Overall Tiers of the Top Schools

[Anonymous]

I wish Jeff would break out another College and University forum. We need one that prohibits and ranking discussion. The College and University site has become nothing but random rankings or lists. They are not helpful or meaningful.

He broke out the weightloss topic from the health and medicine forum. I am we get a C& U with no rankings by any organization or person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Nope, the top is HYPSM. That's it. *

LOL Yale has to give out special scholarships to admitted STEM kids because they can't get them to enroll. You're living in the past

[Anonymous]

UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)


Except this:

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching?myCollege=national-universities&_sort=myCollege&_sortDirection=asc

#15

[Anonymous]

These made up rankings - and the posters who live to argue about them - are so pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Nope, the top is HYPSM. That's it. *

LOL Yale has to give out special scholarships to admitted STEM kids because they can't get them to enroll. You're living in the past

When did this happen??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Nope, the top is HYPSM. That's it. *

LOL Yale has to give out special scholarships to admitted STEM kids because they can't get them to enroll. You're living in the past

When did this happen??

he’s making it up like the clown he is. Yale gives no merit scholarships

[Anonymous]

Yale isn’t giving scholarships, but they did do a big STEM push with likely letters. I don’t recall exactly when is started, a few years ago maybe?

[Anonymous]

Wrong, Yale is recruiting admitted STEM students with scholarships, because their yield for STEM students is too low. As the articles from their own newspaper state, they had an abysmal yield of ~30% for students who they gave likely letters to and wined and dined for a whole weekend during the YES admitted student program. It's simply not easy for them to compete with HPSM, Caltech, Duke, Penn, etc. for STEM students.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/02/26/inside-the-hahn-scholars-programs-push-to-recruit-top-stem-students/

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/02/17/new-stem-recruitment-program-seeks-to-increase-yield-of-stem-matriculates/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wrong, Yale is recruiting admitted STEM students with scholarships, because their yield for STEM students is too low. As the articles from their own newspaper state, they had an abysmal yield of ~30% for students who they gave likely letters to and wined and dined for a whole weekend during the YES admitted student program. It's simply not easy for them to compete with HPSM, Caltech, Duke, Penn, etc. for STEM students.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/02/26/inside-the-hahn-scholars-programs-push-to-recruit-top-stem-students/

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/02/17/new-stem-recruitment-program-seeks-to-increase-yield-of-stem-matriculates/

Wow, so Yale finally conceded that it's HPSM in a class of their own. HPSM don't have any special merit programs for any students since they're getting the cream of the crop to enroll regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong, Yale is recruiting admitted STEM students with scholarships, because their yield for STEM students is too low. As the articles from their own newspaper state, they had an abysmal yield of ~30% for students who they gave likely letters to and wined and dined for a whole weekend during the YES admitted student program. It's simply not easy for them to compete with HPSM, Caltech, Duke, Penn, etc. for STEM students.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/02/26/inside-the-hahn-scholars-programs-push-to-recruit-top-stem-students/

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/02/17/new-stem-recruitment-program-seeks-to-increase-yield-of-stem-matriculates/

Wow, so Yale finally conceded that it's HPSM in a class of their own. HPSM don't have any special merit programs for any students since they're getting the cream of the crop to enroll regardless.

Yale has always been the go-to School for humanities education. I don't know why they won't play into it and create the consultants, lawyers, and investment bankers they always have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Not sure where you saw this, but its likely someone with an engineering bias. Hense why Berkeley, Olin, CMC is so high, etc.
It should be....

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)
Yale

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)

-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-Williams and Amherst (Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier)

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):
Berkeley- (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads, VERY weak undergrad admissions)

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention, Very weak undergrad admissions)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources, Very Weak undergrad admissions)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Emory (Best Nursing, Public health programs in the country, good business as well)
Swarthmore and Pomona- 2nd best LACs

Why split up the LACs? they're equally resourced.

They're not as prestigious.

Then don’t include any of them. Most people would not put Williams and Amherst anywhere near the schools you ranked. Their student quality is also worse.

+1, it’s quite silly to put Williams on the same tier as Berkeley. No offense to Williams, good small school, but Berkeley blows it out of the water on impact in academia, course availability, and research output. I don’t know why people try to merge these lists together.

Williams is much harder to get into than Berkeley, but Berkeley has better academic so its a wash.

Berkeley undergraduate education experience isn't remotely as robust as any top SLAC or Private.

This definitely is only true if you don’t take your education seriously at Berkeley. You have access to some of the best professors and even graduate courses if you want to take advantage. Berkeley is better in every stem subject, better at English/History, and better in the social sciences than Williams.

You can keep telling yourself that is the case but it isn't. It never has been and never will be because for the most part your kids won't have much if any access to the top professors as an undergrad. I went to grad school there, and I taught there while in grad school. I have posted on this forum exactly what the experience will be, others have chimed in in support but people just don't want to accept the reality of a factory education taught in large part by TAs. Top professors aren't paid to teach, they are paid to run labs and make money for the school. Teaching undergrads (or having them in their labs) is a waste of time and resources.

professors have teaching responsibilities, even if you have a Nobel prize. There are many top academics and researchers who teach undergraduates. No reason to get so emotional and start lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong, Yale is recruiting admitted STEM students with scholarships, because their yield for STEM students is too low. As the articles from their own newspaper state, they had an abysmal yield of ~30% for students who they gave likely letters to and wined and dined for a whole weekend during the YES admitted student program. It's simply not easy for them to compete with HPSM, Caltech, Duke, Penn, etc. for STEM students.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/02/26/inside-the-hahn-scholars-programs-push-to-recruit-top-stem-students/

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/02/17/new-stem-recruitment-program-seeks-to-increase-yield-of-stem-matriculates/

Wow, so Yale finally conceded that it's HPSM in a class of their own. HPSM don't have any special merit programs for any students since they're getting the cream of the crop to enroll regardless.

Yale has always been the go-to School for humanities education. I don't know why they won't play into it and create the consultants, lawyers, and investment bankers they always have.

that's 99% of what they do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Not sure where you saw this, but its likely someone with an engineering bias. Hense why Berkeley, Olin, CMC is so high, etc.
It should be....

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)
Yale

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)

-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-Williams and Amherst (Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier)

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):
Berkeley- (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads, VERY weak undergrad admissions)

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention, Very weak undergrad admissions)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources, Very Weak undergrad admissions)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Emory (Best Nursing, Public health programs in the country, good business as well)
Swarthmore and Pomona- 2nd best LACs

Why split up the LACs? they're equally resourced.

They're not as prestigious.

Then don’t include any of them. Most people would not put Williams and Amherst anywhere near the schools you ranked. Their student quality is also worse.

+1, it’s quite silly to put Williams on the same tier as Berkeley. No offense to Williams, good small school, but Berkeley blows it out of the water on impact in academia, course availability, and research output. I don’t know why people try to merge these lists together.

Williams is much harder to get into than Berkeley, but Berkeley has better academic so its a wash.

Berkeley undergraduate education experience isn't remotely as robust as any top SLAC or Private.

This definitely is only true if you don’t take your education seriously at Berkeley. You have access to some of the best professors and even graduate courses if you want to take advantage. Berkeley is better in every stem subject, better at English/History, and better in the social sciences than Williams.

You can keep telling yourself that is the case but it isn't. It never has been and never will be because for the most part your kids won't have much if any access to the top professors as an undergrad. I went to grad school there, and I taught there while in grad school. I have posted on this forum exactly what the experience will be, others have chimed in in support but people just don't want to accept the reality of a factory education taught in large part by TAs. Top professors aren't paid to teach, they are paid to run labs and make money for the school. Teaching undergrads (or having them in their labs) is a waste of time and resources.

professors have teaching responsibilities, even if you have a Nobel prize. There are many top academics and researchers who teach undergraduates. No reason to get so emotional and start lying.

You obviously have zero experience at a top R1.

[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:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Not sure where you saw this, but its likely someone with an engineering bias. Hense why Berkeley, Olin, CMC is so high, etc.
It should be....

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)
Yale

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)

-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-Williams and Amherst (Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier)

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):
Berkeley- (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads, VERY weak undergrad admissions)

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention, Very weak undergrad admissions)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources, Very Weak undergrad admissions)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Emory (Best Nursing, Public health programs in the country, good business as well)
Swarthmore and Pomona- 2nd best LACs

Why split up the LACs? they're equally resourced.

They're not as prestigious.

Then don’t include any of them. Most people would not put Williams and Amherst anywhere near the schools you ranked. Their student quality is also worse.

+1, it’s quite silly to put Williams on the same tier as Berkeley. No offense to Williams, good small school, but Berkeley blows it out of the water on impact in academia, course availability, and research output. I don’t know why people try to merge these lists together.

Williams is much harder to get into than Berkeley, but Berkeley has better academic so its a wash.

Berkeley undergraduate education experience isn't remotely as robust as any top SLAC or Private.

This definitely is only true if you don’t take your education seriously at Berkeley. You have access to some of the best professors and even graduate courses if you want to take advantage. Berkeley is better in every stem subject, better at English/History, and better in the social sciences than Williams.

You can keep telling yourself that is the case but it isn't. It never has been and never will be because for the most part your kids won't have much if any access to the top professors as an undergrad. I went to grad school there, and I taught there while in grad school. I have posted on this forum exactly what the experience will be, others have chimed in in support but people just don't want to accept the reality of a factory education taught in large part by TAs. Top professors aren't paid to teach, they are paid to run labs and make money for the school. Teaching undergrads (or having them in their labs) is a waste of time and resources.

professors have teaching responsibilities, even if you have a Nobel prize. There are many top academics and researchers who teach undergraduates. No reason to get so emotional and start lying.

You obviously have zero experience at a top R1.

Mine are at different ivies and they have had multiple top researchers teaching them, and these same top scholars are undergrad advisors and have undergrads in their labs. Sure, some top researchers are not great teachers, but many are and many care a lot about undergrads as well as grad students. There are most certainly top researchers who are also outstanding supportive teachers! The same was true 30 yrs ago at my non-ivy T15. It is a dumb DCUM myth that "teaching focus on undergrads" only happens at LACs. Maybe it does not happen at UCB but it happens at ivy+ privates all the time.

[Anonymous]

I went to Harvard undergrad. I am glad I went but there were definitely some glaring weaknesses.