search for the elites

College Search & Selection
81

<p>kk19131:</p>

<p>Many of the grad courses I've taught over the past few years have dealt with research techniques in the social sciences and, specifically, psychology. Probably 3/4 or more of my classes are devoted to the use (and misuse) of statistics. It appears to me that you are accusing me of dishonesty. That's fine, but if so, then defend your conclusions using actual data instead of mere feelings.</p>

<p>What you learned first in statistics seems a bit strange to me. The first things I learned were mathematical techniques. Can statistics be misleading if badly interpreted? Of course! Anything can be misleading if badly interpreted. But I believe you confuse those with political intent (defined as advocates of anything who seek data to support a preconceived conclusion) with those with no political intent.</p>

<p>I have no political intent in anything I've written on this thread. I became a part of this thread because I enjoy intellectual play, and that's all this is. I never claimed to be "scientific," and I wonder if you know what that word means. I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that the issue cannot be resolved or settled empirically, while ALSO pointing out that mere "feelings" are not useful in the playful argument. As Socrates would say, "define your terms."</p>

<p>In essence, this whole thread is about defining the term "elite." I have simply thrown out food for thought. If, in fact, the term cannot be defined or, at least, have the definition narrowed, then it is not a useful term. And yet, it is thrown about on these boards with great gusto. So, some people must feel the term has meaning and usefulness to them.</p>

<p>To date, all I have done is set some conditions for the term "elite" as it applies to institutions of higher education. They are not the only possible conditions and at least one poster has offered his own. Only by offering conditions does the actual argument have merit. Otherwise, all we have to go on are vague impressions and feelings.</p>

<p>So, by all means, offer your own criteria so that the rest of us can analyze and respond to them. Or engage in more ad hominem attacks if you prefer. May I point out, though, that ad hominem attacks are neither fun nor useful, and I'm quite sure that the faculty at Northwestern does not advocate the use of ad hominem attacks in the course of rational discourse.</p>

82

<p>Please don't forget W&M. Average SAT 1344, 85% in top 10%, 31% acceptance rate. Not bad for a public school.</p>

83

<p>First, I want to say, I am in no way attacking YOU. I am, however attacking the premise of this discussion. You say that people must use data to support their arguments, that using only feelings is not good enough for this discussion. Well, I’m saying that this discussion is just cyclical; there is no way to get an answer to the question. True, having data to support one’s argument is a preferred condition, but anyone can choose whatever data he wants, to yield the responses he wants. Is this political intent? Yes and no. I don’t know if people are intending to yield certain answers or not, but what I do know is: no matter how well organized and presented a person’s criteria for defining elite, they are no better than any criteria anyone else can conceive. This is shown clearly in gellino’s and your posts; you both have different criteria, and thus yield different answers. </p>

<p>Can I give my own criteria? Of course I can. But who’s to say that the conditions I offer are not just a reflection of the end I am trying to seek. </p>

<p>What is elite to me? Let’s see…</p>

<p>How about an average 1300 SAT, 80% in top 10% of high school class, and 40% admissions rate. Silly? Maybe, but there you have it. How many schools fit these criteria? I have no idea, but I have set out criteria, so now I am able to participate in this discussion with some acquired authority, because without having created any criteria, I’d be just relying on my worthless feelings and opinions of course.</p>

84

<p>kk19131:</p>

<p>Ah, but don't you see? By putting forth criteria, you allow others to apply that criteria to a set of schools and see if it makes sense. At best, this leads to further refinement of the argument and the definition.</p>

<p>For instance, let's say we use your criteria and it yields 300+ schools. We then can ask ourselves the question, "Is a definition of 'elite' that yields 300+ schools/~14% of all four-year institutions a viable definition? Why or why not?"</p>

<p>This sort of thing adds to the argument, and allows further refining and deepening of thought. Eventually, it just might lead to everyone in the thread having a better sense of what "elite" might be, and what unresolved issues impair finding a common definition of "elite."</p>

<p>Suppose you took a class in logic or even philosophy, and the professor asked you to name your favorite flavor of ice cream. You say "chocolate." Does the professor then give you an A+, or ask you to defend your choice? If she's good, she asks you to defend it, and if thing go well, you get a rollicking good classroom discussion on the nature of "flavor," the nature of preference, the quality of texture, and the like. You do not resolve the issue of the "best" flavor, of course, but you do (if you are bright) end up learning these things over time:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>That the best purpose of argument is not to "win," but to deepen one's understanding.</p></li>
<li><p>That it is precisely arguments on matters that cannot be empirically determined that yield the most learning (what good is an argument on a settled question such as the speed of light?)</p></li>
<li><p>That engaging in well-reasoned argument hones the mind.</p></li>
<li><p>That arguing topics that cannot be resolved teaches one of the most important things in life: the value of uncertainty.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Outside the hard sciences (and even inside them many times), the nature of living is to be uncertain. We rarely have all the data we need to make the highest-probability decisions we have to make, whatever the field. Socratic discourse helps break us out of the most common intellectual error of this or any age: certainty about things of which we cannot be certain, and its attendant ills.</p>

<p>Thank you for participating in a meaningful way, though I think you probably didn't mean it to be so meaningful. I'm going to guess that you have a great loyalty to Northwestern and took it somewhat personally when Northwestern was left out of my original list. I can assure you that (as I said many, many times) my criteria were picked somewhat arbitrarily and I had no idea whether Northwestern would be encompassed in those criteria or not. There's no bias against Northwestern, here. It's just the way things fell out in a system I used for the purposes of FUN discussion.</p>

<p>I still maintain that, though they are not perfect, US News has already done this by considering a number of factors we have not considered here. Launching a discussion outside US News (or other ranking methods) is simply a fun exercise. </p>

<p>That's all.</p>

85

<p>While this may have changed somewhat in the last couple years, there are probably many more colleges with an avg SAT of 1300 than 80% of their class in the top 10% of hs class, so this combination is an incompatible threshold to me. A place like Trinity or Bates has over a 1300 SAT avg, but might not even have 60% in the top 10%, while probably no college (except maybe certain UCs) has 80% of its students in the top 10% of hs class, but has under a 1300 avg SAT. This is because many schools could achieve the 80% number, but choose not to because it's not their goal above fielding sports teams and other special interests in filling out a class. Plus, it's an arbitrary cut-off. There's not that much difference between the top 9% and top 11% and should not be used in such a discrete 0,1 manner.</p>

86

<p>"There's not that much difference between the top 9% and top 11% and should not be used in such a discrete 0,1 manner."</p>

<p>That is my point..... I only gave those numbers as an example.</p>

<p>“Thank you for participating in a meaningful way, though I think you probably didn't mean it to be so meaningful. I'm going to guess that you have a great loyalty to Northwestern and took it somewhat personally when Northwestern was left out of my original list. I can assure you that (as I said many, many times) my criteria were picked somewhat arbitrarily and I had no idea whether Northwestern would be encompassed in those criteria or not. There's no bias against Northwestern, here. It's just the way things fell out in a system I used for the purposes of FUN discussion.”</p>

<p>Oh my no. That couldn't be farther from the truth. As a matter of fact, I even said: </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 have no intention to vilify anyone on this board, and if you believe it or not, I am just trying to give my honest input – whether some find it helpful or not.</p>

87

<p>Besides, gellino, the top 10% of class stat is one of the most unreliable and misleading stats in the US News rankings. Depending on the year of the survey, between 40% and 50% of high schools no longer provide class rank to colleges. Between 80% and 90% of private, non-parochial schools provide that number (source: NACAC). </p>

<p>So, the number tends to include (to a great degree) students from average to low-performing high schools (though there are exceptions). No one has any idea what the class rank statistics are from high-performing high schools.</p>

<p>You are right about the 1,0 issue, but this is the nature of defining a thing unless you use sliding scales, matrices, weightings, multiple regressions, factor analysis, multivariate analysis, or what have you. In essence, US News already uses weightings, and its rankings clearly show the criteria and a score, which allows one to make a judgement about what is significant and what is not.</p>

88

<p>kk:</p>

<p>Good! You have made this statement: "I truly don't think that Chicago is an elite, elite institution," Very well. Explain why. Is the 1440 average SAT too low? Is the 4.6 reputational rating too low? Are there too few faculty members in the highest academies and institutes in their fields? Are there too few Nobel Laureates teaching there? Is the library too small? Too large? Too musty? Are there not enough courses of study, or are there too many? </p>

<p>If, in fact, some schools belong in the elite, elite institution category and some do not, why, other than your "gut feel," is that so?</p>

89

<p>all top 25 universities can be considered elite, since they are so many colleges in U.S. </p>

<p>talking about "elite" of the "elite" colleges for 6 pages = massive insecurity? ;)</p>

<p>or boredom?</p>

90

<p>No. Fun. [10 char.]</p>

91

<p>gellino/tarhunt- i took my numbers from the usnews, as well as from each individual nescac school site. this isnt the forum to discuss conn selectivity (again, i must reiterate that in 2006 it was the 26th most selective LAC according to the usnews), but i welcome your opinions, no matter what they are, on the conn forum.
but basically i was saying that conn is in the same level as bates/colby/hamilton. any college guidebook, guidance counselor, grad school admissions counselor would agree. and yet, they wouldnt make the 'truly elite' list unless it was around 50, if you were combining both LACS and Unis. </p>

<p>sorry for the detour everyone. continue on.</p>

92

<p>nevermind, move along...</p>

93

<p>Elite schools = Top 50 National Universities
Top 50 National Liberal Arts Colleges</p>

<p>According to U.S. News and World Report's Rankings</p>

<p>Those are the top 100 out of 4,000 four year colleges and universities.
(Top 2%)</p>

<p>End of discussion</p>

94

<p>I would say that a #60 NU is going to do more for you than a #40 LAC, so wouldn't use a 50/50 breakdown. I don't ever remember USNWR saying something like this and wouldn't necessarily go by them anyway. </p>

<p>How many colleges are really in the country? One person said 2,200 earlier, now 4,000; I've always thought it was around 3,000.</p>

95

<p>ive always thought it was 3000 as well. i also might lower the 'elite' title from 100 to 75.</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
I agree completely. I do also think it is the same as saying that RISD is a top school because it’s the best in art…. While MIT does have a few programs outside math and science, Cal Tech’s 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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On the contrary I disagree with this and rather be on Tarhunt's side. The reason why MIT/Caltech should be treated differently from other specialty schools like RISD or Naval Academy is because they produce huge flux to the wide ranges of professional working classes. Whether we like it or not, people normally attribute dominance to the fields that give leverage to productivity in money sense.</p>

<p>For example, an MIT or Caltech's grad in mathematics may receive job offer (or admission into grad schools) in education, law, business, medicine, science, engineering fields. But the same thing can not be said for other specialty schools like RISD or Julliard. It's very unlikely for a RISD grad to get a job outside of art/design fields.</p>

<p>Based on economic reasoning (chances to compete for a job) I would list the super elite schools in their entirety (disregard separate elite school divisions such as Wharton of Penn and CS school of CMU) as follows:</p>

<p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Stanford</p>

97

<p>I think this is a decent list (from a scholarship website that only accepts applications from these schools):</p>

<p>Amherst College
Amherst, Massachusetts </p>

<p>Barnard College
New York, New York </p>

<p>Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island </p>

<p>University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California </p>

<p>California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California </p>

<p>University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois </p>

<p>Claremont McKenna Colleges
Claremont, California </p>

<p>Columbia University
New York, New York </p>

<p>Cornell University
Ithaca, New York </p>

<p>Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire </p>

<p>Duke University
Durham, North Carolina </p>

<p>Georgetown University
Washington, D.C. </p>

<p>Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts </p>

<p>Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland </p>

<p>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts </p>

<p>Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois </p>

<p>University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania </p>

<p>Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey </p>

<p>Rice University
Houston, Texas </p>

<p>Stanford University
Stanford, California </p>

<p>Swarthmore College
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania </p>

<p>Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, Missouri </p>

<p>Wellesley College
Wellesley, Massachusetts </p>

<p>Williams College
Williamstown, Massachusetts </p>

<p>Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut </p>

<p>This was a copy and paste job so please don't shoot the messenger.</p>

98

<p>tarhunt, on the first page, you included on your liberal arts list reed, haverford, mt. holyoke, barnard, grinnell and bryn mawr, yet oddly left out davidson, middlebury, colgate, and washington and lee, all of which are as good as if not better than the former list.</p>

99

<p>UofC man, that looks like a good list.</p>

100

<p>pirt:</p>

<p>As you will notice in that post, I said my list was certainly incomplete. Thanks for adding to it.</p>