Overall Tiers of the Top Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lolz at Harvard no glaring weakness. How about its weak engineering program.

Plus, it is full of a*holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lolz at Harvard no glaring weakness. How about its weak engineering program.

Plus, it is full of a*holes.

Takes one to know one.

[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/

Are you an idiot? This is research funding not a scholarship.

[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/

LOL at Yale having to designate admitted students as scholars. Makes it no better than the likes of UPenn, Duke, Columbia

[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.

DP; nonsense. I went to a comparable large program in History and had as much access as I wanted undegrad as I had when I went to get my PhD, which was probably more than I needed or wanted. My classmates in sciences had comparable experiences. Yes, in those environments, kids need to put their big boy pants on and reach out to get what they want. Just like when they are in graduate/professional school and beyond.

[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.

DP; nonsense. I went to a comparable large program in History and had as much access as I wanted undegrad as I had when I went to get my PhD, which was probably more than I needed or wanted. My classmates in sciences had comparable experiences. Yes, in those environments, kids need to put their big boy pants on and reach out to get what they want. Just like when they are in graduate/professional school and beyond.

+100
The PP has repeated their song and dance all over this forum. Plenty of us has shared our own experiences at large state schools, and those of our kids. None have experienced this weird “factory education” or TAs teaching classes that the PP insists will happen. It’s clearly just the usual SLAC booster - or more specifically, the obsessed Williams booster - who won’t shut up.

[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/

LOL at Yale having to designate admitted students as scholars. Makes it no better than the likes of UPenn, Duke, Columbia

+1

[Anonymous]

Is Yale on the decline?

[Anonymous]

If you want to focus on tiers, you have to consider students.

For example, top 5% students at large decent state universities (UMD, Ohio, etc) are stronger than bottom 5% at your top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Yale on the decline?

I wouldn't say decline. But in 2025, a lot of smart students are choosing engineering - and Yale isn't competing in this space. Neither is Harvard really.

So that limits the number of bright students attending Yale and Harvard - especially among men.

[Anonymous]

I think the Yale kids are the happiest kids out of HYPSM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Yale kids are the happiest kids out of HYPSM.

That might be true, but I've known more unhappy Yale graduates than unhappy HPSM graduates. Yale seems to set students up to think they are very special, and then the disappointment and self-doubt sets in later when they are later held to the same standards that apply to everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Yale kids are the happiest kids out of HYPSM.

Dartmouth is the best Ivy. Education over politics.

[Anonymous]

politics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Yale kids are the happiest kids out of HYPSM.

That might be true, but I've known more unhappy Yale graduates than unhappy HPSM graduates. Yale seems to set students up to think they are very special, and then the disappointment and self-doubt sets in later when they are later held to the same standards that apply to everyone else.

Geez, those are some very unhappy individuals. I don't know them. I probably only know yale people via work (m&a/law) and it's a very present. But I guess those are all successful grads. Don't know as many unhappy. I have a ton of MIT grads in my DH's family and they liked it - or are proud they went there - but they're mostly mid-level engineers or software guys. Nobody is making more than 200k