<p>^^^ U Chicago is much more prestigious now than when its acceptance rate was over 40%. </p>
<p>As for U Michigan, I don’t think it is very prestigious…at least not as an undergraduate institution. It is, however, more prestigious than UW…</p>
<p>A case can be made that prestige and selectivity are important factors in choosing a college. But the fact is, most students won’t be admitted to Brown or Dartmouth. So how do you differentiate all the many less selective, less prestigious schools according to factors that matter to various applicants? People interested in “producing new technology” for example. I thought that was the original topic, and don’t understand why the OP’s posting motives came into question.</p>
<p>No other place in the world has contributed more to High Tech than Stanford</p>
<p>prodigalson, only 5 universities in the US are undeniably more prestigious than Cornell. If your definition of prestige includes just 5 universities, then you are correct. However, one cannot include Caltech and not Cornell because most people, even the most educated, will not consider Caltech more prestigious than Cornell.</p>
<p>That said, I think all of the schools on that list are prestigious to varrying degrees. Obviously, MIT and Stanford are the most prestigious, followed by Cal, Caltech, Cornell and Michigan. The remaining schools are all prestigious too, only less so. </p>
<p>Besides, this is not a ranking of universities according to prestige, it is a ranking of universities according to technological significance.</p>
<p>Prodigalson, Chicago’s prestige has not changed in the eyes of adults. Adults do not rate prestige based on accaptance rate. Chicago is no more prestigious today, with its 25% acceptance rate, than it was 20 years ago, when it had a 50% acceptance rate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At least as an undergraduate institution, Cornell is arguably the least prestigious ivy. Stanford, MIT and Caltech are also more prestigious than Cornell. That’s already 10 universities right there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cornell is more well known, but Caltech is more prestigious…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No need to lord age and experience over me…</p>
<p>Acceptance rate is only part of the equation. Other pieces include yield rates, SAT scores, etc. As Chicago’s acceptance rate has declined, its yield rates and SATs have risen. So has its prestige accordingly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can certainly understand why you have such an affinity for schools with a 50% acceptance rate…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A low acceptance rate is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for selectivity. Some of the schools at the top of this list do not have high yield rates or high SAT scores, for example. Thus they are neither selective nor prestigious. (Juilliard and Curtis Institute of Music are exceptions to the rule because they obviously select for artistic over academic talent, although their yield rates are actually quite high.)</p>
<p>“At least as an undergraduate institution, Cornell is arguably the least prestigious ivy. Stanford, MIT and Caltech are also more prestigious than Cornell. That’s already 10 universities right there.”</p>
<p>Not really prodigalson. You are stating your opinion. First of all, a university is either prestigious or it isn’t. A university isn’t prestigious for undergrad but not for grad or vice versa. UCSD’s graduate programs are among the top 10 in the US, but it is not a prestigious university. Among the Ivies, only HYP are more prestigious than Cornell. The remaining 5 Ivies are all equally prestigious depending on what circle you are in. Same goes for Caltech. It may be more prestgious in some circles, but it other circles, Cornell is more prestigious. </p>
<p>“Cornell is more well known, but Caltech is more prestigious…”</p>
<p>Among hard core scientists geeky high schoolers, perhaps. To the vast majority of well informed individuals, both are very prestigious in their own, very different ways. To the masses, Cornell is generally more prestigious, whether because of its size, more diverse portfolio of academic offerings or its Ivy League status.</p>
<p>“No need to lord age and experience over me…”</p>
<p>That’s the world we live in. There is no substitute for time and experience. Adults simply don’t care about acceptance rates and SAT scores. The average senior executive, first rate intellectual, political figure or professor/adcom member at a top university doesn’t care for such things. Only 16-22 year olds, and not all of them, even bother associating acceptance rates with prestige.</p>
<p>“Acceptance rate is only part of the equation. Other pieces include yield rates, SAT scores, etc. As Chicago’s acceptance rate has declined, its yield rates and SATs have risen. So has its prestige accordingly.”</p>
<p>Prodigalson, Chicago’s yield rate and mean SAT score have hardly changed in the last 20 years. Chicago’s yield rate was 35% when they admitted me in 1992 and it was 36% in 2009. Chicago’s mean SAT/ACT score has not improved vis-a-vis its peers. It’s SAT average has been similar to non-HYP Ivies and other private elites. All that has changed over the years (only in the last 5 years mind you) is its acceptance rate thanks to its growing applicant pool. Chicago is not more prestigious today, with its 25% acceptance rate than it was in 2004, when it had a 40% acceptance rate. But you know what else hasn’t changed? Chicago’s standing in the academic and corportate world. It was one of the 10 most prestigious universities then, and it remains so today. I guess having the #1 Economics department on Earth has something to do with that, as well as having top ranked Mathematics and Physics departments and top rated Business and Law schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michigan is an example of a university that is prestigious for grad but not for undergrad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you a member of the “masses”? To me, hotel administration is not prestigious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…especially the alumni of universities with higher acceptance rates and lower SAT scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chicago > Michigan</p>
<p>Alex, don’t waste anymore time on this poster. He claims to be an 18 year old born on April Fool’s Day. Obviously he knows nothing about anything except classic elitist ■■■■■■■■ as he has not even completed a year of college. Just ignore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement confirms prodigalson’s ignorance about Cornell. He has no idea what he’s talking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cornell > Northwestern</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Big Ten state flagships have “classic non-elitist” admissions policies, if you know what I mean…</p>
<p>UW’s acceptance rate = 53%
UM’s acceptance rate = 49%</p>
<p>prodigalson, what college do you attend currently?</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>The ultimate uninformative poster with an axe to grind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A school whose acceptance rate is approximately one-seventh that of either UM or UW…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There, there. Don’t be so hard on yourself…</p>
<p>Aswariao st of eUMUW???</p>
<p>thats a new one</p>
<p>or do you actually not go to a university/college?</p>