Overall Tiers of the Top Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Huh. This isn't 1990's or early 2000'seven. Engineering and Tech is significant in today's world . They are top 5 for that. End of story. Yes, the English lit, business or biology majors can go to any small liberal arts school. There are hundreds. But the top Eng/Tech schools have a category/place all to their own.

[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)

Duke and U Chicago do not have “global
prestige”. DH and I are from two different top 10 global cities outside of the U.S., no one back home has had heard of these two schools except occasionally someone may know Duke only for basketball but not for its academics. Berkeley and Johns Hopkins have global prestige.

Chicago absolutely has global prestige. Duke much less so.
Agree with the Johns Hopkins/Berkeley comment. I don't think Berkeley deserves it anymore but reputations linger.
Wisconsin used to have a lot of global prestige and it took a long time for it to diminish.

[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)

Duke and U Chicago do not have “global
prestige”. DH and I are from two different top 10 global cities outside of the U.S., no one back home has had heard of these two schools except occasionally someone may know Duke only for basketball but not for its academics. Berkeley and Johns Hopkins have global prestige.

Chicago absolutely has global prestige. Duke much less so.
Agree with the Johns Hopkins/Berkeley comment. I don't think Berkeley deserves it anymore but reputations linger.
Wisconsin used to have a lot of global prestige and it took a long time for it to diminish.

Really, Berkeley with top academic departments and nobel prize winners even this year does not deserve its reputation. It is a state university and provides phenomenal education and ranks high for upward mobility. If Chicago with its ED0, 1, and 2 and taking medicre private school kids has global prestige, Berkeley is definitely going to be fine for a long time.

[Anonymous]

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.

Anyone who actually knows anything about undergraduate education puts the top dozen or so SLACs above virtually all other schools.

No we don't.

Because you don't actually know anything about undergraduate education.

Top LACs are the most like Princeton. They are cults and have very high endowment per student ratios. You can't reason with them, their superiority is an article of faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

2026 USNWR (Majors that both schools are ranked)

Cal Tech

#5 in Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (tie)
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#4 in Aerospace /Aeronautical / Astronautical (tie)
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#25 in Biomedical (tie)
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#9 in Chemical
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#11 in Computer
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#6 in Electrical / Electronic / Communications
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#10 in Materials (tie)
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#7 in Mechanical
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#9 in Computer Science (tie)

#10 in Artificial Intelligence

#13 in Computer Systems

#12 in Data Analytics/Science (tie)

#14 in Theory (tie)


Georgia Tech

#3 in Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (tie)
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#2 in Aerospace /Aeronautical / Astronautical
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#1 in Biomedical (tie)
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#2 in Chemical
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#2 in Civil
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#6 in Computer
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#3 in Electrical / Electronic / Communications
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#1 in Environmental / Environmental Health
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#1 in Industrial / Manufacturing
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#3 in Materials
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#4 in Mechanical (tie)
At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate

#5 in Computer Science (tie)

#5 in Artificial Intelligence

#7 in Computer Systems

#2 in Cybersecurity

#5 in Data Analytics/Science

#1 in Mobile/Web Applications (tie)

#10 Theory (tie)

#10 in Programming Languages

#3 in Software Engineering (tie)



#19 in Business Programs (tie)


#3 in Analytics

#34 in Finance (tie)

#2 in Management Information Systems (tie)

#6 in Production / Operation Management

#5 in Quantitative Analysis

#6 in Supply Chain Management / Logistics

To OP what is a word higher than "Amazing" for STEM that you gave Cal Tech. Cause Ga Tech is asking.

Caltech is much more focused on graduate programs.
Go to Caltech undergrad to become a silicon valley founder or get a job at the Jane Streets of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Yale on the decline?

Of course not, Yale is one of the most sought after and strongest schools in the country. Plus it's one of the very few with instant name recognition anywhere in the world.

[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)

Duke and U Chicago do not have “global
prestige”. DH and I are from two different top 10 global cities outside of the U.S., no one back home has had heard of these two schools except occasionally someone may know Duke only for basketball but not for its academics. Berkeley and Johns Hopkins have global prestige.

Chicago absolutely has global prestige. Duke much less so.
Agree with the Johns Hopkins/Berkeley comment. I don't think Berkeley deserves it anymore but reputations linger.
Wisconsin used to have a lot of global prestige and it took a long time for it to diminish.

Really, Berkeley with top academic departments and nobel prize winners even this year does not deserve its reputation. It is a state university and provides phenomenal education and ranks high for upward mobility. If Chicago with its ED0, 1, and 2 and taking medicre private school kids has global prestige, Berkeley is definitely going to be fine for a long time.

You know, I agree with you on Berkeley.

I do wonder what sort of person throws around statements like “mediocre private school kids”.

My (private HS) UChicago kid never considered another school. 1590 SAT, top 10 percent of graduating class, NMSF, nationally ranked athlete, plus national honors/prizes in an academic field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Yale on the decline?

Of course not, Yale is one of the most sought after and strongest schools in the country. Plus it's one of the very few with instant name recognition anywhere in the world.

Yale started out with great advantages but between its mediocre reputation in STEM and location in crime-ridden and depressed New Haven it is declining in prestige.

[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 hanging onto the HYPSM bracket by virtue of old money connections. The new money is a lot bigger than the old money.
Princeton is holding on a lot better but Stanford and MIT are pulling ahead and closing the gap with harvard. At least reputationally.

[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 hanging onto the HYPSM bracket by virtue of old money connections. The new money is a lot bigger than the old money.
Princeton is holding on a lot better but Stanford and MIT are pulling ahead and closing the gap with harvard. At least reputationally.

Wrongo - Yale has a much better undergrad experience than a lot of its peers. Kids value that. Yalies are happy. That matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Yale on the decline?

Of course not, Yale is one of the most sought after and strongest schools in the country. Plus it's one of the very few with instant name recognition anywhere in the world.

Yale started out with great advantages but between its mediocre reputation in STEM and location in crime-ridden and depressed New Haven it is declining in prestige.

Yale is Hogwarts with a train to nyc. New Haven isn't the best, but it does make Yale turn a little more inward. There's just a ton of social life on campus. Yale kids are really happy. At our high school, kids want Yale or Duke.

[Anonymous]

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)

Duke and U Chicago do not have “global
prestige”. DH and I are from two different top 10 global cities outside of the U.S., no one back home has had heard of these two schools except occasionally someone may know Duke only for basketball but not for its academics. Berkeley and Johns Hopkins have global prestige.

Chicago absolutely has global prestige. Duke much less so.
Agree with the Johns Hopkins/Berkeley comment. I don't think Berkeley deserves it anymore but reputations linger.
Wisconsin used to have a lot of global prestige and it took a long time for it to diminish.

Really, Berkeley with top academic departments and nobel prize winners even this year does not deserve its reputation. It is a state university and provides phenomenal education and ranks high for upward mobility. If Chicago with its ED0, 1, and 2 and taking medicre private school kids has global prestige, Berkeley is definitely going to be fine for a long time.

You know, I agree with you on Berkeley.

I do wonder what sort of person throws around statements like “mediocre private school kids”.

My (private HS) UChicago kid never considered another school. 1590 SAT, top 10 percent of graduating class, NMSF, nationally ranked athlete, plus national honors/prizes in an academic field.

I apologize for the statement about Chicago. I am sure there are great kids like your kid there. I should not have said that but I have seen some kids get in who did not have anywhere close to the stats your child has.

[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)

Duke and U Chicago do not have “global
prestige”. DH and I are from two different top 10 global cities outside of the U.S., no one back home has had heard of these two schools except occasionally someone may know Duke only for basketball but not for its academics. Berkeley and Johns Hopkins have global prestige.

Chicago absolutely has global prestige. Duke much less so.
Agree with the Johns Hopkins/Berkeley comment. I don't think Berkeley deserves it anymore but reputations linger.
Wisconsin used to have a lot of global prestige and it took a long time for it to diminish.

Really, Berkeley with top academic departments and nobel prize winners even this year does not deserve its reputation. It is a state university and provides phenomenal education and ranks high for upward mobility. If Chicago with its ED0, 1, and 2 and taking medicre private school kids has global prestige, Berkeley is definitely going to be fine for a long time.

There was a time when berkeley was perennially top 10, top 5 school in the country. It doesn't sniff top 10 anymore and with it's recent shift in focus from academics to equity, I don't expect that shift to reverse course at least at the undergraduate level. Berkeley is starting to lose it's international reputation in much the same way that Wisconsin and Illinois lost their reputations. Berkeley is simply not matriculating the best students anymore.

[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.

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.

They will figure it out. Alumni are not thrilled about seeing a sea of asian faces at their alma mater.

[Anonymous]

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)

Duke and U Chicago do not have “global
prestige”. DH and I are from two different top 10 global cities outside of the U.S., no one back home has had heard of these two schools except occasionally someone may know Duke only for basketball but not for its academics. Berkeley and Johns Hopkins have global prestige.

Chicago absolutely has global prestige. Duke much less so.
Agree with the Johns Hopkins/Berkeley comment. I don't think Berkeley deserves it anymore but reputations linger.
Wisconsin used to have a lot of global prestige and it took a long time for it to diminish.

Really, Berkeley with top academic departments and nobel prize winners even this year does not deserve its reputation. It is a state university and provides phenomenal education and ranks high for upward mobility. If Chicago with its ED0, 1, and 2 and taking medicre private school kids has global prestige, Berkeley is definitely going to be fine for a long time.

You know, I agree with you on Berkeley.

I do wonder what sort of person throws around statements like “mediocre private school kids”.

My (private HS) UChicago kid never considered another school. 1590 SAT, top 10 percent of graduating class, NMSF, nationally ranked athlete, plus national honors/prizes in an academic field.

DP

Kids with your stats would never consider berkeley over chicago unless there was a money issue.