<p>I’m not talking college admissions, I mean in overall life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i think second tier starts after 25.</p>
<p>IMO, it looks like this:
Tier 1: 1-25 (high prestige: HYSPCM, caltech, upenn, berkeley, UCLA, UVA, USC, etc.)
Tier 2: 25-50 (mid-high prestige: NYU, UCSD, boston college, Michigan, Gtech, UNC, tufts, UT, etc.)
Tier 3: 50-100 (mid prestige: MSU, rennselear, ohio state, Uconn, northeastern, purdue, UGa, etc)
Tier 4: 100+ (etc, etc.)</p>
<p>some of these are disputable since arguably michigan and NYU are seen as having very high pretige (perhaps tier 1 might end at top 35?)</p>
<p>tier 1 could also be broken down to ‘tier 0’ with ‘HYSPCM’ and other schools in the top 10 (i.e. ultra-high prestige)</p>
<p>Also, I don’t generally hear people say ‘i go to a top 75 school.’</p>
<p>^^ I agree with the above in general, with the exception of TOSU. TOSU has been consistently on the fence in terms of breaking the Top-50 overall ranking throughout the last decade. But when it comes to ‘prestige ranking,’ Ohio State is without any doubt, ‘within’ the Top-50 as its Undergraduate Academic Reputation Index is always higher than roughly HALF of the schools ranked between 25-50. So, I would say that TOSU should certainly belong to your ‘mid-high prestige’ group.</p>
<p>“Also, I don’t generally hear people say ‘i go to a top 75 school.’”</p>
<p>No. I usually just say ‘I went to Big Ten schools,’ and people get it.</p>
<p>Tier 1: 1-25 (high prestige: HYSPCM, caltech, upenn, berkeley, UCLA, UVA, USC, etc.)</p>
<p>UCLA does not belong in the same sentence as HYPSM. Sorry…</p>
<p>Oh, good. Let’s get into a meaningless debate about meaningless tiering of meaningless rankings.</p>
<p>^No, let’s accept your ridiculous claim that MSU is “tier three” and of similar quaity to UIC and the CSUs.</p>
<p>Ummm, am I the only person who thought Tier 1 was any school given rank by USNWR and then after that they where separated into Tier 2, 3, and 4. I mean, the first tier is supposed to be the top 25% of universities, not just the elites.</p>
<p>-------------------------------------------If it is to be, it is up to me…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i take it you didn’t read my:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you should probably read a whole post next time before making comments like that.</p>
<p>I only made the comment because you decided what a so called TIER ONE school is. TO say that dozens of schools are tier two or less because of an arbitrary cut off point that YOU made up, is quite silly IMO. That UCLA happens to just make the cut, according to you, just reinforces how silly the comment really is.</p>
<p>^actually i was basing it on USN’s definition of elite schools (i.e. schools in the top 25) you can see that definition here</p>
<p>[Economic</a> Diversity Among the Top 25 Ranked Schools | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools#]Economic”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools#)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hence, schools in the top 25 are elite, while those that are not in the top 25 are note elite. That’s what i used as my basis to establish tier 1. Although, i admitted, that their are a number of differences between schools like Stanford and UCLA, which is why i gave the option of adding a tier 0.</p>
<p>the cuts after 25 that i made are arbitrary (i will admit.) if you have a better way of splitting them up, i’d like to hear your reasoning for why your method is superior than mine.</p>
<p>in my OP, i also noted that this definition may not be accurate because it doesn’t include schools like Michigan, NYU, UNC, which arguably are tier 1 universities.</p>