Schools that are considered to be on Ivy League level for undergrad?

College Search & Selection
41

<p>@jkeil911: I’ll show you. Do you want biology? I can do the same thing I did for organic chemistry with general biology, and give a more detailed explanation of what I look for. I can take 3 schools that I think are reasonably good, and then sort them and explain how I decided which one is better for a non pre-med, or I could do a very simple “intramural” comparison between say, 2-3 courses at Emory where one exam/class style is “pre-med” oriented/friendly and the other 2 are better for those considering graduate studies. Just pick an interest and I’ll try to do it so that you can see what I’m seeing (perhaps biology is easier, because more people will be able to recognize what’s going on and the difference in the types of problems/prompts given). </p>

<p>Also, heads up: It appears that the really confident/good private schools in science tend to have either only 1 person running the introductory/sophomore level courses or a team of people who run it together (like Life Sciences 1a at Harvard). They don’t have many sections that may very well vary dramatically in rigor or even quality. Better schools are good at controlling the standards in these courses especially, mainly by not giving as much freedom to students allowing them to “take the easy way out”. </p>

42

<p>since you asked, neuroscience. I’m sure that’s not that helpful, but all neuro is going to include at least the 2 calcs, 2 bios, 2 chems, 2 ochems, 1 biochem. Not pre-med. Does that help any? </p>

<p>also, ucb, is there any way to identify the two tiers of easy and harder versions?</p>

43

<p>That list of courses does overlap with the standard pre-med course list.</p>

<p>As far as two tiers of physics, chemistry, and math courses, you can check the course catalogs to see if there is one version for students majoring in those subjects, and a separate (easier) version for biology majors.</p>

44

<p>Why has Reed not been mentioned? My guess is because it’s not in the top 10 for LACs according to US News, but of course the reason for that is the fact that US News doesn’t take too kindly to Reed’s non-adherence to the rankings. It definitely provides a quality education that even surpasses that of a few of the Ivy League and comparable top 25 colleges and universities.</p>

45

<p>is this common, ucb? I’ve never heard of two tiers for science folk. of course, there’s always been baby physics and baby astronomy and baby chem, but those were for the non-science majors.</p>

46

<p>bernie, biology, if you don’t mind. and what about ucb’s talk of two tiers of general science courses?</p>

47

<p>It is fairly common for physics to be two tiered, with a calculus-based version for physics, chemistry, geology, and engineering majors, and a light-or-no-calculus version for biology majors, probably because most colleges do not want to make biology majors take multivariable calculus and the like (multivariable calculus is typically a co-requisite for the physics majors’ physics course with E&M). Indeed, the AP tests recognize this two tiered nature of physics courses, with physics B/1/2 attempting to emulate the biology majors’ version, and with physics C attempting to emulate the physics majors’ version (though C E&M seems questionable since high school students are unlikely to be in multivariable calculus).</p>

<p>Math often has more than one tier of calculus; the easier one is typically for business majors, though sometimes biology majors are allowed to take that course. Berkeley did change its calculus requirement for most biology majors to eliminate that option, but added an option for a sequence specifically for biology majors that includes both calculus and statistics, emphasizing topics more commonly seen in biology (though they can still take the version for math, physics, engineering, etc. majors).</p>

<p>Not sure how common having more than one tier of general chemistry and organic chemistry is. Berkeley does have two tiers of both.</p>

48

<p>You know, this is all so distant from OP’s question. So be it. It is difficult to get some snapshot when talking college influences. It works for you, Bernie, for your particular interests. That may be all, And I am not clear if you have yet shown this scheme proves out. It assumes there are fixed variables more significant than others, measurements that universally apply.</p>

49

<p>@bernie12
Like most research universities, Stanford and Duke have science classes that cater directly to those that are trying to fulfill distributional requirements or are premeds and also has science courses directed towards those who are on the PhD track in Bio, Chem, Phys, etc.</p>

<p>I can’t prove or disprove your claims since I am an Economics major and don’t have experience with the Natural Sciences. In Economics however, most state schools including Berkeley and Michigan have a watered down curriculum featuring exams that are mostly “plug and chug” and rote memorization rather than needing critical thinking skills. For instance, Duke’s intro Economics class uses WSJ articles for exams rather than simple story problems meaning that not only do you have to understand the concept at hand, you have to be able to apply it to a real world situation and provide justification using graphs and statements.</p>

<p>From what you posted, Berkeley’s organic chemistry exams seem like a walk in the park compared to Emory’s. I will give you credit for that. However, Emory’s undergraduates are no where near as talented as Berkeley’s so how are they able to handle such a curriculum?</p>

<p>I also think you overrate Harvard, Stanford, and Yale which have rampant grade inflation. I agree that MIT and CalTech are the most rigorous schools in the country with Chicago matching them in intensity in some areas.</p>

50

<p>

</p>

<p>Berkeley economics offers two choices:</p>

<ul>
<li>A light math option (with Economics 100A, 100B, 140), requiring a year of calculus (the business major version).</li>
<li>A heavy math option (with Economics 101A, 101B, 141), requiring math at least to the sophomore level of the kind that math majors take (junior level real analysis encouraged for pre-PhD students).</li>
</ul>

<p>The light math option is about three times as popular as the heavy math option, based on class sizes and enrollments. Course home pages can be viewed at <a href=“Archived Course Homepages”>Archived Course Homepages; if you want to compare between the different course options.</p>

51

<p>@ennisthemenace: So does Harvard. Their version of “integrated science courses” is not like the model at Penn, Princeton, and Northwestern, but is instead geared toward pre-healths and life science majors. Yale and Princeton apparently have their own version/implementation of this (I’m not sure about the other non-STEM “high caliber” schools, but I don’t think they have it quite yet). I’m just arguing that the versions at these schools are “unusually” (such as PS2,PS3, Life Sciences 1a, and Chem 27 at Harvard) rigorous, and not just rigorous. There seem to be different levels of it, even with pre-health oriented courses. Uhm, the freshman class profiles for Emory and Berkeley even after our SAT scandal are roughly identical ennis…Chicago grades at a 3.38 btw, not far behind NU and WashU, yet the rigor is known to be higher at Chicago than those two. That’s why I don’t account for grade inflation. Also, in the sciences the standards outside of Stanford, Brown, and Yale are very similar with most intro/sophomore courses curving to a B (Harvard and Princeton generally do this). And yes, I do know that economics at Yale, Duke, Chicago, and Harvard are very rigorous. I believe you when it comes to that for sure. I just think we should be careful not to correlate the rigor of science courses (or any academics) with the selectivity of the school. Sometimes it doesn’t work so cleanly. Many schools need to “catch up” to their students and some are intentionally above them and trying to enhance the students. Again, I don’t count grading standards, I’m mainly looking at “expectations”. For example, if I correlated selectivity with rigor for say, many of Emory’s psychology courses, many at higher ranked schools would be in disbelief like you are over the chemistry exam. These just happen to be areas that we excel at that schools wouldn’t expect us to. We also have a few econ. classes (surprisingly business econ. works like that. You know…I don’t usually associate rigor with the b-school here. We also have introductory sociology classes that will force students to read an article during the exam and frame the findings/phenomenon in context of what they learn). And things that we are expected to perform unusually (or better than normal) well in are actually rather average (or are not at the level we would like to believe it is). No one wants to ever admit that about a dept. at their school because there is so much “my school is better than yours and needs no improvements”, but I know better than this. I know Emory does surprisingly well with some things, and not as well as we could in others…even if these areas have pockets of true excellence. Ironically the things that we are most meh at are the ones most heavily marketed :frowning: . Apparently even more selective schools have some serious weaknesses (or are at least not as strong as one may think. And yes, grade inflation contributes to some degree) in academics too. However, having really bright students more than makes up for shortcomings there I suppose.</p>

<p>As for that instructor, my instructor, and other instructors in science (and non-science) courses at Emory who are the same or higher level than similarly or more selective schools, these instructors are very, very, very good at pushing the students to that level through their teaching. They care a lot. It’s not purely “sink or swim”, though some classes are. </p>

<p>@ucbalumnus: Many of the more intense private schools (or at least those known to have good programs in those depts) have that sort of tiering in math, physics, and chemistry. It is not unusual. It’s actually one of the things I look for to sort of gauge things. </p>

<p>As for “Ivy level” schools. I suppose many of the top 35 or so in USNWR and the LACs can give you something like that. I suppose it’s a matter of “which Ivies” and “in what?” Again, I wouldn’t even say that the academic quality/caliber of schools in the top 10 are all the same. There are also dramatically different intellectual climates that contribute to differences in the academic experience as well. </p>

52

<p>Not to intervene or anything, but can you take this conversation elsewhere? It’s not very helpful</p>

53

<p>In my english department we were having the same problems with non-majors invading our most popular courses and dropping out before the midterm after dragging the discourse down to a discussion of what happens in the plot. We created two bone-busting gateway courses to the major and made them prerequisites for upper-level courses. When I conceived of these sophomore courses I thought of them as the equivalent of what orgo had been for me when I was an undergrad, but the courses are actually much tougher than orgo. We mount lower-tier courses for the non-majors. It’s unfair to those non-majors who really would benefit from higher level discussion, but we had to protect our major courses from student who were not prepared to be there or to work as hard as was necessary. The best students had begun to drift away from the major because it was no longer challenging and law schools were starting to look askance at our majors. Interestingly, the best students have not come back as quickly as we would like because the gateways are so tough. Better to get a 3.8 in polisci than a 3.5 in english. Sound familiar?</p>

54

<p>fair enough, OP.</p>

55

<p>OP, I think you have your answer though. All of those places that were listed by some poster earlier. There really isn’t any need for discussion. We know which schools are basically doing similar/same things as Ivies. It’s just a matter of where you want to go, what you see yourself doing, and what type of overall environment you want. From there, you should probably sort. The schools need not even all be top 20/25 or private for that matter. If anything useful can come from this random side-discussions, it’s that some differences between these sorts of schools are overplayed, and some are just simply not that obvious, at least when it comes to academics. I suppose if you were really serious about that, when you visit a place (assuming you aren’t already in college), just ask about it. Seriously. Many students perhaps just ask about the social life and not very much specifics about the academic environment. The deepest they may go is: “Is the department here for X good”. You know what answer you’re going to get if you don’t pry a little deeper (maybe ask for their favorite course within their major, what it was about, and how it was run). There is really no way to figure this out by discussing it, the rankings, and our perceptions on here. That’s what I’ve learned by perusing these course websites and stuff. If I go based on rankings and perception and actually check/ask people there, I will get a bunch of pleasant and perhaps unpleasant surprises. </p>

<p>jkeil: I’ll just PM you. </p>

56

<p>Aside from MIT and Stanford – Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Chicago, Harvey Mudd, Pomona, Rice, Williams, Virginia, Michigan, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Washington, Swarthmore and Amherst. </p>

57

<p>OP, depends what you mean by “Ivy League education”. Rigor? At any of the universities and colleges mentioned already–and probably many more–yes, you can find rigor, up to and including becoming part of a research team or academic grouping that will allow you to publish. Stimulating, high-achieving peers? Sure–there’s always going to be some deadwood, even at the tippy-top schools, but you can find at least a core of like-minded folks at many schools. Opportunities for travel/internships/extracurricular involvement? Ditto. Sheer name-dropping recognition? Depends where you live, the kind of work you do, and your social circle. There are tons of folks who will confuse Penn State with U Penn, or who have never heard of Caltech. </p>

<p>My older daughter is at Tufts. She’s been given amazing opportunities, has an astounding, accomplished peer group, is loving her challenging, mostly-well-taught courses, regularly goes to guest lectures given by well-known individuals in their respective fields, has great mentoring, blahblahblah. If there’s something that the Ivy League and other super-tippy-top schools could’ve given her, it’s beyond me to identify–other than being able to drop the H-bomb in conversation. I expect the same is true of the other schools listed here. </p>

58

<p>Duke, Northwestern, UChicago, ND, Vandy among NaTIONAL Universities. Among top LAC’s, Williams, Amherst, Holy Cross, Davidson, Swarthmore.</p>

59

<p>One way to approach the OP’s problem is to pick a couple of measurable features that all the 8 Ivy League college share. Then list all the colleges that share the same features. They should be features that have some plausible relevance to academic excellence. For example, two features that all the 8 Ivies share are average 75th percentile SAT M+CR scores of at least 1500, and 100% coverage of demonstrated financial need. Here are the 20 colleges that satisfy those two criteria (sorted by scores):</p>

<p>California Institute of Technology
Harvey Mudd College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Chicago
Pomona College
Stanford University
Vanderbilt University
Franklin W. Olin<br>
Amherst College
Duke University
Northwestern University
Rice University
Swarthmore College
Washington University in St. Louis
Williams College
University of Notre Dame
Carleton College
Georgetown University
Haverford College
Tufts University</p>

<p>JHU just barely misses that list, because it falls very slightly short of meeting 100% of need. Schools that do meet 100%, but have SAT 75th%ile averages 10-20 pts below 1500, include Wellesley, USC, Bowdoin, Wesleyan, W&L, and CMcK. </p>

<p>Is that a plausible list? Do you think all those colleges are on an “Ivy League level”? If not, what is another set of measurable Ivy-identifiers that generates a better list?
Endowment per student might work.
Of course, you could just go by the US News rankings.</p>

60

<p>You missed Holy Cross tk? </p>