Top Tier, 2nd Tier, 3rd Tier

College Search & Selection
61

<p>
[quote]
Texas has a better reputation in engineering than UCLA and UNC.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>UNC does not have a dedicated engineering school. It has a few grad programs and joint programs with NCSU, but nothing along the lines of UT's E-School.</p>

<p>Regarding Texas, as somebody living in the Northeast, I can tell you that its diminished reputation in this region has several components: </p>

<p>(1) General disdain for Texas as a state; </p>

<p>(2) Perception as a mostly sports school; </p>

<p>(3) Recognition of its large size, which, sans a few state colleges, is far larger in student population size than most schools--even state ones--at least in the tri-state (NJ/Conn/NY) area;</p>

<p>(4) Because of Texas law and consequential admissions procedures, Texas has a very small out-of-state population. UNC has a cap, but a significant segment of the UNC population is non-NC. UCLA is just about the same as Texas as far as OOS population, but California in general seems to receive excellent recognition on the East Coast. A lot plays into this, but everyone in my area knows what you're talking about when you mention 'Berkeley' or 'UCLA'.</p>

<p>An easy way to increase profile across the country is to increase OOS population. UVa and UMich have superb reputations up here, and it isn't just the sports: these universities both have significant OOS contingents comprised of people from the region. When people can identify a school with a student whom they know to be competent, intelligent, and high-achieving, they will associate said institution with excellence. This isn't an overnight transition, but it does work.</p>

62

<p>" When you break UT's reputation down into its component parts, it generally excels. However, its overall national academic reputation seems to be a case of the whole being LESS than the sum of its parts, unfortunately"</p>

<p>Odd, I feel U-Florida (usually ranked equal overall to UT)suffers the same fate.I think both schools are underranked by about 10 spots or so. I agree, letting in more out of staters and marketing the heck out of the schools in the academic realm may be the only way to increase reputation and US News ranking.</p>

63

<p>Dartmouth may be near the top of the rankings, but I sincerely doubt that it would be #1, that its peer assessment score would be #1, that its s/f ration and graduation rate would be #1, etc. Perhaps it would be in the top 3 or 4, but I can see it suffering greatly from being compared with colleges that focus entirely on the undergraduate.</p>

64

<p>the authentic "real CC answer":</p>

<p>Top Tier = HYPSM + Caltech(may be)
the rest = who cares</p>

65

<p>GoBlue81/ looooool.</p>

66

<p>LOL @ the idea that there's a distinguishable 1st & 2nd tier. As if, as soon as you exit the threshold of one tier (which seems to be commonly regarded here as HYPSM + whatever, whatever), there is a noticeable decline in quality. That's so silly and ridiculous that I feel like I'm in elementary school, watching kids argue over what colors are the coolest.</p>

<p>Face it, the rankings have to be regarded as a spectrum, without a chopping-off point. In other words, as you go farther and farther down the rankings, the schools just get worse. If you try and form a 1st tier, then it's going to just dissolve into an endless, bitter argument typical of CC, where jilted Vanderbilt and UChicago kids complain about their schools' merits, bla bla bla.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
Face it, the rankings have to be regarded as a spectrum, without a chopping-off point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with this. What's more, the spectrum doesn't have the same top-to-bottom arrangement for every applicant. Every smart applicant I know regards certain "worse" colleges as better for him or for her than some other "better" colleges.</p>

68

<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>Isn't even a 2000 SAT in the top 8% of the country? I think someone recently posted on here that only ~ 40 colleges in the country have an SAT avg of 2000+. Not to mention that at my hs, a 3.5 UW GPA would have been top 5%. Times have certainly changed.</p>

69

<p>Re: Sat 2000 -- I don't track the three part score, but the traditional two part score, 2000 = approx. 1325. There are about 60 colleges with midpoint 25/75 ave SAT of 1325 or higher. Berkeley and UVA are exactly at 1325, per latest data on the common data set/Princeton review site.</p>

70

<p>"Times have certainly changed."
gellino
You are right.</p>

71

<p>algorescousin:</p>

<p>State universities teach you job SKILLS and KNOWLEDGE.</p>

<p>Elite universities don't teach you job skills and knowledge; they teach you abstract stuff and how to think. </p>

<p>That's why high paying jobs love to hire graduates from elite universities. I don't think it's a coincidence that the art history major from Princeton or Duke often gets the investment banking job over the business finance or accounting major from state U. </p>

<p>The high paying consulting firms and investment banking jobs acknowledge that the state university graduates probably know more about accounting and finance than the art history or liberal arts major from an Ivy League school. But what does the Ivy League graduate have over the state school grad? </p>

<p>Analytical ability and reasoning, plus prestige. Top notch firms want prestige to make them look good on a superficial level, but more importantly, they want those who are able to analyze and synthesize. Okay, so the art history major from Princeton doesn't know $hit about finance. That's no problem: the investment banks will train them within weeks so that their knowledge will be on par, or even better, than the business finance and accounting majors from state U. But the ability to think and analyze is something ONLY an Ivy League or an elite university degree can teach you. </p>

<p>State U's emphasis rote memorization; elite universities emphasis on analytical thinking and creativity. </p>

<p>Another thing about graduating from an elite university is that it gives you an air of confidence. Sure, maybe you have crappy work experience and a $hitty resume, but if you got the Princeton degree, you will ace the job interview because the prestige you have will carry you through the job interview and life through its ups and downs.</p>

<p>Everybody, from state U grads to Ivy League grads will have their ups and downs. Ivy League grads can and will change jobs frequently -- if not get laid off. But because of their Ivy League degrees, it gives them the confidence to succeed because they know their prestigious. They can recover from life's low points better than state U grads. </p>

<p>Guys like Tim Russert are great as Cinderella stories, but very few people with his weak academic credentials could go this far. That's why Russert is a rare breed. I'm sorry, but he's nothing more than a Cinderella story.</p>

72

<p>lol, spoken like a true hs senior.</p>

73

<p>Top tier = what ever school you or your child attends
49th tier = everywhere else</p>

<p>LOL!!!</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
Top tier = what ever school you or your child attends
49th tier = everywhere else</p>

<p>LOL!!!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Top tier/prestigious = the school you attend plus any school ranked above it</p>

<p>TTT/unprestigious/third tier toilet = ANY school ranked below the school you attended (e.g., if you attend Boston College, even the school ranked one spot below BC is a toilet school).</p>

75

<p>iamyourfather,
I must disagree with your conclusions about the preferences of employers to hire private college students over public college students. IMO, the question is not how the students are being taught (and I don't agree that public colleges aren't also teaching how to think critically), but where are the best people coming from. The adage that I frequently use is "quality in, quality out." When considered as a whole, the privates have an innate advantage with consistently stronger student bodies that makes for consistently stronger graduates. This is what employers want. </p>

<p>The reality is that the impact on post-graduate success that college faculty has on their students is pretty small. Exchange a college with a great faculty/lesser student body and a college with a great student body/lesser faculty. The result will be that the great student body will be far more likely to achieve in post-graduate life, regardless of the environment that they are coming from. Great, even good, students going in usually result in great or good students coming out, whether they go to ABC Elite private or XYZ non-elite public.</p>

<p>I also strongly disagree with the degree to which you believe people rely on their undergraduate college degree, both in the real world and for personal sustenance. An elite brand degree will open doors for a while, but after a few years, not. As for personal reinforcement, this may reflect insecurity on your part, but the best people certainly don't need an Ivy or elite degree for affirmation. It helps in the career-building, but I would hope that it would not define the person anywhere near the degree to which you describe.</p>

76

<p>Guys, the comment about 2000 SAT and 3.5 GPA was a JOKE!!!</p>

<p>Says something about C.C that people might even think I was serious.</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
State universities teach you job SKILLS and KNOWLEDGE.</p>

<p>Elite universities don't teach you job skills and knowledge; they teach you abstract stuff and how to think.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nonsense. Complete nonsense. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That's why high paying jobs love to hire graduates from elite universities. I don't think it's a coincidence that the art history major from Princeton or Duke often gets the investment banking job over the business finance or accounting major from state U. </p>

<p>The high paying consulting firms and investment banking jobs acknowledge that the state university graduates probably know more about accounting and finance than the art history or liberal arts major from an Ivy League school. But what does the Ivy League graduate have over the state school grad?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why are you so obsessed with high-paying jobs? A very small % of all college students go into or care about mgt consulting, i-banking, etc. Why do you treat what those firms do / care about as being more important than any other profession or career someone might choose?</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
I also strongly disagree with the degree to which you believe people rely on their undergraduate college degree, both in the real world and for personal sustenance. An elite brand degree will open doors for a while, but after a few years, not. As for personal reinforcement, this may reflect insecurity on your part, but the best people certainly don't need an Ivy or elite degree for affirmation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>IAYF, maybe after a few years in the real world, you'll catch on ... No one walks around wearing their college brand in the work world, unless they're major dorks ...</p>

79

<p>I'm pretty sure the i-banking is the job that one has to resort to if one cannot secure a better paying job. 120 hours a week for an abysmal salary that doesn't accumulate into anything meaningful until decades later.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
Top tier/prestigious = the school you attend plus any school ranked above it</p>

<p>TTT/unprestigious/third tier toilet = ANY school ranked below the school you attended (e.g., if you attend Boston College, even the school ranked one spot below BC is a toilet school).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Honestly, you've got to be pretty dumb to think that colleges can be ranked in anything other than general broad tiers. Of course, you've got to be even dumber to perpetuate it. And people who call other schools "toilet schools" aren't worth knowing or associating with in any way.</p>