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

[Anonymous]

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.)

1. Complete 3 full-credit courses in each of the 3 divisions (Arts & Sciences, Natural Sciences & Engineering, Social Sciences).
from at least two different subjects in each division...
2. 20 credits out of 32 to graduate must be outside your major.

That is pretty extensive to me.

Agree Mudd is a great specialist STEM school. But so is Olin or Rose-Hulman. But my comments were limited to WASP that are at the top of the liberal arts colleges.

[Anonymous]

You should evaluate the best colleges for your intended major. The lists will all be different. If you are incapable of this level of critical thinking, please share the college you attended as well as your major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should evaluate the best colleges for your intended major. The lists will all be different. If you are incapable of this level of critical thinking, please share the college you attended as well as your major.

My goal is evaluating the best colleges for a rounded experience. Major, Minors, Distribution, Development of Critical Thinking, Reasoning, Interpersonals, Teamwork, Listening skills. Becoming a better human being. That's what these lists are for. It's not for specific major. If so University of North Carolina School of the Arts (UNCSA) would be top for filmmaking and Sullivan University for Culinary Arts and so on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. Berkeley is #1 in raw number of PhDs; Swarthmore in size-adjusted terms. But if you can’t understand that and just write “Learn to read a chart” you look pretty foolish.

[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.)

1. Complete 3 full-credit courses in each of the 3 divisions (Arts & Sciences, Natural Sciences & Engineering, Social Sciences).
from at least two different subjects in each division...
2. 20 credits out of 32 to graduate must be outside your major.

That is pretty extensive to me.

Agree Mudd is a great specialist STEM school. But so is Olin or Rose-Hulman. But my comments were limited to WASP that are at the top of the liberal arts colleges.

You are going to major in a division already; there are then only two required gen ed courses: one from each of the divisions you are not majoring in. For each course within a division, you take any course you want. If you think those are “extensive” gen ed requirements, you are simply nutty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. Berkeley is #1 in raw number of PhDs; Swarthmore in size-adjusted terms. But if you can’t understand that and just write “Learn to read a chart” you look pretty foolish.

I think you now look pretty foolish calling Berkeley #1 — when it is not even top 50.

[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: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.

NP. Berkeley is #1 in raw number of PhDs; Swarthmore in size-adjusted terms. But if you can’t understand that and just write “Learn to read a chart” you look pretty foolish.

I think you now look pretty foolish calling Berkeley #1 — when it is not even top 50.

I’m not quite sure what to say if you aren’t capable of looking back at that link and understanding that there are two lists there … one for the “total” rank and one for the “adjusted” rank.

[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.)

1. Complete 3 full-credit courses in each of the 3 divisions (Arts & Sciences, Natural Sciences & Engineering, Social Sciences).
from at least two different subjects in each division...
2. 20 credits out of 32 to graduate must be outside your major.

That is pretty extensive to me.

Agree Mudd is a great specialist STEM school. But so is Olin or Rose-Hulman. But my comments were limited to WASP that are at the top of the liberal arts colleges.

You are going to major in a division already; there are then only two required gen ed courses: one from each of the divisions you are not majoring in. For each course within a division, you take any course you want. If you think those are “extensive” gen ed requirements, you are simply nutty.

You didn't read it correctly. 3 full credits in 3 divisions. That is 9 credits. 20 out of 32 required to graduate need to be outside your major. 62% of your credits need to be outside your major. I'm not nutty, I can just read better.

[Anonymous]

SLAC's are a marketing label for prestige seeking parents. It is just like chasing T20, except that chasing SLAC's has a veneer of "fit" and look down the noses at others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Gotta love the shit at STEM Amherst people acting condescending. Dunning Kruger in full effect. Yes, 29% is 29% unless they didn't teach you how to read numbers? Luckily, I went to one of those privates that doesn't need ED with an 80%+ yield rate. And if I had to make the choice, I would have picked Chicago, JHU, and a slew of 15+ other schools before I would even glance at Amherst of all places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As for admissions selectivity, show me where Amherst is more selective since it has weaker freshmen stats and higher test optional to boot. A winning combo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should evaluate the best colleges for your intended major. The lists will all be different. If you are incapable of this level of critical thinking, please share the college you attended as well as your major.

My goal is evaluating the best colleges for a rounded experience. Major, Minors, Distribution, Development of Critical Thinking, Reasoning, Interpersonals, Teamwork, Listening skills. Becoming a better human being. That's what these lists are for. It's not for specific major. If so University of North Carolina School of the Arts (UNCSA) would be top for filmmaking and Sullivan University for Culinary Arts and so on...

And yet your college failed you in this most basic task. What University did you attend? People who value critical thinking and reasoning skills would do well to avoid it…