<p>It can be argued </p>
<p>UC Berkeley > Cornell
Notre Dame > Georgetown
Vanderbilt > Rice
UCLA > WUSTL</p>
<p>I dont agree with the third and fourth tiers.</p>
<p>My Goodness, ranking colleges in tiers is even more silly than saying Pokemon Yellow is better than Pokemon Red.</p>
<p>fyi, pokemon red for the wolf—CHARIZARD!!</p>
<p>But seriously, you can all find some thing in which one school is better and the other isn’t. US news has one fourth of their criteria based on individuals like you. It’s no wonder it’s impossible to find legit rankings because there is always an element of bias and subjectivity.</p>
<p>I don’t care if Berkeley is better than JHU. It probably is in some parts and isn’t in others.Who can know and tell? But what I do care/realize, is that they are both good schools and to say one is better than the other is either sad or really sad.</p>
<p>That isn’t to say that people can’t have opinions. They can. But the idea that their opinion is right is false when comparing top schools. And that’s just true.</p>
<p>(I could argue that Tufts is better than Northwestern or that U of Chicago beats Stanford or that Stanford beats U of Chicago, whatever…tit for tat. But no one will disagree that U of Chicago and Stanford, or whatever x and y colleges, are excellent schools).</p>
<p>There are various ways to do this objectively (more or less).
Some of them already have been tried by stateuniversity.com, the NRC, Washington Monthly, and others. What basis do you have for believing that whatever you wind up with will be more credible than any other list?</p>
<p>My own approach would be to start with a manageably small set of statistics that account for (1) student qualities, (2) faculty qualities, and (3) infrastructure/facilities. This is one way to cover the whole. For example, use average entering test scores, average faculty salaries (or faculty National Academy memberships per capita), and endowment per capita.</p>
<p>A different approach would be to compare inputs and outcomes. For inputs, again look at average SATs (or some such). For outputs, look at alumni median salaries, PhD production, or something like that. The best performers would be schools with the biggest deltas between inputs and outputs.</p>
<p>Of course there are all sorts of gotchas in how you gather and weight the numbers. But, by racking and stacking them in a spreadsheet, it is interesting to see how small changes alter the results.</p>
<p>You all need to go read the negative threads posted on students review and you will quickly change your minds about ANY State University, especially Berkeley and UCLA. The whole “taught by non-English speaking TAs” is perhaps overwrought with respect to the State schools, but the horrors are surely there – you are number, professors are remote and indifferent, very difficult to get quality research opportunities or grad school recommendations, massive lecture halls, etc. etc. Why would anyone want to go to any of the State schools, even the “best” (UVA, UNC, etc.) when all have in common this terrible, terrible learning environment. Personally, I think USC is a dark horse in many of these rankings: it is paying up big to get quality studens and scholars and in about 10 - 15 years I feel it will break into the top 20, replacing Vanderbilt and threatening Duke.</p>
<p>No mention of Cooper Union? It’s not as well-known, but I think many consider it a great school for engineering, art and architecture.</p>
<p>Good insight guys. Once agin, let me know which 3 of the following 6 should round out the top 50:</p>
<p>-Colby
-Bates
-Bard
-Barnard
-William & Mary
-Carleton</p>
<p>Right now I’m thinking Colby, Bates, and Barnard but I could be wrong. Also if you have any input on the tier three/tier four dilemma feel free to share…</p>
<p>So this is what I’m thinking right now. I’m not calling it “tier 1,” “tier 2,” etc. cause all of the colleges on this list are tier 1 schools. But compared to other they are divided into these groups.</p>
<p>1: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Stanford
2: UPenn, Brown, Columbia, Duke, Dartmouth
3: Cornell, Georgetown, Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, Rice, WashU, Middlebury, UChicago, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UCB
4: Emory, Tufts, Johns Hopkins, University of Southern California, Notre Dame, Northwestern
5: Claremont McKenna, Bowdoin, Pomona, Carnegie Mellon, Harvey Mudd, Wellesley, Vassar, Wesleyan, Haverford, West Point
6: UNC, UVA, UMichigan, NYU, Wake Forest, Naval Academy
7: Hamilton, Colgate, Colby, Bates, Barnard, Bard, William & Mary, Carleton</p>
<p>Opinions? I know there’s a lot of room for overlap, especially between groups three, four, and five.</p>
<p>^How about putting Vanderbilt at 4 and Northwestern at 3? Northwestern and Cornell and Georgetown are very similar. </p>
<p>Emory, Tufts, and Vandy are similar as well.</p>
<p>Don’t know how to choose three of your final six but I do believe that you should eliminate Bard, it isn’t on a par with the other five. I guess if I had to choose I’d pick Colby, Bates and Barnard.</p>
<p>UCB from 3 to 2
Pomona from 5 to 3
Harvey Mudd from 5 to 3
Vanderbilt from 3 to 4
Northwestern from 4 to 3
Carleton from 7 to 5
Georgetown from 3 to 4
Johns Hopkins from 4 to 3
UChicago from 3 to 2</p>
<p>Definitely add Carleton to the list. Why are you considering adding Colby or Bates, but not Reed or Haverford?</p>
<p>UCB from 3 to 2- No, UCB is an amazing school but you cannot honestly say it’s there with Brown, Columbia, etc.</p>
<p>Pomona from 5 to 3- Yes, but then should I move Claremont also because they are equally strong, Claremont may actually be better…</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd from 5 to 3- No, it’s just not…</p>
<p>Vanderbilt from 3 to 4- No, it’s got stats just as good as all the schools in tier 3 but for some reason is quite underrated…</p>
<p>Northwestern from 4 to 3- Yes, I was planning to do that anyway.</p>
<p>Carleton from 7 to 5- Sure, why not?</p>
<p>Georgetown from 3 to 4- Of course not…</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins from 4 to 3- Yeah, you’re right.</p>
<p>UChicago from 3 to 2- Gotta think about this one, but it’s very possible.</p>
<p>Also I am eliminating Bard but keeping the other 5.</p>
<p>Revised…</p>
<p>1: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Stanford
2: UPenn, Brown, Columbia, Duke, Dartmouth, UChicago
3: Cornell, Georgetown, Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, Rice, WashU, Middlebury, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UCB, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Pomona
4: Emory, Tufts, University of Southern California, Notre Dame, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna
5: Carnegie Mellon, Harvey Mudd, Wellesley, Vassar, Wesleyan, Haverford, West Point, Carleton
6: UNC, UVA, UMichigan, NYU, Wake Forest, Naval Academy
7: Hamilton, Colgate, Colby, Bates, Barnard, William & Mary</p>
<p>zchryvens- Haverford’s already on there and Reed is a great school but slightly below this list…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ha!</p>
<p>Sorry, but you are a little off here. In the world of LAC’s, four schools have set themselves apart from the rest. They are WASP - Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona.</p>
<p>UCLA is 3rd and Michigan is 6th? That makes absolutely no sense whatsover. Then again mixing top LACs and national universities together makes no sense either. Come to think of it, this whole thread makes no sense. Nevermind…</p>
<p>Once again, Boston College gets overlooked. It is easily on par with Bates, Colby, Hamilton, Wake Forest, UNC and even Tufts.</p>
<p>Come, come!</p>
<p>“Sorry, but you are a little off here. In the world of LAC’s, four schools have set themselves apart from the rest. They are WASP - Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona.”</p>
<p>Middlebury is definitely up here, it is as good as if not better than Pomona and nearly as good as WAS. I completely agree and understand that Pomona is amazing and that it is a top LAC and SWAMP makes more sense, but the truth is that on the east coast Pomona is not really a recognized name. Also I’d say Claremont McKenna is equally good or near equally good as Pomona. They pretty much have the same SAT medians and acceptance rate…</p>
<p>
In what ways? Reed’s median SAT scores are pretty much on par with those of Vassar, Barnard, and Hamilton, and surpass those of Colgate, Colby, UVA, Wake Forest, Bates, W&M, UNC, UMichigan, West Point, etc. Its curriculum is also known to be one of the most difficult of any college in the US. I don’t quite understand the criteria by which you are ranking.</p>
<p>UChicago 2nd tier?? Not yet maybe in 5-10years.
UChicago 2 to 4 if not then tier 3</p>
<p>Caltech 1 to 2, it’s too much of a specialized school to be tier 1</p>