because no one outside the STEM fields have heard of it or it is not relevant to their professional background. MIT is also more well-rounded than CalTech.</p>
<p>Tenis,
I was LOLing too when I saw all the U Michigan folks pushing their school onto the list. I know it’s a nice place (and that it’s long been a favorite of the academic voters), but I have great respect and high regard for those colleges that actually are ranked in the Top 20. It’s not like those schools are undeserving of a Top 20 ranking for undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Truth be told, there are probably a dozen or more schools outside of the Top 20 that would have some reasonable basis for making an argument for inclusion. But I wonder what the reaction would be from others if students/alums from Tufts or USC or Wake Forest or Boston College or Tulane or other publics like U North Carolina, W&M, Georgia Tech, U Illinois, U Wisconsin, U Texas, U Florida, Penn State were making similar, repetitive thrusts for Ivy peerage that we regularly get from the U Michigan crowd. Such social climbing gets a little old and it lacks much appreciation for the quality of schools elsewhere. </p>
<p>BTW, are you aware that, for undergraduate education, U Michigan has not ranked ahead of U Virginia ever since USNWR went to a methodology that did more than ask for PA scores? Not once in over two decades. And are you aware that for undergraduate, U Michigan is now the 4th–ranked public university behind UC Berkeley, U Virginia and UCLA? </p>
<p>My advice to U Michigan is to stop looking at UC Berkeley/U Virginia, much less the Ivies, and instead look over your shoulder. U North Carolina is gaining on you. </p>
<p>Whale,
I like your NH ranking and think it represents well the idea that familiarity and proximity breeds an enhanced view of the regional powers that typically follow HYPSM. </p>
<p>Your high positioning of a locally prominent college that has outstanding students and more (Dartmouth) would likely be repeated in every state/region, eg, North Carolina (Duke), Georgia (Emory), Tennessee (Vanderbilt), Texas (Rice), Missouri (Wash U), etc. However, IMO, the one exception is Notre Dame which I think has substantial attraction across the entire nation in the Catholic demographic.</p>
<p>^^Perhaps because many (most?) of us view Cal Tech as a “niche” school, albeit it a very good one, perhaps the best, in its tiny world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its tiny world includes USNWR, which has it ranked #4 for 2010, and if memory serves, placed it at #1 a few years ago.</p>
<p>from NY… prestige based on regional bias/what people are aware of.</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Columbia (Ivy in NYC)</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Michigan (football … and academics)</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Stanford (that good school in Cali)</li>
<li>Duke (Basketball, and academics)</li>
<li>Hopkins</li>
<li>Berkeley (that other good school in Cali)</li>
<li>Northwestern (that is, not Northeastern U)</li>
<li>NYU (the other good school in “the city”)</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>UVA </li>
<li>Penn State (football…)</li>
<li>Syracuse (sports…)</li>
</ol>
<p>^^If your world orbits around USNWR, buy in. I would not want either of my kids to get pidgeon-holed at age 18. Even if they thought Cal Tech was the bomb, I would try to convince them to go to a true university or LAC. What if one decides one’s true love is English, or another language, or international relations, or psychology, or classics, or… I firmly believe that very, very few 18-year olds “know” enough to limit their options, in the positive sense, by choosing to go to Cal Tech. I think it’s a shame that USNWR lumps Cal Tech together with institutions that provide broad-based curricula.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The USNews ranking is NOT perfect. It’s not. And I can at least say that Michigan is superior to Emory, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame. </p>
<p>Berkeley isn’t in the top 20 either. But I can boldly say that Berkeley is at least as good if not better than Cornell, and Cornell is in the top 15.</p>
<p>
None of these schools are as good as Berkeley, for example. However, some of these schools are as good as Emory, Vandi and Notre Dame. USC, for example, isn’t better than Berkeley, but it is as good as Emory and the like.</p>
<p>
This is preposterous. A huge insult to Michigan which is a top school. Michigan is at least as good as Berkeley and Virginia. Not for some programs, but in general, it is as good as Berkeley, more so Virginia and Emory, Vandi and the like. Michigan’s engineering, science, business, etc… are better than many schools in the top 20. If that is so, why would I go for Brown, for example, if I can get a degree from Ross. Ross is highly respected in the banking and finance world. Those Emory, Vandi schools are not as much. hey, wake up!!! The USNews ranking isn’t conclusive. It is not the bible truth for the best undergrad schools in America.</p>
<p>Hawkette, Tenisgh and I never ranked schools on this thread. I merely stated that most universities’ prestige, as far as the lay person is concered, is regional. I listed schools such as Cal, Chicago, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Rice, Texas, UCLA, UNC, USC and UVA etc… as having a great deal of regional prestige. I am not sure why you singled Tenisgh and myself out in this thread. Neither one of us played the ranking game here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley belongs where it does. In truth, it should be ranked lower. It’s fortunate that the silly folks responsible for determining Peer Assessment scores egregiously mistake graduate prestige with undergraduate prestige.</p>
<p>But, both Berkeley and Michigan have very high lay prestige.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My world doesn’t, but many on CC worship at the altar of the rankings. In that view, rankings = prestige, which is what the thread is about. Personally, I think the whole thing is ridiculous.</p>
<p>LasMa, I was trying to transcend the USNWR rankings, without the usual “X is better than Y” argument. I believe, quite simply, that lumping a Cal Tech, or even an MIT, together with broad-based curriculum universities is inappropriate. Folks seem to understand that lumping Juilliard or Berklee, for example, with HYPSM, doesn’t make sense, notwithstanding that Juilliard and Berklee are both more “selective, prestigious, excellent, etc.” than HYPSM in their tiny world.</p>
<p>And for those who say MIT is broad-based, take a look at the number of MIT students who major in fields other than science/math/engineering/economics (50 per class?). Picture being a philosophy major at MIT. If you are not ABSOLUTELY certain that you want to major in science/math/engineering/economics, why would you even consider applying to MIT?</p>
<p>NYC here, I would say common rankings are:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard/MIT</li>
<li>Yale/Stanford</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Columbia (VERY slight nod over #5 ranked schools)</li>
<li>Brown/Penn</li>
<li>Duke/Dartmouth/Amherst/Williams</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>NYU</li>
<li>Good state schools (UVA, UMich, UNC etc, not really Berkeley because it’s too hard to get into OOS)</li>
</ol>
<p>Those are the only ones that anybody really talks about. Nobody really talks much about schools like WUStL, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Chicago etc.</p>
<p>I agree with I think it was interestingguy who said students in NYC have a very love/hate relationship with Columbia (me included). While they appreciate that it is an incredible school and love New York, many by the age of 18 are clamoring for some new scenery and are ultimately turned off by Columbia’s location, regardless of how much they love the city.</p>
<p>pbr: Your point is well taken, and I think it would be doing the world a good deed to eliminate rankings altogether. All too many students fall into the trap of thinking that because CalTech is #4, it would be a better school FOR THEM than whoever is #5 this year. I know a girl who’s auditioning for Juilliard, and the idea that CalTech (or for that matter, Yale) would be a better school for her is absurd. </p>
<p>I must stop reading any thread with the word “rank” or “prestige” in the title; they get me into trouble every time. ;)</p>
<p>
Very few indeed. Perhaps it would comfort you to know that Caltech only enrolls ~230 freshmen a year. </p>
<p>Frankly, I’ve always been a bit irked by people who assume all high schoolers are incompetent and unable to select a career plan. I’ve known my exact career trajectory since high school and am currently a PhD student in that field. Not every student fails at his/her chosen subject or wanders from one career to the next.</p>
<p>It’s a bit disingenuous to imply that Caltech only offers math/science/engineering. That is admittedly its main focus, but the humanities and social science courses offered are excellent – much better than many of those offered at weaker universities. Caltech’s econ program, for example, is quite highly regarded.</p>
<p>
Hear, hear. I am guilty of including UNC in my list because in NC it is considered superior to any university except Harvard, Yale, and Duke, and the OP fussed at me. :(</p>
<p>IBclass06, I admire the Cal Tech admissions staff for its seeming ability to discern those very few who fit the mold. I suspect, however, that if the class were much larger than 230, the retention rate would be much lower. I also admire the general population of high school seniors who seem to self-select themselves out of the Cal Tech admissions pool, notwithstanding its high USNWR ranking.</p>
<p>I did not say, by the way, that “all high schoolers are incompetent and unable to select a career plan.” First, one has nothing to do with the other. Most competent high schoolers have, as yet, been unable to select a career plan. There is nothing wrong with that, and competence does not come into play. Second, your personal experience has nothing to do with the larger population, although as a 53 year-old still figuring out what I want to do with my life, I respect and admire your ability to find a career track that does not elicit self-doubt.</p>
<p>P.S. As I said about MIT, if you are absolutely certain that your career will orbit around science/math/engineering/economics, MIT (or Cal Tech) is a wonderful choice. If you want to belong to a miniscule career minority by focusing on something else, MIT and Cal Tech will undoubtedly fit the bill there, as well. Most of us, however, enjoy peers who have common interests. (Those common interests are the very reason why Cal Tech and MIT attract the folks they do.)</p>
<p>
Oh, I don’t think it has anything to do with the admissions officers. In fact, Caltech has long been known for being by far the most numbers-based of the top privates. </p>
<p>I think it’s simply that Caltech’s relatively small applicant pool (only 4400 applications last year) is highly self-selective. Caltech makes it quite clear how rigorous it is (“drinking from a fire hydrant” seemed to have been included at least a dozen times in their brochures, at least in my memory).</p>
<p>(I do agree that Caltech should not be included among top universities in the USNWR ranking, however. It really is fundamentally different from even MIT.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LoL…</p>
<p>What truth? If there’s a truth about Berkeley, how come you know and many people who actually know about Cal don’t??? Don’t you think that’s odd? </p>
<p>If there’s a truth about Berkeley, we should know it as well, not just you. </p>
<p>
Then how good is a school that does have a so-so prestige???</p>
<p>How would that school send their graduates to top employers???</p>
<p>
There’s a reason why they’re prestigious to lay people, scholars, employers and students. No schools would attain a high level of prestige if it has a so-so standard.</p>
<p>US News has released of a ranking of Best Colleges amongst high school counselors. USNews call it: Best Colleges: High School Counselor Rankings of National Universities. This is entirely a different ranking from the PA portion of the USNews since the correspondents of the said survey are high school counselor, not university professors, deans, provosts or presidents. Here’s the result:</p>
<p>Group 1 (4.9):
Harvard
MIT
Princeton
Yale </p>
<p>Group 2 (4.8):
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Stanford </p>
<p>Group 3 (4.7):
California Institute of Technology
Dartmouth College
Duke University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
University of California–Berkeley
University of Pennsylvania</p>
<p>Group 4 (4.6):
Carnegie Mellon University
University of Chicago
University of Virginia</p>
<p>Group 5 (4.5):
Rice University
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
Washington University in St. Louis</p>
<h2>-</h2>
<p>-</p>
<ul>
<li>GAP -</li>
</ul>
<h2>-</h2>
<h2>-</h2>
<p>Group 6 (4.4):
Boston College
College of William and Mary
Emory University
Georgia Institute of Technology
New York University
Tufts University
University of California–Los Angeles
University of Southern California
Vanderbilt University</p>
<p>In other words, Vanderbilt and Emory are just as good as Group 6. Berkeley is in Group 3, miles away from Vanderbilt and Emory. So, please!!! That’s a no-brainer. It doesn’t need a genius to actually know that Berkeley is head-and-shoulders superior to schools like Emory and Vanderbilt. Please. Let’s stop all this crap that Berkeley is inferior to Emory and Vanderbilt because the USNews general ranking says so. Please!!!</p>
<p>Source: <a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-counselor-rank[/url]”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-counselor-rank</a></p>