<p>I agree completely. I do also think it is the same as saying that RISD is a top school because its the best in art . While MIT does have a few programs outside math and science, Cal Techs offerings outside these fields are abysmal. It does seem like Cal Tech and MIT claim a high ranking based on a limited number of strong programs.</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>Good post Worldband since I still believe people give Umich a bit too much credit at the undergraduate level.</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"</p>
<p>-I like how you slid Northwestern in....... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Ok I have to ask who are the elite of the elite?
My personal list:
Harvard
Yale
Stanford
MIT
Princeton
U Chicago</p>
<p>Chicago???? Please.....</p>
<p>I wasn't sure of Chicago but I keep on hearing people talk about it.</p>
<p>Tarhunt -- Excellent points, especially about the LACs & Tufts. I think we are definitely in agreement :).</p>
<p>kk, what do you have against Chicago?</p>
<p>"kk, what do you have against Chicago?"</p>
<p>-I'm a Northwestern Student .. Chicago students say our school is an overrated country club, and I say theirs is just plain overrated. It's just a little neighborhood rivalry I guess. </p>
<p>More seriously though, while I believe the university is one that offers a great education, I truly don't think that Chicago is an elite, elite institution, something I also believe of my school.</p>
<p>I'd put Columbia as an elite one instead of Chicago.</p>
<p>I personally think that the elite of the elite are HYPSM but that's it? Aren't there more best of the best?
So far as potentials we have :
Chicago
Columbia</p>
<p>Any more?</p>
<p>Take off Chicago. Columbia is a possibility, and you might also consider CalTech.</p>
<p>Note to posters:</p>
<p>Since this is an exercise in what can never be completely empirical, one can add any school to the list one wants. I could say, for instance, "I'd drop Harvard and add Troy University" and be just as "right" as any other poster. However, what I posted would not be in the least bit interesting, because publishing a bald statement like that adds nothing to the argument.</p>
<p>I suggest that, if you want to add something to the debate, you state not only what schools you would add and delete, but the criteria you are using to make that addition or deletion. Doing that would not only clarify your position but also add to the conversation in a meaningful way. For instance, I learned something from the poster who objected to including MIT and CalTech. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, but my view of what criteria might be included has been expanded. I thank him/her for the new angle.</p>
<p>On the other hand, saying Northwestern should be included and not Chicago based on blind prejudice and school rivalry is not useful. One might as well argue about which one has the better football team.</p>
<p>sorry huskem, I know that you went to one of those two, Conn College, I believe. I just thought Hamilton, Colby, Bates had SAT avgs ~ 1350 (which I thought was around top 5%, maybe, it's changed.) and lower admit rates and higher yields than Trinity and Conn College. That's part of the problem with defining 'elite' is that some on here consider that the top 220 schools with others considering it the top 5. I would consider it 40-50 (maybe 44 which would be the top 2% if there are 2,200 colleges). However, who's to really say if it should be 44 or 46 and, obviously it shouldn't be a hard and fast 44 because #46 is going to be very comparable to #44.</p>
<p>gellino:</p>
<p>Now THAT was a helpful post. I published my own criteria (1440 SAT average and/or 4.6 or higher on US News reputation score) as a starting point, only. Before we can decide which schools might fit among the elite, we have to decide what percentage makes up "elite" and then we have to decide what characteristics define that percentage.</p>
<p>Thanks for moving the thread along.</p>
<p>(gellino- conn has an average 1390 SAT, trinity has like a 1310. conn's acceptance rate is in the low 30s, and in 2006 was rated the 26th most selective LAC in the country while colby's is in the upper 30s. i can understand trinity not being there, but not having conn with bates and hamilton is ridiculous- dont be fooled by the usnews.)</p>
<p>huskem, I wasn't going by USNWR and don't really precisely know their rankings anyway. I thought that Conn College SAT avg was ~ 1320 (and can't believe it went up so far, so fast) and admit rate was around 35%. Are you sure that SAT is not for accepted students, instead of enrolled students? I had noticed that Colby's admit rate seemed to be going up in a time when most colleges' rates seem to be declining, but that its SAT avg was still in the same 10 point band of Middlebury, Colgate, Hamilton, Bates; however, Hamilton has historically not been as high as these other four and it is possibly due to switching to SAT optional policy.</p>
<p>Sorry to offend you, tarhunt. I was the one who had originally suggested a criteria on this thread of 1350 SAT & < 30% admit rate and was merely responding to huskem after being away for a few days. I would add that I'd put a lot more credence in objective data (SAT, admit rate, % in top 10%, etc.) than the peer assessment score, which is both subjective, potentially uninformed (why should I care or how much knowledge does the president of Cal/Berkeley have on the relative quality of Dartmouth vs. Brown) and because of the discrete scoring system, not as accurate an outcome. </p>
<p>Further, I don't think this is the type of exercise where you could hope to be so precise. After agreeing on a certain acceptable general range, I think it's meaningless to debate whether the term elite (a made up term, anyway) constitues the top 2% or top 3%.</p>
<p>Ahm, huskem?</p>
<p>First off, I believe you are comparing apples and oranges in two ways. The first is that you are quoting the SAT numbers of the admitted class at Conn, not the matriculating class. This confused me a bit during this year's college application process for child #7. Princetonreview.com lists last year's matriculating class numbers as an extrapolated 1325 SAT, which is still pretty good.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that doesn't tell the whole story.</p>
<p>Since Conn makes SATI reporting optional, only those who believe their SAT scores will help their cases tend to report them. This tends to inflate the median/mean SAT scores for both the admitted class and the matriculating class.</p>
<p>gellino:</p>
<p>You didn't offend me. On the contrary, my post was genuinely complimentary. Did you take my praise for sarcasm? It most certainly wasn't!</p>
<p>I chose the US News reputation ranking because that is the only datum I know of that attempts, to some degree, to measure overall quality of faculty. There are other means of measuring the quality of grad programs and faculty, but they are about grad programs, are done by department, and are not useful for this purpose. There is a well-known quantitative study done by a Chinese university that counts citations in well-respected academic journals, but it is heavily weighted towards large faculties in schools specializing in the hard sciences. It's not useful for this purpose.</p>
<p>So, I maintain that an extremely well-respected faculty can, by itself, make an elite school. If you disagree, then you disagree. That is a value judgment. If an extremely elite faculty makes an elite school, then we must have some way of measuring that, and I maintain that an overall reputation ranking from many members of academe is far more useful than holding my finger up in the breeze to see which way it's blowing.</p>
<p>The admit rate is, to my mind, badly flawed. For instance, Deep Springs College is a wonderful place that has average SAT scores that are among the highest in the country and an admit rate that is one of the lowest. But I cannot include it among elite colleges. It is only a two-year school, has an itinerant faculty that teaches across a range of disciplines, and has a very, very limited course selection. I happily sent one of my sons there (and the cost CAN'T be beaten). But it is not one of the country's elite colleges, even if it is one of the most wonderful in other ways.</p>
<p>Berkeley, on the other hand, is widely admired around the world in nearly every academic discipline. But it is a state school, and may never produce the SAT numbers you require. But that doesn't mean it isn't one of the finest universities in the world. Michigan comes close to Berkeley. </p>
<p>You and I may simply have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "elite," and that's perfectly OK, because this is not physics. It is not something subject to rigorous testing under controlled conditions. If 1350 average SAT seems elite to you, then fine. If you think a school can't be elite unless its student body has an average 1350, then we will simply disagree.</p>
<p>What I LIKE about what you've done, though, is that you at least have a method. Many of the posters on this thread don't need criteria. They simply know through some form of mental osmosis. I admire the ability to simply know things without relevant data, but I'm afraid that I require methods and data.</p>
<p>"What I LIKE about what you've done, though, is that you at least have a method. Many of the posters on this thread don't need criteria. They simply know through some form of mental osmosis. I admire the ability to simply know things without relevant data, but I'm afraid that I require methods and data."</p>
<p>-Even if the data are selected and controlled by you to yield the answers you want? The fact of the matter is, no matter how "scientific" you try to make this ranking of what is or is not elite, its not possible. The first thing one learns about statistics is that the person compiling the statistics can make them say almost anything! While some of your methods seem sound, I dont believe that your method of ranking is, as a whole, reliable.</p>