Ranking the Ivies

<p>Harvard and Yale are on a par with MIT Stanford and Caltech. Princeton panders to the criteria of the USNWR rankings and is therefore overrated, but is almost at the level of H,Y et al. Dartmouth, Columbia and Penn (another panderer) are weak sisters. Brown and Cornell aren't even worth mentioning in the same breadth as the others.</p>

<p>BTW it's just a sports conference. Putting aside HYP, any of the other Ivies could be easily replaced academically by 6-12 other, non- Ivy schools. In addition to those mentioned above, these non-Ivies include, without limitation, Duke, Chicago, Northwestern, etc. Not to put to fine a point on it, but, the Ivy League "dated" Northwestern (comparable in size etc) for a short time in the 80s, but stopped well short of proposing marriage when NU's 0-33 football team shut out Princeton 40 - 0. (approxs). The Ivy alumni didnt want all those 100+ year old Ivy records to fall to the worst team the big ten ever saw. Basically, the answer to your question is - who cares who is "best" in the "Ivy League". Broaden your horizons.</p>

<p>Top 15 undergrad?</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>UChicago</li>
<li>Williams</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>UPenn (Wharton makes it significantly higher)</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Swarthmore</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
</ol>

<p>Wellesley, JHU, Northwestern, Cal-Berkeley, and Bowdoin are up there too.</p>

<p>I'd put JHU and Cal-Berkeley above them LACs, but that's just how I roll.</p>

<p>Top Undergrad Programs</p>

<p>Stanford
Princeton/Yale
Harvard
MIT/CalTech
Penn
Columbia/Chicago
Duke/Cornell/Johns Hopkins
Swarthmore/Williams
Brown
Amherst
Dartmouth</p>

<ul>
<li>Stanford - the most balanced, and highest ranked of all the top schools across disciplines </li>
<li>CalTech is really an academic boutique and not really comparable to the others</li>
<li>Penn's arts & sciences is w/o question Top 10 among large univs., nursing and business are #1 undergrad; ppl need to just drop the "only b/c of Wharton" crap</li>
<li>Cornell is an awesome school and completely underrated by admit ratio junkies</li>
<li>Swarthmore is hugely underrated too; great in lib arts and it dominates Williams and Amherst in the sciences</li>
</ul>

<p>Harvard and Yale have an edge overall, of course -- for example, the Times, Europe's largest newspaper, recently called Harvard and Yale "the two greatest universities in the world" and declared them to have surpassed Oxford and Cambridge. H & Y have a huge advantage over Oxbridge or other universities in the world because they are so well-funded.</p>

<p>However, for undergraduate program quality, I think one could argue that Yale and Princeton (along with Caltech) easily top the list.</p>

<p>2007 Rankings of Ivies according to:</p>

<ul>
<li>The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES), by far the most prestigious and well-read college and university publication in the world:</li>
</ul>

<p>1 HARVARD
2 YALE
(gap)
6 PRINCETON
(gap)
11 COLUMBIA
14 University of PENNSYLVANIA
(gap)
20 CORNELL
(gap)
32 BROWN
(gap)
71 DARTMOUTH </p>

<ul>
<li>Newsweek 2007 rankings of the "Top 100 Global Universities":</li>
<li>Harvard University </li>
<li>Yale University
(big gap)</li>
<li>Columbia University </li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania </li>
<li>Princeton Universitty </li>
<li>Cornell University
(big gap)</li>
<li>Brown University
Dartmouth - not in top 100</li>
</ul>

<p>None of these rankings have anything to do with undergrad. These are research university rankings.</p>

<p>Slipper, the question was:" Anyone care to provide a ranking of the Ivies in your opinion...I had an argument with my dad over which Ivy is considered the worst."</p>

<p>"Yale's only good in the humanities, so what's the use of that"</p>

<p>I would strongly disagree. I would argue that Yale and Caltech are the top undergraduate science programs overall, with MIT and Harvard being close runners-up. </p>

<p>What you might be confusing is quantity and quality. Obviously, places like UCSF, Johns Hopkins, and Michigan churn out more papers than Caltech each year, and are very good, but I would argue that the quality of Caltech's program (at both the undergraduate as well as the graduate level) and the average faculty quality is higher than that of any of those places. </p>

<p>If you evaluate quality-based rankings, you can see some trends. In the individual department rankings of the 2006 Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index published by the Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 of Yale's science departments were ranked #1 in the nation (and many others in the top five). For comparison's sake, 4 of Harvard's, 3 of Stanford's, 2 of MIT's, 1 of Princeton's, and none of Northwestern's departments were ranked #1.</p>

<p>Another way to look at it is that 13 of Yale's biological science programs were ranked among the top 10, versus just 10 of Harvard's, 10 of UCSF's, 10 of Johns Hopkins's, 10 of Duke's, 8 of Stanford's, 6 of UCSD's, 5 of UPenn's, 4 of Berkeley's, 3 of Caltech's, and 3 of MIT's. </p>

<p>According to a totally separate source, ScienceWatch 2006 published by ISI, if you take the average placement of the 100 largest university science programs among 21 different fields, Yale scored the highest average placement with a score of 2.67, followed MIT at 3.00, then Harvard (3.80). Princeton and Stanford were in fourth place. </p>

<p>In other words, you could argue that Yale is #1 for undergraduate science -- not even just #2 or "top five." Certainly, the sciences are a major area of strength for Yale. Obviously, Yale also has amazing programs in fields other than science which compete for undergraduate majors. It is generally regarded to have among the strongest history, political science, law, psychology, anthropology, art history, economics, English, language and literature departments in the world, for example. That's why it ranks so highly on an overall basis: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060158922-post45.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060158922-post45.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>More anecdotal evidence includes things such as Yale winning more young researcher (PECASE) awards this year than any other institution in the United States. Also, Yale's science faculty have won four Gairdner Awards just within the past 4 years. The Gairdner is the most prestigious science award in the world after the Nobel Prize, as about 1/4 or more of Gairdner Award winners later go on to receive the Nobel Prize in Medicine-Physiology. Yale's research program is world-renowned and rapidly expanding, and in terms of actual research funding per undergraduate science student, Yale beats everyone else (except for Caltech) hands-down. That means plenty of research opportunities.</p>

<p>Anyhow, my suggestion is to throw all of this info out the window and evaluate the program for yourself. Harvard, Yale, MIT, Johns Hopkins, UCSD, UCSF, Stanford, WUSTL, Chicago, Duke and others are all world-renowned for their science research, but which school has the best undergraduate program? Talk with current faculty and students and see if they like the biology program, as well as where they go after they graduate. Also it is important to see where you would best fit in as a student. Some people would do better at a place like Wellesley or Pomona -- both of which have incredible undergraduate programs -- than they would at a large, impersonal school like Berkeley, Stanford, Michigan, Texas, etc. It doesn't take all that much work to figure out which school is right for you, but don't base your decision on what anyone else says.</p>

<p>The General Consensus (to the best of my knowledge, based on my region):</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
</ol>

<p>My Opinion:
1. Brown
2. Yale
3. Harvard
4. Dartmouth
5. Princeton
6. Penn
7. Columbia
8. Cornell</p>

<p>just out of curiosity, which school did the opening poster (carbon511511) consider the worst and which school did his/her dad consider the worst?</p>

<p>It is truly meaningless to rank the Ivies as most people have done. NONE of us have been to ALL the Ivies. Therefore, none of us can even remotely come close to ranking them. Each person that provides a ranking is basing their assumptions upon a very small sampling of the Ivy League. At most a person might have gone to 2-3 Ivy league schools: bachelor, masters, and doctoral. Plus, they most likely stuck to the same field of work i.e. political science, economics, chemistry, history, etc. </p>

<p>With that said, I believe this is the general consensus. No particular order is given in each tier.</p>

<p>1) Harvard/Yale/Princeton </p>

<p>2) Penn/Columbia</p>

<p>3) Brown/Dartmouth/Cornell</p>

<p>1a. Harvard
1b Yale/Princeton
2. I think ordering the rest prestige-wise is highly variable (except for Wharton Business, which carries its own prestige)</p>

<p>My totally biased opinion:
1. Columbia
2. Harvard
3. Princeton
4. Yale
5. Cornell
6. UPenn
7. Dartmouth
8. Brown</p>

<p>Trying to be objective:
1. Harvard
2. Yale
3. Princeton
4. Columbia
5. UPenn
6. Cornell
7. Dartmouth
8. Brown</p>

<p>To offer a representative estimation I would group them and suggest tendencies since all univerzities have different strengths and weaknesses and weighting them can't be objective:
1. Harvard (tendency up), Yale, Princeton (t down)
2. Columbia (up) UPenn (down)
3. Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown (down)</p>

<p>Whatever everyone has his one opinion anyways.</p>

<p>
[quote]
1) Harvard/Yale/Princeton </p>

<p>2) Penn/Columbia</p>

<p>3) Brown/Dartmouth/Cornell

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This, in fact, is The Right Answer. Just FYI ;)</p>

<p>I don't know why Penn/Columbia are consistently considered a tier above Brown and Dartmouth for undergrad.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Penn and Columbia are ranked above B and D primarily because (i) their academic strengths in lib arts are greater than the other two schools, (ii) both have greater scope, i.e., non-lib arts programs that are considerably stronger (engineering, business, etc.) than what B and D can offer, and (iii) offer more overall prestige [admittedly largely driven by their grad schools]. </p>

<p>That said, the actual education may be just as good if not better at B or D (all of them are awesome places - but I'd rather attend P and C over B or D), but there's a bias in the minds of laymen and the so-called elites towards the big research oriented schools stuffed with Nobel laureates, and huge HSF/NIH budgets. Just a fact of life.</p>

<p>Plus Penns got Wharton. Whartons one of the best business schools in the country.</p>

<p>"Penn and Columbia are ranked above B and D primarily because (i) their academic strengths in lib arts are greater than the other two schools,"</p>

<p>Can you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand were you're going with this, it's kind of broad. I'm willing to concede, I just want to know where you're going.</p>

<p>^^He's probably referring to the strength of the graduate schools.</p>

<p>nobody that matters (employers, grad schools, even cocktail party crowds) truly thinks penn and columbia are better schools that brown and dartmouth. if anything, some attribute more prestige to brown, columbia, and dartmouth because they have always been harder to get into than penn.</p>

<p>it's remarkable how people just make things up to make themselves feel better about the school they go to. you'd think being at an ivy would be enough.</p>

<p>I agree with above, althouth this thread caught my attention, I personally think its a little silly. These are all amazing schools that many people would die to get into.</p>