<p>I agree, Alexandre. And, for that reason, I would pick top/elite US schools over those schools that I think are UK’s version to the Ivy League, except Oxbridge. I think the elite American schools provide better academic ambiance as the resources are conspicuously more abundant.</p>
<p>DunninLA, I was only trying to state the fact that the Ivy schools do fall into different leagues when you try to differentiate each other and place them in hierarchical levels. In other words, Harvard is stronger than Dartmouth. Columbia is stronger than Cornell. Princeton is stronger than Dartmouth. HYP may be grouped together, as they do have almost identical academic prestige, resources, student quality. faculty quality, etc… But using the same criteria, on can hardly group HYP and Dartmouth and Brown together. Even Columbia, which appeared to fall in-between HYP and Brown/Dartmouth/Cornell can’t really be grouped with HYP. The same is true with Oxbridge and Warwick/Durham/St Andrews/Bristol/UCL. There’s a glaring gap that separates between the said groups. But that’s almost the same amount of difference that separates HYP to DBC. Remember that we are talking about: Teaching quality, Job prospects and International prestige/reputation etc. </p>
<p>From personal experience, the Ivy schools would rank something like this when it comes to prestige in the international scene:
- Harvard
- Yale
- Princeton</p>
<ol>
<li>Columbia
5./6. Penn/Cornell
7./8. Brown/Dartmouth</li>
</ol>
<p>UK Unis:</p>
<ol>
<li>Oxford</li>
</ol>
<h2>2. Cambridge</h2>
<ol>
<li>LSE</li>
<li>Imperial</li>
<li>UCL</li>
<li>Warwick/Durham/Bristol/St Andrews/Edinburgh</li>
</ol>
<p>Nottingham, Bath and York are just a little behind.</p>
<p>International Rankings. FYI, at least one ranking of universities in the global context would seem to be at odds with RML’s “personal experience.” This ranking ceretainly does not RATIFY the UNBRIDGEABLE gap between HYP and other Ivies posited by RML, or the one he suggested between Oxbridge and other British schools. Whatever popular opinion holds, academic and professional opinion DOES NOT recognize any unbridgeable gap between HYP and everyone else. That this was once an HISTORICAL fact may or may not be arguable. However, it is no longer an indisputable contemporary fact. It is simply no longer true.</p>
<p>The recent thread on America’s top universities in 1910 and 1925 is also intriguing on this score, as in the early part of the 20th century, the “Big Four” of American higher education were Harvard, Columbia, Chicago and (4th place in both “polls”) Yale. Princeton was not yet in that league.</p>
<p>At any rate, FYI. According to the USNWR “World’s Best Universities” of 2012:</p>
<p>1). Cambridge
2). Harvard
3). MIT
4). Yale
5). Oxford
6). Imperial College London
7). University College London
8). U of Chicago
9). UPenn
10. Columbia</p>
<p>Historical, institutional, social, demographic, and economic forces are reshaping America’s educational hierarchy: shaking things up. As they often do. The historical positioning of HYP at the indisputable REPUTATIONAL top of America’s educational hierarchy in a global context is no longer possible. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s world has passed. This is a mythology with a strong class basis and the class that enshrined this (WASP?) myth no longer holds an exclusive grasp on power, which power includes that of shaping myths and enshrining world views.</p>
<p>^ If it isn’t true, how come HYPSM enjoy the highest yield rates amongst all the top schools in the US, and Oxbridge in the UK? One poster here, by the name of kwu, posted how HYPSM were always able to attract their admits, and they lose them, they only lost to one of them, not to the lower Ivies.</p>
<p>BTW, the US News International Ranking was only a rip-off from another ranking table conducted by the British [QS</a> World University Rankings - Topuniversities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011).</p>
<p>On your three criteria of teaching quality, job prospects, and international prestige/reputation you posit that the HYP triumverate has an insurmountable lead over the other Ivies. That is simply not true in the real worlds of academia and the professions. Simply NOT true! If you are going to make statements like that, let’s see evidence that HYP is PROVEN superior in teaching quality, job prospects, and international prestige/reputation. There isn’t any such proof on these metrics. All of these schools are fantastic on these metrics. The talents and opportunties are now spread across the league, although historically, of course, HYP had a head start in amassing such talents, and in providing such opportunties. I spoke of their predominance as an HISTORICAL phenomenon, which I do not deny. But what was once unique to HYP is no longer unique to HYP. American higher education has been democratized!!</p>
<p>Why do HYP sometimes do better in yield? It is in part, not wholly but in part, because public myth and perception remain strong re: their predominance. Because in the public mind – which is unfamiliar with the actual world of academics and the professions – it is believed that these schools are THE BEST because they have always been the MOST FAMOUS. HYP are indisputably superb. I am a graduate of one of the three, myself. I don’t sell them short. But: they are NOT indisputably the BEST, unless your definition of BEST is on a social matrix. What HYP retain – indisputably – is strong SOCIAL prestige, a social mystique, based upon their relationship for centuries to America’s political and economic ruling classes, and on their long time ability to replenish those classes, when those classes were economically and ethnically homogeneous. Social prestige – which HYP indisputably RETAIN, even today – does not translate into your metrics on teaching, jobs, and international prestige/reputation. You disproved you own points on this by providing the QS World ranking, on which USNWR based its ranking. Princeton is NOT in the top ten! Hmmm.</p>
<p>Yes, HYP retain an almost mythic social prestige which gives them an aura that, yes, on this one metric ALONE, the other Ivies don’t have. Social prestige they retain. Other things – teaching quality, job opportunities, international reputation – are no longer their exclusive property. They just are not! And the only people who cling to this outmoded belief are those who cannot face the reality of historical change.</p>
<p><a href=“Cornell%20has%20a%20significant%20land%20grant%20status”>quote=DunninLA</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, Cornell is a private school that has an unorthodox “land grant” legacy, just like MIT – these are the two private land grant universities.</p>
<p>From an international applicant’s perspective Oxbridge and LSE are looked upon in the same light as the Ivy League + Stanford/Duke/UChicago. </p>
<p>The rest of the UK’s Russell Group have some work to do if they want to catch up, in terms of reputation at least.</p>
<p>How do you define stronger? Dartmouth is ranked highest in undergrad teaching.</p>
<p>I didn’t say HYP have superior teaching quality. But they have superior academic reputation and their recruitment prospects are superior to all the rest, except Stanford, MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They look at test scores (go to individual uni websites for specific requirements). That’s pretty much it.</p>
<p>“an international applicant’s perspective Oxbridge and LSE are looked upon in the same light as the Ivy League + Stanford/Duke/UChicago.”</p>
<p>Duke in the same “light” as Oxbridge? lol</p>
<p>rjk is probably cringing since Michigan wasn’t mentioned yet.</p>
<p>RML, you continue to be factually challenged…and silly! Whatever…cling to your outdated fantasies with my best wishes.</p>
<p>Oh, and you DID say teaching quality was inferior at the other Ivies…But, as I say, who really cares, since by no objective measure is that even true.</p>
<p>Because you are such a strident defender of the dated status quo, however, I am curious which of the “holy trinity” of HYP you are defending here. Which one of the three is your alma mater? For the record, one of my degrees is from Harvard, therefore I do have some experience of being educated by of one the “holy trinity.” Which school I loved, by the way. Your degrees are from, where?</p>
<p>I think you already have answered that question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Expect a fantastic answer. In all senses of the term. It is supposed to be Cambridge’s Girton.</p>
<p>xiggi, I hope you understand my perspective. I actually REALLY resent the “tier-ing” of the Ivies by certain posters. Each one of the Ivy Leauge schools is – by every possible measure – a fantastic school. I went to H, but the HYP fetish is just unbearable to me!!! My goodness, each one of the Ivy League schools is just incredible!!! Every single one of them. I just don’t get this need to put some of the schools in the League down by comparing them to some HYP myth that may still have some social power, but does not have any resonance WHATSOEVER in the academic and professional worlds. They are all different, and ALL GREAT!!!</p>
<p>I mystified and appalled by this cultish behavior, which shows up everywhere on CC.</p>
<p>I’m in the mood for some fireworks before the 4th!</p>
<p>^ Canada day was 2 days ago!</p>
<p>“rjk is probably cringing since Michigan wasn’t mentioned yet.”</p>
<p>Duke in the same “light” as Oxbridge? lol lol</p>
<p>I think RML has it spot on in all honesty. Whilst, collectively the Ivy League’ is far stronger then the equivalent in the UK. It’s strange how people almost seem to be implying that HYP aren’t superior to Cornell, Dartmouth and Brown in a meaningful way. The difference between HYP and the aforementioned three is probably the same as Oxbridge and Warwick, Durham and St Andrews, with LSE, Imperial and UCL arguably bridging the gap between Ox and the three previously mentioned in a similar way to Columbia and UPenn bridging the gap between HYP and the ‘lower’ Ivies.</p>
<p>If we’re talking globally then obviously US schools are far stronger, but people seem to forget that the world is far bigger than the UK and the US, places like Warwick and UCL may not be well known in the US, but they are well known in Asia and Europe. Warwick and LSE probably have more Asian internationals, than Black British home students. You don’t play $30,000 to go to a middling UK school. In a similar way to how Warwick/LSE/UCL/Durham/Imperial are not particularly well known in the US, the same can be said for Dartmouth, Brown and Cornell in the UK. Many of my peers are not familiar with the quality of those schools, and this is coming from arguably the third best university in the country. </p>
<p>American schools are only known by the British public, due to its obsession with American culture, and shows like 90210, Suits, Gossip Girl, Revenge, all shows which glamorize the 'Ivy League label. Without looking too deeply into it, I would say broadly speaking, this is my view on the matter. In regards to resources/alumni/endowment, no UK university except Oxbridge can come to the Ivies, but in regards to employment prospects/international reputation/quality of undergrad .</p>
<p>Oxbridge - HYP
LSE/Imperial/Columbia
UCL- UPenn
Warwick/Durham/St Andrews- Brown/Dartmouth/Cornell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Were you afraid we might not notice that it was your opinion and one based on not looking too deeply into it? </p>
<p>;)</p>