The Top 50 National Universities by Average Rank from the 8 Most Influential Rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

Tier makes much more sense than trying to decipher between 25 and 26. That is why they are grouped.

It is the difference between a Mayan pyramid and an Egyptian pyramid. Either way you are implying there is a hierarchy where non exists.

A tier definitely exists. Harvard is not the same tier as Salsbury State. But the tier is much less precise than trying to distinguish between 25 and 26. Everyone knows what the top schools are. But can't decide or care about if one is 25 or 26.

It bascially shows in the combination of 'Student Stats + Acceptance Rate + Yeild Rate'.

Not sure what you are saying but your formula only accounts for input not output. Outcomes from schools is not factored in versus in a reputational tier they are. Some schools with an 8 percent acceptance rate may not be as good as schools with a 12 percent acceptance rate. Variety of factors. Also, acceptance rate is out of US News calculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

Why would Vanderbilt be in 2A?? Also Duke and maybe Penn should be 2A

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

Why would Vanderbilt be in 2A?? Also Duke and maybe Penn should be 2A

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

Do you think Vanderbilt should be higher or lower? Also Duke and Penn are definitely tier 1 schools, if anyone should move to 2A it should be Columbia. Columbia is 18 on US News, 16 on WSJ, 12 on Niche, 5 on Forbes, and 25 on Washington Monthly. Duke is 10 on US News, 5 on WSJ, 9 on Forbes, 8 on Niche, and 5 on Washington Monthly. Penn is 7 on US News, 12 on WSJ, 11 on Niche, 10 on Forbes, and 2 on Washington Monthly. Duke and Penn do extremely well, and interestingly for Duke their worst ranking is US News but it does better everywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

Fair point--Vandy could be 2B. I think Penn and Duke are overrated but as PP points out they are generally always up there in the top tier. I do have a bias to the Ivy League--but not sure Penn is better than Columbia. I think Columbia is generally underrated. The way I think about Ivies is HYP, Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth Brown Cornell (all three together in a tier).



Why would Vanderbilt be in 2A?? Also Duke and maybe Penn should be 2A

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

Do you think Vanderbilt should be higher or lower? Also Duke and Penn are definitely tier 1 schools, if anyone should move to 2A it should be Columbia. Columbia is 18 on US News, 16 on WSJ, 12 on Niche, 5 on Forbes, and 25 on Washington Monthly. Duke is 10 on US News, 5 on WSJ, 9 on Forbes, 8 on Niche, and 5 on Washington Monthly. Penn is 7 on US News, 12 on WSJ, 11 on Niche, 10 on Forbes, and 2 on Washington Monthly. Duke and Penn do extremely well, and interestingly for Duke their worst ranking is US News but it does better everywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

Tier makes much more sense than trying to decipher between 25 and 26. That is why they are grouped.

It is the difference between a Mayan pyramid and an Egyptian pyramid. Either way you are implying there is a hierarchy where non exists.

A tier definitely exists. Harvard is not the same tier as Salsbury State. But the tier is much less precise than trying to distinguish between 25 and 26. Everyone knows what the top schools are. But can't decide or care about if one is 25 or 26.

It bascially shows in the combination of 'Student Stats + Acceptance Rate + Yeild Rate'.

Not sure what you are saying but your formula only accounts for input not output. Outcomes from schools is not factored in versus in a reputational tier they are. Some schools with an 8 percent acceptance rate may not be as good as schools with a 12 percent acceptance rate. Variety of factors. Also, acceptance rate is out of US News calculation.

The premesis is 'Everyone knows what the top schools are'

When people ultimately choose a school, they take all/variety of factors into consideration incluidng cost, outcome, etc., then finally decide.

So when high stats kids apply and choose to attend, it tells the whole story which shcools are good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

Tier makes much more sense than trying to decipher between 25 and 26. That is why they are grouped.

It is the difference between a Mayan pyramid and an Egyptian pyramid. Either way you are implying there is a hierarchy where non exists.

A tier definitely exists. Harvard is not the same tier as Salsbury State. But the tier is much less precise than trying to distinguish between 25 and 26. Everyone knows what the top schools are. But can't decide or care about if one is 25 or 26.

It bascially shows in the combination of 'Student Stats + Acceptance Rate + Yeild Rate'.

Not sure what you are saying but your formula only accounts for input not output. Outcomes from schools is not factored in versus in a reputational tier they are. Some schools with an 8 percent acceptance rate may not be as good as schools with a 12 percent acceptance rate. Variety of factors. Also, acceptance rate is out of US News calculation.

The premesis is 'Everyone knows what the top schools are'

When people ultimately choose a school, they take all/variety of factors into consideration incluidng cost, outcome, etc., then finally decide.

So when high stats kids apply and choose to attend, it tells the whole story which shcools are good.

Bascally supply/demand and the market tells you much better which schools are good than some rankings.
Ranking is only one of the factors people consider when making the ultimate decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

Tier makes much more sense than trying to decipher between 25 and 26. That is why they are grouped.

It is the difference between a Mayan pyramid and an Egyptian pyramid. Either way you are implying there is a hierarchy where non exists.

A tier definitely exists. Harvard is not the same tier as Salsbury State. But the tier is much less precise than trying to distinguish between 25 and 26. Everyone knows what the top schools are. But can't decide or care about if one is 25 or 26.

It bascially shows in the combination of 'Student Stats + Acceptance Rate + Yeild Rate'.

Not sure what you are saying but your formula only accounts for input not output. Outcomes from schools is not factored in versus in a reputational tier they are. Some schools with an 8 percent acceptance rate may not be as good as schools with a 12 percent acceptance rate. Variety of factors. Also, acceptance rate is out of US News calculation.

The premesis is 'Everyone knows what the top schools are'

When people ultimately choose a school, they take all/variety of factors into consideration incluidng cost, outcome, etc., then finally decide.

So when high stats kids apply and choose to attend, it tells the whole story which shcools are good.

Premesis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

Fair point--Vandy could be 2B. I think Penn and Duke are overrated but as PP points out they are generally always up there in the top tier. I do have a bias to the Ivy League--but not sure Penn is better than Columbia. I think Columbia is generally underrated. The way I think about Ivies is HYP, Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth Brown Cornell (all three together in a tier).



Why would Vanderbilt be in 2A?? Also Duke and maybe Penn should be 2A

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

Do you think Vanderbilt should be higher or lower? Also Duke and Penn are definitely tier 1 schools, if anyone should move to 2A it should be Columbia. Columbia is 18 on US News, 16 on WSJ, 12 on Niche, 5 on Forbes, and 25 on Washington Monthly. Duke is 10 on US News, 5 on WSJ, 9 on Forbes, 8 on Niche, and 5 on Washington Monthly. Penn is 7 on US News, 12 on WSJ, 11 on Niche, 10 on Forbes, and 2 on Washington Monthly. Duke and Penn do extremely well, and interestingly for Duke their worst ranking is US News but it does better everywhere else.

Vanderbilt Duke and Penn should all be lower

[Anonymous]

Should we just rank based on endowment size?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

Fair point--Vandy could be 2B. I think Penn and Duke are overrated but as PP points out they are generally always up there in the top tier. I do have a bias to the Ivy League--but not sure Penn is better than Columbia. I think Columbia is generally underrated. The way I think about Ivies is HYP, Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth Brown Cornell (all three together in a tier).



Why would Vanderbilt be in 2A?? Also Duke and maybe Penn should be 2A

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

Do you think Vanderbilt should be higher or lower? Also Duke and Penn are definitely tier 1 schools, if anyone should move to 2A it should be Columbia. Columbia is 18 on US News, 16 on WSJ, 12 on Niche, 5 on Forbes, and 25 on Washington Monthly. Duke is 10 on US News, 5 on WSJ, 9 on Forbes, 8 on Niche, and 5 on Washington Monthly. Penn is 7 on US News, 12 on WSJ, 11 on Niche, 10 on Forbes, and 2 on Washington Monthly. Duke and Penn do extremely well, and interestingly for Duke their worst ranking is US News but it does better everywhere else.

Vanderbilt Duke and Penn should all be lower

I wouldn't disagree but they seem to get respect across the board, except Duke and Penn. Here you go.


1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Caltech, Columbia,

2A) Duke, Penn, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury, Vanderbilt
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

You all are crazy. What makes Penn better than Brown, or Amherst better than Swarthmore or Wellesley? UF better than UT or even with GT? The problem is insiting that you can quantify the unquantifiable. Do you rank paintings or favorite colors? Or tier them? Best spouses? Can't you just accept that there are a lot of goood and very different schools out there.

Tier makes much more sense than trying to decipher between 25 and 26. That is why they are grouped.

It is the difference between a Mayan pyramid and an Egyptian pyramid. Either way you are implying there is a hierarchy where non exists.

A tier definitely exists. Harvard is not the same tier as Salsbury State. But the tier is much less precise than trying to distinguish between 25 and 26. Everyone knows what the top schools are. But can't decide or care about if one is 25 or 26.

It bascially shows in the combination of 'Student Stats + Acceptance Rate + Yeild Rate'.

Not sure what you are saying but your formula only accounts for input not output. Outcomes from schools is not factored in versus in a reputational tier they are. Some schools with an 8 percent acceptance rate may not be as good as schools with a 12 percent acceptance rate. Variety of factors. Also, acceptance rate is out of US News calculation.

The premesis is 'Everyone knows what the top schools are'

When people ultimately choose a school, they take all/variety of factors into consideration incluidng cost, outcome, etc., then finally decide.

So when high stats kids apply and choose to attend, it tells the whole story which shcools are good.

Premesis?

Premises

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should we just rank based on endowment size?

No, it has an affect, but the ranking is ultimately decided by the market.
It's reflected in the Student stat + Acceptance rate + Yield

[Anonymous]

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Caltech, Columbia,

2A) Duke, Penn, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Rice, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury, Vanderbilt
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Caltech, Columbia,

2A) Duke, Penn, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Rice, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury, Vanderbilt
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

How do you have Columbia in 1B but not Duke or Penn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention top SLACs not accounted for. How can you overlook schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, etc. Tiers are better. I am a tierist.

To be fair most rankings don’t mix the LACs and research universities. What would be your tiers?

I think most of the mainstream ones other than US News do combine e.g. Forbes and WSJ. Here are the tiers discussed on this thread and other threads:

1A) MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale
1B) Penn, Caltech, Columbia, Duke

2A) Vanderbilt, Rice, Dartmouth, Brown, UChicago, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Northwestern
2B) UMich, Johns Hopkins, WashU, Notre Dame, Georgetown, UCLA, Berkeley, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna

3A) UVA, UNC, CMU, UF, Emory, USC, Georgia Tech, Wellesley, Barnard, Carleton, Middlebury
3B) UCSD, BC, UT Austin, W&M, UIUC, W&L, Vassar, Davidson, Hamilton, Haverford

+1