How prestigious is Vanderbilt?

[Anonymous]

Very very prestigious. Wanes as you move up north or west, but it is a very well known university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.

This is off. Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier. Rankings are all messed up now. You cannot use them for anything. There are about 40 elite schools. Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40. BC is in there -- BU is not. Not the same kids/same results.

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite. I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious. I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.

Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige.
It's
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

More like...
1.HYPSM
2a.Columbia, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
2b. Duke, Brown, Johns Hopkins
3a.Dartmouth, Northwestern
3b. Cornell, Vandy, Rice
4a. Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
4b. Umich, UCLA, CMU, UCLA
5. UNC, USC

Let’s be real. Most people have never heard of University of Chicago.

And now only from the mass daily fliers and brochures they send. We could have built a house with those fliers and my kid didn’t even apply.

One mom always slips it in every thread

Well…it is both comical and embarrassing. None of their peer schools do it at all…at most they may send one to you.

It’s a head scratcher as to why they do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very very prestigious. Wanes as you move up north or west, but it is a very well known university.

Sounds just like Vanderbilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.

This is off. Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier. Rankings are all messed up now. You cannot use them for anything. There are about 40 elite schools. Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40. BC is in there -- BU is not. Not the same kids/same results.

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite. I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious. I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.

Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige.
It's
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

More like...
1.HYPSM
2a.Columbia, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
2b. Duke, Brown, Johns Hopkins
3a.Dartmouth, Northwestern
3b. Cornell, Vandy, Rice
4a. Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
4b. Umich, UCLA, CMU, UCLA
5. UNC, USC

Let’s be real. Most people have never heard of University of Chicago.

And now only from the mass daily fliers and brochures they send. We could have built a house with those fliers and my kid didn’t even apply.

One mom always slips it in every thread

Well…it is both comical and embarrassing. None of their peer schools do it at all…at most they may send one to you.

It’s a head scratcher as to why they do this.

Not a head scratcher at all. They have been profiled for these shenanigans. They send so much junk to try to drive up application numbers so that they can move up in rankings—the more they can get to apply, they can drive their selectivity number down so it looks like it’s more selective. The biggies don’t need to send daily mailings, or even any to draw applicants. At the very least, they should think of the environment with all of that paper. We re wives one almost daily. lol

[Anonymous]

^we received one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.

This is off. Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier. Rankings are all messed up now. You cannot use them for anything. There are about 40 elite schools. Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40. BC is in there -- BU is not. Not the same kids/same results.

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite. I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious. I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.

Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige.
It's
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

More like...
1.HYPSM
2a.Columbia, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
2b. Duke, Brown, Johns Hopkins
3a.Dartmouth, Northwestern
3b. Cornell, Vandy, Rice
4a. Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
4b. Umich, UCLA, CMU, UCLA
5. UNC, USC

Let’s be real. Most people have never heard of University of Chicago.

And now only from the mass daily fliers and brochures they send. We could have built a house with those fliers and my kid didn’t even apply.

One mom always slips it in every thread

Well…it is both comical and embarrassing. None of their peer schools do it at all…at most they may send one to you.

It’s a head scratcher as to why they do this.

Not a head scratcher at all. They have been profiled for these shenanigans. They send so much junk to try to drive up application numbers so that they can move up in rankings—the more they can get to apply, they can drive their selectivity number down so it looks like it’s more selective. The biggies don’t need to send daily mailings, or even any to draw applicants. At the very least, they should think of the environment with all of that paper. We re wives one almost daily. lol

But it turns off a bunch of kids that actually are good targets for the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.

This is off. Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier. Rankings are all messed up now. You cannot use them for anything. There are about 40 elite schools. Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40. BC is in there -- BU is not. Not the same kids/same results.

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite. I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious. I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.

Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige.
It's
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

More like...
1.HYPSM
2a.Columbia, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
2b. Duke, Brown, Johns Hopkins
3a.Dartmouth, Northwestern
3b. Cornell, Vandy, Rice
4a. Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
4b. Umich, UCLA, CMU, UCLA
5. UNC, USC

Let’s be real. Most people have never heard of University of Chicago.

And now only from the mass daily fliers and brochures they send. We could have built a house with those fliers and my kid didn’t even apply.

One mom always slips it in every thread

Well…it is both comical and embarrassing. None of their peer schools do it at all…at most they may send one to you.

It’s a head scratcher as to why they do this.

Not a head scratcher at all. They have been profiled for these shenanigans. They send so much junk to try to drive up application numbers so that they can move up in rankings—the more they can get to apply, they can drive their selectivity number down so it looks like it’s more selective. The biggies don’t need to send daily mailings, or even any to draw applicants. At the very least, they should think of the environment with all of that paper. We re wives one almost daily. lol

Admit rate is not factored into USNWR rankings!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.

This is off. Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier. Rankings are all messed up now. You cannot use them for anything. There are about 40 elite schools. Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40. BC is in there -- BU is not. Not the same kids/same results.

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite. I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious. I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.

Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige.
It's
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

More like...
1.HYPSM
2a.Columbia, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
2b. Duke, Brown, Johns Hopkins
3a.Dartmouth, Northwestern
3b. Cornell, Vandy, Rice
4a. Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
4b. Umich, UCLA, CMU, UCLA
5. UNC, USC

Let’s be real. Most people have never heard of University of Chicago.

And now only from the mass daily fliers and brochures they send. We could have built a house with those fliers and my kid didn’t even apply.

One mom always slips it in every thread

Well…it is both comical and embarrassing. None of their peer schools do it at all…at most they may send one to you.

It’s a head scratcher as to why they do this.

Not a head scratcher at all. They have been profiled for these shenanigans. They send so much junk to try to drive up application numbers so that they can move up in rankings—the more they can get to apply, they can drive their selectivity number down so it looks like it’s more selective. The biggies don’t need to send daily mailings, or even any to draw applicants. At the very least, they should think of the environment with all of that paper. We re wives one almost daily. lol

Admit rate is not factored into USNWR rankings!

US News does not consider acceptance rate but other rankings do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.

This is off. Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier. Rankings are all messed up now. You cannot use them for anything. There are about 40 elite schools. Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40. BC is in there -- BU is not. Not the same kids/same results.

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite. I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious. I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.

Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige.
It's
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

One potential way to arrange private schools into loose tiers is to examine the extent to which they feel the need to engage in yield-boosting tactics and/or entice "high performing" students to attend by discounting themselves. So, to consider whether a school offers a binding early decision application plan, awards non-need-based ("merit") scholarships and/or considers "demonstrated interest". Possibly also whether it is need-blind for admissions.

The top tier would be those schools that don't offer binding early decision, don't award merit scholarships, don't consider demonstrated interest, and are need-blind for admissions. This set includes HYPMS, Caltech, and, interestingly, Georgetown.

The next tier includes those schools that meet three out of these four criteria. Without checking, I believe all the rest of the Ivies are included. Some schools that would not be in this set: Duke, Northwestern, Hopkins, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, WashU, USC, Notre Dame. On the LAC side, of the top few that I checked (WASP + Bowdoin + Middlebury + HMC + Carleton), only Williams technically qualifies. Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona and HMC all offer a very small number of non-need-based scholarships, Bowdoin and Middlebury both consider demonstrated interest, and Carleton isn't need-blind. All of them have a binding early decision application plan.

The next tier would be those schools that meet only two of the four criteria. Here's where this method arguably starts to break down. USC would be included in this tier since it has early decision and offers merit scholarships but doesn't consider interest and isn't need-aware. Duke, on the other hand, would not be, since it has early decision, offers merit scholarships, and considers interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.

This is off. Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier. Rankings are all messed up now. You cannot use them for anything. There are about 40 elite schools. Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40. BC is in there -- BU is not. Not the same kids/same results.

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite. I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious. I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.

Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige.
It's
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

One potential way to arrange private schools into loose tiers is to examine the extent to which they feel the need to engage in yield-boosting tactics and/or entice "high performing" students to attend by discounting themselves. So, to consider whether a school offers a binding early decision application plan, awards non-need-based ("merit") scholarships and/or considers "demonstrated interest". Possibly also whether it is need-blind for admissions.

The top tier would be those schools that don't offer binding early decision, don't award merit scholarships, don't consider demonstrated interest, and are need-blind for admissions. This set includes HYPMS, Caltech, and, interestingly, Georgetown.

The next tier includes those schools that meet three out of these four criteria. Without checking, I believe all the rest of the Ivies are included. Some schools that would not be in this set: Duke, Northwestern, Hopkins, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, WashU, USC, Notre Dame. On the LAC side, of the top few that I checked (WASP + Bowdoin + Middlebury + HMC + Carleton), only Williams technically qualifies. Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona and HMC all offer a very small number of non-need-based scholarships, Bowdoin and Middlebury both consider demonstrated interest, and Carleton isn't need-blind. All of them have a binding early decision application plan.

The next tier would be those schools that meet only two of the four criteria. Here's where this method arguably starts to break down. USC would be included in this tier since it has early decision and offers merit scholarships but doesn't consider interest and isn't need-aware. Duke, on the other hand, would not be, since it has early decision, offers merit scholarships, and considers interest.

What merit scholarships are WA[not S]P providing? Amherst says it doesn't provide any. I can't find anywhere that says Pomona does either.

[Anonymous]

I would put it just above WashU/Rice/Emory, just below Northwestern/UChicago/Hopkins/Brown.

[Anonymous]

Prestige is on par with a Waffle House restaurant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.

This is off. Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier. Rankings are all messed up now. You cannot use them for anything. There are about 40 elite schools. Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40. BC is in there -- BU is not. Not the same kids/same results.

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite. I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious. I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.

Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige.
It's
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

One potential way to arrange private schools into loose tiers is to examine the extent to which they feel the need to engage in yield-boosting tactics and/or entice "high performing" students to attend by discounting themselves. So, to consider whether a school offers a binding early decision application plan, awards non-need-based ("merit") scholarships and/or considers "demonstrated interest". Possibly also whether it is need-blind for admissions.

The top tier would be those schools that don't offer binding early decision, don't award merit scholarships, don't consider demonstrated interest, and are need-blind for admissions. This set includes HYPMS, Caltech, and, interestingly, Georgetown.

The next tier includes those schools that meet three out of these four criteria. Without checking, I believe all the rest of the Ivies are included. Some schools that would not be in this set: Duke, Northwestern, Hopkins, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, WashU, USC, Notre Dame. On the LAC side, of the top few that I checked (WASP + Bowdoin + Middlebury + HMC + Carleton), only Williams technically qualifies. Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona and HMC all offer a very small number of non-need-based scholarships, Bowdoin and Middlebury both consider demonstrated interest, and Carleton isn't need-blind. All of them have a binding early decision application plan.

The next tier would be those schools that meet only two of the four criteria. Here's where this method arguably starts to break down. USC would be included in this tier since it has early decision and offers merit scholarships but doesn't consider interest and isn't need-aware. Duke, on the other hand, would not be, since it has early decision, offers merit scholarships, and considers interest.

Yale actually offers merit scholarships to STEM students because they lose the best STEM students to HPSM constantly. But otherwise the criteria makes sense, I would change it to:

T1: HPSM + Caltech
T2: Penn, Duke, Yale, Columbia
T3: Chicago, Northwestern, JHU, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, WASP
T4: Vanderbilt, Rice, Georgetown, Berkeley, UCLA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.

This is off. Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier. Rankings are all messed up now. You cannot use them for anything. There are about 40 elite schools. Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40. BC is in there -- BU is not. Not the same kids/same results.

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite. I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious. I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.

Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige.
It's
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

One potential way to arrange private schools into loose tiers is to examine the extent to which they feel the need to engage in yield-boosting tactics and/or entice "high performing" students to attend by discounting themselves. So, to consider whether a school offers a binding early decision application plan, awards non-need-based ("merit") scholarships and/or considers "demonstrated interest". Possibly also whether it is need-blind for admissions.

The top tier would be those schools that don't offer binding early decision, don't award merit scholarships, don't consider demonstrated interest, and are need-blind for admissions. This set includes HYPMS, Caltech, and, interestingly, Georgetown.

The next tier includes those schools that meet three out of these four criteria. Without checking, I believe all the rest of the Ivies are included. Some schools that would not be in this set: Duke, Northwestern, Hopkins, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, WashU, USC, Notre Dame. On the LAC side, of the top few that I checked (WASP + Bowdoin + Middlebury + HMC + Carleton), only Williams technically qualifies. Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona and HMC all offer a very small number of non-need-based scholarships, Bowdoin and Middlebury both consider demonstrated interest, and Carleton isn't need-blind. All of them have a binding early decision application plan.

The next tier would be those schools that meet only two of the four criteria. Here's where this method arguably starts to break down. USC would be included in this tier since it has early decision and offers merit scholarships but doesn't consider interest and isn't need-aware. Duke, on the other hand, would not be, since it has early decision, offers merit scholarships, and considers interest.

Yale actually offers merit scholarships to STEM students because they lose the best STEM students to HPSM constantly. But otherwise the criteria makes sense, I would change it to:

T1: HPSM + Caltech
T2: Penn, Duke, Yale, Columbia
T3: Chicago, Northwestern, JHU, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, WASP
T4: Vanderbilt, Rice, Georgetown, Berkeley, UCLA

Ivies don't offer any merit scholarships. Where are you getting this yale merit rumor?

[Anonymous]

Why ask these types of questions? Inevitability the answers are always the same. You have the rankings obsessed know-it-alls insisting that a school is not elite, is overrated or is second tier. And then you have the responses who respond that it’s a well-known, elite university with an excellent reputation. If your kid gets in and it’s a good fit, it’s an excellent choice. Period.