What are Considered America's Elite Colleges?

[modestmelody]

<p>Well I’m not sure that you’d need the award to do both (though I’d be extremely happy to see that), what I am saying is a place where there is a high population of both extraordinary teachers and extraordinary researchers (even if they’re different people) is a better place to be. In the classroom you’re more likely to encounter a superior teacher and in a lab you’re more likely to find research opportunities with top scientists.</p>

<p>I don’t think the two things are always mutually exclusive, and in fact, on the college level, I often find that the best teachers are fantastic researchers. However, I often also find that these researchers cannot compete with the sheer output of professors elsewhere because of the additional time they spend fulfilling teaching commitments and the structure of colleges which are likely to hold on to people who are phenomenal teachers at some expense to their time as researchers. Just like you’re not going to see a top Stanford football team and you instead have to look toward sometimes “non-traditional” sports to find that scholar athlete, so too should you look at that model in evaluating professors.</p>

<p>Does that make sense?</p>

<p>Anyway, this is one of the more hypothetical points I was making. I’m not sure I could design the ideal version of this award, if I could, I probably would do it. But I wouldn’t be surprised if more of these pop up soon and to see these awards gain momentum and importance in the coming years. Perhaps amongst many models we’ll see one crop up as the best indicator.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

and some schools have found a balance of both that’s truly remarkable (Stanford).

Would you honestly say a school that has 2,000 more grad students as undergrads is undergraduate focused and “balanced”?</p>

<p>Stanford’s reputation comes from scholarly activity. Yes, it also happens to be a selective, rich, private school which boosts its allure. Why do so many kids want to go to Stanford? Its for the renowned academic programs, not fabulous undergraduate teaching focus. Stanford has top scholars on its faculty…some are great teachers, some are not so great teachers, most are probably average teachers.</p>

[modestmelody]

<p>I’m referring to Stanford’s balance of scholarship and athletics. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>^ OK - I understood your context…however, it was a rather funny example to pull in when talking about undergraduate teaching focus.</p>

<p>IMO, probably the most renowned university that has the right balance of undergrad focus and research is Princeton.</p>

[modestmelody]

<p>I’d probably agree with that, UCB. I think the scholar-athlete thing works quite well to describe what I mean…</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>^ Maybe…you’re talking about 'furd with a Berkeley guy, so I’m slightly biased. :)</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>Modest,</p>

<p>Despite my claim that Princeton has the best combo of undergrad focus and research, Princeton profs are tenured by research capacity, not teaching ability:</p>

<p>[Tenure</a> road rough for professors - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/05/16/21215/]Tenure”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/05/16/21215/)

Research is it,” molecular biology and Wilson School professor Lee Silver said. “Teaching is a tiny little bit. A brilliant teacher who’s just ok would never get tenure. And … a brilliant researcher who’s just a mediocre teacher could get tenure. Unless you’re on the edge, teaching’s irrelevant.”

</p>

[RML]

<p>

That’s not the case RML-- I’d argue our physical science programs are just as strong for undergraduates as Cal and severely underrated by you. There’s a reason why all of my friends who have “quality” grades (half As half Bs, give or take) have their choice of multiple top 10 graduate programs in chemistry or physics right now coming out of Brown or have been hired at the most competitive pharmaceutical consulting firms, etc.

</p>

<p>@melody, I said Brown’s physical science programs are excellent. Do you know what excellent means? If I have to grade it so you would understand what I meant by excellent, I would give a grade of 94% or may be 95%. So how was I underrating Brown’s? </p>

<p>I did not overrate Cal’s prowess when it comes to science, computer science and engineering. Let’s face it. Cal is a solid top 5 for those programs in the world. Even my former profs and people I’ve met at my former university, Cambridge, a world renowned university packed with the best scholars from all over the world, would conform and agree that Berkeley is a top school in the world for science, computer science and engineering. You would be lucky if you’d find someone from Cambridge (or anywhere in the UK) who would rate Brown higher than Berkeley. You wanna bet? lol</p>

<p>When I said Cal’s programs are just better than Brown’s, I meant it would have a grade of 98% or maybe even 99% or on par with Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton and Caltech’s. Below them are the other powerhouses: Northwestern, Columbia, Cornell, Michigan, Duke, Johns Hopkins, UPenn, Chicago and a couple more I missed. I would not put Brown in that league at the moment and I already made myself clear why. It does not have enough talents and resources like those universities I categorized as SUPER ELITE. Now, do you understand why they’re supper ELITE? Again, those universities have the talents and resources much better than the rest of the schools in America. While Brown is excellent, selective and all, it lacks resources, money and mission-vision to be categorized as SUPER ELITE. </p>

<p>For example [Cal</a>, Stanford labs get millions from stimulus](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/24/BA2O16LL0M.DTL&hw=lawrence+berkeley&sn=001&sc=1000]Cal”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/24/BA2O16LL0M.DTL&hw=lawrence+berkeley&sn=001&sc=1000)
Now, if Brown is just as good if not better than Cal, Stanford and the like, or at least just as promising as those universities, more outside entities would be tapping Brown. But clearly, such isn’t the case.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.citris-uc.org/news/citris_headquarters_building_dedication_photos[/url]”>http://www.citris-uc.org/news/citris_headquarters_building_dedication_photos&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/24/BA2O16LL0M.DTL&hw=lawrence+berkeley&sn=001&sc=1000[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/24/BA2O16LL0M.DTL&hw=lawrence+berkeley&sn=001&sc=1000&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[RML]

<p>modestmelody</p>

<p>May I ask which for you are the elite colleges? Please enumerate them. And, if possible, categorize them. Thanks in advance.</p>

[Bescraze]

<p>

@phead

Selectivity with regards to schools like Hopkins or UChicago… Hopkins and UChicago attract a certain personality or type of individual who have be pre-professional (like premed), or the quirky type individuals. Selectivity numbers are skewed in the sense that the nature and the reputation of the school as a quirk and nerdy place automatically weeds those out who are not interested. In the end, only the students who are really in love with what the school offers apply and typically these are pretty smart ppl so competition is tough because the applicant pool is self selecting in relations to what schools they choose to apply…

Look there are a lot of JHU boosters on this forum…and you are clearly one. I can see that whole self-selective argument for Chicago to an extent, but their higher acceptance rate does make them a little less elite. JHU is really not a quirky school or any less mainstream then WASh U or NU…so it has none of those issues. WHile a great school, just looking at acceptance threads it is so easily discernible the quality of kids there are not at the level of the ivies and some of their peers. Full disclosure I got in their last night. I have nothing against the school(also I do not fit into any of those quirky categories you defined) But I think it is fair to be a little realistic about it.</p>

<p>For Elite what if we define it a little differently. What if elite means that around educated groups, if you say you go there people are impressed. THey recognize you as intelligent and successful. I don’t care if its your doctor, an employer, a group at a cocktail party or a friends mom. Elite is defined just as much by its selectivity as its excellence in other ways (educational, endowment ect)</p>

<p>HYPSM are indisputably the best of the best
Most would also throw in the rest of the Ivies(with maybe the exception of Cornell) and Duke. </p>

<p>Those schools for the most part have the best students (by every metric), the most money, best professors and so on, creating the perception of their status as elite. The argument that students applying to berkeley care less about the SAT and thus do worse is so ridiculous and illogical it doesn’t even deserve a full response.
I think it would be hard to fault that listing, but I am sure some will</p>

[kwu]

<p>“Full disclosure I got in their last night”</p>

<p>I don’t even want to ask what is it of theirs that you got into last night.</p>

<p>“it is so easily discernible the quality of kids there are not at the level of the ivies and some of their peers.”</p>

<p>Now, this is rather condescending of you. How people choose to express themselves online isn’t entirely reflective of their intellectual capability. Perhaps of their maturity.</p>

[RML]

<p>

Those schools for the most part have the best students (by every metric), the most money, best professors and so on, creating the perception of their status as elite. The argument that students applying to berkeley care less about the SAT and thus do worse is so ridiculous and illogical it doesn’t even deserve a full response.

</p>

<p>I think anyone who has the guts to say something like this is cocky and arrogant, not to mention pretentious and completely detached from realities. I mean, he’s clearly someone who think he’s better than the University of California, for it is the University of California who studied and found out that SAT has little correlation to the success of the students in college. Thus, the UC has made it public that high school GPAs weigh more than SATs do in their college admissions. </p>

<p>SATs aren’t perfect measures of college successes and students’ intellectual capacity and ability. There isn’t anything like it in the UK or Japan or Germany, Italy, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand or Singapore, for example, yet we see bright kids going to Oxbridge. If we would let those students at Oxbridge take the SATS, I’m not sure if their average score would equal to Dartmouth’s. I think it would pale in comparison due to lack of preparation for the said exams. But who’s more elite between Oxbridge and Dartmouth? </p>

<p>The most important aspects of intelligence are capacity and ability – the capacity and ability to absorb more. The SATs only measures the current knowledge of the students --a.k.a. stuck knowledge. They don’t measure capacity and ability, so you wouldn’t know if those high SAT scorers still have the ability and capacity to absorb more. Studies have shown that in several instances, many high SATs scorers still flunk out from college even with simple academic course loads. This happens even at places like Brown, Dartmouth or small liberal arts colleges.</p>

[kb10]

<p>Some people living in some circles (maybe northeast) cannot understand the culture in some other parts of the country. A great number of students simply don’t prep 2 years for the SAT test, or get tutors for it, or apply to 10+ schools.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t even say the SAT measures “knowledge”, the math test is a joke. The difference between a 720 and a 800 on the math SAT measuring junior high school math… 4 questions out of 54. That’s 80 points! Someone who got 720 could easily take the SAT again and get a 800. What you are measuring here is how good is this person at not making a mistake of doing 1+2=3. Many parts of the verbal is based on a few thousand words that you have to know, and I think it’s more indicative of verbal ability, but it still is a crapshoot.</p>

[Phead128]

<p>

@Bescraze

Look there are a lot of JHU boosters on this forum…and you are clearly one. I can see that whole self-selective argument for Chicago to an extent, but their higher acceptance rate does make them a little less elite. JHU is really not a quirky school or any less mainstream then WASh U or NU…so it has none of those issues.

</p>

<p>That is what I read in a separate post on Hopkins and UChicago. Don’t take it from me. I can find the exact post by another forum member if you wish. It’s not like I am coming up with this from no where.</p>

<p>UChicago has a self selecting pool, which means it has a reputation of attracting really smart geeky intellectually seeking nerds to their school. Although UChicago over the year has a relatively high acceptance rate on paper, since its application pool is self selective, don’t let that fool you, its incredibly hard to get in, since your competing with really smart ppl, or what I call, really smart nerds.</p>

<p>Johns Hopkins is self selective in that it attract ppl that are highly competitive, like minded, very career focused, AKA them vicious premeds everyone talks about and admire. Ppl only go there because of the medical school (which is not the case since it is populated with top 10 ranked programs in humanities and sciences) and of course there is an steadily rising IR pool of applicants as well.</p>

<p>A more appropriate term maybe Hopkins has a “a specialized applicant pool”</p>

<p>I don’t have any problem with your WashU/NU bias, every post you have with JHU also has WUSTL and Northwestern next to it below the Ivy league. I understand that your brother goes to WUSTL, which is why I try hard to refrain bashing it. :D</p>

[Hope2getrice]

<p>Duke is not that elite. lol. it’s a great school, yes, but more of its reputation is derived from being a sports powerhouse (basketball, lacrosse), than an actual academic powerhouse ala Uchicago, Columbia, etc. Duke’s number of nobel prize winners in either faculty or graduates is pretty low for a school of its ranking.</p>

[principalviola]

<p>I beg to differ… My Mom went to Duke for grad and top places like McKinsey tried to get her to come in with starting wages quite high. </p>

<p>It is great at sports, and that’s what makes it best of both worlds.</p>

[Bescraze]

<p>

for it is the University of California who studied and found out that SAT has little correlation to the success of the students in college. Thus, the UC has made it public that high school GPAs weigh more than SATs do in their college admissions.</p>

<p>SATs aren’t perfect measures of college successes and students’ intellectual capacity and ability.

Totally missed my point. I never said SATS meant that much at all. They obviously connote some level of intellect, but to what extent is anyones guess. I simply said I do not buy that all Berkeley applicants inherently do not prepare for the SAT because they do not care and they know Berkeley does not. Because those top kids are also probably appying to some schools that do. That was the point. Berkeley is a fabulous school, I simply said it was not like HYPSM and the rest of the ivies. If I am pretentious for my opinion then fine.</p>

<p>

ohns Hopkins is self selective in that it attract ppl that are highly competitive, like minded, very career focused, AKA them vicious premeds everyone talks about and admire. Ppl only go there because of the medical school (which is not the case since it is populated with top 10 ranked programs in humanities and sciences) and of course there is an steadily rising IR pool of applicants as well.</p>

<p>A more appropriate term maybe Hopkins has a “a specialized applicant pool”</p>

<p>I don’t have any problem with your WashU/NU bias, every post you have with JHU also has WUSTL and Northwestern next to it below the Ivy league. I understand that your brother goes to WUSTL, which is why I try hard to refrain bashing it.

</p>

<p>I think Hopkins is a great school, I guess I just don’t buy the whole specialized applicant pool. So does wash U have a laid back midwestern kid who likes frats or emory a southern w/e. By the way my brother chose between Hopkins and Wash U for college as well. Its not like I think Wash U is better…I consider them all peers. For the record I really don’t think I have a NU bias at all (know nothing about the school other then its reputation)…its when people put JHU over brown and Dartmouth in rankings it seems a little strange.</p>

[lockn]

<p>From US News data (entering class of 2007? not sure):
U Penn - 16.0% acceptance rate - 1330/1530 middle 50% - 96% in top decile
Chicago - 34.7% acceptance rate - 1330/1530 middle 50% - 83% in top decile</p>

<p>There is definitely something more than “self-selection” going on with Chicago. Apparently it attracts (and admits!) a significant number of applicants with grades that wouldn’t get them into an ivy or similar school, but SAT scores that are normal. Gives me some hope.</p>

[Phead128]

<p>Hopkins is not better than Brown or Dartmouth. I agree, NU, WashU, JHU are peers, I will calm down my bias towards JHU. :D</p>

<p>I agree, specialized bias self selecting thing is kinda a stretch for JHU.</p>

[modestmelody]

<p>

modestmelody</p>

<p>May I ask which for you are the elite colleges? Please enumerate them. And, if possible, categorize them. Thanks in advance.

</p>

<p>What kind of categories? Without getting too deep or thinking too hard, I’d probably say something like:</p>

<p>HYPSM</p>

<p>Remaining Ivies, Caltech, Amherst, Williams, Swathmore
Small gap
Cal, Northwestern, JHU, UChicago, UMich, WUSTL</p>

<p>In general, I don’t think there’s a huge distinction amongst these schools. In fact, I think amongst any of these schools the best place to attend is more dependent upon individual students and their preference toward unique features of each that may attract them. I may be missing one or two schools but I’d say other than for specific areas of interest where other schools are stronger, overall, these places have a far smaller gap between them than the next tier of schools.</p>

<p>So that’s what, 20 schools? I may be slightly short changing the LACs-- coming from a public high school they were hardly well known or popular options so its harder for me to judge their quality.</p>

<p>I do think that some of these schools do a far better job at teaching and focusing on undergraduates, but that’s just one (very important to me, but one) facet of an elite institution in my mind. For me, as a chemistry student who could have easily gone to Berkeley, I don’t look back at my choice and have even the slightest bit of regret for many excellent reasons. Other people would have chosen differently but I don’t think they’d necessarily be worse for it.</p>

<p>I’m not sure how different that is than your original list, RML, but I seem to remember saying that I didn’t think it was a bad list except that it overrated several schools (like Cal) and underrated others (like not including the top LACs at all and rating Brown and Dartmouth lower).</p>

<p>

Despite my claim that Princeton has the best combo of undergrad focus and research, Princeton profs are tenured by research capacity, not teaching ability:

</p>

<p>This is true across academia and I think it’s a major issue. Professors have a sense that they should not be or are not capable of judging their colleagues classroom performance objectively whereas quality of scholarship is more cut and dry. I think it’s a terrible, nonsense mentality that has been self-perpetuated and should be stopped.</p>

<p>While it’s hard to say to what extent teaching is considered in separate departments for tenure review, the Faculty Rules and Regulations at Brown clearly state that reviews for promotion and tenure must include a review of scholarship, teaching, and service to the university, and those reviews require that documents be presented to the deciding commitment and then subsequently to the Dean of the Faculty which demonstrate ability in these three areas.</p>

<p>I’ve heard the number floated that things at Brown used to be 40-40-20 (research, teaching, service) but that these days it’s closer to 60-30-10, depending on department.</p>

<p>I happen to know personally of two professors in chemistry (of somewhere between 20-25) who left because they were not awarded tenure (or in one case, told tenure would not likely be awarded) due to poor teaching reviews. It’s anecdotal, but it’s some evidence that it’s at least being considered.</p>