<p>Me: "I didn't say acceptance rate mattered. I said selectivity and quality of student body mattered."</p>
<p>You: "Thats pretty much the same thing. Those do not matter at all."</p>
<p>You in last post: "i am saying that you can consider it the same thing when you are deciding how to rank schools"</p>
<p>Wrong. Umich has a 60% acceptance rate. Selectivity is different from acceptance rate even WHEN ranking schools (Umich is a top 25).</p>
<p>Looking at those rankings, one would have to conclude that the U of Minnesota is better than Dartmouth and Nebraska beats Notre Dame...although all may have their merits, I would beg to differ.</p>
<p>Numberone did you read my post? Selectivity is very important, it empowers the strength of alumni, helps you get jobs (people respect your intelligence), and helps give you credibility everywhere.</p>
<p>Also by your usage (or lack thereof) you sounded like a 14 yr old to me. I guess I was wrong.</p>
<p>The argument that the quality does not trickle down is very unconvincing. Research attracts the best young faculty talent. Research money pays for many important luxuries that many schools don't have. Nearly 40% of research money goes to the general fund where it gets spent on all students.</p>
<p>So you want almost ALL LACs to be removed from the list? I'm actually fine with that :)</p>
<p>if lacs were so bad, dont you think all of the top students would have figured that out already??</p>
<p>Some students like small schools. They give you the opportunity to know most people in the school, enjoy a well rounded education, and have a better chance to work with profs. This is why top students choose these schools.</p>
<p>when u say selectivity matters a great deal, i want to know when ur supposed to draw the line</p>
<p>obviously, what is better, a school like U Mich (quite prestigious and very well known) or Rice or Wash U, both are far more selective than U of Mich, but may not be as well known</p>
<p>so slipper, ur saying Rice has a stronger network for alums than Mich?</p>
<p>or wash u?</p>
<p>"Look specifically at number 16. Oh yeah, you can't even find harvey mudd in the top 500."</p>
<p><em>sarcasm</em> you know what, you're right. harvey mudd is not even on the top 500 list for institutions of higher learning. yeah, they must be terrible! <em>sarcasm off</em></p>
<p>i really want to call you something very demeaning right now, but i won't. do you think that possibly harvey mudd is not on that list because harvey mudd is a college and not a university?</p>
<p>omg. honestly, how old are you? i hope that you are 15 or less...because with analytic skills like yours, i'd be looking at CC. and by CC i mean both college confidential and community college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all I am not 15. I am turning 17 pretty soon
[/quote]
[quote]
Nobody gives a crap about stupid acceptance rate. Who do you think you are stupid kid. You call me a little kid. Someone who deals with numbers such as acceptance rates should not even be on this website. That is just childish. Acceptance rates show that they are tough to get into. Doesn't show crap. Look at Colorado Boulder. There acceptance rate is almost 90%. Does that mean that they suck. No, actually Boulder is better than any of the schools you've mentioned. Also, this is called an opinion. There is no such thing as the top 50 schools because it is based on opinion. Sure, you can say you base it off of numbers, but the types of numbers you choose are opinionated. So, base it kid, you're going nowhere with your argument and you think that you are right. Just give up.
[/quote]
Well, you certainly act like you're 12.</p>
<p>I have something that might help though, check it out: <a href="http://esl.about.com/library/courses/blcourses_beginner_grammar.htm%5B/url%5D">http://esl.about.com/library/courses/blcourses_beginner_grammar.htm</a></p>
<p>boulder blows</p>
<p>Did the OP actually spell it "John Hopkins"? LOL</p>
<p>boston college over wisconsin and ucsd? not likely.</p>
<p>I had recently created this ranking which attempts to do a Princeton Review type approach (weighting objective measures, {SAT, admit rate, yield, % in top 10%} but in the spirit of the Brody prestige rankings of combining national universities with LACs. It comes remarkably close to your original list. After switching Trinity for Wesleyan there are only four differences (I had NYU # 53, Carnegie Mellon #55, Wake Forest #61 & Grinnell #67 and instead had Harvey Mudd, Barnard, Bates & Lehigh) Here's how it comes out and compares:</p>
<p>1 Harvard
2 Yale
3 Princeton
4 MIT
5 Stanford
6 Penn
7 Columbia
8 Brown
9 Dartmouth
10 Cal Tech
11 Williams
12 Georgetown
13 Cal/Berkeley
14 Duke
15 Pomona
16 Wash U
17 UCLA
18 Amherst
19 Rice
20 Notre Dame
21 Cornell
22 Washington & Lee
23 Bowdoin
24 Middlebury
25 Northwestern
26 Harvey Mudd
27 USC
28 UVA
29 Claremont Mckenna
30 Swarthmore
31 Haverford
32 Emory
33 Johns Hopkins
34 Barnard
35 William & Mary
36 U. Chicago
37 Tufts
38 Davidson
39 UNC
40 Carleton
41 Wesleyan
42 Wellesley
43 Vassar
44 Colgate
45 Boston College
46 Michigan
47 Bates
48 Lehigh
49 Hamilton
50 Vanderbilt</p>
<p>VERSUS</p>
<p>Uh, not quite. Swarthmore (!), Haverford, JHU, Chicago, Carleton, Wesleyan (among others) way too low as compared with (among others) Washington & Lee, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wash U, CMC, USC, UVa</p>
<p>I agree with you on Swat, JHU & UChicago. The year of data I had I think was atypical for these three and they are also somewhat more self-selecting that don't compare as well as they are regarded in pure stats comparisons. Also, thinking of USC as a football factory, I was also surprised how well their academic stats come out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had recently seen this ranking which attempts to do a Princeton Review type approach (weighting objective measures, {SAT, admit rate, yield, % in top 10%} but in the spirit of the Brody prestige rankings of combining national universities with LACs. Here's how it comes out and compares:</p>
<p>1 Harvard
2 Yale
3 Princeton
4 MIT
5 Stanford
6 Penn
7 Columbia
8 Brown
9 Dartmouth
10 Cal Tech
[/quote]
</p>
<p>AH HA! </p>
<p>The Ivies (less Cornell) + Stanford and MIT and Caltech</p>
<p>my Top 10 as I've said all along</p>
<p>What do ya'll think of William and Mary? Prestigious?</p>
<p>It is simply silly to say that Carleton and Wesleyan (and Tufts and Wellesely and Vassar) are 15-20 places below Washington and Lee (!), Bowdoin, Middlebury, CMC.</p>
<p>Ivy__Grad: really going out on a limb there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ivy__Grad: really going out on a limb there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HYPSM is not going out on a limb, ill give you that.</p>
<p>But the other schools don't make many of the CCers Top 10 lists (not to mention the fact that many of those schools don't make USNWR Top 10 either).</p>