<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does anybody else appreciate the irony here?</p>
<p>(I'm not saying it's made-up....it's just not cited. Minus 5 points)</p>
<p>For the record, Penn Wharton (<10%) and Penn College (11%) have lower acceptance rates (and higher yields) than Brown or Dartmouth. It's that gosh-darn engineering school! Oh well...</p>
<p>But acceptance rates and yields aren't the point here. I was referring to an assertion about undergrad education that seemed unfounded and possibly inaccurate.</p>
<p>Not really. If people ask questions about rankings, they're generally referring to the US News rankings (for what they're worth). The answer is simple - selectivity accounts for a portion of ranking, but peer assessment (which is heavily driven by perceived academic quality) count for more. And Penn and Columbia are both higher (and have always been higher) than Brown or Dartmouth.</p>
<p>If you want to add in grad schools, that only reinforces my point. And before anyone claims grad rankings don't matter for undergrad, I'll tell you that's a complete crock. Universities have one set of faculty members per department - econ, polisci, electrical engineering, etc. Higher powered profs define a department's academic quality and greatly influence the quality of education. [The quality of teaching and the usage of TAs impact it too] </p>
<p>That fact is why P and C are relatively stronger academically than D or B. But they are all prestigious places where any student would be lucky to attend.</p>
<p>Just to add more data so people can see what I'm basing my views on, please check the following:</p>
<p>The Center for Measurement University Performance (does an annual ranking of top schools, heavily weighted to research spending)</p>
<p>National Research Council rankings (very dated at this point a la 1985, but considered the gold -- no the platinum standard for rankings)</p>
<p>A study by a professor from Johns Hopkins titled "the Rise of American Research Universities" which adjusted NRC data to specifically rerank schools in humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. The aggregate ranking (factored out reputation surveys as lagging indicators, adjusted for size to eliminate large scale university biases) was as follows:</p>
<p>1 Stanford
2 Princeton
3 Chicago/Yale/Harvard
6 Columbia
7 Penn/Duke
8 Johns Hopkins
.
.
Brown and Dartmouth were no where close to this top group</p>
<p>I doubt Brown and Dartmouth would profess to be among the top "American Research Universities." Neither would they claim to have great records for job offers out of undergrad. But I don't think that's relevant for a liberal arts education. The idea behind the B and D curricula is that through taking these relatively impractical and open-ended courseloads, one is able to develop invaluable skills that don't necessarily correlate to research or quick money but are ultimately scholastically satisfying. Myriad interests can be pursued, and students learn to think critically, compose an argument, think on their feet, etc. I just don't think that in this liberal arts context they are head and shoulders below P and C. </p>
<p>The way I view Brown and Dartmouth is sort of the midpoint in between small elite liberal arts colleges like Amherst and major research universities like Harvard. They do have respectable grad programs and research, but the primary purpose is to educate undergraduates.</p>
<p>I know that Dartmouth's language programs are especially intensive, yet I doubt this is reflected in the rankings.</p>
<p>I think people are being far too closed-minded about this ranking thing. There's a hell of a lot more to assess when ranking colleges just than USNWR ranks and acceptance rates. Each school has incredible advantages, like prestige at Harvard, community/campus at Brown and Dartmouth, city opportunities at Columbia, Harry Potter-ness at Yale...I mean, they're all awesome! Let's love them equally! </p>
<p>ps - godartmouth, I like your style (and user name).</p>
<p>Harvard (Cambridge is the real city that never sleeps)
Princeton (nice name)
Columbia (it's closest to Yankee Stadium...new or old)
UPenn (Wharton FTMFW)
Cornell (Food FTMFW)
Dartmouth (it's DC not DU =/ )
Brown (dookie! Plus I know someone who goes there who is really...not epic win?)</p>
<p>and last (and least)</p>
<p>Yale (rhymes with fail, plus I have family in New Haven and that city is GARBAGE)</p>
<p>Feel free to hate on my 100% accurate rankings.</p>
<p>very few think penn is a substantially better school than brown, dartmouth, and cornell--with or without wharton. </p>
<p>alll of the (countless) threads ranking ivies only demonstrate 1) how arbitrary this subjective judgement is, 2) how insecure many ivy-leaguers truly are evidenced by the need to goose their own schools in these arbitrary subjective rankings</p>
<p>"[Cornell is] a relatively one-dimensional place" </p>
<p>Of all the piles of crap dished upon poor Cornell by people who have never been there, this is perhaps the most absurd statement of them all. Cornell's strength lies in extraordinary diversity of top tier programs - from food to physics, natural resources to human ecology and all the usual liberal art suspects. When compared to schools whose student bodies are pretty much derived from the pages of Prep School Weekly and whose program offerings are significantly fewer, I can't fathom this one dimensional assertion.</p>
<p>I wish, at least, when everybody put Cornell in 8th place or third tier, they would explain why. Is it just perception? Admission rates? Size? Are you comparing like programs to like programs? Otherwise, how do you compare a school as diverse and different in its mission as Cornell to the others? Obviously, a mean of SAT scores can't capture who is going to excel in such diverse programs of study requiring such diverse types of intellect. One poster said Cornell doesn't provide a solid undergrad experience, yet I've never heard any actual undergrad who went there say that. </p>
<p>Perhaps this is just mythos, but it's pretty well regarded that apples-for-apples Cornell students work far harder than Harvard students for their grades. So, I'm just curious why you all continue to drag Cornell through the mud as if it is this vastly inferior place unworthy of existing in the same stratosphere as the others. </p>
<p>I, personally, think all of the schools in the Ivy League (especially Brown, Dartmouth, UPenn, and Cornell) offer such vastly different experiences and missions that it's almost impossible to compare them as a whole.</p>
<p>i am not sure why it is worth spending time to rank the school. These are great schools. Getting into any of these is a great accomplishment. Each school has its own philosophy and culture. It is just a matter of "fit". You can't compare Harvard's art and science undergraduate to Penn's Wharton. They are just different. It is up to each individual's choice and preference. </p>
<p>I don't believe quality of undergraduate education differs that much. It is up to each individual and whether he/she can fully leverage and make use of resources that are available to them.</p>
<p>I guess the hate on Cornell has to do with the relatively high ED acceptance rate (~40%).</p>
<hr>
<p>Cornell's overall acceptance rate was about 18% this year. Usually around 25%. I don't get what ED has to do with it. Acceptance rates are bogus, though. 400,000 toddlers could apply to a school, all get rejected, and give a school a 2% acceptance rate. </p>
<p>Also, if Cornell were half as large with equally as many applicants, it would have the same rate as the others. It not being the most famous of schools, in an isolated locale, and offering a wide array of programs limits the number of applicants while boosting the number of open spots. </p>
<p>Not to mention, Cornell's mission is egalitarian, not elitist. So, I guess I don't buy acceptance rate as a legitimate argument. I'm not saying that's not why people look down on it, though. You're probably right.</p>
<p>Well then you're right - if it's 20% and not 18% then I understand why it is considered a pathetic institution. Stupid me for thinking the quality of the programs themselves providing top quality education to a wide array of socio-economic backgrounds and not the vanity of elitism had anything to do with a school's worth. </p>
<p>Okay. I'll stop now. Sorry. The attitudes on this CC forum are sometimes just really annoying.</p>