<p>WOW, objective data showing that Columbia, Dartmouth > Penn? </p>
<p>This is way too good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's pretty close, if you ask me. I'm sure in the last 5 years that data has gotten even closer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>or data could have diverged, there's no pressing reason for either to be true in the last 5 years. But i agree that the margin is hardly anything.</p>
<p>At second glance, that ranking seems highly dubious. Wellesley and Notre Dame are ahead of Swarthmore and Williams? And U Chicago is an astounding 27th.</p>
<p>Interestingly, if you remove the LACs, the list reads very much like the US News rankings of the late 90's - for the top 10, at least.</p>
<p>try this : The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices</p>
<p>ranking: h,y,m,s,p,b,col,d,penn,cor,GT,duke,virginia,NW,berk,tufts</p>
<p>seems quite reasonable.</p>
<p>god, in the end who really gives a ****?? seriously this is like the movie best in show with the dogs... i doubt "dead pablo" (did i translate that right?) that you'll ever hold a higher salary ranking than me no matter where you end up, and that is what truly matters in life</p>
<p>Yeah, pretty reasonable. Although in the last 5 years, there's probably been some switching around.</p>
<p>For example, Wash U and Chicago should be nestled up there between Columbia/Penn/Brown/Dartmouth and Cornell/Georgetown. Also, the "middle ivies" are probably in tighter contention.</p>
<p>" doubt "dead pablo" (did i translate that right?) that you'll ever hold a higher salary ranking than me no matter where you end up, and that is what truly matters in life"</p>
<p>And thus begins Part 2 of this great battle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And thus begins Part 2 of this great battle.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha, we'll see. I like how muerteapablo completely disregarded yankee's jab. There still is hope!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? What happened to living "Lives of Consequence?"</p>
<p>**** YEAH AMHERST.</p>
<p>aCTyankee - a higher salary is all that matters? I have you sounding more like a Penn student with each post! Perhaps my writing is as influential as you say.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way: the richest people in my community went to Dartmouth, Penn, and Harvard.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, my math teacher in HS was a Columbia grad.
[/quote]
Because clearly, your community models the rest of the world perfectly.</p>
<p>So muerte, why do you even hang out on the Columbia forums?</p>
<p>I hang out on all the Ivy League forums, even though I only applied to 5 of 'em.</p>
<p>Obviously my community doesn't perfectly model the real world, but this Forbes statistical study might come close: Top</a> Colleges For Getting Rich - Forbes.com</p>
<p>Penn ranks 7th; Columbia doesn't even place in the top 20 (Brown and Dartmouth do, though).</p>
<p>MonyDad posted this on another thread. It's very interesting. Shows you what a little elbow-grease and fudging the numbers will do.</p>
<p>An article MonyDad found on a newsgroup site:</p>
<p>" The story of how Brown has come to attract ambitious self-starters as
applicants is well-told in Bill Mayher's 1998 book, The College Admissions
Mystique. In 1969, Brown's new admissions director James Rogers decided that
he ought to be able to exploit the Magaziner-Maxwell curriculum to pull
Brown out from underneath the doormat of the Ivy League. And underneath the
doormat is where it was.</p>
<p>When I was applying to colleges at that time, Brown was all but
invisible to the college placement office of my prep school. Between Brown
and the other Ivies in the pecking order there lay twenty schools, including
most of the Seven Sisters, Wesleyan, Haverford, Bowdoin, the service
academies, Reed and other top regional schools, and perhaps five top state
universities. In New England, Brown was considered better than Trinity and
Brandeis, but only barely better. The favorite backup college choices at my
prep school were North Carolina, Wesleyan, Penn, and, believe it or not,
Stanford (which accepted the bottom-ranked person in my class).</p>
<p>In the mid-1960s Wesleyan was enjoying a real vogue. It had got rich
all of a sudden (Xerox stock), had published Norman O. Brown's Life Against
Death, and was helping invent minority recruitment. Because Middletown is
close to Providence, Wesleyan has always shared its applicant pool with
Brown, and in those days, as Ron Medley may wi****lly recall, Wesleyan was
unquestionably the harder place to get into.</p>
<p>So in 1969, James Rogers of Brown considered his situation and hit on a
plan which is now legendary among admissions officers. He hired members of
the classes of 1970 and 1971 and sent them out on the road to pitch the
Brown Curriculum. Their instructions were to look for students in the second
quintile who were lively interviewees and who showed iconoclastic
tendencies. The Young Turks of the admissions office made a hit wherever
they went and applications rose almost immediately. Rogers was then in a
position to implement phase two. He began rejecting students in the top
quintile who had made Brown their third choice. Word quickly went round the
secondary school placement offices that Brown was no longer easy.</p>
<p>There was another component of the Rogers strategy, one that Bill
Mayher's book misses. Rogers was a preppy from Taft and understood that it
is preppies who put elite colleges in fashion. Rogers made Brown
prep-friendly. He began to accept twenty and thirty people a year from
Andover, Exeter, Choate, St. Paul's, and Harvard-Westlake. He made Brown the
first backup choice at the leading schools, and by the mid-1970s, New York,
Los Angeles, and the exurbs of America had gotten the message. The seal of
approval was given in a 1975 article in the Sunday New York Times, titled
"Everybody Wants to Go to Brown." (There have been many such articles since,
culminating in a perverse extravaganza in last February's Vanity Fair,
titled "School for Glamour.") "</p>
<p>Speaking of data manipulation, the Forbes study that you cited only surveys the salaries of people who do not go on to receive graduate degrees. I wont even begin to comment on how that raises several questions in regards to your dubious assertions.</p>
<p>Also, why would you hang out in forums of colleges that you have never attended (nor will you attend most--assuming that you are currently an undergraduate somewhere)? Sounds like you live for the vicarious pleasures of trolling.</p>
<p>I certainly do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I certainly do.
[/quote]
Funny :)</p>
<p>I love living vicariously. You might say that my screenname is the Pope through which my holy spirit prevails, the Grand Vicar to all the internet.</p>
<p>u mean holy s**t spirit?</p>
<p>...And, you're banned.</p>
<p>Your prior post about the holy spirit was incoherent.</p>