<p>i think 50 would be a good number for 'elites' - an extremely small percentage of 3000 colleges</p>
<p>I believe that some of you have it right in that one must define "elite," at least to some degree, bythe number of colleges you want included in that number. By most reports, there are about 2,200 four-year colleges in the US (I haven't counted them personally). If 10% is elite, then that would yield 220. I think that "feels" like more than there should be in an "elite" group. </p>
<p>As for two of the three criteria above, I have to disagree. It occurred to me as I was playing with this issue last night that this has ALREADY been done. US News does it every year, and they do it using many data points. You can disagree or agree with their weightings as you see fit, but I think it would be hard to deny that it's a far more comprehensive approach than what's being suggested here.</p>
<p>Still, for the sake of argument, let's simplify this a bit.</p>
<p>First, I believe that any national university that scores a 4.6 or better on the peer assessment simply must have a world-class faculty (no LAC would score that high, so I'm excluding them from this group). That would make that school elite. Using an old copy of US News (I'm not going to spring for a new one, so correct my numbers by all means), here are the schools that would qualify.</p>
<p>Harvard
Princeton
Yale
Penn
Duke
MIT
Stanford
CalTech
Columbia
Johns Hopkins
Cornell
Chicago
Cal Berkeley
Michigan</p>
<p>Another measure of elite would be the cream of students and, since SAT/ACT scores are all we really have to go on to norm the data, let's use those. I tried to find percentiles for aggregate SAT scores on the collegeboard site but with little success. However, I do know that in 2005, a combined score of around 1020 was the median/mean/mode, and a standard deviation was just over 200 points. Using those numbers, two standard deviations would be around a 1440, which would mean that the average student at a school where the average SAT is 1440 scored in the top 2% of all people taking the SAT. So let's use a 1440 average as the cutoff for a truly elite student body.</p>
<p>Based on US News, princetonreview.com, and some extrapolations using the middle 50% when actual numbers weren't reported, here are the schools that have elite student bodies as I've defined it here.</p>
<p>Harvard
Princeton
Yale
Duke
MIT
Stanford
CalTech
Chicago
Dartmouth (1437 is close enough)
Washington University in St. Louis
Rice (1435 close enough)
Amherst
Pomona
Harvey Mudd</p>
<p>I believe that any school that make EITHER list is "elite." A school that makes both lists may be "super elite." Here are those that make both lists (please correct any mistakes on my part).</p>
<p>Harvard
Princeton
Yale
Duke
Stanford
MIT
CalTech
Chicago</p>
<p>So, apparently Tufts' 1433 avg for class of 2010 is 7 points below this cutoff? 7? And with their renowned faculty that allows for extensive undergraduate research... Personally, I don't consider schools that take over half of all applicants like UMichigan to be elite, even with their good faculty. Yes, they have many excellent programmes, but the calibre of the student body at schools like Mich would, overall not be in the same league as much more selective schools.</p>
<p>Worldband</p>
<p>I had to cut it off somewhere, and my decision was arbitrary. It was clearly arbitrary. It was simply the start of a method of measurement. My numbers are different from yours, though. I used princetonreview.com and took the midpoint of the middle 50%. I came up with a 1405 SAT (and, yes, I recognize that the midpoint implied by the middle 50% might not be the actual midpoint). Tufts did not report mean/median SAT scores to princetonreview last year.</p>
<p>Tufts has some reknowned faculty members in some areas. It is not, generally, a "reknowned faculty" though. The peer assessment of Tufts is a 3.6, compared to Michigan's 4.6. My contention is that there should be two ways into "elite" status: one is the quality of the faculty and its research and the other is the quality of the student body. I might agree to redefining the SAT cutoff. Why not? As I said, it's arbitrary. However, there is no question in my mind that the University of Michigan is among the best universities in the world, and my colleagues in Europe and Asia would, I'm sure, concur. Those same colleagues in Europe and Asia may never have heard of Tufts unless there is a professor there who publishes regularly in their fields.</p>
<p>Yes, I would agree that UMichigan has superb faculty and research, but I must respectfully disagree on the point of Tufts' lack of recognition abroad; my overseas contacts have, for the most part, heard of the university, and know of its reputation. Also, how can one define the quality of professors, renowned or otherwise? Through heresay? My principal disagreement with USNews is its' reliance upon peer assessment surveys, which unfortunately weigh upon too much opinion with individual deans and administrators who may attempt to beat up their own image(s), or who have a limited perspective of top colleges. Btw: here are the 2010 stats:
<a href="http://taap.tufts.edu/news/classof2010.asp%5B/url%5D">http://taap.tufts.edu/news/classof2010.asp</a> </p>
<p>I think that Tufts' principal problem has been their extremely late blossoming as a modern research university (start: 1970's w/ the arrival of Jean Meyer). They are a University in a perplexing problem: An academically elite student body, with excellent resources, but a school that has yet to really use that weight to throw their name onto the national arena. I don't know if the administration is truly doing enough to deal with this issue, and geographic location hurts as well.</p>
<p>I do not claim that the reputation scores are perfect, and yet I would maintain that they more accurately represent academe's impression of the faculty at competing institutions than any other measure. Everything else is simply a "gut" reaction.</p>
<p>Perhaps you are a hard-working professorial type like I? If so, the differences in the impressions we get from our foreign colleagues may have to do with our respective fields.</p>
<p>In any event, I simply could not see my way clear to taking this list:</p>
<p>Harvard
Princeton
Yale
Duke
Stanford
MIT
CalTech
Chicago </p>
<p>... and including Tufts on it. I'm aware that you are an alumnus and have a stake in the matter, and it's not my intention to hurt your feelings. As an exampel of why, a place like the University of Chicago claims 72 Nobel Laureates associated with the school in one way or another. How many has Tufts had?</p>
<p>What is your personal perception, then, of Tufts? Are you particularily familiar with the University?</p>
<p>Tarhunt, you can't just say overall which are elite without considering programs.</p>
<p>Upenn Wharton would definitely be on there for business and JHU would be on there for premed. CMU would be on there for SCS and Georgetown SFS would be there for International Relations. The same goes for almost every different field.</p>
<p>Don't starting screaming when I mention this, but the established "elite" IR schools are Georgetown, Tufts, and JHU.</p>
<p>Okay fine. I just thought Georgetown SFS was undisputed 1st or something. Someone once mentioned it was harder than Harvard.</p>
<p>I've actually never seen anything that stated that GU SFS was the undisputed 1st. What I have repeatedly seen is the Big 3 that i've already mentioned. Harder than Harvard how? Harvard undergrad doesn't teach IR; you'd have to go to JFK for that.</p>
<p>I always too thought it was like Georgetown #1 and then JHU and Tufts rounded it out. Of course I don't know much about IR so if that thread is wrong I'm open to be enlightened. According to that thread most people argue Georgetown vs JHU for some reason.</p>
<p>futurewhartonman:</p>
<p>Very well, if you can devise a system that will account for "elite" status in every possible discipline, then be my guest. Do so. But the OP was about schools, overall. Frankly, I imagine that almost every large university in the world is elite in at least one field.</p>
<p>WorldbandDX: </p>
<p>Tufts is a very fine school, and depending on how one defines "elite," it could be included. When I narrowed "super-elite" down to eight schools, those eight schools, not surprisingly, are widely known and admired throughout the country and, with the possible (and I say "possible") exception of Duke, throughout the world. I would feel comfortable adding those eight names to any list of world class universities around the world, and that would include Oxford, Cambridge, U. of Tokyo, and a few others.</p>
<p>I don't feel that Tufts belongs in that group. There are several other schools I would append to that group, if necessary, before Tufts. As for being in the same "class" as Michigan, it simply isn't true when it comes to the quality of the faculty across a wide array of disciplines. Tufts is relatively small and the number of faculty belonging to the top institutes or academies in their fields is miniscule when compared to the super-elite universities. Perhaps Tufts' faculty will, as a whole, remedy this situation someday soon.</p>
<p>The reason I included the quality of the student body as being another way that a school could achieve "elite" status is because, to my mind, very, very talented students simply must improve the classroom experience for other very, very talented students. I picked an approximation two standard deviations from the norm arbitrarily. I assumed that an average score in the top 2% would qualify as "elite." Others might insist on the top 1%. Still others might say that the top 10% would do.</p>
<p>This is all speculation, of course. It's simply a fun exercise. There is no absolute system for determining what's "elite" and what is not. I urge you to present your own system ... perhaps one that would include Tufts.</p>
<p>Technical schools like MIT and CalTech, highly ranked and regarded as they are, are only really capable of being "elite" in technical circles, which is what they're mostly limited to. One might as well include FIT since it is probably THE indisputable fashion institute, or RISD as it's the best art school. Specialty schools do not belong among the "best universities/colleges," primarily because they are neither; they are called "institutes" for a reason.</p>
<p>As per the first portion, I do agree with you. Those eight schools (i.e. the Ivies listed, along w/ MIT, the top British universities, and so on) have almost unparalled resources, something that Tufts lacks. I wouldn't place Tufts with those eight. The next tier down is a possibility; w/ schools such as CMU, Georgetown, Northwestern, etc. My principal concern with Michigan is that, like Tufts is a way, it is unbalanced. Yes, Michigan has an excellent faculty, but the student body quality is not up to par with it's competitors. With Tufts, it is the reverse situation: ivy-level students with a reputation that is about a decade or so behind. This could actually explain why they essentially share the same ranking on the USNews list. Those schools, such as Harvard, etc. are at the top because they have mastered both sides of the equation, so to speak. Regardless of the actual quality of the undergraduate education at Harvard, et al, they have both the resources, teachers, and students to complete the educational experience. Neither Tufts nor Michigan have this 'complete package', although they both shine in their respective areas. Tufts' faculty shine in those areas that the University focuses on and has achieved international recognition for, such as IR and pre-med; professors in those areas add to that. However, Due to, as you said, the small size of the University, it simply cannot devote full attention or the highest standards to all departments. Hence the overall quality of professors, when factored across all fields, slips slightly. If you are majoring, for example, in IR or a major that will lead to med school, than a degree and the interaction with teachers from Tufts will be highly regarded. Other areas may be a different story. Certainly, this is not the only school that finds itself in this bind; Middlebury and Bowdoin come to mind as well. Michigan, with its' massive student body and state allocated funding, can fund the top professors in a wide variety of disciplines, even if the students entering are not, on the whole, of the "elite" quality found at Tufts. Now, if one could only combine Tufts and Michigan....</p>
<p>AcceptedAlready:
--- The reason JHU comes up for debate is principally b/c it is a pre-med university that has a small, but highly regard IR dept. GU and Tufts are not argued to the same level as JHU due to their obvious focuses on IR/Culutral studies.</p>
<p>Columbia:</p>
<p>Hmm. Technical circles. I had thought both places were also highly regarded for mathematics and the hard sciences (liberal arts), as well as engineering.</p>
<p>Did I have that wrong?</p>
<p>Worldband:</p>
<p>I believe we agree. I would put such schools as Middlebury and Bowdoin in a different class altogether with entirely different missions, and perhaps THAT's where Tufts straddles both worlds. If Tufts were to downsize, focus on undergraduate education, and become a LAC, it would certainly be among the very top LACs in the country. But because it plays in a different league, it can pale in comparison to other schools in that league.</p>
<p>To make sure you understand where I'm coming from, my most recent high school grad applied to and was accepted by Tufts. He was interested in the school because he thought it might be good to combine further instruction in East Asian languages with Tufts' IR department. In the end, he chose a different school for a number of good reasons, but Tufts was certainly a strong candidate.</p>
<p>BTW, I think your take on Michigan is dead on. The two schools are ranked very close to each other because Michigan has the more distinguished faculty and Tufts the more distinguished student body.</p>
<p>"Hmm. Technical circles. I had thought both places were also highly regarded for mathematics and the hard sciences (liberal arts), as well as engineering."</p>
<p>These are still limited areas in any case. How can one compare an entire university to an institution devoted to teaching only a limited number of disciplines? There are universities that may be way down the list with far better arts, classics, and English programs than MIT. Why is MIT's exclusive prominence in science and math valued over a university with superior humanities disciplines? The only fair way to compare these schools in toto would be to take their top departments (of the same number of disciplines existing at MIT/CT) and then compare. And to throw in RISD, FIT, et al to boot!</p>
<p>columbia:</p>
<p>If the criteria are that, to be included among elite universities, a university must a) be "named" a university and b) offer a full range of courses in a variety of disciplines, then CalTech and MIT would be left out, certainly.</p>
<p>But how reasonable are these criteria? If either school wished to be named "university," I'm sure they could change their names without undue difficulty. MIT does, in fact, offer a wide range of disciplines in the humanities, social sciences, hard sciences, architecture, and engineering. Should the University of Chicago be excluded because it doesn't offer undergrad degrees in business or engineering (IIRC)? CalTech is a bit more limited in course offerings than MIT, so perhaps your point is better in that case, but I'm not so sure.</p>
<p>I will say that, if having a super-wide range of course offering is an essential component of elite status, we can drop CalTech, MIT, and Chicago from the list. Maybe we could also drop any school that doesn't have an undergrad education school? I think that might drop some more (though I'm not sure). I believe that Harvard's engineering school is not considered to be among the best, so we should drop Harvard. Some of the Yale programs are supposed to be a little flaky, so we can drop Yale. Perhaps anywhere that doesn't offer an architecture school should go.</p>
<p>I think you see what I'm driving out. I understand your point and I'm not sure I disagree. But your criteria would definitely bring up the issue of "what curriculum is comprehensive enough?"</p>
<p>It's not an issue of comprehensiveness as a criterion for elite status. </p>
<p>Consider this: MIT may have humanities, but they're decidedly marginal to the school's mission. The entirety of MIT's reputation is based on its math and science curricula.</p>
<p>Why, then, are other schools subjected to being rated in terms of the entirety of their curriculum? If Harvard and Yale were as weak in the sciences (not engineering, but hard science) as MIT is in English, surely it would count against them. MIT's English (etc.) marginalization, however, does not seem to count against MIT. So it seems that MIT/CT are able to claim a place in the rankings on the basis of their high-profile departments alone.</p>
<p>Now, schools like RISD offer disciplines other than art, or whatever their specialty is. Why, in addition, are they not included on a rankings list?</p>
<p>It seems that either a more comprensive rankings list must be devised with revised criteria (accounting for either all or just top departments), or MIT/CT segregated from the list like art schools and LACs.</p>