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

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

Would you care to account for transfers? UCB typically enrolls over 2000 such students per year. Do you believe that they are of the same statistical caliber? I don’t.

Hawkette, it just so happens that Berkeley’s University Medalist (top undergrad student) this year is a transfer student. He’s going on to UCSF for medical school.
[05.10.2010</a> - Top graduating senior’s life trajectory is amazing](<a href=“http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/05/10_medalist2010.shtml]05.10.2010”>http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/05/10_medalist2010.shtml)</p>

<p>Just some anecdotal info to punch holes in your claim. Also, it’s been shown that Berkeley transfer students graduate at the same rate as frosh.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>Hawkette, it has also been shown that SAT scores are highly correlated to family income more than intelligence. Test taking methods can be coached. Berkeley enrolls a very high percentage of Pell Grant students. </p>

<p>I’m not saying Berkeley is better than Rice for undergraduate, both are fine institutions…however, if Rice expanded to Berkeley’s size, I very much doubt it would be able to keep its higher SAT average.</p>

[hawkette]

<p>ucb,
No argument on the size observation. You get what you sow. Rice has decided to stay small. UC Berkeley is obligated to go big. That’s just the way it is, but that does have consequences for the students. </p>

<p>People may prefer different things, but IMO Rice is a superior undergraduate environment and anyone familiar with it and UC Berkeley can instantly see the large differences, including the degree of intellectual homogeneity in their student bodies. </p>

<p>RML,
Re your Rice vs UC Berkeley comparisons in # 60, you sure got those wrong. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Standardized Test Scores-a 100+ point difference in standardized test scores is material stuff. If you don’t know that, then you need to do some research and some interacting with the Adcomm community. </p></li>
<li><p>Salary Scale: As I know that you don’t live in the USA, perhaps you are not aware that there are differences in the cost of living and local wages/taxes as you move around the country. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>California and NYC are among the highest cost places to live in the USA. Texas is among the lowest. Adjust the Payscale data for the large differences in cost of living and Rice’s Payscale level easily bests UC Berkeley. </p>

<p>And state tax differences are enormous—in California, they top 10%. In Texas, the state income tax rate is 0%. Did you know that?</p>

<ol>
<li> PA scores: Beyond the fact that you misstated Rice’s score on this corrupt measurement, you also ignore the fact that this refers to a faculty’s research/publication reputation and has little to do with the average undergraduate student. For measures that actually relate to what the student will experience (high quality peers, size of classroom, quality of teaching and access to profs, and institutional resources committed to undergrads), Rice wins in a walk.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>Despite all of the above, I would be the first to claim that either school can be a good choice. Both have very strong reputations and place extremely well in their home regions. Further afield, the Berkeley name may be more broadly recognized, but for those who understand it, the Rice student quality is perceived as a notch stronger.</p>

[rocket6louise]

<p>

Rocket6Louise:
Your list is great, but is missing Williams. I would argue that Penn State doesn’t belong, as well. Finally, it would be hard to leave off CalTech.

I would agree about Williams(I forgot to add it this morning), but I wouldn’t include Caltech and would definitely keep PSU</p>

<p>

@rocket6louise: duke? brown? northwestern?

Brown was also forgotten this morning(It was early), no to Northwestern and a resounding no to Duke…</p>

[Descartesz]

<p>

Your list is great, but is missing Williams. I would argue that Penn State doesn’t belong, as well. Finally, it would be hard to leave off CalTech.

Agreed. A little scant on non-coastal schools, too.
–PSU is an odd inclusion as it probably is academically 6th in its own conference, behind Northwestern, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota. And if we’re going to extend the list that deep we should add UCSD, Washington, Texas, and UNC, not to mention UVA and William and Mary.
–When including Michigan and Chicago, there can be no justification for excluding Northwestern, certainly their peer in selectivity and reputation.
–Hopkins and Duke, possibly Rice, at least, also need to be on this list if the “lower Ivies” are included.
–Bryn Mawr cannot be included without bringing in its more selective partner, Haverford.
–And including CMC, Reed, Smith, Mt. Holyoke, and Barnard suggests Carleton and Oberlin, at least, should be added. And if including fine women’s colleges, why not Scripps, too?</p>

[kolijma]

<p>pbleic, what Forbes list are you citing here? When I look at Forbes list of top 25, it says:
1 United States Military Academy<br>
2 Princeton University<br>
3 California Institute of Technology<br>
4 Williams College<br>
5 Harvard University<br>
6 Wellesley College MA
7 United States Air Force Academy<br>
8 Amherst College<br>
9 Yale University
10 Stanford University
11 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
12 Swarthmore College
13 Columbia University
14 Centre College<br>
15 Haverford College<br>
16 Boston College<br>
17 Northwestern University
18 Bowdoin College
19 Vassar College<br>
20 Whitman College<br>
21 University of Chicago<br>
22 Kenyon College<br>
23 Carleton College<br>
24 Colby College<br>
25 Middlebury College</p>

[rocket6louise]

<p>Agreed. A little scant on non-coastal schools, too.
–PSU is an odd inclusion as it probably is academically 6th in its own conference, behind

Northwestern, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota. And if we’re going to extend the list that deep we should add UCSD, Washington, Texas, and UNC, not to mention UVA and William and Mary.
–When including Michigan and Chicago, there can be no justification for excluding Northwestern, certainly their peer in selectivity and reputation.
–Hopkins and Duke, possibly Rice, at least, also need to be on this list if the “lower Ivies” are included.
–Bryn Mawr cannot be included without bringing in its more selective partner, Haverford.
–And including CMC, Reed, Smith, Mt. Holyoke, and Barnard suggests Carleton and Oberlin, at least, should be added. And if including fine women’s colleges, why not Scripps, too?

</p>

<p>I couldn’t care less about selectivity. I will add the schools that I THINK are the most elite. I don’t think haverford is, but I think Bryn Mawr is. To base this off of selectivity is completely stupid. When I think of ELITE, I don’t care about acceptance rate. i think more about name power</p>

[vonlost]

<p>“I couldn’t care less about selectivity.”</p>

<p>Selectivity is just a measure of popularity, and there are lots of different reasons for any given school’s popularity, like great academics or job prospects or location or price or weather or …</p>

<p>“I will add the schools that I THINK are the most elite.”</p>

<p>Why would anyone care what any of us strangers think? The value we can add is to point out information we have seen, and others can then use all the available information to form their own opinions.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

SATs aren’t a good measure for elite colleges. The ULTIMATE test and measure for being an elite college is the employability or maketability of their graduates as demonstrated by their salary scale.

</p>

<p>You have GOT to be kidding. It’s about the money you make? How nouveau riche is that? Guess you’re not familiar with elite circles in art history, the classics, theater, music, etc. … where starting salaries may not be high, but (gasp) they are still worthwhile fields of endeavor.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Selectivity is just a measure of popularity, and there are lots of different reasons for any given school’s popularity, like great academics or job prospects or location or price or weather or …

</p>

<p>Right. And popularity among hs seniors, of all people. Chicago, for example, didn’t become a “better” school the moment that people on the East Coast suddenly discovered that there was civilization west of the Hudson River.</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>rocket, ok, as you say</p>

<p>however, under no circumstance would PENN STATE be considered an elite school in the same level as the others that you fail to list, including Williams, CalTech and Haverford.</p>

<p>we hare not discussing football or volleyball teams here.</p>

<p>

I couldn’t care less about selectivity. I will add the schools that I THINK are the most elite. I don’t think haverford is, but I think Bryn Mawr is. To base this off of selectivity is completely stupid. When I think of ELITE, I don’t care about acceptance rate. i think more about name power

</p>

[pbleic]

<p>I am looking at the 2010 Forbes list. Yours is the 2009, the first year it was done.</p>

[RML]

<p>

Further afield, the Berkeley name may be more broadly recognized, but for those who understand it, the Rice student quality is perceived as a notch stronger.

On what basis, SATs? lol</p>

<p>Almost everyone admitted into Cal was a top 10 in their HS. That shows that almost everyone at Cal has demonstrated a high level of intellectual ability. SAT is a good measure of intelligence. But like a lot of smart people here would argue, it is not an absolute measure of one’s ability to succeed in college and in life outside college. Therefore, you do not have a proof that Rice students are smarter than Berkeley students. Because, again, SAT is not an absolute measure of intelligence and Berkeley understand that.</p>

<p>BTW, hawkette, I believe I’ve already mentioned it here on CC that I’m an American passport holder. I was born in Chicago. Both of my parents went to Stanford grad schools. Mother went to med school (for her postgrad) - they’re family of doctors. I travel to America twice a year and stay at least for a month and a half for every travel there. I don’t have to live there the whole year to understand more what I’ve already understood and learned about America, in the same manner that you don’t have to live in Italy to be able to learn about the country. I guess that’s a no-brainer.</p>

[pbleic]

<p>@kolijma
oops. In fact, I was looking at 2008 and you at 2009. Sorry about that. Your ranking is most recent.</p>

[hippo2718]

<p>

@RML

Almost everyone admitted into Cal was a top 10 in their HS.

Tsk, tsk. Sloppy research.</p>

<p>Each year, Berkeley enrolls roughly twice as many freshman students as transfer students (1.968x, to be precise). If you want me to do the math, that means a not inconsiderable 20% (20.256%, to be precise) of Berkeley’s undergraduates at any given time are transfer students. I rather think you’ll find that those students were far from the top 10 (or more correctly the top ten percent) of their high school classes.</p>

<p>Regardless of how many intelligent students Berkeley has, it is a mixed bag in terms of student body composition. Chicago may well have as many wealthy people (indeed, more) as Bel Air, but people are not automatically going to assume wealth when meeting someone from Chicago as they would someone from Bel Air. Similarly, someone might not necessarily assume extreme intelligence when meeting someone from Berkeley as they would someone from Dartmouth.</p>

[RML]

<p>Relative Importance of Application Elements:</p>

<p>Secondary School Record:
Berkeley: Very Important
Rice: Very Important</p>

<p>SAT/ACT Scores:
Berkeley: Important
Rice: Very Important</p>

<p>High School GPA:
Berkeley: Very Important
Rice: Very Important</p>

<p>[University</a> of California-Berkeley: Undergraduate Profile ? BusinessWeek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)
<a href="http://colleges..com/colleges/admissions/rice_university/227757.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://colleges..com/colleges/admissions/rice_university/227757.aspx</a></p>

<p>And, hawkette, top BB don’t recruit talents at Rice. If you think Rice is better than Berkeley, then why is Rice not in the radar of many top BB. [Center</a> For Student Professional Development - Rice University](<a href=“http://cspd.rice.edu/empl_ricelink]Center”>http://cspd.rice.edu/empl_ricelink)</p>

[RML]

<p>hippo2718, all I’m saying is that SAT is not an absolute measure of intelligence like what hawkette is assuming, and Berkeley understands that, that’s why Berkeley is not weighing SATs as much as they do HS GPA. </p>

<p>Knowing that such facts exist, why would you insist that Berkeley must be measured in the same way that you do for Rice when Rice has a different assessment for every admission criterion than Berkeley?</p>

<p>Again, if Rice has superior students and graduates than Berkeley, then why is it that Berkeley grads are paid more and are recruited more than Rice grads are? Again, top BBs recruit at Berkeley. But they seldom do at Rice, if at all they do.</p>

[RML]

<p>

for the most selective (call them elite) colleges

hawkette, not all selective schools are elite schools. The ELITEness of the college is determined by many factors, foremost of which are: </p>

<ol>
<li>the very high respect the institution gained from the top scholars</li>
<li>the very high respect the institution gained from the top recruiters/employers</li>
<li>the high selectivity of the school </li>
<li>the great facilities of the school</li>
</ol>

<p>It’s the good combination of these factors that makes school elite.</p>

[just_the_facts_1]

<p>RML, your rebuttals become more and more tortured every time you post. The fact remains: Rice’s student body has a significantly higher average SAT than the student body at Berkeley. Perusing the Common Data Set compilations, you will see that SAT scores are considered to be a very important factor for admission at almost every “elite” college/university. Whether Berkeley chooses to attach this same degree of importance to SAT scores, for whatever reason, is essentially irrelevant. If Berkeley does not (and I’m not even convinced about that), then their general student body is academically less qualified as a result, especially where all of the most selective “elite” colleges/universities also do require very high GPAs (as well as high SAT scores) for admission. End of story. </p>

<p>Your bias towards Berkeley is overwhelming but - in my opinion - somewhat delusional. I agree with Hawkette’s observation: Berkeley’s decision to go big and accept more students (including those with lesser SATs) means that you reap what you sow. I’ll bet that some of your “bulge brackets” understand that maxim.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

Similarly, someone might not necessarily assume extreme intelligence when meeting someone from Berkeley as they would someone from Dartmouth.

</p>

<p>Who assumes extreme intelligence when meeting someone from anywhere? I know someone at Dartmouth - he’s not very smart. The smartest people I know at UC’s are smarter than the person I know at Caltech.</p>