Which colleges are considered top elite in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

Respectfully, do you know how transfers work?

And you understand that some people don't perform so well in HS and CC gives them a chance to prove they are worthy of admission?

And some choose 2 years at CC for financial reasons and don't even apply to the flagship until after?

Most importantly, why is this a hill to die on?

Many of you choose ED as your hill.... like I said nothing is inherently wrong with transfers, there's something wrong when the transfer rate is substantially higher than the freshman rate. Every student deserves a second chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

Respectfully, do you know how transfers work?

And you understand that some people don't perform so well in HS and CC gives them a chance to prove they are worthy of admission?

And some choose 2 years at CC for financial reasons and don't even apply to the flagship until after?

Most importantly, why is this a hill to die on?

These schools have 100 years of yield statistics to utilize to craft a class... There's no reason for UCLA and Berkeley to accept over 6000 transfer students only a month after they accepted 12k freshman applications. It is simply deceitful.

[Anonymous]

Many DCUMoms have very antiquated opinions on "eliteness." I'm sure in this mess there's still debates about the prestige difference between Swarthmore and Pomona versus Amherst and Williams, when in DC's group of peers, the eliteness of the four have swapped their typical places, rankings be damned. A lot of DCUM also heavily underrates other states' public universities, but place UVA on this high pedestal that most of the country would blink at with confusion. It's all about when and where you grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

Respectfully, do you know how transfers work?

And you understand that some people don't perform so well in HS and CC gives them a chance to prove they are worthy of admission?

And some choose 2 years at CC for financial reasons and don't even apply to the flagship until after?

Most importantly, why is this a hill to die on?

Many of you choose ED as your hill.... like I said nothing is inherently wrong with transfers, there's something wrong when the transfer rate is substantially higher than the freshman rate. Every student deserves a second chance.

But you haven't explained why there is "something wrong when the transfer rate is substantially higher than the freshman rate".

Are you suggesting they are purposefully rejecting freshmen applicants they have room for? The statistics would indicate otherwise.

Are you suggesting they have zero attrition between freshman and junior years? That seems unlikely.

Are you suggesting the cohort of transfer applicants is the same size relative to the open spots as freshman admission? The CDSs indicate otherwise. For example, Michigan had 84,000+ freshmen applicants on their last CDS and 5,633 transfer applicants. Totally different formulas and really impractical to compare the way you do. Especially without any explicit evidence of a conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

Respectfully, do you know how transfers work?

And you understand that some people don't perform so well in HS and CC gives them a chance to prove they are worthy of admission?

And some choose 2 years at CC for financial reasons and don't even apply to the flagship until after?

Most importantly, why is this a hill to die on?

These schools have 100 years of yield statistics to utilize to craft a class... There's no reason for UCLA and Berkeley to accept over 6000 transfer students only a month after they accepted 12k freshman applications. It is simply deceitful.

I am not a california resident so know little about this but this is more likely intended to benefit california taxpayers through programs and ideas like this: https://dailybruin.com/2024/02/11/ucla-to-pilot-program-guaranteeing-admission-for-associate-degree-holders

This past fall, 92.7% of transfer students admitted to UCLA were from CCCs, with an overall transfer admission rate of 25.8%, according to the UC.

Andrea Kasko, the chair of the UCLA Academic Senate, said in an emailed statement that the pilot program hopes to streamline the transfer process and increase the number of transfers admitted from underrepresented CCCs. The UCLA Undergraduate Council and the UCLA Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools have created an academic senate task force to plan and implement the program at UCLA, she said.

Gary Clark, the associate vice chancellor of enrollment management, said although UCLA does not require transfer students to have completed an associate degree and already admits many students with these degrees, the new program could help make UCLA a more welcoming choice for potential transfers.

“The benefit of something like this, honestly, is the attention that it’s going to receive,” Clark said. “Hopefully, students that are studying these specific ADTs and these majors, … it will just entice them to have some additional interest in UCLA.”

The new pilot aims to attract students from community colleges that are underrepresented in transfers to the UC and potentially support underrepresented majors, he added.

Transfers don't start as freshmen, obviously. It is ridiculous to suggest they are nefariously manipulating these things when the data is there for everyone to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

Respectfully, do you know how transfers work?

And you understand that some people don't perform so well in HS and CC gives them a chance to prove they are worthy of admission?

And some choose 2 years at CC for financial reasons and don't even apply to the flagship until after?

Most importantly, why is this a hill to die on?

These schools have 100 years of yield statistics to utilize to craft a class... There's no reason for UCLA and Berkeley to accept over 6000 transfer students only a month after they accepted 12k freshman applications. It is simply deceitful.

I am not a california resident so know little about this but this is more likely intended to benefit california taxpayers through programs and ideas like this: https://dailybruin.com/2024/02/11/ucla-to-pilot-program-guaranteeing-admission-for-associate-degree-holders

This past fall, 92.7% of transfer students admitted to UCLA were from CCCs, with an overall transfer admission rate of 25.8%, according to the UC.

Andrea Kasko, the chair of the UCLA Academic Senate, said in an emailed statement that the pilot program hopes to streamline the transfer process and increase the number of transfers admitted from underrepresented CCCs. The UCLA Undergraduate Council and the UCLA Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools have created an academic senate task force to plan and implement the program at UCLA, she said.

Gary Clark, the associate vice chancellor of enrollment management, said although UCLA does not require transfer students to have completed an associate degree and already admits many students with these degrees, the new program could help make UCLA a more welcoming choice for potential transfers.

“The benefit of something like this, honestly, is the attention that it’s going to receive,” Clark said. “Hopefully, students that are studying these specific ADTs and these majors, … it will just entice them to have some additional interest in UCLA.”

The new pilot aims to attract students from community colleges that are underrepresented in transfers to the UC and potentially support underrepresented majors, he added.

Transfers don't start as freshmen, obviously. It is ridiculous to suggest they are nefariously manipulating these things when the data is there for everyone to see.

Yeah, this was common sense to anyone who could piece together "transfer" and "public university." Supporting community college students into public universities like UCLA and Berkeley matters and is great for social mobility and economic growth. State flagships aren't just trying to support the best students, but they also are trying to serve a broad swath of the "best," including community college students, which is traditionally where low-performing high schools have directed students to attend, even if the student is a valedictorian. Plus, not everyone can afford 4 years of Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

Respectfully, do you know how transfers work?

And you understand that some people don't perform so well in HS and CC gives them a chance to prove they are worthy of admission?

And some choose 2 years at CC for financial reasons and don't even apply to the flagship until after?

Most importantly, why is this a hill to die on?

Many of you choose ED as your hill.... like I said nothing is inherently wrong with transfers, there's something wrong when the transfer rate is substantially higher than the freshman rate. Every student deserves a second chance.

But you haven't explained why there is "something wrong when the transfer rate is substantially higher than the freshman rate".

Are you suggesting they are purposefully rejecting freshmen applicants they have room for? The statistics would indicate otherwise.

Are you suggesting they have zero attrition between freshman and junior years? That seems unlikely.

Are you suggesting the cohort of transfer applicants is the same size relative to the open spots as freshman admission? The CDSs indicate otherwise. For example, Michigan had 84,000+ freshmen applicants on their last CDS and 5,633 transfer applicants. Totally different formulas and really impractical to compare the way you do. Especially without any explicit evidence of a conspiracy theory.

The freshman retention rates for UCLA, Berkeley and Umich is 98%. The evidence is in the cds profile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

Respectfully, do you know how transfers work?

And you understand that some people don't perform so well in HS and CC gives them a chance to prove they are worthy of admission?

And some choose 2 years at CC for financial reasons and don't even apply to the flagship until after?

Most importantly, why is this a hill to die on?

These schools have 100 years of yield statistics to utilize to craft a class... There's no reason for UCLA and Berkeley to accept over 6000 transfer students only a month after they accepted 12k freshman applications. It is simply deceitful.

I am not a california resident so know little about this but this is more likely intended to benefit california taxpayers through programs and ideas like this: https://dailybruin.com/2024/02/11/ucla-to-pilot-program-guaranteeing-admission-for-associate-degree-holders

This past fall, 92.7% of transfer students admitted to UCLA were from CCCs, with an overall transfer admission rate of 25.8%, according to the UC.

Andrea Kasko, the chair of the UCLA Academic Senate, said in an emailed statement that the pilot program hopes to streamline the transfer process and increase the number of transfers admitted from underrepresented CCCs. The UCLA Undergraduate Council and the UCLA Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools have created an academic senate task force to plan and implement the program at UCLA, she said.

Gary Clark, the associate vice chancellor of enrollment management, said although UCLA does not require transfer students to have completed an associate degree and already admits many students with these degrees, the new program could help make UCLA a more welcoming choice for potential transfers.

“The benefit of something like this, honestly, is the attention that it’s going to receive,” Clark said. “Hopefully, students that are studying these specific ADTs and these majors, … it will just entice them to have some additional interest in UCLA.”

The new pilot aims to attract students from community colleges that are underrepresented in transfers to the UC and potentially support underrepresented majors, he added.

Transfers don't start as freshmen, obviously. It is ridiculous to suggest they are nefariously manipulating these things when the data is there for everyone to see.

Yeah, this was common sense to anyone who could piece together "transfer" and "public university." Supporting community college students into public universities like UCLA and Berkeley matters and is great for social mobility and economic growth. State flagships aren't just trying to support the best students, but they also are trying to serve a broad swath of the "best," including community college students, which is traditionally where low-performing high schools have directed students to attend, even if the student is a valedictorian. Plus, not everyone can afford 4 years of Berkeley.

That's wonderful, that however doesn't make them elite schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

How is that dishonest? Many more seek first time admission than transfer admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top 10 or Ivy schools

The top10 is the most elite, plus the “bottom” ivies that are almost never in the top 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

I guess we can all agree that Columbia isn’t elite because 1/3 of its undergraduates attend the SGS. They are admitted at a 30% clip, yes THIRTY!

Columbia's SGS doesnt count as elite. It is a different program with different metrics for acceptance than the traditional colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dishonest? Public flagships like U Mich and UNC have a mandate to cater to in-state residents. The transfer admission rate for each is skewed by the acceptance of in-state students who excel in community college in years 1-2. Which is exactly how it should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with ED. What is wrong in my opinion is schools with very high transfer rates but low freshman acceptance rates. Like Umich, UNC. NYU, etc. NYU has a 37% transfer acceptance rate, but 8% freshman rate. That's dishonest.

It's dishonest, they could have easily accepted them as freshman, they clearly have the space. Im so tired of people constantly making excuses for publics, that never allow the same grace to private schools. They're just not elite schools and they're pretending to be. You can't be egalitarian and elitist, they need to choose one and stand on that hill. But 15% freshman acceptance rates from Umich and UNC but 40....yes FOURTY % acceptance rates as transfers is embarrassing. They could balance it out more but they won't because they know most aren't paying attention.

I guess we can all agree that Columbia isn’t elite because 1/3 of its undergraduates attend the SGS. They are admitted at a 30% clip, yes THIRTY!

Columbia's SGS doesnt count as elite. It is a different program with different metrics for acceptance than the traditional colleges.

I believe the post you are responding to was intended as sarcasm, but I am DP.

[Anonymous]

The times are changing.

With data at their fingertips and access to more opportunities and the change of athletes getting paid to play….there is no longer a need to go to these once elitist schools/Ivy to attain an excellent education.

There are far more educational institutions today with better technology and research that can offer pathways to success than there were in the 1900s. With that said, these “elite” schools are less notorious and losing their prestige each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 10 or Ivy schools

The top10 is the most elite, plus the “bottom” ivies that are almost never in the top 10.

The only Ivies not in top 10 are Cornell and Dartmouth. HYP are always in top 5. Penn is 6. Brown is 9. Columbia is usually there but 12 this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 10 or Ivy schools

The top10 is the most elite, plus the “bottom” ivies that are almost never in the top 10.

The only Ivies not in top 10 are Cornell and Dartmouth. HYP are always in top 5. Penn is 6. Brown is 9. Columbia is usually there but 12 this year.

Yes. These are schools with 3-5% selectivity. When you have 60k apply and only 1,700 are in the Freshmen class it’s hard to get in. Demand is there aplenty, contrary to what people wish and like to say.