<p>but won’t it be fair to us if Michigan, which has close to 50% acceptance rate for in-state students, is ranked as high as Cornell? I mean, how can a top school be so easy to get in? I think they should reduce the quota for in-state students in order to be top.</p>
<p>IBclass, I’m aware of UMich and UVa having drawn more of its funding from endowment and private supports. These are rich institutions despite their being state universities. But this is what you’ve actually said: Most of the top publics draw only 10-20%. Citing UMich and UVa as “most” as in many… isn’t valid, is it?</p>
<p>BearCub, I think there’s a pretty clear flaw on your logic. Do you rate the students when you’re asked to rate the schools? It doesn’t really make sense. You should rate the school when you’re ask to rate the school. If the school would make these students great, then that school is great. If the school couldn’t do that however, then it isn’t a great school. HYPSM have great products because they attract the best students. So, no matter what, these students would find ways to be competitive. But just because HYPSM have the horde of the top students make them the ultimate best schools. If you would want to major in computer science, for example, would it be better to attend Yale than Berkeley? Maybe. But USNews didn’t measure that. USNews measured only things that would tell the students that it is more convenient to attend Yale than Berkeley, in general. It’s a very vague and irrelevant measure (or answer) to computer science prospective students.</p>
<p>“but won’t it be fair to us if Michigan, which has close to 50% acceptance rate for in-state students, is ranked as high as Cornell? I mean, how can a top school be so easy to get in? I think they should reduce the quota for in-state students in order to be top.”</p>
<p>It all depends on the desired freshman class that the university has as its target along with the number of the incoming applications. Michigan has always had a large (too large I think) freshman class (5700-6000), thus in order to achieve that number, they simply had to admit more people. As the number of applications increases overtime, the selectivity will increase too.</p>
<p>“If the school would make these students great, then that school is great.”</p>
<p>While this is true, but how about HYPSM? Those schools don’t really make the students great…it’s more like the students make those schools great. If we wanna talk about how a school makes its students great, then we should instead have a value added ranking system…which I believe Berkeley or Michigan would top the ranking.</p>
<p>Bearclub, not including LACs, Cal is one of the 15 most selective universities in the US and Michigan is one of the 25 most selective universities in the US. Those aren’t easy universities to get into, despite their acceptance rates. Yes, It is easier to get into Michigan than it is to get into Cornell, but as an alumnus of both universities, I can say with a fair degree of confidence and neutrality that those two universities are practically identical in terms of quality and reputation. If you look closely, you will see that Cornell was co-founded by a Michigan professor and that 7 of Cornell’s 12 presidents (including its first two presidents) were at one time or another professors at the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>And HYPSM are not great because of their students. They attract great students because they are great universities. Students are nothing. We are tiny specks next to the great minds that work at leading universities. Some humility is in order here. Do not compare mere students to professors at Harvard. Only a tiny fraction of the students at top universities are equal to the great minds that teach at leading universities.</p>
<p>Michigan’s acceptance rate last year was 41%. It continues to fall.</p>
<p>^ Aren’t most top schools’ acceptance rates falling because HS students continue to increase the number of applications they submit?</p>
<p>Yes…but as of late, more and more international applicants are beginning to apply to top schools too. So, not only are more students sending more applications, but there are also actually more applicants too.</p>
<p>But Michigan isn’t like the UC schools. You just can’t simply check a box and apply to as many affiliated schools are you want instate.</p>
<p>And Michigan doesn’t accept Common Application.</p>
<p>My Top 15</p>
<p>1-8: The Ivies</p>
<p>9: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
10: Stanford
11: California Institute of Technology
12: Johns Hopkins
13: Berkeley
14: Georgetown
15: UChicago</p>
<p>Why is everyone fellating Berkeley.</p>
<p>So what it it has some big name professors Berkely is so big you don’t get to know them personally.</p>
<p>Rice and Emory and Vandy should be top 15.</p>
<p>
Only if you’re too lazy to get to know your professor.</p>
<p>
We’re not discussing which universities “should be” or “will be” top 15. We’re discussing which universities are top 15. I can think of at least 15 others that would beat out those three – the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Northwestern.</p>
<p>IBclass06, Berkeley is superior to at least 4 ivies, Chicago, Duke, JHU and Northwestern in terms of academic prestige (subjective), facilities, faculty caliber, curriculum, research output and in areas that contribute to the betterment of the world that we live in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. I love this post.</p>
<p>Cal is superior to (AT LEAST!) 4 Ivies, Chicago, Duke, JHU and NU on the following levels:</p>
<ul>
<li>Academic prestige</li>
<li>Facilities</li>
<li>Faculty caliber</li>
<li>Curriculum </li>
<li>Research output (how is this relevant to undergrad discussions?)</li>
</ul>
<p>and here is the doozy:</p>
<ul>
<li>In areas that contribute to the betterment of the world that we live in (<em>larfs</em>)</li>
</ul>
<p><em>wipes tears from eyes</em> – GO CAL!</p>
<p>
Note that I said “at least” in my above post. I purposefully excluded Berkeley and Michigan from my list of 15 examples because I did not want to derail the thread for the umpteenth time with a public/private argument. I chose 15 schools that nearly everyone would put above Rice, Emory, and Vanderbilt (no offense to any of them).</p>
<p>If you read my earlier post of the [top</a> 15](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061660412-post1319.html]top”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061660412-post1319.html), you’d notice that I included Berkeley.</p>
<p>CAl is so big.</p>
<p>Read the Fiske Book. It says specifically that you will be “50 feet from greatness,” and that Cal is so big that it is practically impossible to have personal, one-on-one contact with professors like you can at small colleges with small class sizes like Oberlin.</p>
<p>What makes Chicago superior to VAndy aand Rice?</p>
<p>Chicago only got semi-selective like 1.5 years ago, and it is still easier to get into than Rice and Vandy and Emory. Seriously, 1 year ago it had like a 40 percent acceptance rate! yeah, it has gone down plenty, but it’s still not that hard to get.</p>
<p>Also, it is a nerdy place where there are no parties and people are stressed out and only focused on work. Sounds like hel l. At Rice and Vandy, you’ll get a more hard-to-get degree and actually enjoy yourself.</p>
<p>
Vanderbilt and Rice are wonderful universities with an arguably superior quality of life, but academically Chicago wipes the floor with them.</p>
<p>
Chicago seems to compare favorably to me. </p>
<p>Math SAT
Rice 670-780
Emory 670-760
Chicago 650-760
Vanderbilt 660-740</p>
<p>CR SAT
Chicago 660-770
Rice 640-750
Emory 640-740
Vanderbilt 640-740</p>
<p>Top 10%
Chicago 86%
Emory 85%
Vanderbilt 84.2%
Rice 83%</p>
<p>Admit rates
Rice 25%
Emory 26.6%
Chicago 27.9%
Vanderbilt 33%</p>
<p>Chicago comes out ahead of the other three, since it doesn’t have early decision to lower its admit rate.</p>