Top Colleges

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Onecircuit- why is your opinion gospel? I can actually have a valid opinion on this. I go to Pomona. I have taken classes at Claremont. It is just as good a school. I won’t say better, but I can say with a very straight face that CMC can give a student an elite education on par with anything in the world. I went to Pomona over Yale. I would go to CMC over Yale.</p>

<p>Loud- is this a prestige list or top schools list? I don’t really see how Pomona’s fame in a region of the U.S. is relevant to making a list of top colleges. </p>

<p>I would also agree that Reed should be in the list. It’s USN ranking isn’t accurate because Reed refuses to participate in its surveys. It is a top 10-15 LAC. But if you’re making a prestige list (from your reply, which seems to be based on your own knowledge of Reed, it seems you are), then perhaps Reed doesn’t belong. </p>

<p>I actually think College P*rowlers academic rankings/tiers are fairly accurate, with a few exceptions.</p>

42

<p>I’m starting to like this list…but switch Harvey Mudd and Middlebury?
And West Point above HYPSMC</p>

43

<p>1-6 extremely selective super-schools
Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale;
CalTech, MIT</p>

<p>7-14 knowledge factories<a href=“schools%20with%20excellent%20research%20facilities%20and%20productive,%20world-class%20faculty%20who%20actually%20teach%20undergraduates”>/u</a>
Chicago, Columbia, Penn;
Cornell, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, WashU </p>

<p>15-31 top LACs; leading small/undergraduate-focused universities
Amherst, Brown, Dartmouth, Harvey Mudd, Pomona, Rice, Swarthmore, Williams;
Bowdoin, Carleton, Claremont McKenna, Davidson, Haverford, Middlebury, Reed, Wellesley, Wesleyan</p>

<p>32-34 public knowledge factories<a href=“like%207-14%20but%20with%20larger%20classes%20and%20less%20national%20drawing%20power%20for%20undergrads”>/u</a>
UC Berkeley, Michigan, UCLA</p>

<p>35-40 regional or niche stand-outs <a href=“not%20diversified%20world-class%20research%20universities,%20but%20excellent%20schools%20of%20arts%20&%20sciences,%20often%20with%20strong%20undergraduate%20pre-professional%20or%20niche%20programs%20that%20may%20make%20them%20more%20attractive%20than%207-14%20to%20some%20students”>/u</a>
Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, Emory, Notre Dame, USC, Vanderbilt</p>

<p>Other good schools with regional/niche appeal
Army, Air Force, Navy (service academies)
Barnard, Macalester, Trinity College CT (urban LACs)
Colorado College, Whitman (outdoorsy Western LACs)
Bryn Mawr, Mt. Holyoke, Smith (women’s LACs)
Cal-SD, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin (solid state schools)</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>Obviously I’m biased here, but I’m a little surprised that you consistently ranked Carleton lower than, say, Claremont McKenna, Bowdoin or Middlebury. Carleton is significantly higher ranked than Bates, Bard, Barnard and Colby, and I would say William and Mary as well. It annoys me slightly that you consider it so much lower than Claremont McKenna and Middlebury when it is ranked higher than the former and was, until this past year, tied with the latter. But I’ll let it go for now. :)</p>

<p>(I’d also like to point out that most LACs get a lot of cross-admits with these schools).</p>

<p>I guess if I had to agree with one of the tiered systems posted here, I’d agree with tk, but honestly, I don’t think you can truly make this comparison. They are so completely different - what is the standard to which you are comparing them? Quality of education? Wuality of student body? Quality of professors? Selectivity?</p>

45

<p>^ I base my list on PapaChicken’s ranking of the most selective schools, which is derived from USNWR data. I’ve taken his top 40 (but swapping in Reed and Michigan) and clustered them into groups by type. Then I’ve arranged schools alphabetically within clusters because I think finer-grained distinctions are insignificant.</p>

<p>(<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/687793-selectivity-ranking-national-us-lacs-combined-usnews-method.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/687793-selectivity-ranking-national-us-lacs-combined-usnews-method.html&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

46

<p>tk21769: There is a major problem with your list…other than #1 the schools are all together by category- i.e. all the LACs together, all the publics together, etc. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid because it sets everything up for inaccuracy. For example, Berkeley below Davidson because its public? Vanderbilt below Michigan because it’s research isn’t as good? Obviously that makes no sense, as Berkeley is clearly bettwe than Davidson and etc. It’s like saying “JHU and WUSTL have better research facilities than Brown and Dartmouth and those LACs so they are overall they are better.” In my personal opinion, undergraduate focus and teaching students to think creatively and intellectually rather than preparing them for professional is much better. However, I’m not gonna automatically say Brown, Dartmouth, and the LACs are higher. That’s why I put the schools in tiers based on their individual academic strength and educational quality. So sure, Cornell and Williams are extremely different. But from the way I am looking at it, their degree of their educational quality is pretty similar (i.e. a kid from Williams will receive an equal education and will be just as prepared for what life throws at them as a kid at Cornell).</p>

<p>Other things to respond to: I am NOT looking at this by prestige. Obviously it is somewhat relevant, because schools are prestigious as a result of the educational quality. It’s a lot of SAT median/acceptance rate stuff, along with common sense. There’s no exact formula. If you REALLY feel as though I should add Reed I can, but I’m really just trying to narrow it down to the BEST schools and I’ve always regarded Reed highly but just slightly below the schools I’m looking out…I could be wrong.</p>

47

<p>…You are. Lol.</p>

<p>Reed is well known for its incredibly difficult curriculum and high quality undergraduate education. It has been ranked so low for years because it refuses to send info to USNWR for ranking, causing USNWR to throw hissy fits and spitefully drop it to #54. I definitely would not rank it below the latter schools mentioned in my previous post.</p>

48

<p>tk. you listed Michigan twice. ;-)</p>

49

<p>I actually mostly agree with your list, tk, and I have a lot of respect for you based on what you’ve posted in the past. I say this as an East Coaster - I think a lot of people here are letting their regional knowledge of colleges influence their views of different schools. This obviously doesn’t apply to everyone (not your list, tk), but I think some people have their “east coast” blinders on</p>

<p>Reed is an excellent school and if you honestly regard it as below schools like Bard and Barnard, you are mistaken. All are excellent schools and I would regard Reed slightly sbove some of the ones you have listed. Same goes for my own school, but I’ll hold my tongue on that one. :)</p>

50

<p>If SAT median is a criteria, then all these schools would be ranked about the same as well. Its not even a good measurement. The difference between a 700 and 800 on the test is nearly insignificant, and an admissions officer at any top school will tell you that. SAT is also proven not to predict future success. It does not have a real correlation with selectivity because of the other variables involved in the admissions process. USN selectivity rankings put way too much weight on the SAT. That’s why a school like Cal Tech is seen as the most selective, even though Cal Tech’s focus is almost entirely math and science proficiency. Is a school like Columbia truly more selective at 7% than a school like Swarthmore is at 14% (or whatever it is now)? Or does Columbia attract a larger number of unqualified applicants? Swarthmore’s class is small enough that they can nearly handpick what they want in their student body.</p>

<p>The selectivity at all these schools is nearly the same. There’s no evidence to suggest students at one are significantly smarter than at another. There’s no evidence to suggest that the professors at one are better than at another (publishing does not predict teaching ability). </p>

<p>You can’t separate the top schools by overall academic ranking- there’s too much overlap. Look instead to the criteria specifically important to the student: smaller class sizes, urban schools, rural schools, strength of academic department, etc. </p>

<p>“Obviously that makes no sense, as Berkeley is clearly bettwe than Davidson and etc.”</p>

<p>Why is Berkeley clearly better than Davidson? Because Berkeley is larger and more famous? I think Davidson is clearly better than Berkeley, but that’s because of my personal preference in what makes a great school.</p>

51

<p>I keep seeing people perpetuate the fallacy that Reed is being punished for not submitting info to USNWR and that’s why it is only 54 or whatever. The info that USNWR uses is readily available on every college’s CDS. I don’t agree with USNWR’s ranking system, but it is an urban myth that because Reed doesn’t play along it gets dinged.</p>

52

<p>THANK YOU SANTERIA…</p>

<p>Remember in the first page when I said that I was “going somewhere with this”? I am trying to show how ridiculous the idea of college ranking, judging by prestige, etc. is. The education you get at any college is what you make of it. I saw someone post a while back somewhere that “you can get a Harvard education at University of Minnesota, and you can get a University of Minnesota education at Harvard.” Of course some schools are better than others, but when you have 50 schools that are all great there is no point in dissecting them to figure out what the best is. I hope that my ridiculous attempts at dividing the top colleges into groups has shown you all how insane this college ranking and sorting system is.</p>

53

<p>

</p>

<p>

It’s really not, lol. It went from a T10 LAC to fourth tier in one year.</p>

54

<p>Some of the info USNWR uses is in the CDS. Reed was in the top 10 when it participated, so a drop to #54 is, well, curious, as if anyone cared. ;)</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t place Berkeley below Davidson (etc.) because it is public, per se.
I place the best public universities below the most selective LACs because in my opinion, for most good students, the LACs are better undergraduate learning environments. To me, selectivity, national drawing power, and small classes count for a lot in liberal arts & science education (which is the kind of education I’m most interested in for undergrads). </p>

<p>As for Vanderbilt v. Michigan, I don’t know. Michigan does fall below PapaChicken’s selectivity cut line. You could take it out and put W&L in with Vanderbilt to keep it at 40.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t place JHU and WUSTL above the top LACs solely because JHU and WUSTL have better research opportunities. JHU and WUSTL also seem to compare well with those schools for small classes and undergraduate focus (in addition to being leading research universities with world class strength in a few areas). (<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size-4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size-4.html&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

56

<p>I reiterate, Boston College belongs somewhere on this sacrosanct list if the likes of Bates, Colby, Hamilton, Tufts, et al are on it. Only an addlepated quidnunc would think otherwise.</p>

57

<p>This is very interesting and all wrong!</p>

58

<p>If someone would say me US is better than Nepal, I would just smile. I think it is the same with colleges…</p>

59

<p>Right; a given school can be better for a given student, but these one-size-fits-none rankings fit none! :)</p>

60

<p>leanid, do you go to BC? Is that why you keep bringing it up? It’s a great school, but it’s not on par with Tufts. Colby, Bates, and Hamilton yes, but I would place them (slightly) lower than Tufts. I feel like BC is right on the line of being on or off the list. It’s a top school, but there are SO MANY top schools that some will get left out. However, I do agree that it should be listed with Colby and Bates, and probably above Hamilton.</p>