<p>I was kidding. But I do think vocational colleges are important since everyone and their cousins goes to college now. Elitism and the pressures to join to the ranks of the upper-echelon have made talented students not look vocational colleges.</p>
<p>IMO All the schools mentioned have educations that are equal to or surpass Ivy- leagues.</p>
<p>Some underdogs that will increase a lot in quality:
Case Western
Rice
Tufts
Boston College
Lehigh</p>
<p>First, I don’t think, that the Ivies are all at the same level. </p>
<p>Harvard, Yale and Princeton are in a league of their own, accompanied by Stanford, U of Chicago (most underrated U in the world!) and MIT. </p>
<p>Honestly though, I think that European U’s will be on the rise during the 21st century. The almost constant state of war in our continent has ■■■■■■■■ the growth of European universities. Most of them are state-owned, but the autonomy is greater as every year goes by and the billionaire budgets are still a reach for most of the elite u’s, but they already rival the US in terms of research quality. </p>
<p>Look out for these names:
Ludwig-Maximilian-Universitaet (Munich, Germany)
Technical University of Munich
Berlin-Charit</p>
<p>
Where’s Vanderbilt, Wash U and Rice? Berkeley and Michigan are two of the oldest schools in the country and its unlikely that they’re going to get more or less prestigious in the coming decade since they’re well established already. There’s about 10 other schools I would mention before bringing up old public schools like Virginia and Michigan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People really need to stop excluding schools like Rice, WUSTL and Vandy by virtue of including Georgetown.</p>
<p>Aside from a few depts., all Georgetown has going for it is its low admit rate by virtue of its prime location in the NE area.</p>
<p>The other schools have more higher ranked academic depts., as well as a student body w/ a better academic profile.</p>
<p>Heck, ND’s student body academic profile is a good bit better than Georgetown’s (people, esp. those on the East Coast tend to be too enamored w/ admit rates).</p>
<p>I wouldn’t include Georgetown either. All it has going for it is its political alumni really, and that’s probably just due to its proximity to Washington DC. Plus i think any ‘new ivy’ would probably have to be secular (which would also exclude Notre Dame and Boston College)</p>
<p>That being said, i still wouldn’t include Vandy or Wustl as a potential ‘new ivy’ (maybe Rice though)</p>
<p>“Plus i think any ‘new ivy’ would probably have to be secular…” </p>
<p>Huh?! On what do you base such nonsense? Are we now going to dredge up the old ‘Catholic education is second-rate’ argument?! Please show me how that’s measured…really, be my guest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously? Does google not work in your juco? Or did the UC budget cuts eliminate access? :)</p>
<p>Georgetown has a T14 law school (which means “national”), and a top 50 ranked med school (#45 actually, just 10 spots below Dartmouth). GU also has a strong international relations program (top 3)…</p>
<p>While I won’t oping on this silly thread, saying that GU has nothing going for it but political alumni is rather naive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope you realize that most of the Ancient Eight were not secular to begin with…</p>
<p>Meh, i remain unimpressed. Perhaps my comment was too harsh, but i don’t see any ‘new ivy’ in what you’ve described Blue.</p>
<p>As far as my secular comment goes, i think it would have to become secular if it wasn’t already. It has nothing to do with the quality of the education (which i’m sure is fine) but many people who aren’t religious (and they seem ubiquitous in higher education) would be disinclined from going universities like that if they weren’t. Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t either, which is why this is a silly thread. The Ivy League, which by definition is a sports conference comprised of private Unis, has too many historical/political/demographic/geographic factors in its raison d’etre to copy.</p>
<p>beyphy,</p>
<p>Your statements only serve to perpetuate the myth that religious (in this case Catholic) colleges ‘somehow’ do not allow the student to explore and expand his/her full intellectual capacity as do secular ones…that – just like the theory of old – religion is incompatible with intellect. I’d like to see proof of such an absolute position.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I believe that while many, perhaps the great majority of people come off as non-religious – after all how uncool is it to wear one’s faith on one’s sleeve?! – that same number may inwardly hold dear belief in God or in a set of, dare I say, ‘absolute’ moral values and rules for living that serve to benefit their fellows. That many of those types would be “disinclined” to attend non-secular colleges is a non-sequitor, especially as it is common knowledge that those very institutions are quite open to and encouraging of free-discourse, making them a welcoming place to spend four years.</p>
<p>I could see Boston College and Tufts overtaking UCLA and Michigan in the coming years like USC and Wake Forest have.</p>
<p>Why do people consistently confuse the term “Ivy League” with “prestigious university?” The Ivy League is an athletic conference. I do not understand people saying that Stanford or CalTech will be the “New Ivy League” schools. That would make for some serious travel nightmares for athletic events. 
</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s because, like many terms in common usage, it has two meanings - a narrow meaning and a broader meaning. The narrow meaning of Ivy league is the athletic conference. The broader meaning is “prestigious academic university.” </p>
<p>Wikipedia puts it this way:</p>
<p>"The term Ivy League also has connotations of academic excellence, selectivity in admissions, and social elitism.</p>
<p>The term became official, especially in sports terminology, after the formation of the NCAA Division I athletic conference in 1954,[3] when much of the nation polarized around favorite college teams.[clarification needed] The use of the phrase is no longer limited to athletics, and now represents an educational philosophy inherent to the nation’s oldest schools.[4] In addition, Ivy League schools are often viewed by the public as some of the most prestigious and are often ranked amongst the best universities in the United States and worldwide.[5]"
[Ivy</a> League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League]Ivy”>Ivy League - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Clearly the OP is not asking which schools will join the athletic conference in the 21st century. He is using the broader meaning of the term in the title of this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently you didn’t learn reading comprehension at Cal, Blue :p</p>
<p>New Ivy League =/= Ivy League. Even if you grant that the old one is just a sports conference, it’s pretty clear from this thread that when people speak about ‘New Ivy League’ they’re not talking about establishing a sports conference, but rather about elite universities (which the ivy league has no doubt come to associate itself with.) This can be seen pretty clearly from the usage of “Public Ivy” which has nothing to do with sports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have nothing against religious universities or faith. Heck, i think i remember hearing that like 30% of the student groups at UCLA are religious affiliated (I always see signs like “Korean Church on Campus,” etc.) But at the same time, i don’t think it’s a coincidence that the vast majority of ‘top’ schools are secular. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If i’m a Buddhist for example, why on earth would i want to go to a Catholic school? Sure, it isn’t necessary that if i’m a Buddhist, i wouldn’t want to go to one, but at the same time i don’t think it’s completely unreasonable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and so have Vanderbilt and Wustl. UCLA students like me are completely screwed by these far superior universities :rolleyes:</p>
<p>You’re out of your mind if you think UCLA and Michigan are going to fall in quality as they get “overtaken” by their private peers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, perhaps my comprehension is just different… :D</p>
<p>Besides a sports conference, the Ivy League implies a lot more, none of which is replicable, IMO. But the fact that it IS a conference makes it all the more desirable because they associate with each other. Sports is just one method of competition. Academics are another. Student selectivity is another.</p>
<p>MIT is as “elite” (to use your word), and probably ‘more’ elite in its field of expertise, but it ain’t no Ivy. Ditto Caltech. </p>
<p>‘Public Ivy’ is an oxymoron, IMO. The academics may be as good, and even better in some cases, but no public Uni has the resources to compete. No public has the ability to accept a class of scholars from around the world. Heck, the UC’s can’t even compete financially with instate prices. For most middle class folks, attending HYP is less expensive than UC instate. And once on campus, they literally throw money at undergrads for anything and everything. (UCLA has some really nice forced triple dorms…)</p>
<p>The concept of ‘New Ivy’ is just plain silly, IMO. That’s like asking, who is the ‘New SEC’ (other than the NFL)?</p>
<p>"‘Public Ivy’ is an oxymoron, IMO. The academics may be as good, and even better in some cases, but no public Uni has the resources to compete."</p>
<p>Michigan does, as does UVa. Those two public universities have endowments that are comparable to some Ivies, especially when you consider that they receive state funding and private universities do not:</p>
<p>Columbia: $7.8 billion
Michigan: $7.8 billion
Penn: $6.6 billion
Cornell: $5.3 billion
Virginia: $5.2 billion
Brown: $2.5 billion</p>
<p>ENDOWMENT PER STUDENT
Penn: $310,000
Brown: $290,000
Columbia: $280,000
Cornell<em>: $250,000
Virginia</em>: $250,000
Michigan*: $190,000</p>
<ul>
<li>Indicates that the institution also receives state funding, which adds to the university’s financial stability.</li>
</ul>
<p>“No public has the ability to accept a class of scholars from around the world.”</p>
<p>I am not sure what the means. Michigan has 5,600 international students (1,800 undergraduate and 3,800 graduate). UIUC, Purdue have even more international students. Last year, Michigan received 7,000 undergraduate applications from international students, of which 800 were admitted and 300 enrolled. Most Ivies enroll between 70 and 200 new international undergraduate students annually.</p>
<p>This is a stupid thread. We already all know what the other elite universities are. Grab the USNWR Top 20 (or 25 if you prefer) and off you go. U of Chicago, Stanford, etc. are hardly “up and coming rivals for the Ivy League,” as though they just emerged yesterday.</p>
<p>
The financial aid that UVA and Michigan offer simply don’t compare to what the Ivies offer Alexandre and that includes grants. Also, all the Ivies hand out grants to their students on a regular basis for academic research and fieldwork in other countries. I’m not sure how UVA and Michigan spend their endowment but they just don’t seem to have the resources that Cornell has.</p>
<p>
She means that on a percentage basis, the Ivies have a far greater international student population.</p>
<p>[About</a> Our Applicants | University of Michigan Office of Admissions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.umich.edu/drupal/about-our-applicants]About”>http://www.admissions.umich.edu/drupal/about-our-applicants)
Michigan has a 4% international student population.</p>
<p>[Penn</a> Admissions: Incoming Class Profile](<a href=“http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/profile/]Penn”>http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/profile/)
Penn has a 14.6% international student population.</p>
<p><a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf#zoom=100[/url]”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf#zoom=100</a>
Cornell has a 10.4% international student population.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/classprofile[/url]”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/classprofile</a>
Columbia has a 17% international student population.</p>
<p>There is simply no comparison in this regard. In a Michigan classroom of 100 people, there will be 4 international students based on the data while at Columbia there would be between 15 and 20. Also, half of any Michigan class will be filled with students from the state of Michigan while a corresponding Columbia class might not have more than a couple of students that are from the same state.</p>
<p>However, as Alexandre alludes to, it would be easier to self-segregate among your fellow international students at Michigan or Purdue since there is such a high absolute presence of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does Michigan meet full financial need for OOS’ers? Does Michigan meet financial need for those making up to $180k/year? Does Michigan offer no loans? Does Michigan provide grant $ for summer study abroad in addition to the 8 semester’s worth of finaid?</p>
<p>Does UVa meet full financial need for OOS’ers? (The short answer is yes, but I’ve read on cc that UVa is rethinking that policy due to financial aid budgets and political fallout from state residents – aka taxpayers.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The asterisk also means that the budget, policies and priorities are subject to the whims of the local legislators. :)</p>