Which range of schools do YOU consider "elite"? HYPSM? Top 20?

[wittywonka]

<p>From Wikipedia:</p>

<p>

“According to UNESCO the US has the second largest number of higher education institutions in the world, with a total of 5,758 […] The 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau found that 19.5 percent of the population had attended college but had no degree, 7.4 percent held an associate’s degree, 17.1 percent held a bachelor’s degree, and 9.9 percent held a graduate or professional degree.”

</p>

<p>As usual, I feel like people’s perspectives are grossly out of context. Are we really going to sit here and argue that less than half of one percent of colleges (20-25) in the United States are considered “elite” when hardly a quarter of the population even has a 4-year degree? I don’t think it would be extraordinary to argue that the top 200-250 (roughly 4-5 percent of) colleges in the United States would be considered “elite.”</p>

<p>But I do recognize that my opinion is in the minority as far as CC is concerned.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>MSauce,
This year, Northwestern has 4 Goldwater scholars while Princeton has 2 or 3 (too lazy to check). I don’t want to take anything away from Princeton because it has the highest historic total. I am just using this example to show it’s not really as black & white as you think. When Northwestern kids package excellent applications, they can beat Princeton kids. The “edge” a Princeton grad over a Northwestern grad is much smaller than you may think when you exclude connection. It’s so easy and convenient to think of two hypothetically identical resumes when in reality, one rarely encounters that. Any difference in prestige among the top-20schools becomes insignificant in the eyes of recruiters when the whole package is considered.</p>

[Marsden]

<p>

As usual, I feel like people’s perspectives are grossly out of context. Are we really going to sit here and argue that less than half of one percent of colleges (20-25) in the United States are considered “elite” when hardly a quarter of the population even has a 4-year degree? I don’t think it would be extraordinary to argue that the top 200-250 (roughly 4-5 percent of) colleges in the United States would be considered “elite.”</p>

<p>But I do recognize that my opinion is in the minority as far as CC is concerned.

</p>

<p>But your opinion is perfectly valid nonetheless. Perhaps we should use the word “superelite” then?<br>
If that’s actually a word, that is. </p>

<p>To many (including many on CC) this exercise constitutes splitting hairs, but given the perspective on this site, which is majorly skewed toward the most ‘prestigious’ colleges in the nation, it has some relevance. I do think there is something qualitatively distinctive about the educational atmosphere at the top 5 to 10 colleges and universities. I am not at all sure where to draw the line though.</p>

[Marsden]

<p>

What about some of the top specialized schools, like Julliard or Cooper Union? They may not have programs for everyone, but I’d certainly consider them elite schools for what they offer.

</p>

<p>No question about it. Which reminds me, does the* Webb Institute for Naval Architecture *still exist? Why yes it does, full tuition scholarships woohoo!</p>

<p>

There’s a reason people are constantly asking about the HYPS schools–they’re considered the cream of the crop in American education. While I don’t believe MIT and CalTech are in that category, I can definitely see the argument for them and totally respect someone whose opinion does consider them on that same level.

Whew, that was close! Because I totally believe they are on that level, the chief difference being their obvious science/engineering focus.</p>

[warblersrule]

<p>

@MSauce

Is a student with a 3.5 at Princeton not going to receive preference to a Grad School admission over a 3.5 at Northwestern?

Nope. Many students seem to think that admissions officers and employers have copies of the US News rankings taped to their desks for easy reference. Where they get this impression, I haven’t the faintest idea. </p>

<p>For professional schools, GPAs and test scores are the primary factors. Since you are using Princeton as an example, I encourage you to look at Harvard Law, where Brown and Princeton have virtually the same number of students in each class.</p>

<p>For graduate school, GPA is of minor importance. Much more significant are one’s research interests, writing samples, research experience, language background, etc. These things can be done well at any top university. Unless a university absolutely mops the floor with each and every one of its competitors in a field (e.g. Chicago in Egyptology), a student from one top university is not given preferential treatment over a student from another. In terms of “greater opportunities,” I think you’ll find that the top universities all have quite enough resources to keep most students satisfied. (Disclosure: In my own field of interest in the humanities, only Yale among the four offers a relevant program, and it’s quite weak compared to Penn or UCLA.)</p>

<p>Two links for fun reading:</p>

<p>Northstarmom’s post on her Harvard education and why it is and is not valuable
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/2355660-post1.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/2355660-post1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Admiral’s post about life at Harvard - and how it’s really not that different after all
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/3254654-post2.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/3254654-post2.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Marsden]

<p>

The name “Princeton” on a grad school or job application is just going to mean more than the name “Northwestern” when your application is grouped in with a heap of others.

</p>

<p>Which reminds me, the one school that always trumps even Princeton, Yale and Harvard is the one the recruiter attended. Now that’s elite.</p>

[wittywonka]

<p>

I do think there is something qualitatively distinctive about the educational atmosphere at the top 5 to 10 colleges and universities. I am not at all sure where to draw the line though.

</p>

<p>I don’t disagree - so long as people can recognize the complexity and context of what they’re saying, I don’t really take issue with such opinion polls.</p>

<p>

Which reminds me, the one school that always trumps even Princeton, Yale and Harvard is the one the recruiter attended. Now that’s elite.

</p>

<p>Haha. I got a kick out of that.</p>

[RML]

<p>for those who are saying “top 15” or “top 20”, please enumerate what these 15/20 schools are.</p>

<p>I’d say the top 25 based on US News, and in this grouping:</p>

<p>Extremely Elite for undergraudtae: HYPSM + Caltech, Wharton</p>

<p>Very Elite: rest of the ivies + Chicago, Duke, UC Berkeley, Northwestern, JHU</p>

<p>Elite: Umich, UVa, Georgetown, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, CMU</p>

[Redroses]

<p>Princeton undergrad is in a category apart from Brown and Dartmouth? Not. These schools get closer and closer each year in terms of selectivty and in the past were just preference.</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>alam1, it seems that you didn’t really read my post too well.</p>

<p>I placed TEN schools in the elite category</p>

<p>

I have to disagree with JohnAdams… Placing only 5 schools in the elite category and then bunching 45 schools (rank 5 to 50) under “good” is insane. </p>

<p>Anyways, I think top 20-30 are very good … 30-50 are good… Top 20 should be elite. If you only say HYPSM, you are leaving out some amazing schools.

</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>RML, take a guess what the cross admit results would be between Williams, a school you failed to mention and your schools in the elite category?</p>

<p>Michigan
Virginia
Georgetown
Notre Dame
Rice
Emory
Vanderbilt
CMU</p>

<p>

I’d say the top 25 based on US News, and in this grouping:</p>

<p>Extremely Elite for undergraudtae: HYPSM + Caltech, Wharton</p>

<p>Very Elite: rest of the ivies + Chicago, Duke, UC Berkeley, Northwestern, JHU</p>

<p>Elite: Umich, UVa, Georgetown, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, CMU

</p>

[RML]

<p>Sorry; I missed the top LACs. I stand corrected. </p>

<p>I’d say that aside from the top 25 universities (based on US News) the top 15 LACs or so (based onthe same source) are also highly qualified as ELITE academic insitutitons too.</p>

[confusedboy]

<p>"I’d say the top 25 based on US News, and in this grouping:</p>

<p>Extremely Elite for undergraudtae: HYPSM + Caltech, Wharton</p>

<p>Very Elite: rest of the ivies + Chicago, Duke, UC Berkeley, Northwestern, JHU</p>

<p>Elite: Umich, UVa, Georgetown, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, CMU "</p>

<p>Take out Notre Dame and CMU, then add WashU and UCLA…ur list will be perfect.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>I don’t have a strong opinion here, but my biggest problem with naming CHYMPS as the only elite universities is that they were essentially the elite 100 years ago.* Since then, the national population has grown immensely and I believe the proportion of college-goers has grown too. Either way, the college going population now is vastly larger. If the number of schools constituting the elite hasn’t changed as a result, then I would argue that the meaning of elite has radically shifted.</p>

<p>*I’m not sure on MIT’s age, and I know that Caltech is relatively young compared to HYPS. If anyone’s going to nitpick on the exact ages, my point rests on the number of seats at the schools then and now. If there has been a radical shift in this, I’d be interested to see the numbers.</p>

[lesdiablesbleus]

<p>UC Berkeley is not better than Rice for undergrad. Not by a long shot…</p>

[liu02bhs]

<p>I agree with lesdiablesbleus. For UG, the small private schools probably offer better education than large state schools (even UCB). The top students at top publics are probably better than small elite privates, but the student quality overall is very wide at top publics.</p>

[alam1]

<p>JohnAdams, the point I was trying to make is that you place a small number in an elite category but then you place 50+ schools in your “good” category. If you insist on making the elite category so exclusive, why is the “good” category for that many number of schools. </p>

<p>I also do agree that, for undergrad, Rice offers a better undergraduate experience. And yes, before RML mentions this, we all know UC Berkeley has the name recognition among employers.</p>

<p>@Confusedboy: I would consider CMU elite… at least for computer science and business.</p>

[Redroses]

<p>I agree Berkeley is not in the second group–it’s freshmen stats does not make it a peer college to the others. Berkeley is a great grad school.</p>

[hawkette]

<p>How do you mean “elite?” If you asking about elite students, then measurements like standardized test scores would be the most accurate. Blunt instruments they may be, but they do have the benefit of a universal comparison and, for students attending the top schools in the USA, they cannot be fudged, ie, you can’t get in without at least a decent score. </p>

<p>What’s decent? Consider the 25th percentile scores below and the reader can decide what levels would be considered “decent” and which would be considered “elite.” Small differences mean little but as the gaps widen as you go down the list, it’s harder and harder to claim a student body as “elite.” </p>

<p>SAT 25th percentile , College</p>

<p>1470 , Caltech
1420 , Harvey Mudd
1400 , Yale</p>

<p>1390 , Harvard
1390 , Princeton
1390 , Pomona
1380 , MIT
1380 , Wash U
1370 , U Chicago
1360 , Columbia
1360 , Northwestern
1350 , Swarthmore</p>

<p>1340 , Duke
1340 , Tufts
1330 , Stanford
1330 , U Penn
1330 , Dartmouth
1330 , Vanderbilt
1330 , Bard
1320 , Brown
1320 , Rice
1320 , Notre Dame
1320 , Williams
1320 , Amherst
1320 , Vassar
1320 , W&L
1310 , Emory
1310 , Georgetown
1310 , Carleton
1310 , Claremont McK
1300 , Cornell
1300 , Bowdoin
1300 , Haverford
1300 , Wesleyan
1300 , Hamilton</p>

<p>1290 , Johns Hopkins
1290 , Carnegie Mellon
1290 , Brandeis
1290 , Oberlin
1280 , Colby
1270 , USC
1270 , Middlebury
1270 , Wellesley
1270 , Davidson
1270 , Colgate
1270 , Macalester
1260 , Bates
1260 , Scripps
1250 , NYU
1250 , WILLIAM & MARY
1250 , Boston College
1250 , GEORGIA TECH
1250 , Rensselaer
1250 , Tulane
1250 , Barnard</p>

<p>1240 , Wake Forest
1240 , Kenyon
1240 , Whitman
1235 , Grinnell
1230 , Lehigh
1230 , Colorado College
1230 , Bucknell
1220 , U VIRGINIA
1220 , U MICHIGAN
1220 , U Rochester
1210 , UC BERKELEY
1210 , U N CAROLINA
1210 , Case Western
1210 , Mt. Holyoke
1200 , Bryn Mawr</p>

<p>1190 , U Miami
1190 , Occidental
1190 , Lafayette
1180 , U ILLINOIS
1180 , Holy Cross
1180 , Trinity
1180 , Furman
1170 , UCLA
1170 , Smith
1170 , U Richmond
1160 , U WISCONSIN
1160 , U FLORIDA
1160 , US Naval Acad
1150 , US Military Acad
1150 , Sewanee</p>

<p>1140 , UC SAN DIEGO
1110 , U TEXAS
1100 , U WASHINGTON
1100 , PENN STATE</p>

<p>1090 , UC IRVINE
1080 , UC S BARBARA
1050 , UC DAVIS</p>

[alam1]

<p>^Hawkette, it must be noted that some schools don’t focus on the SAT as much as other schools. Emory, for example, puts emphasis on Unweighed GPA rather than the SAT. This is why many students with sub 3.6 GPA and 2250+ SAT were waitlisted/rejected this year and also in previous years. By contrast, some schools (from the list, Bard sticks out) tend to focus heavily on the SAT and admit students according to their set standards. MIT and Wash U both have a SAT 25% ile of 1380. I think Wash U is great but I would bet that the student body applying to MIT is stronger than the student body applying to Wash U. This gives me the impression that Wash U. tends to focus a lot on SAT scores. Another obvious example is Harvard… if Harvard wanted, I’m sure it could bump up its SAT range by at least 100 points but, due to different priorities, they don’t. Just a thought.</p>