<p>Wisconsin is better than Brandeis and Boston College.</p>
<p>Yeahh...Wisconsin really must be on that list. It is very underrated on this forum.</p>
<p>Reed College should def. be on that list</p>
<p>Wisconsin has to be on the list. No doubt at about it.</p>
<p>Reed/Harvey Mudd should come before Wisconsin.</p>
<p>One of the smartest things US News does which makes it a comparably good ranking system is that it ranks major research uni's and LAC's seperately. You get a completely different experience at LAC's - they should not be compared.</p>
<p>exactly. They should not be compared.Also, Reed and Harvey Mudd are nothing compared to Wisconsin. Tell me in what fields they are at better than Wisconsin.</p>
<p>"In August of 2005, The Princeton Review ranked Reed number 1 in its category "Best Overall Academic Experience For Undergraduates."</p>
<p>Reed has produced the second-highest number of Rhodes scholars (31), for any liberal arts college, as well as over 50 Fulbright Scholars, over 60 Watson Fellows, and 2 MacArthur ("Genius") Award winners. A very high proportion of Reed graduates go on to earn Ph.D.s, particularly in the sciences, history, political science, and philosophy. Reed is third in percentage of its graduates who go on to earn PhDs in all disciplines, after only Caltech and Harvey Mudd. Reed is first in this percentage in biology.</p>
<p>Reed's debating team, which had existed for only two years at the time, was awarded the first place sweepstakes trophy for Division Two schools at the final tournament of the Northwest Forensics Conference in February, 2004.</p>
<p>Loren Pope, former education editor for The New York Times, called Reed "the most intellectual college in the country." Reed's academic workload for freshmen can be especially daunting to the unprepared: the freshman Humanities syllabus [6] lists over 500 pages of weekly reading."</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd and Reed are more selective. </p>
<p>Harvey Mudd: The college is one of the most selective in the nation; the median entering SAT score is about 770 (out of 800) in mathematics, and 1470 (out of 1600) overall [2]. A third of the student body are National Merit Scholars, and about 40 percent of graduates go on earn a Ph.D.the highest rate of any college or university in the nation [3][4]. Harvey Mudd College leads the nation in percentage of graduates who go on to earn a Ph.D. - well over 40% in recent years. Over 65% go on to earn at least a Master's degree.
In 1997, Harvey Mudd College became the sole American undergraduate-only institution ever to win 1st place in the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest. [5] No American school has won the world competition since then. [6]</p>
<p>So what. I can come up with a lot more things for Madison if I had the time. Can someone else do it please?</p>
<p>Riiiight...</p>
<p>Did you even read that stuff? To summarize: both schools are more selective. Other points include: Better grad school, better quality of students, better academics, and better in certain fields like the Sciences, Engineering, etc.</p>
<p>Does Wisconsin have an avg 1470/1600 SAT I?</p>
<p>Who cares about being selective. A lot of schools are selective and they are still crap. You need to look at the school overall. Harvey mudd is only good at engineering. It sucks at everything else. Reed is not that great at anything.</p>
<p>Name these "selectively" crappy schools? I want to hear what "crappy" school has an avg SAT I of 1470/1600.</p>
<p>Reed is amazing for undergrad focus and academics. Just because many of us have not heard of it does not mean it sucks. Harvey Mudd is not just good at Engineering but also in the Sciences. Obviously you can't compare business schools since LACs don't have them.</p>
<p>All of these small colleges. All they do is make you well rounded. Who cares about being well rounded. All you should care about is your area of interest. All small schools are very selective, but they are not that great. You think they are because US news classifies top schools as schools that are hard to get into. It doesn't matter if the school has great profs, education, course selection, campus, and other things like that.</p>
<p>Since the Op put LACs in with Research Universities, it is only right that we include the Top LACs such as Reed/Harvey Mudd. If not, we should also throw out the other LACs. </p>
<p>"It doesn't matter if the school has great profs, education, course selection, campus, and other things like that." If all those don't matter and selectivity + quality of student body doesn't matter, then what does? You also said b4 that Harvey Mudd is also better in engineering and it is better in the sciences. Shall we judge all schools based on how good its business school is?</p>
<p>PS: You've yet to show me some of these "crappy" selective schools.</p>
<p>Those things are irrelevant. I am an MBA and I think I have one of the best jobs in the world for a person my age. I was an anthro major. My education and classes had nothing to do with my success, I could have majored in East Asian Studies and been just as successful. 100% of my success in terms of my undergrad has been based on alumni support, grad placement, prestige, selectivity (i.e. people instantly look at you as intelligent), and institutional support (Dartmouth gave my start-up FREE office space and advisors for my start-up senior year - try that at Michigan. They gave me 10K in scholarship money for my thesis research). I got into B-school as one of the 5 youngest in my class because of alumni that gave me recommendations.</p>
<p>You take your TAs and your research and I'll take success and a powerful connected supportive communty.</p>
<p>BTW- Amherst and Williams grads have been some of the most successful people I have met in my life.</p>
<p>If we're keeping with the true spirit of the NCAA tournament, which tends to really favor big-conference schools with so-so records over small-conference schools with good records, we have to give the big-name publiic research universities (Berkeley, Michigan, UCLA, Wisconsin, UIUC maybe UVA) higher seeds. Plus, this allows for the smaller LAC's to pull some upsets. I mean, you can't have UIUC <em>upsetting</em> Amherst. Just doesn't sound right.</p>
<p>I mentioned these crappy schools before when i said that they didn't deserve to be in the top 50 list.</p>
<p>"exactly. They should not be compared.Also, Reed and Harvey Mudd are nothing compared to Wisconsin. Tell me in what fields they are at better than Wisconsin."</p>
<p>LOL. Engineering, Computer Science, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics (pure and applied), Mathematical Biology. Wisconsin might have Biology...I dunno, I don't follow Biology.</p>
<p>Accepted - don't worry about number one. I bet the kid is 15 tops.</p>
<p>LOL <em>high five</em></p>