U of Chicago is definitely on the upswing and you can rank unis anyway you want to get your desired result…
in terms of innovation and tech however which post 171 is addressing, these are the rankings that shed some light on the universities that are not only powering research and innovation but industries.
this is the model that is going to matter going forward (as opposed to the old model of prestige and lib arts)… as it results in jobs, economic vibrancy, market strength and ultimately donations back the the university
1Stanford UniversityUSA
2Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)USA
3Harvard UniversityUSA
4University of PennsylvaniaUSA
5University of WashingtonUSA
6University of Texas System
A “Technology and Innovation” ranking that puts the University of Texas System over the University of California system? I would put a ton full of salt on this one. Even with current budget issues at Cal and other UCs, This does not pass the smell test, at all.
In terms of basic research there is no university or university system that can compare to the UC system… from UCSF, to Lawrence Livermore, UCLA and Berkeley being one of the global super brands of research and excellence across a broad class of disciplines.
however, this ranking system was attempting to measure the impact of patents and research on industry… and used metrics such as patents and articles cited by industry to measure that.
I personally feel that rankings are generally silly. The notion that if you go to an University that sends the most kids into technology or produces the most billionaires that there is a higher probability that you will be one of those people is ridiculous. This is why all output based rankings are flawed.
A person’s individual success is 95%+ based on their individual characteristics, not institution characteristics
Having said that, I feel that the one thing you can try and figure out is which Universities attract the brightest students as a percentage of class size, since this will actually impact your educational experience. If you go to a school that has a range of student capabilities but some very talented students, then you will meet all these range of kids in a typical class and that will affect your educational experience.
Despite many drawbacks, standardized test scores are a useful measure for this
Just look at the schools with the best median test scores and you get a good proxy for student body strength. It’s not perfect but it’s not as useless as popular media makes it out to be. Of course it can be gamed, and so it’s good to sanity check this but once I land at a school with a bright set of peers, the rest is totally up to me. At least that’s how I feel. Everything else just feels like noise
Stanford could fill its entire class with perfect SAT scores if it wanted to. Stanford has the top div 1 FBS athletic program in the country and its SAT scores and grad rates drop because of this. Using metrics that emphasize overall grad rates and SAT scores without accounting for FBS div 1 sports programs to those that don’t will skew results.
The university with the highest SAT score by far is Caltech which puts the least emphasis on sports. U of Chicago is second in terms of SAT scores and that’s very impressive I agree.
you can rearrange the rankings anyway you want to get your desired result which happens all the time with these rankings.
many folks may not like the delivery of post 171…but schools like Stanford have been able to elevate their humanities programs (which would not have gotten the funding otherwise to hire profs and staff) to the top of the rankings because of fundraising and wealth generated from its ability to be instrumental in the creation of Silicon Valley.
Cornell tech is going to be a much bigger boon to Cornell than people realize… and it will help Cornell with fundraising and help fund programs that would otherwise not get the funding because of it… and ultimately attract more top students to all its programs.
Not to quibble (too much) but no it can’t. No school can. Not even close.
There are only about 600 perfect SAT scores a year. That’s it. There are probably a similar number of truly “perfect” ACT scores (not just 36 composite, but 36 on each of the component sections).
Even Harvard only gets about 350 “perfect” SAT applicants, I doubt Stanford gets higher.
Superscore? Well, obviously there are going to be more “perfect” scores. Who knows how many? I suspect not that many because once you get a 1570 or so, the incentive to keep retaking goes down.
And for many reasons, some “perfect” SAT/ACT scorers will prefer other schools to Stanford, whether for financial reasons, choice of major, location, etc. I do agree, though, that Stanford is an incredibly attractive school on any number of metrics. I bet they get 50-75 perfect SAT kids a year (just a wild guess), and a similar number of perfect ACT scorers.
Google schools by SAT score, and you’ll find the usual suspects near the top. Most have Cal Tech,
All point to some good scores for all.
Kudos to Cal Tech. Kudos to Stanford. Kudos to UChicago. and Kudos to the others on these lists. They are all good schools. They all do a great job of filling their class with the best students for them.
Still doesn’t change the OP’s original statement. At the trajectory that UChicago is going, it could be the toughest school to get into. Note: the OP didn’t say UChicago would be best school.
What makes something best is an Opinion anyway. And it is a personal assessment against ones own private criteria. For me, I think UChicago is best. For others it is Stanford. Still others it is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech, Michigan, Virginia, Willams or Amherst. It is silly to argue. A great student at any of these schools can develop into a great person. It will be 99% up to the individual and 1% up to the environment they are placed into as long as that environment isn’t a quagmire and none of the schools are a quagmire.
Universities that generate jobs and industry will be the big winners… they will be better able to fund programs that may not otherwise get funding and in the long run attract more top students. SAT discussions are a sidebar.
watch Cornell Tech develop and see the impact it will have on Cornell in terms of fundraising, its improved ability to strengthen its depts and ultimately the ability to attract more top students across all its programs.
@sbballer, you should maybe start a thread on the Cornell page talking about it? I’d be interested in hearing more, maybe others would too if it were in the right thread. When you start the thread, maybe give your reasons why you think it is so. You do know that there are at least 4 other Ivies closer to NYC than Ithaca? Also, if you include air travel, there are probably many better Tech/CS school with easier access to NY (Ga. Tech, CMU, for example) than Cornell, or at least as easy.
just commenting on post 171 that got a lot of hate… but I agree with the gist he was getting at. Universities that generate jobs and industry will be the big winners.
btw… Cornell Tech is located on Roosevelt Island in NYC a stone’s throw from Amazon2HQ
Well, it’s a truism that grads of a school conveying them into a hot industry in which they will make multi- millions, if not billions, will tend to funnel some of that wealth back to alma mater. The location of Stanford in Silicon Valley was fortuitous in that regard, and it has benefitted accordingly - all its programs, not just the narrow ones advocated in post 171. No doubt climate helped as well, and big-time sports and something I could only call California chic.
Great universities are made up of many components, and each has a different character. Stanford has a lot going for it, but its model isn’t the only successful one around. A preference for the Chicago model might be expected on the Chicago forum. I’m not convinced that all wealth, prestige and future growth lies only on the coasts and only in high-tech. But even if it did I wouldn’t care very much.
Although he didn’t come out and say it, I suspect avoiding an atmosphere with big-time sports was a specific goal of my kid when he was choosing colleges. None of us have much interest in watching sports and he had grown up hearing my stories about graduating from a Div 1 school and how painful it was to be in class with some of the athletes; the worst was being paired with one on a group project. I really didn’t care if that person was playing on TV and famous, I wanted a project partner who would be able to carry his weight on the project.
One of the ways I earned money to put myself through college was tutoring and although I was glad the Div 1 athletic program provided a steady stream of guys in desperate need of math help, it was always a painful thing to realize that so many of them really shouldn’t have even graduated from high school, much less be in a selective college environment.
Only a portion of the population considers big-time sports a plus.
Another good reason there are so many different colleges to choose from. Plenty of great options for almost everybody. From the (apparently) functionally illiterate star athletes to the computer whiz and everything in between.
re # 176:
“And while Cornell Engineering is the best in the Ivies, it is far from top 10 in the USA.” https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate
It’s been like this for years, with the typical trivial variations. Before that it was ranked higher.
re#74:
"-- The even sillier idea that anyone is going to Cornell because it’s in the NYC tech zone. "
… It’s clearly not silly for Master’s students matriculating to Cornell Tech, given that Cornell Tech is basically in the NYC tech zone.
For undergrad, such connection is not a given. But it may come to be the case, depending on whether/ what kind of linkages they develop between the campuses. The undergrad engineering program has long offered a “coop program” where undergrads work for a time as interns with 'real" employers. Perhaps they will leverage Cornell tech’s connection and location to help somehow with undergraduate internships. We shall see. These internships often lead to job offers, both directly and indirectly.
re#171:
“Columbia’s engineering school may be ranked 1st in the Ivy League (11th in the country)”
??
again: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate
Columbia is generally a little further down. It’s been like that for years.
If it is now what was posted in #171 by somebody’s estimation that is a real change.
Now that I think about it, they have always encouraged undergrad engineers to continue for a Masters
of Engineering degree, and the M Eng program was mostly populated with former Cornell undergrads. If they manage the same sort of pipeline to Cornell Tech, then those students will be in NYC just at the time when they will be interviewing for jobs. This could have appeal to some students. They would not be in the “tech zone” for the whole time they are studying engineering, just when it counts.
@milee30 , your son’s aversion to going to a school with “big-time” sports is an interesting bit of testimony. Part of what everyone knows about the U of C (going back to the Hutchins era) is that it banished the distractions of sport from its culture. I’d wager that that bit of knowledge has influenced lots of kids over the years to actively choose the University of Chicago over otherwise good schools with student cultures that perpetuate the hegemony of athletes. Some kids had quite enough of that in high school and wanted to put it behind them forever. That aversion was a very large motivator for me and most of my particular friends in days gone by. The present-day University of Chicago has modified its rigor in this as in other aspects of student life, and that’s probably a good thing. However, it must still be the case that everyone knows that academics are the main event at the U of C and that the cool and admired kids on campus are the brainy, original and interesting ones, not those who play with balls. That can’t be said of many universities.
It always amuses me to hear that a school could have much higher test scores than Chicago except that it must find a place for its less-than-stellar athletes. Who exactly made Stanford do that? What is it telling you about Stanford that they privilege athletes in that way? Let Stanford be Stanford, by all means, but let’s hear no belly-aching from their supporters about the consequences of those choices.
re: sports, we didn’t really care about sports when we were doing our college search (just like we didn’t care about the weather, locale, etc.) If my son had gone to a big time sports school, it might have been fun perhaps for us as parents to watch on tv, but it no doubt would have been lost on him and he wouldn’t have appreciated it anyway. I don’t mind the sports at all and I respect the athletes for their commitment to the sport, and if my son were an athlete, sure.
But privately, I thought to myself: I would be so saddened if the athletes were the superstars at the school my son would attend. I wanted the superstars to be the ones who would apply themselves at intellectual pursuit. Those are the superstars that would shine at the school he would attend.
At least that was what I was hoping for when we applied, luckily it worked out that way. Of course if my son were an athlete, it would be a different outlook altogether. Since my son happens to have an affinity for intellectual pursuit, I’m so thankful he is in an environment which cultivates that.
“I’d wager that that bit of knowledge has influenced lots of kids over the years to actively choose the University of Chicago over otherwise good schools with student cultures that perpetuate the hegemony of athletes.”
Yep.
To my slight surprise, DD, who has never once watched a sporting event on TV or attended a school sporting event, sorta likes the “sports” at Chicago, namely, watching an occasional intramural game and getting excited for her housemates who play in them.
Also found at Chicago, at least in BJ: vast majority of housemates who aren’t in frats or sororities (the ones who were seem to have left in year 2); many housemates who don’t drink at all, many housemates who drink moderately occasionally, few housemates who drink to excess more than once in 1.5 years; and tons of fun to be had, activities to engage in, and people to hang out with, for those who don’t drink at all. The change in the housing selection priority policy is another reason we may eliminate Chicago from the list for DD #2 because I can’t tell how much of this desirable “atmosphere” is limited to BJ houses, now that Chicago has gone more mainstream.
The Engineering ranking for Cornell is #15. Looks like Fu is ranked above it now, which is interesting in itsellf since it used to be viewed as a notch below the college. (then again, things change. Journalism school and the Teachers school used to be the epitome of their types, now there is no clear edge)
There are just too many non-ivy, and public programs that are good in Engineering due to the former snobbery that the Liberal Arts colleges. I was told that Harvard used to derisively refer to Stanford as an “engineering school”. Cornell saw the light, and the rest of the ivies followed…
because I can’t tell how much of this desirable “atmosphere” is limited to BJ houses, now that Chicago has gone more mainstream.