<p>I think Top Tier is HYPMS</p>
<p>2nd Tier would be all the colleges between those and the Top 25</p>
<p>3rd Tier- Top 25 down to Top 50</p>
<p>"How do you compare US NEWS rankings for master's universities with LACs ?"</p>
<p>Amherst and Williams should be on anyones top ten school list. Behind HPYS and then somewhere from 5-10. Swat Mid Wes on any top 30 list. Any of the top 10 LAC's are superior to any Master's school on the US News lists. I have a child at Williams and I have a masters from a number #1 ranked masters college. I would trade my masters for my childs undergrad degree in a heartbeat if someone would let me (I'll keep my Professional Degree however).</p>
<p>
[quote]
remember USNWR rankings for universities tend to be based on graduate programs
[/quote]
uh, no. There are separate rankings for the grad programs.</p>
<p>Good grief people. The third tier is NOT the top 25-50 schools!! I dont think anyone considers UNC- Ch Hill, Tufts, USC, Michigan, NYU, to name a few, third tier. Thats just silly.</p>
<p>Here ya go-- an explanation from CC's "Ask the Dean" College</a> Search: Second Tier Colleges<br>
At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, please folks, a suggestion--do some checking to provide the OP, a new CC member, with accurate information. This isn't an "opinion" question, as I read it. The OP asked for an explanation of the tiers. This "ranking" (tiers) was created by USNWR.</p>
<p>Honestly...based on my experiences with College Confidential and what the people's definition of "elite" is:</p>
<p>Top Tier universities are essentially Top 30 National Universities (according to US News), Top 10 LACs, and NYU. </p>
<p>NYU is the only university outside the Top 30 that's considered elite, or at least respectable. Why NYU? I have no damn clue...</p>
<p>NYU is a bit of anomaly to me. Everybody who DOESN'T attend NYU seems to think that NYU is some sort of elite institution. But most people I know who attended and graduated NYU are extremely bimodal. NYU grads are either really successful professionally, or they are scraping by on low paying jobs.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly perhaps, NYU students who went to Stern or Tisch fare considerably better than those who went to CAS or Gallatin...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Top Tier: HYPSMC, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore
Second Tier: Other "Ivy League" schools, Top National Universities, Top LACs</p>
<p>Emory and Tufts are both excellent universities and second tier schools.
Attending a second tier school still means that you're better than, what, 90% of college students: keep that in mind.
[/quote]
Out of all the "better" institutions out there, why would you put Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore?? You either attend one of those schools or have some sort of love connection going on.</p>
<p>OP: Doesn't matter what the CC answer is. It's what the real answer is and gprime nailed it.</p>
<p>Also, I really don't understand why most of the people on here believe HYP are the only top-tier colleges out there :crazysigh:</p>
<p>Funny, I was under the impression that most CCers consider only the Top 30 National Universities + NYU to be elite/top tier.</p>
<p>Law schools: top tier is only Top 14 + Vanderbilt and UCLA.</p>
<p>Only on C/C:</p>
<p>Top tier is HYPSM.</p>
<p>Second tier is other ivies, top few LACs, and about 5-10 other colleges.</p>
<p>Third tier- are all the remaining colleges, which you consider to be your "safeties" and which you go to if you mess up and get a really low SAT score (like 2000) or a really low GPA (like 3.5 unweighted). </p>
<p>Fourth tier: Community college, which is a fictional place that nobody you know ever attended.</p>
<p>what is HYPSM?
...new to this lingo. lol. :)</p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. There are other variations; for example, a C is added that can stand for Columbia, Cornell, or Caltech. An example of the variation: CHYMPS :D</p>
<p>"really low GPA (like 3.5 unweighted)"</p>
<p>You think that's low?</p>
<p>The Big Five that all CCer's must make some sort of sacrifice to at sundown every day's end.... i.e. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT (the undisputed "best" undergrad universities in the country).</p>
<p>
[quote]
"best"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"most prestigious"</p>
<p>Why place such emphasis on tiers and whether a college is in the ivy league? Whats most important is the best fit for each student, and the actual quality of the education, not merely tier, prestige or recognition. </p>
<p>Think beyond the name! Where will you be happiest? What's most important is that students think honestly about which colleges provide the right match for them. It's important to look beyond the tier and to research thoroughly the academics, commitment to education, availability of good mentoring and advising, quality of teaching (do the faculty value teaching? will you be taught mostly by TAs?), culture, opportunities, values, social life, etc offered at various colleges.</p>
<p>Remember:</p>
<ol>
<li>You dont need to get into the ivy league to be successful in life. </li>
<li>The ratings from the US News & World Report are misleading and lead to a marketing of colleges rather than illuminating true quality and educational value.</li>
<li>The college/university you graduate from does not determine who you are and how you contribute to the world.</li>
</ol>
<p>Consider these earlier posts: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/491954-don-t-let-prestige-lead-you-wrong-college-please-3.html?highlight=hawkette%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/491954-don-t-let-prestige-lead-you-wrong-college-please-3.html?highlight=hawkette</a></p>
<p>and the work of the Education Conservancy, a non profit committed to improving the college admissions process: Education</a> Conservancy</p>
<p>and the book, College Unranked: College</a> Unranked</p>
<p>integrity09, you couldn't have said it any better. The number of people inputting their own ideologys of "Tier 1,2 & 3 is extremely annoying and most of them are just blatantly wrong.</p>
<p>"Their own ideologies"?</p>
<p>Who the hell speaks like that?</p>
<p>So am I supposed to give him someone else's opinion? Of course it's mine? If you decide to read the OP, the question we were all answering, he asked what "elite" universities we thought fell into the different tiers. Some gave him answers that can be found in certain publications, and others gave him opinions based on their experiences. </p>
<p>Yes, we answered a question. </p>
<p>Yes, we mostly had different responses.</p>
<p>So what?</p>
<p>This whole damn ranking fad is subjective, so deal with it. He posted a question and we answered it. </p>
<p>And btw, obviously you have your own opinion because you think ours are "just blatantly wrong" -- so why don't you post it? </p>
<p>Please, enlighten us.</p>
<p>
If you're going to include Vandy and UCLA, you also have to include Texas. It has a much longer history of national prominence, with some of the most preeminent legal scholars of the 20th century on its faculty (e.g., McCormick--Evidence, Wright--Federal Courts, Green--Torts, Keeton--Products Liability, Stumberg--Admiralty) when Vandy and UCLA were still primarily regional law schools. Also, for at least several decades, Texas has had one of the 10 largest law libraries in the country (which neither Vandy nor UCLA has ever had). Further, Texas was ranked among the top 15 law schools long before UCLA and Vandy were (e.g., in the 1970s Texas was ranked around #11). Additionally, Texas had relatively strong national placement long before Vandy and UCLA did, regularly placing graduates in large firms in DC, NYC, Atlanta, and LA (along with, of course, Houston and Dallas) when Vandy and UCLA were much more regionally focused.</p>
<p>And although Texas has slipped a bit in the rankings in recent years, it's currently tied with UCLA at #16 in the US News ranking, and Texas' overall score of 71 is only 1 point lower than #15 Vandy's overall score of 72. Plus, with strong recent faculty hires, facilities expansion, increases in US Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and District Court clerkships, etc., Texas is on an upward trajectory that promises to return it to its former glory, and then some.</p>
<p>I <3 pointless discussions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're going to include Vandy and UCLA, you also have to include Texas. It has a much longer history of national prominence, with some of the most preeminent legal scholars of the 20th century on its faculty (e.g., McCormick--Evidence, Wright--Federal Courts, Green--Torts, Keeton--Products Liability, Stumberg--Admiralty) when Vandy and UCLA were still primarily regional law schools. Also, for at least several decades, Texas has had one of the 10 largest law libraries in the country (which neither Vandy nor UCLA has ever had). Further, Texas was ranked among the top 15 law schools long before UCLA and Vandy were (e.g., in the 1970s Texas was ranked around #11). Additionally, Texas had relatively strong national placement long before Vandy and UCLA did, regularly placing graduates in large firms in DC, NYC, Atlanta, and LA (along with, of course, Houston and Dallas) when Vandy and UCLA were much more regionally focused.</p>
<p>And although Texas has slipped a bit in the rankings in recent years, it's currently tied with UCLA at #16 in the US News ranking, and Texas' overall score of 71 is only 1 point lower than #15 Vandy's overall score of 72. Plus, with strong recent faculty hires, facilities expansion, increases in US Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and District Court clerkships, etc., Texas is on an upward trajectory that promises to return it to its former glory, and then some.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I honestly appreciate your enthusiasm for the University of Texas. I have no doubts that it's a fine institution.</p>
<p>But UCLA and Vandy are much bigger "name" institutions. If you talk to people in the elite corners of America (outside of Texas of course), more will agree that UCLA and Vandy are considered much more elite and prestigious BRAND NAME schools than Texas.</p>
<p>Texas itself no doubt offers great educational value. But in the end, what really matters is how much BRAND NAME VALUE a school has. Because the elite people in America (investment banks, management consulting firms, prestigious big law firms in NYC) really only care about the BRAND NAME of the school you went to. And UCLA and Vandy have a much more stronger brand name than Texas.</p>
<p>If we took a poll of the elite of America, and we ask whether UCLA and Vandy are considered elite institutions, the vast majority of Americans will say yes. On the other hand, if we ask whether Texas is considered elite, most will say no. In terms of prestigious brand name public universities, Texas still lags behind the Berkeley, Michigan, UVa, UCLA, and arguably even UNC. Texas is not quite a member of the prestigious Big 5 public universities (Berkeley, UVa, Michigan, UCLA, and UNC) but is unfortunatley on the outside looking in. And that makes all the difference in terms of job prospects. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that I'm talking about if you want to live and work OUTSIDE Texas. If you plan on staying in Texas, UT is about as good as it gets (honestly, if I wanted to work in Texas, I would choose UT over virtually every university in America, except maybe Harvard, Yale, or Stanford).</p>