<p>I would have a contrary view of the ranking of these colleges. IMO, it would be
Duke = Columbia = U Penn in academic terms and strength of student body. In terms of teaching excellence, Duke is the only one of the three to have been recognized for this by USNWR. </p>
<p>Most importantly, in terms of the overall undergraduate experience (academic, social, athletic), which I believe is how one should evaluate all colleges, I would rank them as follows:</p>
Duke is also one of the 10 schools recognized by NSF in 1997 with the first-ever RAIRE award (Recognition Award for Integration of Research and Education) … for its efforts as a research university to integrate undergraduate learning with research.
[US</a> NSF - OIA - Archives - RAIRE](<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/archives/raire.jsp]US”>http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/archives/raire.jsp)</p>
<p>Yeah, but the harsh reality is that when Duke comes up in casual conversation its just as likely that people will associate the institution with big time sports (read: NCAA hoops) rather than academics (which may be unfair, but, again, that is their reality).</p>
<p>Conversely, that is just never going to happen with a Columbia or a UPenn – its not like you will overhear a conversation that goes:</p>
<p>“My son is thinking about applying to Columbia.”
“Oh really? Looks like that fencing team is going to be a beast this year. Could go all the way.”</p>
<p>That’s a tenth of a point, and with the U.S. News rounding points to the nearest whole number, and with many schools tied, it can definitely push a school over the edge from one rank to another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m actually of the opinion that USNWR rankings are meaningless and manipulated, and that acceptance rates tell us nothing about student quality or the caliber of the academic experience, so sure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not in favor of binding ED policies, and the fact remains that ED programs benefit schools at the expense of student choice. And it is unfortunate that certain schools push their ED programs so fiercely upon certain demographics, including legacies and athletes. Speaking of which, I know of a certain school that claims to only give favor to legacies who apply ED…</p>
<p>big deal cayuga. We know that school is penn. One fact is simply undeniable the selectivity of a school affects the quality of the student body. It is obviously true–a lower acceptance rate means that a school has ability to choose the best candidates for admission and make a better class. You just don’t like it because it hurts Cornell’s rep.</p>
<p>the logic is ridiculously obvious and simplistic. Lower Acceptance rates, mean a college gets to choose a small portion of highly qualified applicants from a large pool. THE greater choice allows for a stronger class to be created.Cornell does not have that ability to the same extent. Think about it</p>
<p>Except acceptance rates can be easily manipulated. Some colleges are well known for sending mass mailings to attract more applicants. The most ridiculous mail I’ve seen lately is a ‘likely letter’, an invitation-to-apply mail from Northeastern to a student in the bottom 10% of his class.</p>
<p>So by that logic, Cornell, which received 10,000 more applications then Penn, is better positioned because it has a larger pool of applicants from which to draw?</p>
<p>Your reasoning is faulty. There is nothing, all things equal, that makes a lower acceptance rate better than a higher one from the perspective of student quality or academic experience.</p>
<p>you are ridiculous. Lower acceptance rate=more selective=ability for a school to choose the best kids. Cornell’s student body are not the same quality as the other ivies and that is obvious from anecdotes and statistics. There is reason it has the rep of being a door mat into the ivy league.Stop playing dumb with the whole acceptance rate statistic. It doesn’t matter that Cornell gets 10k more applicants because it accepts A LOT MORE!</p>
<p>There is a common misconception that Cornell is less selective than the other Ivies.</p>
<p>The overall SAT scores at Cornell Arts and Sciences and Engineering are about the same as Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, and Penn.</p>
<p>The math SAT scores at Cornell Arts and Sciences and Engineering are about the same as the math SAT scores at Harvard and Yale.</p>
<p>The math SAT scores in Cornell Engineering are the same as MIT.</p>
<p>The other special-focus schools at Cornell like Architecture, Industrial Relations, Agriculture, and Hotel Management are the probably the best in the world in their respective specialties but SATs are a less important factor in admissions.</p>
<p>I’m not playing dumb at all, I’m trying to be instructive on this issue. And this topic doesn’t involve Cornell except to the extent that it provides a worthwhile example.</p>
<p>The University of Chicago has an acceptance rate that is eight percentage points higher than Cornell. Northwestern has an acceptance rate that is nine percentage points higher than Penn.</p>
<p>Am I prepared to say that Cornell is better than Chicago, or that Penn is better than Northwestern on account of this fact? Hardly. </p>
<p>SUNY-Geneseo has an acceptance rate of 33 percent. This is lower than many “top-tier” schools that you would probably choose to attend in a heartbeat over SUNY-Geneseo. So does this mean that SUNY-Geneseo is better than the likes of CMU or Wake Forest? I don’t know. You tell me.</p>
<p>Except that this is objective data that can be controlled to some extent; not to mention that regardless of weighting USNWR puts on selectivity (this year), it is a major determinant on relative value for applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The concept is very simple to me too. When Stanford’s scores were exactly the same range as Yale and Princeton (not very long ago), all three schools had roughly the same yield. Are you really nieve enough to not realize that all three schools could have all of their students have 1550+ SAT if that’s what they wanted. There are other things determining quality of candidate and yield other than SAT avg - namely geography and level of sports in the case of Stanford, which have long been consistent differences whether their SAT avg is the same as Yale and Princeton or 70 points lower than Yale and Priceton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Before this decade, Penn was regarded the doormat of the Ivy League.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the prestige, I had noticed that Brown has more overlap among the top five schools and it doesn’t stop there. In that Laissez Faire study of the top 100 colleges, more schools had Brown listed as an overlap school than any other school by a lot. I’m sure people on here can and would debate until they’re blue in the face why that is; nevertheless, it is the case. </p>
<p>I never understand why people are so fixated on obsequiously paying homage to the USNWR rankings instead of deciding what they think the best schools are (for them) based on their own criteria. I don’t care what weighting allocations USNWR uses or what they leave out entirely compared to what I consider important and don’t understand why others are so concerned about it; especially when they change (and sometimes substantially) each year. Are people so mindless that they can’t do their own thinking on the subject? Based on this approach, it’s as if applicants before the '90s wouldn’t have been able to determine what schools they liked the best.</p>
<p>I don’t know who Judy Rodin is, but times haven’t changed that much. I would still only consider Penn #7 of the Ivies now, at least in terms of student selectivity.</p>
<p>The reason behind this phenomenon is simple. Stripping out regional (and specialty school) biases, outside of HYPSM, Brown makes a very strong case as being the most popular school of choice bar none – and those numbers back up this claim.</p>
<p>That doesn’t explain why Brown has more overlap than all other schools; including HYPSM. My personal theory is that with a mostly UG (but not entirely) focus in a predominantly (but not completely) urban setting, Brown has the broadest overall appeal for people that are interested in nat’l univs or LACs and those interested in urban, suburban or rural environs, who maybe don’t think they’re the best candidate out there, but still a very good one.</p>