<p>Stanford, MIT, Cal-tech, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Wharton (specifically), Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore</p>
<p>H,Y,P,MIT,Duke,Stanford,Chicago,CalTech,Rice,NotreDame</p>
<p>This thread seems to be biased toward private universities, especially Ivy league universities.</p>
<p>Because they are the best</p>
<ol>
<li>West Point</li>
<li>Annapolis</li>
<li>Deep Springs</li>
<li>Air Force</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>9 billion LAC's</li>
</ol>
<p>1) Bryn Mawr
2) Caltech
3-7) MIT+HYP+Stanford
8-9) UCLA+UCB
10) a lot of others</p>
<p>Rated by concentration of outstanding students :D</p>
<p>Group-1
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
MIT-Cal Tech</p>
<p>Group-2
Columbia
UC Berkeley
Chicago
Penn
Dartmouth
Cornell
Brown
Northwestern
Duke
Michigan</p>
<p>Honorable Mentions:
John Hopkins
UCLA
Georgetown</p>
<ol>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
<li>University of Michigan</li>
</ol>
<p>LAC's aside (lets be honest, no one cares about them) :)</p>
<p>Top 10 colleges IMO.</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>University of Chicago</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
</ol>
<p>For anyone looking for a list of schools that offer the best combination for the complete undergraduate education of great students + great academics + great social life + and great athletics followed by great postgraduate oppportunities, then I might suggest the following:</p>
<ol>
<li> Stanford</li>
<li> Duke</li>
<li> Princeton</li>
<li> Northwestern</li>
<li> Vanderbilt</li>
<li> Rice</li>
<li> U Penn</li>
<li> Notre Dame</li>
<li> USC</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
</ol>
<p>Any list with Caltech in the top 5 is a joke to me. After all, like 80% of students couldn't even major in anything at Caltech. Caltech gets to be almost universally good at just two fields (science/engineering) (and a few parts of social sciences) and yet is constantly placed as a top- 5 school??? Please. </p>
<p>Most top universities could drop the areas in which they are weaker- does this make them 'better' universities for it? I think not. Imagine a University of Pennsylvania wherein EVERYONE is a Wharton student. I bet it would surely move up in the rankings then.</p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Williams, Amherst, Columbia, Rice, U. of Chicago, and Duke.</p>
<p>For those who would not be turned off by the large size of State Universities, it is a fact that there are many very good students to be found there and the quality of their academic/social/athletic experience is better and more appealing to many students. Here are those I might suggest taking the closest look at:</p>
<p>Undergrad Size (OOS %) School</p>
<p>12,361 (34%) Georgia Tech
14,676 (33%) U Virginia
17,124 (18%) U North Carolina
23,863 (7%) UC Berkeley
25,432 (7%) UCLA
25,555 (33%) U Michigan
27,836 (18%) U Washington
30,055 (38%) U Wisconsin
36,613 (28%) Penn State
37,037 (5%) U Texas</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Berkeley </li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Michigan </li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Yale </li>
<li>Chicago </li>
<li>Duke</li>
</ol>
<p>Go Bju!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>
What are you talking about?</p>
<p>
Caltech's purpose is to push the frontiers of science while teaching it, so I don't think they should be penalized because they are 'universally good at just two fields'. It really comes down to how you rank your schools; for me quality>quantity. No one goes to Caltech intending to major in English or Philosophy and for that I don't think the school should get penalized.</p>
<p> [quote=kk19131] Most top universities could drop the areas in which they are weaker- does this make them 'better' universities for it? I think not. Imagine a University of Pennsylvania wherein EVERYONE is a Wharton student. I bet it would surely move up in the rankings then.
I think this is a false analogy. Caltech hasn't dropped any fields to retain it's spot as one of the top schools. As I said the whole entire purpose of Caltech is to further and teach science and engineering; it doesn't make sense to judge it by the metric applied to normal schools. It's an Institute of Technology.</p>
<p>Just because Caltech isn't for/doesn't cater to everyone doesn't mean it should automatically be ineligible for top school status. The student body there is the strongest numerically (SATs) out of any school, and no one denies that the school is absolutely top notch for science and engineering.</p>
<p>"No one goes to Caltech intending to major in English or Philosophy and for that I don't think the school should get penalized."</p>
<p>-I'm not denying that Caltech is a great school, among the best for science and engineering... but to be called one of the 'best' 'universities'- when it has so little to offer- is a BIG stretch to me. </p>
<p>"for me quality>quantity."</p>
<p>-All top schools are good at something, that is, they all have some kind of 'quality' program/s, most, however, have more than JUST that one thing. Caltech on the other hand... not so much. I see no reason how or why Caltech could be ranked above places like Michigan, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.</p>
<p>"Caltech hasn't dropped any fields to retain it's spot as one of the top schools."</p>
<p>-I'm not saying that it has. I'm only saying that it's false to call Caltech a 'national university' by many standards. </p>
<p>"As I said the whole entire purpose of Caltech is to further and teach science and engineering;"</p>
<p>-And the whole purpose of Wharton is to further and teach business and economics... yet the Wharton school of business is not called a 'national university'. </p>
<p>"it doesn't make sense to judge it by the metric applied to normal schools. It's an Institute of Technology"</p>
<p>-Then rank it with other "Institutes of Technology"- not comprehensive universities. </p>
<p>"Just because Caltech isn't for/doesn't cater to everyone doesn't mean it should automatically be ineligible for top school status."</p>
<p>-The point is, it doesn't cater to MOST people, and as such, it should indeed mean that it be ineligible for top school status- as far as being a national university is concerned. </p>
<p>"The student body there is the strongest numerically (SATs) out of any school"</p>
<p>-That is not all that relevant; this does not change the fact that Caltech is not really a national university, by most any standard. </p>
<p>"and no one denies that the school is absolutely top notch for science and engineering."</p>
<p>-And I am within the category of "no one".</p>
<p>Caltech isn't a public school, it doesn't have to cater to everyone. It serves the people who want to go there very well and I see no problem in calling a top national university in that regard.</p>
<p>"Caltech isn't a public school"</p>
<p>-Neither is the Wharton School of Business- or most other branches of real national (private) universities . </p>
<p>Because it "serves the people who want to go there" it's a top national university? So I guess in your mind any school could be a "top national university"?</p>
<p>-Ok then. The Wharton School is now a top national university.</p>
<p>In that case...</p>
<p>My top universities are:</p>
<p>Cornell Architecture School
The Wharton School of business
The Medill School of Journalism
Yale Law School
Berkeley Engineering School
Johns Hopkins Medical School
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Road Island School of Design
The Julliard School</p>
<p>What's BJU?</p>
<p>Blow Job Uni?</p>