Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.
Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.
Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.
The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.
NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.
We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.
We are talking about prestige and perception which is not -- and cannot -- be based solely on "undergrad". Views of a schools prestige is influenced by the interactions others have with a university in any and all of its facets (undergrad, graduate, professional, faculty, research, alumni, etc.).
You're wrong. See post 16:24 above. If what you're saying was somehow true, UT Austin must be more prestigious than Dartmouth and Brown. UT Austin's highly ranked graduate programs, its large alumni base, and global reach must mean it's more prestigious than Dartmouth whose medical school is ranked 45th. Most people in the know realize prestige of a university comes from it's undergraduate program, which is why Dartmouth is more coveted than almost all of the schools mentioned.
You sound like a clueless 18 year old who was just admitted to Dartmouth.
Nothing clueless about it karen. If graduate schools mattered for prestige then schools like UT Austin and U washington would be prestigious and schools like Dartmouth, Brown, and Notre Dame would not. Notre Dame also doesn't have any reputable graduate programs yet it's still Notre Dame and one of the most sought after schools in the nation. Just say your wrong if you have no argument to the contrary, instead of throwing insults.
-1. You obviously are very young and don't have a graduate or professional degree. Nobody cares about your undergraduate once you go on your second degree. And it is those secondary degrees that are more reflective of the prestige of a university once you are out in a career or traveling internationally and working with folks from the EU or Asia.
I have an undergrad degree from HYPSM and nobody I deal with in my career knows or cares. They do know where I went to law school however (another Ivy).
I doubt you graduated from an Ivy because you’re wrong. Harvard doesn’t recognize graduate degrees for legacy admissions. In general, there’s much more prestige in an Ivy undergraduate admit because there are fewer seats (relative to all the graduate programs combined) and you only have one chance. Lots of people get graduate degrees from Ivies. In fact, some get multiple degrees. Also, I know lots of people who got their undergrad at an Ivy and their law degree at a comparatively low ranking law school, yet they have prestigious jobs. A Harvard law degree is great, but a Harvard undergraduate degree is more prestigious.
This is just dumb. I am a PhD in Biology and after the first year of graduate school no one really cares about your undergraduate degree. When you finish your PhD, all that matters is where you got your PhD. It isn’t like your undergrad doesn’t matter at all but most people judge you on your terminal degree
Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.
Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.
Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.
The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.
NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.
We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.
We are talking about prestige and perception which is not -- and cannot -- be based solely on "undergrad". Views of a schools prestige is influenced by the interactions others have with a university in any and all of its facets (undergrad, graduate, professional, faculty, research, alumni, etc.).
You're wrong. See post 16:24 above. If what you're saying was somehow true, UT Austin must be more prestigious than Dartmouth and Brown. UT Austin's highly ranked graduate programs, its large alumni base, and global reach must mean it's more prestigious than Dartmouth whose medical school is ranked 45th. Most people in the know realize prestige of a university comes from it's undergraduate program, which is why Dartmouth is more coveted than almost all of the schools mentioned.
You sound like a clueless 18 year old who was just admitted to Dartmouth.
Nothing clueless about it karen. If graduate schools mattered for prestige then schools like UT Austin and U washington would be prestigious and schools like Dartmouth, Brown, and Notre Dame would not. Notre Dame also doesn't have any reputable graduate programs yet it's still Notre Dame and one of the most sought after schools in the nation. Just say your wrong if you have no argument to the contrary, instead of throwing insults.
-1. You obviously are very young and don't have a graduate or professional degree. Nobody cares about your undergraduate once you go on your second degree. And it is those secondary degrees that are more reflective of the prestige of a university once you are out in a career or traveling internationally and working with folks from the EU or Asia.
I have an undergrad degree from HYPSM and nobody I deal with in my career knows or cares. They do know where I went to law school however (another Ivy).
I doubt you graduated from an Ivy because you’re wrong. Harvard doesn’t recognize graduate degrees for legacy admissions. In general, there’s much more prestige in an Ivy undergraduate admit because there are fewer seats (relative to all the graduate programs combined) and you only have one chance. Lots of people get graduate degrees from Ivies. In fact, some get multiple degrees. Also, I know lots of people who got their undergrad at an Ivy and their law degree at a comparatively low ranking law school, yet they have prestigious jobs. A Harvard law degree is great, but a Harvard undergraduate degree is more prestigious.
This is just dumb. I am a PhD in Biology and after the first year of graduate school no one really cares about your undergraduate degree. When you finish your PhD, all that matters is where you got your PhD. It isn’t like your undergrad doesn’t matter at all but most people judge you on your terminal degree
You should look at the stats for where the top grossing lawyers have their law degrees from. It is something like the HYP grads make up 90% of the top 20% earning lawyers.
Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.
Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.
Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.
The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.
NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.
We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.
We are talking about prestige and perception which is not -- and cannot -- be based solely on "undergrad". Views of a schools prestige is influenced by the interactions others have with a university in any and all of its facets (undergrad, graduate, professional, faculty, research, alumni, etc.).
You're wrong. See post 16:24 above. If what you're saying was somehow true, UT Austin must be more prestigious than Dartmouth and Brown. UT Austin's highly ranked graduate programs, its large alumni base, and global reach must mean it's more prestigious than Dartmouth whose medical school is ranked 45th. Most people in the know realize prestige of a university comes from it's undergraduate program, which is why Dartmouth is more coveted than almost all of the schools mentioned.
You sound like a clueless 18 year old who was just admitted to Dartmouth.
Nothing clueless about it karen. If graduate schools mattered for prestige then schools like UT Austin and U washington would be prestigious and schools like Dartmouth, Brown, and Notre Dame would not. Notre Dame also doesn't have any reputable graduate programs yet it's still Notre Dame and one of the most sought after schools in the nation. Just say your wrong if you have no argument to the contrary, instead of throwing insults.
-1. You obviously are very young and don't have a graduate or professional degree. Nobody cares about your undergraduate once you go on your second degree. And it is those secondary degrees that are more reflective of the prestige of a university once you are out in a career or traveling internationally and working with folks from the EU or Asia.
I have an undergrad degree from HYPSM and nobody I deal with in my career knows or cares. They do know where I went to law school however (another Ivy).
I doubt you graduated from an Ivy because you’re wrong. Harvard doesn’t recognize graduate degrees for legacy admissions. In general, there’s much more prestige in an Ivy undergraduate admit because there are fewer seats (relative to all the graduate programs combined) and you only have one chance. Lots of people get graduate degrees from Ivies. In fact, some get multiple degrees. Also, I know lots of people who got their undergrad at an Ivy and their law degree at a comparatively low ranking law school, yet they have prestigious jobs. A Harvard law degree is great, but a Harvard undergraduate degree is more prestigious.
This is just dumb. I am a PhD in Biology and after the first year of graduate school no one really cares about your undergraduate degree. When you finish your PhD, all that matters is where you got your PhD. It isn’t like your undergrad doesn’t matter at all but most people judge you on your terminal degree
NO Harvard college is Harvard college and has events related to same for life. People who go to the college distinguish themselves from the randos attending easy to get into graduate schools. Frankly, the same could be said for every ivy league school. It is only people that did not attend elite schools that think it does not matter. (all secret societies and life long membership come from college) Networks originate in undergrad with a few additional admits later but its college network. If it did not matter where a student attends college why would people kill to get their kids into top colleges?
Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.
Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.
Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.
The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.
NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.
We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.
We are talking about prestige and perception which is not -- and cannot -- be based solely on "undergrad". Views of a schools prestige is influenced by the interactions others have with a university in any and all of its facets (undergrad, graduate, professional, faculty, research, alumni, etc.).
You're wrong. See post 16:24 above. If what you're saying was somehow true, UT Austin must be more prestigious than Dartmouth and Brown. UT Austin's highly ranked graduate programs, its large alumni base, and global reach must mean it's more prestigious than Dartmouth whose medical school is ranked 45th. Most people in the know realize prestige of a university comes from it's undergraduate program, which is why Dartmouth is more coveted than almost all of the schools mentioned.
You sound like a clueless 18 year old who was just admitted to Dartmouth.
Nothing clueless about it karen. If graduate schools mattered for prestige then schools like UT Austin and U washington would be prestigious and schools like Dartmouth, Brown, and Notre Dame would not. Notre Dame also doesn't have any reputable graduate programs yet it's still Notre Dame and one of the most sought after schools in the nation. Just say your wrong if you have no argument to the contrary, instead of throwing insults.
-1. You obviously are very young and don't have a graduate or professional degree. Nobody cares about your undergraduate once you go on your second degree. And it is those secondary degrees that are more reflective of the prestige of a university once you are out in a career or traveling internationally and working with folks from the EU or Asia.
I have an undergrad degree from HYPSM and nobody I deal with in my career knows or cares. They do know where I went to law school however (another Ivy).
I doubt you graduated from an Ivy because you’re wrong. Harvard doesn’t recognize graduate degrees for legacy admissions. In general, there’s much more prestige in an Ivy undergraduate admit because there are fewer seats (relative to all the graduate programs combined) and you only have one chance. Lots of people get graduate degrees from Ivies. In fact, some get multiple degrees. Also, I know lots of people who got their undergrad at an Ivy and their law degree at a comparatively low ranking law school, yet they have prestigious jobs. A Harvard law degree is great, but a Harvard undergraduate degree is more prestigious.
This is just dumb. I am a PhD in Biology and after the first year of graduate school no one really cares about your undergraduate degree. When you finish your PhD, all that matters is where you got your PhD. It isn’t like your undergrad doesn’t matter at all but most people judge you on your terminal degree
NO Harvard college is Harvard college and has events related to same for life. People who go to the college distinguish themselves from the randos attending easy to get into graduate schools. Frankly, the same could be said for every ivy league school. It is only people that did not attend elite schools that think it does not matter. (all secret societies and life long membership come from college) Networks originate in undergrad with a few additional admits later but its college network. If it did not matter where a student attends college why would people kill to get their kids into top colleges?
And people will forever look at your least prestigious degree and draw their own conclusions. Is there any good/product/school that is deemed equivalent to a more elite version of the same item?? No. Each individual makes his own decision about a car but you can not convince me that a Toyota is a Rolls Royce. But for most people who will never own a Rolls Royce maybe they are the same.
Anonymous wrote:If admitted today, I would pick Cornell over Emory or Vanderbilt regardless of what the ratings are.
" if admitted" is the operative phrase, and in my opinion it depends on the major. For premed I'd pick Emory for business if pick Cornell and pre law Vandy. These schools are peers to me.
Agree. Back in the late 80s, I saw schools like U of Chicago as very much within reach. It was a good school but seemed achievable for a top student (not just the very tippy top.) Same with Duke. Schools like USC and Tulane didn't seem desirable for a serious student. Seemed more like decent schools with a vacation-like component. Never heard of Elon or St. Olaf's. Was 4/4 for college applications. I know I will have to adjust expectations for DC.
Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.
Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.
Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.
The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.
NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.
We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.
We are talking about prestige and perception which is not -- and cannot -- be based solely on "undergrad". Views of a schools prestige is influenced by the interactions others have with a university in any and all of its facets (undergrad, graduate, professional, faculty, research, alumni, etc.).
Have to agree with this one. The perception on prestige is the overall feeling on a school that includes all aspects of the school.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}