If the Ivy label never existed, what are the true top 10 best U.S. colleges in your mind?

[Anonymous]

I don't know. But Stanford and U of Chicago are on there. Maybe Duke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. But Stanford and U of Chicago are on there. Maybe Duke.

“Mom, Dad, I really want to go to Duke or Chicago. Where should I apply ED to make sure I get into one of them?”
“Son, daughter, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago. You have no chance of getting into Duke. And, though there are probably 25 or more schools that are easier admits than Chicago, some idiots think it is a top 10 school! We have always taught you to get something for nothing…those are the values we instill.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put Swarthmore in the top 10 list. It's the WASP with an academic intensity that rivals MIT or Caltech, the most extensive distribution requirements, a rigorous Honors program, the only WASP to offer Engineering, adding to it's strong STEM focus, and outstanding graduate outcomes. Gorgeous campus and facilities. Easy access to Philly. All-in-all an outstanding undergrad education for a kid prepared to work hard.

SWAT does not have extensive distribution requirements. Purely in STEM terms, which is all you care about, Harvey Mudd is better. I agree SWAT is top 15 though. (Harvey Mudd is not - maybe top 20 though.)

In terms of STEM, Mudd is much better than Swarthmore. Are you high?

For engineering:
Size of Mudd: 921
Size of Swarthmore: 1702
Amount of tenure-track Engineering Faculty (Mudd): 22
Amount of tenure-track Engineering Faculty (Swarthmore): 7
Engineering Course Requirement Load/Depth (Mudd): 14 Engineering-specific Courses (not including Math, Physics, etc)
Engineering Course Requirement Load/Depth (Swarthmore): 12 Engineering-Specific Courses
Mudd has the clinic program and engineering majors take it for 3 semesters; Swarthmore does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top tier is HYPSM. After that, it's more program specific. For example, Penn for business is obviously excellent.

And then there is the second tier which is also very good - rest of the Ivies, Duke, Hopkins, Chicago.

Also, it depends on the type of school kids are seeking and whether undergrad or grad. For undergrad, I'd add the top LACs too, such as Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst.

You can’t rank grad schools meaningfully; it depends on the department and what you are studying. You can rank grad schools by subject and that’s about it. And any subject will have lots of surprises if you do not know the field, i.e., Pitt and Rutgers for Philosophy, UMass for Linguistics etc.

In other words, all meaningful rankings (other than subject rankings, and even that depends on subspecialty) are undergrad. Of course WASP is somewhere in the bottom half of the top 10 and probably above all of the lower ivies (including Penn; this is not an undergrad business school ranking).

Which is why Ph.D. feeder rank for history, per capita, is 15/20 SLACs. Here’s the cite:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs/#history

This is wrong, though with a decent premise. You can rank both undergrad and grad by department, and the departments in which your kids are interest should determine what you consider best.

For example, I don't think anybody looking at History as a likely major would view any small liberal arts college in the top 20 or 30; they simply do not have the scale to offer a meaningful array of courses and professors that would compete with very large departments at excellent universities that may be less selective at the undergraduate level. Why on earth would I go to Amherst or Bowdoin instead of Berkeley or Chapel Hill for History, aside from different campusl environments? The same is true for Psych, Econ, English, Poli Sci and any other number of non-STEM majors.

Aggregate undergraduate rankings at any level are completely irrelevant unless your kids don't have any idea about what they want to study, and even then, are more subjective than objective. And graduate and professional schools know it, as do their students.

For one thing, you don't have to sti through giant history lectures where your classmates are engineering majors who would rather not be there. For another the higher level of professor contact and higher academic expectations can better prepare one for grad school.

Which is why Ph.D. feeder rank for history, per capita, is 15/20 SLACs. Here’s the cite:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/...hd-programs/#history

No citation, link doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd put Swarthmore in the top 10 list. It's the WASP with an academic intensity that rivals MIT or Caltech, the most extensive distribution requirements, a rigorous Honors program, the only WASP to offer Engineering, adding to it's strong STEM focus, and outstanding graduate outcomes. Gorgeous campus and facilities. Easy access to Philly. All-in-all an outstanding undergrad education for a kid prepared to work hard.

SWAT does not have extensive distribution requirements. Purely in STEM terms, which is all you care about, Harvey Mudd is better. I agree SWAT is top 15 though. (Harvey Mudd is not - maybe top 20 though.)

In terms of STEM, Mudd is much better than Swarthmore. Are you high?

For engineering:
Size of Mudd: 921
Size of Swarthmore: 1702
Amount of tenure-track Engineering Faculty (Mudd): 22
Amount of tenure-track Engineering Faculty (Swarthmore): 7
Engineering Course Requirement Load/Depth (Mudd): 14 Engineering-specific Courses (not including Math, Physics, etc)
Engineering Course Requirement Load/Depth (Swarthmore): 12 Engineering-Specific Courses
Mudd has the clinic program and engineering majors take it for 3 semesters; Swarthmore does not.

Number of faculty, not amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top tier is HYPSM. After that, it's more program specific. For example, Penn for business is obviously excellent.

And then there is the second tier which is also very good - rest of the Ivies, Duke, Hopkins, Chicago.

Also, it depends on the type of school kids are seeking and whether undergrad or grad. For undergrad, I'd add the top LACs too, such as Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst.

You can’t rank grad schools meaningfully; it depends on the department and what you are studying. You can rank grad schools by subject and that’s about it. And any subject will have lots of surprises if you do not know the field, i.e., Pitt and Rutgers for Philosophy, UMass for Linguistics etc.

In other words, all meaningful rankings (other than subject rankings, and even that depends on subspecialty) are undergrad. Of course WASP is somewhere in the bottom half of the top 10 and probably above all of the lower ivies (including Penn; this is not an undergrad business school ranking).

Which is why Ph.D. feeder rank for history, per capita, is 15/20 SLACs. Here’s the cite:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs/#history

This is wrong, though with a decent premise. You can rank both undergrad and grad by department, and the departments in which your kids are interest should determine what you consider best.

For example, I don't think anybody looking at History as a likely major would view any small liberal arts college in the top 20 or 30; they simply do not have the scale to offer a meaningful array of courses and professors that would compete with very large departments at excellent universities that may be less selective at the undergraduate level. Why on earth would I go to Amherst or Bowdoin instead of Berkeley or Chapel Hill for History, aside from different campusl environments? The same is true for Psych, Econ, English, Poli Sci and any other number of non-STEM majors.

Aggregate undergraduate rankings at any level are completely irrelevant unless your kids don't have any idea about what they want to study, and even then, are more subjective than objective. And graduate and professional schools know it, as do their students.

For one thing, you don't have to sti through giant history lectures where your classmates are engineering majors who would rather not be there. For another the higher level of professor contact and higher academic expectations can better prepare one for grad school.

Which is why Ph.D. feeder rank for history, per capita, is 15/20 SLACs. Here’s the cite:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/...hd-programs/#history

No citation, link doesn't work.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs/#history

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top tier is HYPSM. After that, it's more program specific. For example, Penn for business is obviously excellent.

And then there is the second tier which is also very good - rest of the Ivies, Duke, Hopkins, Chicago.

Also, it depends on the type of school kids are seeking and whether undergrad or grad. For undergrad, I'd add the top LACs too, such as Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst.

You can’t rank grad schools meaningfully; it depends on the department and what you are studying. You can rank grad schools by subject and that’s about it. And any subject will have lots of surprises if you do not know the field, i.e., Pitt and Rutgers for Philosophy, UMass for Linguistics etc.

In other words, all meaningful rankings (other than subject rankings, and even that depends on subspecialty) are undergrad. Of course WASP is somewhere in the bottom half of the top 10 and probably above all of the lower ivies (including Penn; this is not an undergrad business school ranking).

Which is why Ph.D. feeder rank for history, per capita, is 15/20 SLACs. Here’s the cite:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs/#history

This is wrong, though with a decent premise. You can rank both undergrad and grad by department, and the departments in which your kids are interest should determine what you consider best.

For example, I don't think anybody looking at History as a likely major would view any small liberal arts college in the top 20 or 30; they simply do not have the scale to offer a meaningful array of courses and professors that would compete with very large departments at excellent universities that may be less selective at the undergraduate level. Why on earth would I go to Amherst or Bowdoin instead of Berkeley or Chapel Hill for History, aside from different campusl environments? The same is true for Psych, Econ, English, Poli Sci and any other number of non-STEM majors.

Aggregate undergraduate rankings at any level are completely irrelevant unless your kids don't have any idea about what they want to study, and even then, are more subjective than objective. And graduate and professional schools know it, as do their students.

For one thing, you don't have to sti through giant history lectures where your classmates are engineering majors who would rather not be there. For another the higher level of professor contact and higher academic expectations can better prepare one for grad school.

Which is why Ph.D. feeder rank for history, per capita, is 15/20 SLACs. Here’s the cite:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/...hd-programs/#history

No citation, link doesn't work.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs/#history

No surprises Berkeley is number 1!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top tier is HYPSM. After that, it's more program specific. For example, Penn for business is obviously excellent.

And then there is the second tier which is also very good - rest of the Ivies, Duke, Hopkins, Chicago.

Also, it depends on the type of school kids are seeking and whether undergrad or grad. For undergrad, I'd add the top LACs too, such as Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst.

You can’t rank grad schools meaningfully; it depends on the department and what you are studying. You can rank grad schools by subject and that’s about it. And any subject will have lots of surprises if you do not know the field, i.e., Pitt and Rutgers for Philosophy, UMass for Linguistics etc.

In other words, all meaningful rankings (other than subject rankings, and even that depends on subspecialty) are undergrad. Of course WASP is somewhere in the bottom half of the top 10 and probably above all of the lower ivies (including Penn; this is not an undergrad business school ranking).

Which is why Ph.D. feeder rank for history, per capita, is 15/20 SLACs. Here’s the cite:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs/#history

This is wrong, though with a decent premise. You can rank both undergrad and grad by department, and the departments in which your kids are interest should determine what you consider best.

For example, I don't think anybody looking at History as a likely major would view any small liberal arts college in the top 20 or 30; they simply do not have the scale to offer a meaningful array of courses and professors that would compete with very large departments at excellent universities that may be less selective at the undergraduate level. Why on earth would I go to Amherst or Bowdoin instead of Berkeley or Chapel Hill for History, aside from different campusl environments? The same is true for Psych, Econ, English, Poli Sci and any other number of non-STEM majors.

Aggregate undergraduate rankings at any level are completely irrelevant unless your kids don't have any idea about what they want to study, and even then, are more subjective than objective. And graduate and professional schools know it, as do their students.

For one thing, you don't have to sti through giant history lectures where your classmates are engineering majors who would rather not be there. For another the higher level of professor contact and higher academic expectations can better prepare one for grad school.

Which is why Ph.D. feeder rank for history, per capita, is 15/20 SLACs. Here’s the cite:

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/...hd-programs/#history

No citation, link doesn't work.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs/#history

No surprises Berkeley is number 1!

Not even in the top 50. Learn to read a chart. Swarthmore is #1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) Uchicago
2) CalTech
2) Reed
3) Princeton
4) Deep Springs (but it's not a 4-year), Swarthmore
5) Harvey Mudd
6) Amherst
7) Williams or Pomona
8) Pomona or Williams
9) Berkeley
10) St Johns

I tend to personally rank STEM-heavy colleges lower on the intellectual component, but even I can admit Caltech is deeply committed to science and progress in a way that most colleges with career-hungry stem students aren't.

My main criteria is an intellectual atmosphere that emphasizes rigor aka ... a college.

Pomona = the SLAC Pomona

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. But Stanford and U of Chicago are on there. Maybe Duke.

“Mom, Dad, I really want to go to Duke or Chicago. Where should I apply ED to make sure I get into one of them?”
“Son, daughter, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago. You have no chance of getting into Duke. And, though there are probably 25 or more schools that are easier admits than Chicago, some idiots think it is a top 10 school! We have always taught you to get something for nothing…those are the values we instill.”

ah the ramblings of an idiot private school parent trying to be “funny”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
MIT
Northwestern
Pomona/CMC/Mudd (3Cs)
Williams
Amherst
Georgetown

Love this list! Scripps and Pitzer are sadly a drag on the Claremont colleges.

swap Amherst with Hopkins

Many kids do: after Amherst rejects them in ED, they can try Hopkins as a back up in ED2!

with 39% yield, amherst is being treated as a good safety for most top privates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
MIT
Northwestern
Pomona/CMC/Mudd (3Cs)
Williams
Amherst
Georgetown

Love this list! Scripps and Pitzer are sadly a drag on the Claremont colleges.

swap Amherst with Hopkins

Many kids do: after Amherst rejects them in ED, they can try Hopkins as a back up in ED2!

with 39% yield, amherst is being treated as a good safety for most top privates

News flash: Amherst has no ED2. Johns Hopkins does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
MIT
Northwestern
Pomona/CMC/Mudd (3Cs)
Williams
Amherst
Georgetown

Love this list! Scripps and Pitzer are sadly a drag on the Claremont colleges.

swap Amherst with Hopkins

Many kids do: after Amherst rejects them in ED, they can try Hopkins as a back up in ED2!

with 39% yield, amherst is being treated as a good safety for most top privates

News flash: Amherst has no ED2. Johns Hopkins does.

doesnt matter. seems like people getting in RD treat it as a safety

[Anonymous]

also amherst accept 29% ED where as top privates take far less in ED 1 or combined

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:also amherst accept 29% ED where as top privates take far less in ED 1 or combined

Math not your strong suit? Factor in 40% freshman athletes at Amherst (before later years attrition) getting in ED. Don’t know what you mean by top privates, but if you think Chicago or Johns Hopkins are tougher admits ED, please, let me sell you a bridge.