US News 2020 rankings

[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:Does anyone even care about any of the schools ranked outside the Top 25?

Yes. And is there a sudden invisible cutoff between 25 and 26?

I really think a good consistent list of top schools is to look at is how College Confidential organizes it. There are the ivies in one category, top universities in another, and then top liberal arts colleges. This is consistent and is not ranked.

Ivies:
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Yale

Top universities:
Berkekely
UCLA
Cal Tech
Carnegie Mellon
Chicago
Duke
Emory
Georgetown
Hopkins
MIT
Michigan
Chapel Hill
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Rice
Stanford
Tulane
UVA
Vanderbilt
Wash U

Top Liberal Arts Colleges:
Amherst
Barnard
Bates
Bowdoin
Bryn Mayr
Carleton
Claremont
Colby
Colgate
Davidson
Grinnell
Hamilton
Harvey Mudd
Haverford
Kenyon
Macalester
Middlebury
Mount Holyoke
Oberlin
Pomona
Reed
Smith
Swarthmore
Trinity
Vassar
Washington & Lee
Wellesley
Wesleyan
Whitman
Williams

All other schools in one separate batch alphabetically.

Simple, clean.

Huh? The Ivies are not necessarily better than other top schools.

Nobody is saying that. It is just a way to organize top schools. They are all top schools, just not ranked. Ivy League is what it is.

It’s an athletic league. That’s what it is. Like the Big Ten. It was established in 1954, so the concept isn’t even that old.

God I'm so tired of this canard.

I am not saying the Ivy League colleges are better than any other. I am saying words and phrases have meanings, and when you say "Ivy League" to most people they don't think of sports the way they do when you say "Big Ten". Stop saying this, you sound like a petulant or bitter person. You're not persuading anyone.

And to repeat, this is not an endorsement of Ivy League schools, simply a rage against stupidity.

If you don’t think they’re better than any other, then why use them as a group in a school ranking?

News flash: I didn't. I am not the person responsible for what the term "Ivy League" means in common understanding. I'm simply pointing out that it does and to imply otherwise is both petulant and stupid.

So because it’s come to mean something that isn’t true, that means you have to use it that way too? Use it accurately.

so are public Ivies just public schools that play football in the Ivy League?

Lol!

No. The term public ivy is unofficial. The Ivy League is an actual NCAA athletic conference.

Is Hidden Ivy a secret athletic conference?

[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:Does anyone even care about any of the schools ranked outside the Top 25?

Yes. And is there a sudden invisible cutoff between 25 and 26?

I really think a good consistent list of top schools is to look at is how College Confidential organizes it. There are the ivies in one category, top universities in another, and then top liberal arts colleges. This is consistent and is not ranked.

Ivies:
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Yale

Top universities:
Berkekely
UCLA
Cal Tech
Carnegie Mellon
Chicago
Duke
Emory
Georgetown
Hopkins
MIT
Michigan
Chapel Hill
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Rice
Stanford
Tulane
UVA
Vanderbilt
Wash U

Top Liberal Arts Colleges:
Amherst
Barnard
Bates
Bowdoin
Bryn Mayr
Carleton
Claremont
Colby
Colgate
Davidson
Grinnell
Hamilton
Harvey Mudd
Haverford
Kenyon
Macalester
Middlebury
Mount Holyoke
Oberlin
Pomona
Reed
Smith
Swarthmore
Trinity
Vassar
Washington & Lee
Wellesley
Wesleyan
Whitman
Williams

All other schools in one separate batch alphabetically.

Simple, clean.

Huh? The Ivies are not necessarily better than other top schools.

Nobody is saying that. It is just a way to organize top schools. They are all top schools, just not ranked. Ivy League is what it is.

It’s an athletic league. That’s what it is. Like the Big Ten. It was established in 1954, so the concept isn’t even that old.

God I'm so tired of this canard.

I am not saying the Ivy League colleges are better than any other. I am saying words and phrases have meanings, and when you say "Ivy League" to most people they don't think of sports the way they do when you say "Big Ten". Stop saying this, you sound like a petulant or bitter person. You're not persuading anyone.

And to repeat, this is not an endorsement of Ivy League schools, simply a rage against stupidity.

If you don’t think they’re better than any other, then why use them as a group in a school ranking?

News flash: I didn't. I am not the person responsible for what the term "Ivy League" means in common understanding. I'm simply pointing out that it does and to imply otherwise is both petulant and stupid.

So because it’s come to mean something that isn’t true, that means you have to use it that way too? Use it accurately.

so are public Ivies just public schools that play football in the Ivy League?

Lol!

No. The term public ivy is unofficial. The Ivy League is an actual NCAA athletic conference.

Is Hidden Ivy a secret athletic conference?

I can’t decide whether you’re stupid or just a bad troll.

[Anonymous]

And to repeat, this is not an endorsement of Ivy League schools, simply a rage against stupidity.

If you don’t think they’re better than any other, then why use them as a group in a school ranking?

News flash: I didn't. I am not the person responsible for what the term "Ivy League" means in common understanding. I'm simply pointing out that it does and to imply otherwise is both petulant and stupid.

So because it’s come to mean something that isn’t true, that means you have to use it that way too? Use it accurately.

so are public Ivies just public schools that play football in the Ivy League?

Lol!

No. The term public ivy is unofficial. The Ivy League is an actual NCAA athletic conference.

Is Hidden Ivy a secret athletic conference?

I can’t decide whether you’re stupid or just a bad troll.

I'm stupid...you're grumpy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And to repeat, this is not an endorsement of Ivy League schools, simply a rage against stupidity.

If you don’t think they’re better than any other, then why use them as a group in a school ranking?

News flash: I didn't. I am not the person responsible for what the term "Ivy League" means in common understanding. I'm simply pointing out that it does and to imply otherwise is both petulant and stupid.

So because it’s come to mean something that isn’t true, that means you have to use it that way too? Use it accurately.

so are public Ivies just public schools that play football in the Ivy League?

Lol!

No. The term public ivy is unofficial. The Ivy League is an actual NCAA athletic conference.

Is Hidden Ivy a secret athletic conference?

I can’t decide whether you’re stupid or just a bad troll.

I'm stupid...you're grumpy

Correct!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone even care about any of the schools ranked outside the Top 25?

Yes. And is there a sudden invisible cutoff between 25 and 26?

I really think a good consistent list of top schools is to look at is how College Confidential organizes it. There are the ivies in one category, top universities in another, and then top liberal arts colleges. This is consistent and is not ranked.

Ivies:
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Yale

Top universities:
Berkekely
UCLA
Cal Tech
Carnegie Mellon
Chicago
Duke
Emory
Georgetown
Hopkins
MIT
Michigan
Chapel Hill
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Rice
Stanford
Tulane
UVA
Vanderbilt
Wash U

Top Liberal Arts Colleges:
Amherst
Barnard
Bates
Bowdoin
Bryn Mayr
Carleton
Claremont
Colby
Colgate
Davidson
Grinnell
Hamilton
Harvey Mudd
Haverford
Kenyon
Macalester
Middlebury
Mount Holyoke
Oberlin
Pomona
Reed
Smith
Swarthmore
Trinity
Vassar
Washington & Lee
Wellesley
Wesleyan
Whitman
Williams

All other schools in one separate batch alphabetically.

Simple, clean.

Huh? The Ivies are not necessarily better than other top schools.

Nobody is saying that. It is just a way to organize top schools. They are all top schools, just not ranked. Ivy League is what it is.

It’s an athletic league. That’s what it is. Like the Big Ten. It was established in 1954, so the concept isn’t even that old.

God I'm so tired of this canard.

I am not saying the Ivy League colleges are better than any other. I am saying words and phrases have meanings, and when you say "Ivy League" to most people they don't think of sports the way they do when you say "Big Ten". Stop saying this, you sound like a petulant or bitter person. You're not persuading anyone.

And to repeat, this is not an endorsement of Ivy League schools, simply a rage against stupidity.

And for the last time, Cornell is not a real Ivy!!! Please, folks, why does this need to be repeated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone even care about any of the schools ranked outside the Top 25?

Yes. And is there a sudden invisible cutoff between 25 and 26?

I really think a good consistent list of top schools is to look at is how College Confidential organizes it. There are the ivies in one category, top universities in another, and then top liberal arts colleges. This is consistent and is not ranked.

Ivies:
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Yale

Top universities:
Berkekely
UCLA
Cal Tech
Carnegie Mellon
Chicago
Duke
Emory
Georgetown
Hopkins
MIT
Michigan
Chapel Hill
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Rice
Stanford
Tulane
UVA
Vanderbilt
Wash U

Top Liberal Arts Colleges:
Amherst
Barnard
Bates
Bowdoin
Bryn Mayr
Carleton
Claremont
Colby
Colgate
Davidson
Grinnell
Hamilton
Harvey Mudd
Haverford
Kenyon
Macalester
Middlebury
Mount Holyoke
Oberlin
Pomona
Reed
Smith
Swarthmore
Trinity
Vassar
Washington & Lee
Wellesley
Wesleyan
Whitman
Williams

All other schools in one separate batch alphabetically.

Simple, clean.

Huh? The Ivies are not necessarily better than other top schools.

Nobody is saying that. It is just a way to organize top schools. They are all top schools, just not ranked. Ivy League is what it is.

It’s an athletic league. That’s what it is. Like the Big Ten. It was established in 1954, so the concept isn’t even that old.

You’re the same person who thirty years ago corrected everyone who said they were going to Xerox something by pointing out the copy machine wasn’t a Xerox and therefore they were not Xeroxing it. Technically correct but completely insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because it’s 6.

What makes you think Stanford should be in the top tier with Princeton, Harvard, or Yale? Look at their endowment.
School. Enrollment. Endowment
Princeton. 8,000. 25 billion
Harvard. 20,000. 39 billion
Yale. 13,000. 29 billion
Stanford. 17,000. 26 billion

Less money means less resources. By that, Stanford belongs in where it is.

Put that way, it's an interesting point. That said--most gen Y and Zs consider Stanford and Harvard #1 peers.

But here's a counterpoint: In annual fundraising, over the last 12 years, Stanford has been tops 9 and Harvard 3. Stanford professors and associate professors are the highest paid, and assistant professors are the second highest paid.

That bit of higher pay is completely offset by the super high cost of living in silicon valley. That's the reason the pay at Stanford is higher, not because it attracts larger caliber of professors than the three top ivies.

Stanford faculty have produced more Nobel Prize winners than all but Harvard and Chicago. Since 2000, more than any other school. Stanford faculty can also get income from outside sources like consultancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone even care about any of the schools ranked outside the Top 25?

Yes. And is there a sudden invisible cutoff between 25 and 26?

I really think a good consistent list of top schools is to look at is how College Confidential organizes it. There are the ivies in one category, top universities in another, and then top liberal arts colleges. This is consistent and is not ranked.

Ivies:
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Yale

Top universities:
Berkekely
UCLA
Cal Tech
Carnegie Mellon
Chicago
Duke
Emory
Georgetown
Hopkins
MIT
Michigan
Chapel Hill
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Rice
Stanford
Tulane
UVA
Vanderbilt
Wash U

Top Liberal Arts Colleges:
Amherst
Barnard
Bates
Bowdoin
Bryn Mayr
Carleton
Claremont
Colby
Colgate
Davidson
Grinnell
Hamilton
Harvey Mudd
Haverford
Kenyon
Macalester
Middlebury
Mount Holyoke
Oberlin
Pomona
Reed
Smith
Swarthmore
Trinity
Vassar
Washington & Lee
Wellesley
Wesleyan
Whitman
Williams

All other schools in one separate batch alphabetically.

Simple, clean.

Huh? The Ivies are not necessarily better than other top schools.

Nobody is saying that. It is just a way to organize top schools. They are all top schools, just not ranked. Ivy League is what it is.

It’s an athletic league. That’s what it is. Like the Big Ten. It was established in 1954, so the concept isn’t even that old.

You’re the same person who thirty years ago corrected everyone who said they were going to Xerox something by pointing out the copy machine wasn’t a Xerox and therefore they were not Xeroxing it. Technically correct but completely insufferable.

This is very different.

The Ivy League thing perpetuates this stupid idea that those schools are somehow better than non-Ivies, which results in kids applying to Ivy League schools in droves, sometimes turning down offers from other schools to attend them because “how can I turn down an Ivy League school?”

It’s an insidious and harmful misperception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because it’s 6.

What makes you think Stanford should be in the top tier with Princeton, Harvard, or Yale? Look at their endowment.
School. Enrollment. Endowment
Princeton. 8,000. 25 billion
Harvard. 20,000. 39 billion
Yale. 13,000. 29 billion
Stanford. 17,000. 26 billion

Less money means less resources. By that, Stanford belongs in where it is.

Put that way, it's an interesting point. That said--most gen Y and Zs consider Stanford and Harvard #1 peers.

But here's a counterpoint: In annual fundraising, over the last 12 years, Stanford has been tops 9 and Harvard 3. Stanford professors and associate professors are the highest paid, and assistant professors are the second highest paid.

That bit of higher pay is completely offset by the super high cost of living in silicon valley. That's the reason the pay at Stanford is higher, not because it attracts larger caliber of professors than the three top ivies.

Stanford faculty have produced more Nobel Prize winners than all but Harvard and Chicago. Since 2000, more than any other school. Stanford faculty can also get income from outside sources like consultancy.

Stanford professors aren’t the only ones who consult ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Except, Tier Person, Wake Forest now outranks UVA.

At your "Top Tier" schools like Cal, UCLA, you can live on campus for about 1 year out of 4+ years. At Michigan, perhaps 1.3 out of 4+ years.. At Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, you will live on campus for all 4 years. These aren't even remotely the same type of schools.

Idiot, you can live on campus all 4 years at Michigan. In fact, seniors who have lived on campus for 3 years have top pick for housing their senior year.

If you’re going to criticize schools at least learn basic facts about them.

Also, are you trying to say they don’t have the money to provide housing? Michigan’s endowment is 12 billion—9th highest in the country.

I'm saying it is a completely different experience. It isn't residential like the other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because it’s 6.

What makes you think Stanford should be in the top tier with Princeton, Harvard, or Yale? Look at their endowment.
School. Enrollment. Endowment
Princeton. 8,000. 25 billion
Harvard. 20,000. 39 billion
Yale. 13,000. 29 billion
Stanford. 17,000. 26 billion

Less money means less resources. By that, Stanford belongs in where it is.

Put that way, it's an interesting point. That said--most gen Y and Zs consider Stanford and Harvard #1 peers.

But here's a counterpoint: In annual fundraising, over the last 12 years, Stanford has been tops 9 and Harvard 3. Stanford professors and associate professors are the highest paid, and assistant professors are the second highest paid.

That bit of higher pay is completely offset by the super high cost of living in silicon valley. That's the reason the pay at Stanford is higher, not because it attracts larger caliber of professors than the three top ivies.

Stanford faculty have produced more Nobel Prize winners than all but Harvard and Chicago. Since 2000, more than any other school. Stanford faculty can also get income from outside sources like consultancy.

Stanford professors aren’t the only ones who consult ...

Well then, I shouldn't have said that they are the only ones who do. Wait, I didn't. They have very good opportunities to consult. That was the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Except, Tier Person, Wake Forest now outranks UVA.

At your "Top Tier" schools like Cal, UCLA, you can live on campus for about 1 year out of 4+ years. At Michigan, perhaps 1.3 out of 4+ years.. At Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, you will live on campus for all 4 years. These aren't even remotely the same type of schools.

Idiot, you can live on campus all 4 years at Michigan. In fact, seniors who have lived on campus for 3 years have top pick for housing their senior year.

If you’re going to criticize schools at least learn basic facts about them.

Also, are you trying to say they don’t have the money to provide housing? Michigan’s endowment is 12 billion—9th highest in the country.

I'm saying it is a completely different experience. It isn't residential like the other schools.

Huh? Where do you get that idea?

Michigan isn’t a commuter school or something ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because it’s 6.

What makes you think Stanford should be in the top tier with Princeton, Harvard, or Yale? Look at their endowment.
School. Enrollment. Endowment
Princeton. 8,000. 25 billion
Harvard. 20,000. 39 billion
Yale. 13,000. 29 billion
Stanford. 17,000. 26 billion

Less money means less resources. By that, Stanford belongs in where it is.

Put that way, it's an interesting point. That said--most gen Y and Zs consider Stanford and Harvard #1 peers.

But here's a counterpoint: In annual fundraising, over the last 12 years, Stanford has been tops 9 and Harvard 3. Stanford professors and associate professors are the highest paid, and assistant professors are the second highest paid.

That bit of higher pay is completely offset by the super high cost of living in silicon valley. That's the reason the pay at Stanford is higher, not because it attracts larger caliber of professors than the three top ivies.

Stanford faculty have produced more Nobel Prize winners than all but Harvard and Chicago. Since 2000, more than any other school. Stanford faculty can also get income from outside sources like consultancy.

Stanford professors aren’t the only ones who consult ...

Well then, I shouldn't have said that they are the only ones who do. Wait, I didn't. They have very good opportunities to consult. That was the point.

So do professors at lots of other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Except, Tier Person, Wake Forest now outranks UVA.

At your "Top Tier" schools like Cal, UCLA, you can live on campus for about 1 year out of 4+ years. At Michigan, perhaps 1.3 out of 4+ years.. At Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, you will live on campus for all 4 years. These aren't even remotely the same type of schools.

Idiot, you can live on campus all 4 years at Michigan. In fact, seniors who have lived on campus for 3 years have top pick for housing their senior year.

If you’re going to criticize schools at least learn basic facts about them.

Also, are you trying to say they don’t have the money to provide housing? Michigan’s endowment is 12 billion—9th highest in the country.

I'm saying it is a completely different experience. It isn't residential like the other schools.

And Michigan is 38th in endowment per student, which is 1/13th that of Princeton. And Princeton doesn't have a medical school and system that probably sucks up 30% or more of that endowment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because it’s 6.

What makes you think Stanford should be in the top tier with Princeton, Harvard, or Yale? Look at their endowment.
School. Enrollment. Endowment
Princeton. 8,000. 25 billion
Harvard. 20,000. 39 billion
Yale. 13,000. 29 billion
Stanford. 17,000. 26 billion

Less money means less resources. By that, Stanford belongs in where it is.

Put that way, it's an interesting point. That said--most gen Y and Zs consider Stanford and Harvard #1 peers.

But here's a counterpoint: In annual fundraising, over the last 12 years, Stanford has been tops 9 and Harvard 3. Stanford professors and associate professors are the highest paid, and assistant professors are the second highest paid.

That bit of higher pay is completely offset by the super high cost of living in silicon valley. That's the reason the pay at Stanford is higher, not because it attracts larger caliber of professors than the three top ivies.

Stanford faculty have produced more Nobel Prize winners than all but Harvard and Chicago. Since 2000, more than any other school. Stanford faculty can also get income from outside sources like consultancy.

Stanford professors aren’t the only ones who consult ...

Well then, I shouldn't have said that they are the only ones who do. Wait, I didn't. They have very good opportunities to consult. That was the point.

So do professors at lots of other schools.

Well then, I shouldn't have said that only Stanford faculty have good opportunities to consult. Wait, I didn't.

OK, you've convinced me Stanford is a dog and can't get good faculty to come there. That school is in trouble.