<p>Big Ten:</p>
<ol>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Illinois</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>Purdue</li>
<li>Ohio State</li>
<li>Penn State</li>
<li>Minnesota</li>
<li>Indiana</li>
<li>Michigan State</li>
<li>Iowa</li>
</ol>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Trust me, I know exactly who Gerhard Casper is and what he said. (You really don't need to quote him every other post.) But I was talking about overall prestige and selectivity. As I've said, Berkeley is a very respectable university. It's certainly better than second-rate privates like Duke or Penn, but it's just not nearly as good as Stanford.</p>
<p>nyccard, among the educated and knowledgeable, academic quality and prestige are one and the same. Cal is one of the top 10 universities on Earth and by that reckoning, it is one of the most prestigious. But I thought we were discussing actual academic quality.</p>
<p>As for Cal not beaing "nearly as good as" Stanford, it depends on your point of view. I mean, you did refer to Duke and Penn as "second rate" universities, so you are consistant. In the highest circles, Cal is generally considered among the handful of universities that immediately proceed HYPSM. In other words it is not quite as strong as Harvard or Stanford, but it is slightly better than most other top 25 universities. If you feel that there is a big drop in quallity after the top 5 universities, that's fine. But that also means that you respect only 20 or so universities because that's how many universities (including HYPSM) are as good as Duke or Penn.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Academic quality and prestige are positively correlated, but they are NOT "one and the same." Quality of education underdetermines prestige.</p>
<p>Take, for example, the legal education at Stanford vs. Berkeley (Boalt). Presumably, it's pretty much the same at both places. Now compare the number of famous Supreme Court Justices from Stanford vs. Berkeley. The difference is amazing.</p>
<p>I do not judge the quality of a Law school by the number of famous Supreme Court Justices that it has produced. Do you trealize that Duke, Georgetown, NYU and the University of Chicago law schools combined have produced ZERO Supreme Court Justices. That's right, those four "National 14" law schools have not produced a single Supreme Court Justice between them. </p>
<p>But even if the quality of a Law school were indeed determined by the number of Supreme Court Justices it produced, in its entire history, Stanford has produced two Supreme Court Justices whereas Cal has produced one, so there isn't that much of a difference. The Law schools that produced the most Supreme Court Justices are:</p>
<p>Harvard University Law School: 13
Columbia University Law School: 5
Yale University Law School: 5
University of Michigan Law School: 3</p>
<p>But like I said, I would not judge a Law School by how many Supreme Court Justices it has produced. Instead, I would look at professional placement stats, starting salaries, number of major Law firms that recruit at the Law School, number of high level Lawyers who graduate from that Law school, Peer Assessment Scores (both Judges/Lawyers and Law Scholars) etc... From that point of view, Cal (Boalt) is only slightly weaker than Stanford. Like I said, there isn't a big difference between the two. </p>
<p>And I stand by what I said above, in high educated circles, academic quality and prestige are pretty much one and the same. There are a handful of exceptions, but beyond those isolated cases, academic excellence and prestige go hand in hand.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>My bad. I was thinking of people like Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy. But they actually got their BA from Stanford, not their JD. (I've read about them in Stanford literature and just assumed they attended the law school.)</p>
<p>That being said, Harvard, Yale and Stanford Law schools make up the "holy trinity" of legal education. The next three are Chicago, Columbia and NYU. Berkeley (Boalt) is no more or less prestigious than the rest of the top 14.</p>
<p>I still don't believe that academic quality is the the exact same thing as academic prestige. But we can agree to disagree.</p>
<p>Actually nyccard, the term "Holy Trinity" of Law Schools was initially coined in the 1970s, and if you look back then, it was Harvard, Michigan and Yale. Admittedly, in recent years, Stanford has improved a little and Michigan has dropped a little. Today, the "Holy Trinity" of Law Schools are indeed Harvard, Stanford and Yale, but Chicago, Columbia, Michigan (do not forget little old Michigan) and NYU aren't far behind. And the remaining 7 "National 14", are just as formidable. </p>
<p>As far as the the academic excellence vs prestige debate, I agree...let us agree to disagree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Horizon</p>
<ol>
<li>Loyola Chicago</li>
<li>Valparaiso</li>
<li>Butler</li>
<li>UIC</li>
<li>UW-Milwaukee</li>
<li>Detroit Mercy</li>
<li>Cleveland State</li>
<li>Youngstown State</li>
<li>UW-Green Bay</li>
<li>Wright State
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>lmao @ Horizon league even being mentioned. No one, including students of these universities, gives two sh its about these teams, take it from me, a Loyola grad. You know that though. :D</p>
<p>"Big Ten:</p>
<ol>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Illinois</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>Purdue</li>
<li>Ohio State</li>
<li>Penn State</li>
<li>Minnesota</li>
<li>Indiana</li>
<li>Michigan State</li>
<li>Iowa"</li>
</ol>
<p>People40, is this really how you think the teams in the Big Ten rank? These are close to being as bad as Pierre0913's rankings. Northwestern at third? Penn State 7th? Purdue at 5th? While I am sure I will get some debate from several Michigan people on whether or not it would be a large step to put Michigan at first, Northwestern is almost always first.</p>
<p>"...While I am sure I will get some debate from several Michigan people on whether or not it would be a large step to put Michigan at first, Northwestern is almost always first."</p>
<p>jec, in the CC world(as well as in the high school world), your observation would hold and NU would indeed be #1 in the Big 10 and Michigan would be a close #2. In academic circles, Michigan would generaly be considered the heavy hitter among Big 10 schools, with NU being a close second and Wisconsin a close third. In the real world, I would say Michigan and Northwestern would be tied. In terms of overall academics, I would say that Michigan and Northwestern are the top 2 universities in the Big 10, closely followed by UIUC and Wisconsin.</p>
<p>Alex,</p>
<p>LOL. I got a nice giggle from your latest pontification, (“among the educated and knowledgeable, academic quality and prestige are one and the same” in #143). There are plenty of educated and knowledgeable people who absolutely, positively don’t agree with this. The views of those in academia are often waaaaaaaay out of step with what the real world values. </p>
<p>Beyond disagreeing with your statement, many, many, many educated and knowledgeable will disagree on what even constitutes either academic quality and/or prestige. And even more so when the subject is undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Can’t you disguise your promotions of your alma mater any better than this? And in trying to set the standard, can’t you find any better supporting evidence than the 1996 comments of one academic? </p>
<p>Jec,
Re your Big 10 rankings, I would agree with many of your thoughts as applied to the business world. An accurate reflection of the Big Ten hierarchy in the Midwest’s major cities would be something along the lines of:</p>
<p>Northwestern</p>
<p>U Michigan/U Wisconsin/U Illinois
Penn State</p>
<p>Purdue/Minnesota/Michigan State/Ohio State
Indiana/Iowa</p>
<p>Although the first 4-5 are generally acknowledged as the best, this relative ranking will also shift as you move around the Midwest as folks in each state will give a boost to their state universities. Penn State is a little bit of a special case as probably the majority of PSU grads will head to the eastern side of the state which has a lot less familiarity with the people and programs of other Big Ten schools. I should add that the Honors Program at several of the Big Ten universities (Schreyers at PSU and others) or specific programs (Engineering at Purdue, Business at Indiana) are seen by business folks in materially different (stronger) light than the overall university.</p>
<p>As far as rep outside the Midwest, none have exceptional legs though nearly all are familiar names, partially due to their visible sports programs. Northwestern is known as having the strongest student body (pretty clear cut), but the NW name is not accepted in the same way that a HYPSM grad might be and any Big Ten school would likely be at a deficit to the local flagships/good privates in other regions of the USA.</p>
<p>The vast majority of Michigan's departments are ranked above Northwestern's hawkette. There is nothing you can show to dispute that. Once again you can never look beyond the undergraduate ranking of a school by USWR. In the real world, the graduate programs and research are what truly define a great university. Furthermore, that you would put PsU at the same level as the other three schools you mentioned just proves once again that you are totally biased against Michigan. PsU is an afterthought in the entire midwest. It's not even located in the midwest. Nobody in the midwest would EVER mention Penn State as a top school in any self proclaimed "midwest's major cities" hierarchy. That statement is as laughable as your assessment. I will give you some credit though, at least you correctly placed your alma mater in the third category of your thoughts about the Big Ten. In that case the rep of the "visible sports program" is of great importance.</p>
<p>My Big East ranking would be:</p>
<p>Georgetown
Notre Dame
Villanova
Providence
Marquette
Syracuse
UConn
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Louisville
DePaul
Rutgers
Seton Hall
St. Johns
Cincinnati
South Florida</p>
<p>Alf Tupper your placement of Marquette up in the top 6 is ridiculous</p>
<p>Marist was ranked one of the most up and coming schools, and is academically the best school in the MAAC, so why did you put them second to last?</p>
<p>Hawkette, at least I admit which universities are my alma matter. And I don't see why you find it necessary to accuse me of bias. It is possible for one to be objective, even about his own alma matter.</p>
<p>"1. Amherst
2. Williams
3. Bowdoin
4. Bates
5. Tufts
6. Trinity Coll (CT)
7. Connecticut Coll
8. Wesleyan
9. Colby
10. Middlebury"</p>
<p>seriously??? why in the world are Connecticut College, Colby, and Bates all ahead of Middlebury???</p>
<p>And people40, I don't know what you're on, but Illinois is CERTAINLY not #2 in the Big Ten. Northwestern and UMich are in front, obviously, and I would also put at least Wisconsin ahead, and probably a few more.</p>
<p>And pierre, just in case you're up for a little more criticism, you never explained why Harvard is 7th in the Ivy League??? They're #1 on USN&WR (and in the top 5 on pretty much every other undergrad list you look at) for a reason...</p>
<p>Tulsa should not be ahead of Tulane in C-USA either. Tulsa is definitely near the bottom. When I got a letter in the mail guaranteeing me a full-ride if I applied, this sentiment of mine was pretty much confirmed...</p>
<p>"Alf Tupper your placement of Marquette up in the top 6 is ridiculous"</p>
<p>I'm not sure you should be criticizing other people's lists for being ridiculous, pierre.</p>
<p>This thread is making me smile.</p>
<p>Have to agree with you westsidewolf that pierre's picks in the Ivy League are pretty absurd. Being a student at Brown (in his senior year), and having a girlfriend (of 5 years) who goes to Harvard, I do not have the gall to claim I have had a better education than her. And yes, I am taking into account how small my classes are, how many TAs I have, the advising system, etc, etc.</p>
<p>As an example, TAs at Brown are mostly (and I mean the vast majority) undergraduates who are looking to pad their CVs. TAs at Harvard (TFs, to be exact) are usually very knowledgeable graduate students within their field of expertise. Furthermore, the grading system at Brown is a joke - you can take any class pass/fail, plusses and minuses don't exist, and failing grades don't appear on your transcript. While you may see this as a reason students like Brown (and I do myself), I can in no way claim this has improved my education (in fact, it has done the opposite - I work just hard enough to get a low 'A' in my classes, while my girlfriend busts her ass to make sure she avoids getting an A-). I could go on and on about how accommodating Brown is, but I have no real arguments for how on earth it provides me with a better education than Harvard.</p>
<p>Anyway, I guess after all of this, I should put in my two cents on the Ivy League (my rankings are pretty similar to Jocer333's post earlier):</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard (tied)</li>
<li>Princeton (tied)</li>
<li>Yale (tied)</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>UPenn</li>
</ol>
<p>"Hawkette, at least I admit which universities are my alma matter. And I don't see why you find it necessary to accuse me of bias. It is possible for one to be objective, even about his own alma matter."</p>
<p>Alexandre, why is it relevant where she went to school? It shouldn't really have an impact on discussing anything.</p>