Tiering the Colleges

College Search & Selection
1

<p>So, I've been thinking through the suggestion made by a lot of people here about a tiered system, and compiling the data I know (with a very large dose of my own opinions--so take this with a massive grain of salt), I think I've come up with a better way of looking at the rankings (and one that's unlikely to change from year to year).</p>

<p>T0 (Hyper-Elites): HYPS (and grudgingly M)</p>

<p>Offer the most on the aggregate. Program-to-program comparisons between these schools and their lower counterparts can easily lead to upsets, though. MIT is only tentatively included because it's so focused on STEM, but it's liberal arts offerings may be strong enough to put it into this category.</p>

<p>T1 (Knocking on the Door): Columbia, UChicago, CalTech, Dartmouth</p>

<p>Academically as strong as T0, and can often overpass them on a program basis. The exception to this is Dartmouth, which gets promoted due to its comparatively unparalleled focus on undergraduate education. CalTech is demoted from T0 because it suffers from even more of the problems I have with including MIT at the tippy top. These schools primarily lose on either prestige or student life grounds, but all four are improving what they're lacking. If I were to also rank LACs, Williams, Amherst, Swat, Pomona, and (maybe) CMC would all be here. If we ever expand HYPSM, it is almost certainly going to be one of these schools (and, IMO, should be multiple of them). In all fairness, it should be noted that I will be attending UChicago, so there may be a bias.</p>

<p>T2 (Elites): UPenn, Cornell, Northwestern, Duke, Hopkins, Rice</p>

<p>Weaker than the preceding tiers academically on the aggregate, but have extremely good programs that can tie or beat anyone (ex. Duke BME or Wharton). For LACs, this spot would be occupied by HMC, Middlebury, and Haverford. Duke may be the most likely to jump into T1, but I doubt that's currently in the cards.</p>

<p>T3 (Near-Elites): Brown, WUSTL, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Vanderbilt, Tufts</p>

<p>For the most part, lack the standout programs that exist in T2. Except UC Berkeley, which is in this tier because I don't see their funding problems going away, and that can and will have a serious affect on educational resources and student life. Brown is in this tier because I don't think they have the same opportunities as many of their compatriots--but I admittedly don't know all that much about them. LACs: Connecticut College, Trinity (CT), Pitzer, Wellesley, Scripps</p>

<p>T4 (Best of the Rest): UMichigan, UNC, UVA, UWashington, Syracuse, most Honors Colleges, etc.</p>

<p>These schools all have academics on par with any of the above tiers, and standout programs that can beat a T0 school. Their main problems are either funding-based, lack-of-name based (the Honors Colleges especially), or anti-public bias. Otherwise, many of these are as good as T2 and T3 on the whole.</p>

<p>I should note that this is all opinion-based; I'm doing this with some knowledge of each school's statistics, but only a little. </p>

<p>Any comments? Questions? Pieces of food slung my way? Ideas for placing these schools in other tiers or schools that I in my ignorance might have missed?</p>

2

<p>I would consider NYU to be a T2 or T3 given the strength of some of its programs.</p>

3

<p>Ach! Thanks for catching that! I’d personally put it as a tentative T2, because some of its programs are absurdly excellent, but it does seem to be more in line with the T3 schools in terms of overall experience.</p>

4

<p>There has been an extensive thread which compared prestigiousity. Using those opinionated rankings as a basis would be a better idea. For instance who is to say that chicago is better than upenn or duke?</p>

5

<p>You know, USNWR is doing basically what you are trying to do, which is to confirm and aggregate existing opinions on what colleges are “better” in a general prestige sense.</p>

<p>Of course, the rankings what college is better for a given student may not be the same as the aggregated opinion of general prestige. Any given student would have his/her own ranking of colleges specific to his/her situation and goals.</p>

6

<p>Yeah, I have a question… what is the point of this scale?</p>

<p>Are we really that dense to think people should be considering schools based on some hierarchy of exclusivity? Case in point, would you consider Harvard a “Tier 0” school if a student were looking to major in Mechanical Engineering? Of course not… so what is the point in making such a scale if it really has no reasonable applicability?</p>

7

<p>Enjoy being covered in tomato juice !</p>

8

<p>@ucbalumnus‌ You make a very good point with the matter of what’s best for the given student–but what I’m trying to do here is take a suggestion that has shown up on CC and do my best at creating the results of that suggestion when it is applied.</p>

<p>@fractalmstr‌ When you take into account that most students come in with very little idea of what they actually want to do or who change their minds in the middle, then this sort of scale is applicable–it’s also not intended to be a one-size-fits-all to an applicant. If I had to summarize the point of this scale, it is to eliminate the neuroses about the number beside a college’s name on the USNWR ranking, and rather group a given college with its immediate peers.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>You can just take the USNWR ranking and say that its prestige peers are those whose ranking is within -N to +N ranks of the school in question (for some value of N).</p>

10

<p>IMHO, even assuming generating this list makes sense, there is NO reason to have this much granularity. T0-T3, with a couple of exceptions, can all be in one bucket. Then research fit and majors and apply to the ones that make sense.</p>

11

<p>I’d move Berkeley up to T2. Even though their admission rate is relatively high, that’s mostly because they’ve got a ton of room- and given their applicant quality, I’d still consider them selective.</p>

<p>I actually thought a bit about this yesterday, albeit from a STEM undergrad-exclusive perspective, and here’s how my tiers began to look:</p>

<p>Tier 1 - Faces: Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley</p>

<p>These are the “faces” of STEM and constantly innovating + conducting high-quality research. Three of the best 4 CS programs (MIT, Stanford, Berkeley) are in here, Princeton’s known as the rigorous GPA-deflating STEM program of the Ivies (MIT and Berkeley have similar reputations), Harvard has a solid body of researchers that go on to become PhD’s and professors at top 50 programs, and Caltech shares those characteristics (right behind the Big Four and a few others when it comes to CS, definitely known for rigor, tied with JPL and very research-focused). There’s obviously variation in this tier, and I think it goes MIT > Stanford > Berkeley > Caltech > Princeton > Harvard in terms of undergraduate strength, although Harvard would move up to second if you consider just how much of their undergrads go on to become PhD’s and the fact that they’re associated with Gates and Zuckerberg- two generations of super-entrepreneurial dominance.</p>

<p>Tier 2 - Big Names: Georgia Tech, UIUC, Carnegie Mellon, UT-Austin, Cornell, UMich (Ann Arbor), Purdue, Duke, Johns Hopkins</p>

<p>While not the first thoughts associated with STEM, these colleges come to mind- at least in terms of passing references. Not all of them are research-heavy- UT-Austin, for example, has a massive focus on industry and jobs. Several of them are lopsided- incredibly good at some programs and just good/really good at others and perhaps not even that good at others- like Carnegie Mellon (up there with Stanford, MIT, and Berkeley for CS and Computer Engineering but not quite consistent when it comes to its programs, tending to focus most on the T in STEM) and Duke and Johns Hopkins (BME is legendary, but everything else is sort of lagging behind). These often pull off upsets against Tier 1- UT-Austin beats out the Faces when it comes to Petroleum Engineering, for example, and Cornell beats out Princeton and Harvard very easily when it comes to most aspects of CS. They all have solid reputations and unique brands.</p>

<p>Tier 3 - Small Names: Rice, UCLA, UCSD, Texas A&M, Columbia, Yale, Brown, Harvey Mudd</p>

<p>They’re kind of the little brothers of the other two tiers- having a small bit to go before they pull off upsets against Tier 1. Their programs also tend to be lopsided- A&M is good at agricultural engineering, Rice is good at BME- and a few of them are only in here because of their general names (Yale, Brown) as their programs- while solid- aren’t that incredible. UCLA and UCSD both pop up here as Berkeley’s little brothers, and Columbia’s in here because SEAS, while solid, just doesn’t compete with most of the colleges in Tier 2. And Harvey Mudd- well, because of the general degree they offer in Engineering- I think they might be in this tier or in tier 2 just because of their really good ROI.</p>

<p>Tier 4 - Mentions: Honors colleges at some state schools, most of the remaining UC’s, etc.</p>

<p>These are still high-ROI programs with solid reputations- often underrated, however- but don’t come to mind as easily.</p>

<p>EDIT: This scale basically has no meaning or worth outside name-recognition, which ofc shouldn’t be the main concern when determining which colleges to apply to. This list is a bit more specific to my interests and intended to be a conversation-starter rather than an authoritative list- just trying to look at the general landscape when it comes to STEM and weigh the benefits/trade-offs for each program.</p>

12

<p>@ucbalumus That’s pure prestige though–and the only spot where I considered pure prestige to matter significantly (as opposed to academic offerings, total student experience, and research opportunities) was in Tier 4, which are schools who would be in T2 or T3 if they were more known to be excellent (even here on CC). Otherwise, well, why would I be tiering Rice and Vanderbilt (whom are right next to each other in USNWR, with Rice lower) on separate tiers? Or Brown below lower-ranked Cornell? Even if they are prestige peers (and I agree with you that they are), I’m trying to sift beyond that somewhat.</p>

13

<p>@dividerofzero The main reason Berkeley is low isn’t a selectivity issue–it’s the funding problem that I think can and might have a significant effect on student life and educational quality. Otherwise, they’re a T2 (and mayyyybe a T1 since they seem to have the same across-the-board quality).</p>

14

<p>@kaarboer‌ True; their best days seem to be over, but their endowment (upwards of $3B, iirc) is still significant- although it doesn’t compare to Stanford’s $17BB. I just think they’re really solid, especially because, as the Columbia Wiki points out, while Penn State is overshadowed handily by UPenn and Rutgers by Princeton, UC-Berkeley is still highly competitive with Stanford. Even in the humanities, imho, they’ve got solid reputation and professors- look at Judy B., for example.</p>

<p>They seem to be dealing with the limited funding pretty well and still beat out every other public school in the nation, imho. Berkeley’s name still inspires respect/awe.</p>