Top Student Looking Beyond the Ivy League? Read on….

<p>Well, I've just gotten around to reading all of the posts since my last visit to this thread and I am heartened by all of the discussion (while being a little disappointed that I personally was the target of some posters). In any event, just a few responses:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>To Truazn: Your impassioned post #26 personifies the mentality that I most want to challenge. I have heard such perspectives for much of my life, personally and professionally, and find it flawed in so many ways. There is this knee-jerk reaction of many in the Ivies and the NE that the historical powers are inherently better than everybody else. Isn't it obvious-we're the ones who get the jobs at Goldman Sachs??? Hey, there are a TON of smart, talented students at the Ivies and these are all terrific academic colleges, but they do not have a monopoly on brains. You really need to get out more and take a closer look at these other schools that I have been mentioning. Not only might a visit to the Midwest or the South give you a better understanding of the world than what goes on in Manhattan, I think you'd be surprised and impressed by the people that you'd meet. They're smart, they're driven, they're building successful businesses, they're making a lot of money and living good lives…and they usually are pretty darn nice. </p></li>
<li><p>To 45 percenter: I mostly concur with your description of the artificial groups that I created although the lower Ivies moniker was conceived by someone else. I chose this method because my objective is to broaden the view of top high school students beyond the usual and most visible top schools. My hope was/is to introduce and familiarize high-achieving high school students with several colleges that I consider full of talented students and faculty and which, given the demographic realities, should be on their college shopping lists of top schools. I'd be happy to compare any of these individually with any of the lower Ivies and the quality of the full undergraduate experience (academic, social, athletic). I think that such a comparison would serve the positive purpose of revealing to previously closed minds how strong some of these colleges actually are and how happy and successful their students are.</p></li>
<li><p>To UCLAri and thethoughtprocess: I strongly agree with your comments on the relative value (or really lack thereof) of research to most undergraduate students. This is a large reason why I oppose PA so strongly as I think it is heavily influenced by institutional research activity (undergraduate or graduate) and usually in technical fields that 75% or more of the students of a school aren't even involved in. </p></li>
<li><p>To my benevolent fellow posters who enjoy targeting me rather than the facts and the arguments: You remind me of the Star Trek movie, "The Wrath of Khan." Following multiple unsuccessful attempts by Khan to kill Admiral Kirk, the reply by Kirk to an obviously mad and infuriated Khan was "you keep missing the target."</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
This is a large reason why I oppose PA so strongly as I think it is heavily influenced by institutional research activity (undergraduate or graduate) and usually in technical fields that 75% or more of the students of a school aren't even involved in.

[/quote]

hawkette, there's a lot more to research and academic output than just scientific/technical research. In every academic field (english, political science, economics, anthropology, history, etc.) there is constant ongoing research and output (i.e., publishing). For example, if a particular school has a leading expert on James Joyce, and that professor has published the most significant and revealing treatise on Joyce in the last 20 years, there is a great benefit to having a class with that professor as opposed to a professor at another school who's only READ Professor Expert's treatise, especially if I have any follow-up questions about Expert's treatise or his insights. Theoretically, PA should measure THIS kind of academic strength as much as it does scientific/technical output. And given that many--if not most--university administrators come from nontechnical academic backgrounds, I would bet that they're generally more personally aware of top schools' strengths in social sciences and humanities than they are of particular strengths in various sciences and technical subjects.</p>

<p>More significantly, I would assume that someone who spends all day every day running a university or LAC would make it his/her business to become VERY familiar with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Center for Measuring University Performance, and other academic evaluations and rankings of institutions' output in various fields, and would--as part of the academic recruiting process he/she supervises--be aware of which schools have the faculty and grad students who are most respected and in demand in those various fields.</p>

<p>To everyone,</p>

<p>Attacks come in many forms on a forum. They can be direct or indirect. They can be about all sorts of things, from a person's alma mater to their political beliefs.</p>

<p>They are all violations of the TOS. Please discuss the post, not the poster.</p>

<p>Aren't Star Trek references a violation of TOS? </p>

<p>(that's a small joke to lighten up the mood btw)</p>

<p>With apologies to 45 percenter who does not like these artificial groups, I have added three more Division I universities where there is likely some overlap of students looking at Ivy League colleges and that merit further inspection from students looking to broaden their college search. Here is an updated comparison of the initially posted groups along with a new group of Georgetown, USC, and Wake Forest.</p>

<p>AVERAGE NUMBER OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS:
7514 Lower Ivies
6452 Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
9305 Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>ENDOWMENT PER CAPITA
$298,301 Lower Ivies
$429,326 Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
$107,972 Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>% ADMITTED:
17% Lower Ivies
27% Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
30% Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>25/75 CRITICAL READING
654-752 (Avg 703) Lower Ivies
644-742 (Avg 698) Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
5 points Difference in favor of Ivies
627-720 (Avg 674) Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest
29 point Difference in favor of Ivies</p>

<p>25/75 MATH
672-768 (Avg 720) Lower Ivies
664-760 (Avg 712) Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
8 points Difference in favor of Ivies
657-730 (Avg 694) Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest
26 point Difference in favor of Ivies</p>

<p>25/75 COMBINED CR + MATH
1326-1520 (Avg 1423) Lower Ivies
1308-1502 (Avg 1410) Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
13 point Difference in favor of Ivies
1283-1450 (Avg 1368) Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest
55 point Difference in favor of Ivies</p>

<p>% OF STUDENTS IN THE TOP 10%
90% Lower Ivies
84% Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
78% Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>FRESHMAN RETENTION
97% Lower Ivies
97% Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
95% Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>% FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS
56% Lower Ivies
64% Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
59% Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>CLASSES OVER 50 STUDENTS
10% Lower Ivies
8% Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
7% Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>CLASSES UNDER 20 STUDENTS
67% Lower Ivies
64% Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
58% Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>STUDENT/FACULTY RATIO
8/1 Lower Ivies
8/1 Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
10/1 Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>ALUMNI GIVING RATE
40% Lower Ivies
37% Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
30% Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>AVERAGE COST
$35,499 Lower Ivies
$32,999 Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
$35,368 Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>PEER ASSESSMENT
4.5 Lower Ivies
4.2 Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame
3.8 Georgetown/USC/Wake Forest</p>

<p>With all due respect bruno, LACs are aware of the research limitations imposed by their small size. They attempt to make up for it with smaller and more intimate class sizes - allows more students to get their hands dirty and do their own research - it's the resources per student that count as well.</p>

<p>In a big university, like it or not, there's invariably more competition for those coveted research spots with professors. There is irrefutably a lot more mass, material and access, but only to a few who catch the eye of the professor. I'd love the idea of doing research under a professor with the profile of John Nash or Schumpeter, but chances are - if I just don't shine, try as I might - these ppl will NOT make time for you.</p>

<p>So yeah, these produces brilliant students with brilliant opportunities. Fantastic. But the LAC allows exposure at a more uniform level - granted, most may end up just learning and discussing and not really doing any research. But the cosy discussion groups can be a form of research because with an exchange of ideas, you peer more deeply into the topic. </p>

<p>My next point is not everyone knows they like to do research in certain subjects. The LAC is better positioned to stir up the latent interest of some students who are unsure or are still finding their way around the messy cobwebs of young adulthood - again through close engagement with profs, small class sizes, and a impetus to explore more areas of study (Keep in mind Harvard College utilizes an LAC like curriculum for their undergraduates). Sure, there are discussion groups in the big Us, and sometimes TAs are great - but these are just not the norm. Large lecture halls, ppl who only bother to go for revision classes and not the main one, impersonal environment - the big U is just not for everyone, and definitely should not be the "automatic choice" when a student wants to find an institution where he wants to nurture an interest or passion in a subject. You can list all the anecdotal evidence about big U's Nobels greatly impacting someone's class or life - but again, these are not the norms. If you get that, fantastic. But chances are you won't.</p>

<p>I must point out the irrefutable link between teaching and nurturing. With closer attention, some people discover what it means to examine something, question something, and draw their own conclusions. To assume an LAC is just a fancy white haired professor reading a textbook wholesale and doing a very good job of making sure every student accepts whatever is written in a book and feels comfortable with that is absolute hogwash. The idea of the LAC is to question something and discuss something. The idea of the LAC is not just for the students to learn something from the teachers - it's for the teachers to learn something from the students, and from the students to learn from each other. The LAC is not a small overaged nursery. This perception is flawed. </p>

<p>Thus I maintain - the LAC is still a good bet if you're interested in doing research. But take note of the resources available, the small class sizes, the profs, and the study abroad and summer research programs, and question yourself whether you like that sort of environment, or whether you'd prefer the big U, big stakes, possible big prof and big future stuff. You should find which shoe fits your feet, and not try to make the feet fit the shoe.</p>

<p>hawkette: Very interesting and illuminating comparison on your post #61.</p>

<p>"Lower Ivies"...lol, but I'm sure someone will post how the following does not matter...idiots:</p>

<p>Columbia University Faculty have won many Nobel prizes in the last 10 years, e. g. Horst Stormer (Physics) Richard Axel (Medicine), Edmund Phelps (Economics), Joseph Stiglitz (economics-although he just came to Columbia), Orhan Pamuk (literature-new Faculty addition in SIPA), Eric Kandel (Medicine), William Vickrey (Economics-awarded 1996 now deceased), Robert Merton (SEAS grade-Economics 1997/I know this is not fair, but it's a recent one), Robert Mundell (Economics-1999), Richard Hamilton (foundation for Poincare Proof-over 40, but would have received Fields Medal otherwise with Pearlman), wow....Columbia is Def a "lower Ivy". Also, Columbia is located in NYC (the greatest city by any objective measure in the US and maybe, just maybe the world)? Part of the college experience is gaining real-world (read internship) knowledge while in college to apply to various fields. While it is true any IVY and a few other peer (read top 10) schools will allow one to be competitive for a Wall-Street position, most other industries require work experience prior to the entry level job, e.g. Journalism, TV, Marketing, Fashion, etc. Perhaps all students want to go to Wall Street (someone metioned Duke's placement despite it being located somewhere in the countryside)? Also, the Columbia area has improved (due to gentrification) by leaps and bounds. The endowment investment returns have finally started growing competitive to Columbia's peer (read top 10) schools, e.g. 18% last year. Renovations to labs and facilities throughout campus etc.”</p>

<p>Almost forgot:</p>

<p>BTW Columbia J-school=#1, Law Shcool=4 or 5, B-school=2 or 3 in most rankings not named US News, SIPA=top 3, Political Science=1, Chemistry= 5 or 6, Teachers College=#1 (US News :P etc. Endowment growing (see Kluge $400 Million future donation)... </p>

<p>Where are Northwestern and Vandy?</p>

<p>Haus, obviously I'll say your info doesn't matter very much because thats true regarding some things.</p>

<p>"Part of the college experience is gaining real-world (read internship) knowledge while in college to apply to various fields."</p>

<p>Hausdorff, I work in NYC right now at a financial company with many interns. Judging by the number of interns (which, I admit, vary year to year):</p>

<p>-Schools that have more interns here than Columbia include: Harvard, Princeton, Wharton (not including Penn CAS), Dartmouth, Duke, Stanford, and Michigan (keep in mind it has a massive student body which might be why).
-Schools that have just as many interns as Columbia include Yale, MIT, Brown, and Berkeley.
-The four programs with the most interns are Stanford, Wharton, Harvard, and Princeton - none of which are in NYC. </p>

<p>This is somewhat true across most major firms in the area. Many of the very high ranking people are from Columbia though, but they graduated ~15-20 years ago.</p>

<p>So I don't think that point regarding Columbia helping with internships in particular is very true. It might be because the bank I'm at recruits at every top school, so your point might be true for small NYC banks that give internships during the school year.</p>

<p>Columbia = 5-6 other schools in strength. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton I think are only compared to by MIT, and arguably Stanford.</p>

<p>
[quote]
. . . (someone metioned Duke's placement despite it being located somewhere in the countryside)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ouch. Your NYC provincialism is showing. ^ :rolleyes:</p>

<p>"Hausdorff, I work at an NYC I-bank." = "How did Bush win; nobody I know voted for him!" Wow...anyway, I think Columbia is only slightly lower to Stanford, and Harvard, for the range of discplines offered at a high level, i.e. International Affairs to Journalism (I know Stanford does not have a J-school?) to Teachers college etc.</p>

<p>Jack...that's called sarcasm :), but so-what Wiki NYC and/or live here and you will be a believer. You might not like NYC, but the facts speak for themselves..</p>

<p>Haus, I love NYC, and am living here next year onwards. I am here right now, living and working here and have been since June.</p>

<p>I also think comparing I-banks to political voters was a terrible comparison...</p>

<p>Columbia is tied with Dartmouth, Penn (lower than Wharton) and some other schools too for undergrad. Columbia is better for graduate schools though.</p>

<p>"Lower than Wharton"...you realize you can't compare a undergrad B-school to a Liberal Arts College that does not offer a business major...and NO Econ is not the same. I won't dispute Wharton's Superiority to OTHER undergrad B-schools. Dartmouth=Columbia for undergrad, there is an argument there, but I think that NYC (part of the Columbia, NYU etc experience) coupled with the Amazing graduate schools that you CAN take courses at beat Dartmouth, however, as a young insular kid that doesn't want to face the so-called real world Dartmouth may be a great alternative...waiting for Slipper :)</p>

<p>--I am glad you like NYC and congrats on your job!</p>

<p>Also, internship experience counts for a lot more once you leave MC and Finacial Services, i.e. Media, Journalism, TV, Film (NYC 2nd to only Hollywood in importance), Marketing/Ad, etc.</p>

<p>For the above...during the school year...which leads into strong summer showings....which lead into post-grad employment..Columbia does best or near best (NYU Tisch etc)...</p>

<p>Yeah, NYC is sick. I'm not surprised that many kids love the NYC experience. At the same time, some kids might not want to live in the city during undergrad and would prefer a greener environment for college. So NYC might be a huge attraction for Columbia, at the same time a turn-off. The same would apply to Dartmouth and Duke - the campus greenness might attract students and vice versa. Btw, Dartmouth actually is pretty much in the country side, whereas Duke is sort of suburbanish (near Raleigh/Chapel Hill).</p>

<p>Also, I was talking about strength of students and placement when I mentioned Columbia is overall a bit below Wharton. I think that is a fair statement.</p>

<p>And I admit I have little to no knowledge about none-professional school or finance related internships or placement (though Bloomberg at least recruits nationally).</p>

<p>^ (he respects Wharton so much because the Wharton chicks* spurn his advances :p)</p>

<p>*his word, not mine</p>

<p>
[quote]
Jack...that's called sarcasm . . . live here and you will be a believer . . .

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thanks for the explanation, Hausdorff. I actually got it the first time. (Those of us living out here in the "countryside" can be pretty quick on the uptake when we want to be.) ;) For what it's worth, I have lived in NYC and happen to like it very much. I actually do think New Yorkers are some of the most provincial people I've ever met, though-- but I enjoyed the time I did live there and still love to visit.</p>

<p>No Doubt...I hear Duke is in a nice area. I seldom reply, but I do read these boards a lot and I think "lower Ivies" on so many levels is just wrong. I get it...within an indexed set there is a subset that "some" think are not on par with the so-called beginning/best indices, but if the set as a whole is near/the best (with a few others..not Vandy and Northwestern), then more emphasis should be placed on the aggregation of top programs in the set as a whole vs. any other set of Universities. I understand that Hawkette's goal is to get high schoolers to not obsess about the ivies and I laud her altruistic goal ;), but I disagree with her vehicle for getting there.</p>

<p>Lower Ivies = being one of the worse players in the pro-bowl in my opinion.
I always say non-HYP Ivies, or, when daring, refer to schools by their individual names (I mean, why lump NYC's Columbia and Hanover's Dartmouth in the same category?)</p>

<p>Hawkette is a great poster and for prospective HS students her advice has always been useful.</p>