Overall Tiers of the Top Schools

[Anonymous]

So sick of this thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

They are actually way stronger than that — probably stronger than the bottom 50%….

[Anonymous]

This Berkeley dead car bounce is quite impressive. People are having a hard time giving up that ghost, I guess.

[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.

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.

+1. Her claims of professors not teaching have also been disproven multiple times with the actual course schedules, but she continues to make the claims anyway because the dishonesty is convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This Berkeley dead car bounce is quite impressive. People are having a hard time giving up that ghost, I guess.

I think the evaluation of Berkeley was fair here, it is academically as good as it gets but the undergrad experience can suck. It's basically Stanford but with far less attention to spare for each undergrad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

[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:

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.

+1. Her claims of professors not teaching have also been disproven multiple times with the actual course schedules, but she continues to make the claims anyway because the dishonesty is convenient.

I wouldn't read it that way. People pointed out that full professors do sometimes teach undergraduates, but sometimes is not often. The PP also mentioned labs multiple times so I'm assuming STEM and nobody posted anything except History and maybe Economics.

[Anonymous]

I second this. I know at least a half dozen Stuy-to-MIT type guys (in NYC)... they are good guys, smart, content, but professionally, I see no difference in their trajectory vs. their coworkers from schools like Penn State, SUNY, VA Tech, Purdue. Like PP said, in jobs that make under 200k, live in small apartments and send their kids to public schools. No one is wildly influential or living the life of luxury. I know it's not all about money, but can't help but wonder if they thought those 8-10 years of grind and stress were worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This Berkeley dead car bounce is quite impressive. People are having a hard time giving up that ghost, I guess.

It does not really matter what you think because it is a top 15 USNWR school and in most rankings. Its close to Silicon Valley and is one of the schools with the largest number of startups. This year 4 profs received Nobel Prizes (one did his undergrad there). Its programs are all in top 5 for both STEM and humanities. The list goes on. The undergrad experience might not be elite but the opportunities are there for those who want to seize them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Berkeley dead car bounce is quite impressive. People are having a hard time giving up that ghost, I guess.

It does not really matter what you think because it is a top 15 USNWR school and in most rankings. Its close to Silicon Valley and is one of the schools with the largest number of startups. This year 4 profs received Nobel Prizes (one did his undergrad there). Its programs are all in top 5 for both STEM and humanities. The list goes on. The undergrad experience might not be elite but the opportunities are there for those who want to seize them.

I wouldn't consider it a top school for undergraduates because of the well documented shortcomings but for the right kids the opportunities are there, especially in the tech world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Dartmouth is the best Ivy. Education over politics.

Yes, as Dinesh D'Souza and Laura Ingraham, both proud Dartmouth alums, demonstrate every day. Such curious, evenhanded thinkers!

[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:

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.

+1. Her claims of professors not teaching have also been disproven multiple times with the actual course schedules, but she continues to make the claims anyway because the dishonesty is convenient.

I wouldn't read it that way. People pointed out that full professors do sometimes teach undergraduates, but sometimes is not often. The PP also mentioned labs multiple times so I'm assuming STEM and nobody posted anything except History and maybe Economics.

DP. All of my kids currently attend (or graduated recently from) large state schools. None ever had a TA teaching one of their classes, and their majors were engineering, IR, poli sci, and biology. Full professors teach undergraduates all the time at large universities - they are not the mythical exception some of you like to pretend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Dartmouth is the best Ivy. Education over politics.

Yes, as Dinesh D'Souza and Laura Ingraham, both proud Dartmouth alums, demonstrate every day. Such curious, evenhanded thinkers!

I'd say they're as curious and evenhanded as say, Rachel Maddow (Stanford) or Joy Reid (Harvard).

[Anonymous]

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.

This is bay area Asian copium.

Trump’s S.Ct eliminated affirmative action, which has opened the floodgates for an Asian take-over of higher education.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is bay area Asian copium.

Trump’s S.Ct eliminated affirmative action, which has opened the floodgates for an Asian take-over of higher education.

+1.

The only way to keep all these Asians out of the top schools is to overturn Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and bring back affirmative action / race-based admissions policies.