What are the top 10 universities in the USA?

[Anonymous]

Cal, UCLA, and Michigan are the three premier public universities in this country. Berkley is actually in a class by itself, followed by UCLA and Michigan equally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit of a nebulous concept but I think most would say that these kinds of lists are trying to capture some mixture of prestige, student caliber, desirability, teaching quality, and research productivity. While I think PP's list is a good one, I think it leans a bit heavy toward the graduate schools and research output.

My list is pretty much identical to this earlier list upthread:

1. Harvard
2. Yale
3. Stanford
4. Columbia
5. Princeton
6. U. Pennsylvania
7. U. Chicago
8. Northwestern
9. Duke
10. Johns Hopkins

I'm not quite sure UC Berkeley would be considered a top 10 university. For many PhD programs, absolutely. But not many would consider it within the context of these other super-schools.

Caltech, too, strikes me as a bit too small to be included here, although I would also consider it world-class. Along with Juilliard, those two schools sort of occupy polar ends of a spectrum of higher education, and are arguably the world's best in each of their respective domains.

I disagree that UCB should not be included in the top ten. After HYPSM, there are about 15 schools that could be considered top ten. So many posters are stuck on USNWR undergraduate ratings they forget that universities have multiple purposes, and that includes graduate programs. When a poster asks about the top ten universities in the USA, it shouldn’t automatically exclude the reputation of the entire school.

I don't disagree with you there! While UCB is a powerhouse in academia (one of the best), however, schools like Northwestern & Duke, for example, have stronger law schools, med schools, and in the case of NW, a stronger business school as well. They also have much stronger undergraduate offerings.

As an aside, would throw MIT into that list up top as well.

Duke and Northwestern do not have stronger law schools than Berkeley, Berkeley law is considered stronger. Duke has a worse business school and Northwestern is about the same.

Berkeley doesn't have a medical school so comparing medical schools makes no sense. If you want to count UCSF as Berkeley's medical school, it blows Duke and Northwestern's medical school out of the water.

Berkeley Law is not considered stronger than Duke and Northwestern. They're peers within the T14, but Duke and Northwestern historically rank above Berkeley. Northwestern's business school is widely considered a whole tier above Berkeley, not just "about the same."

UCSF is a different school (unless you're also about to claim UCLA's achievements for Berkeley as well).

If you're going to shill Berkeley, at least be a little bit less obvious about it.

First of all, you are imagining up medical schools that Berkeley does not have. You making up a non-existent Berkeley medical schools to compare Northwestern's or Duke's medical schools favorably, which is utterly idiotic. So yes, it makes sense to compare it to the next closest thing - UCSF's medical school which is 20 minutes drive away.

Northwestern's medical school is in Chicago, not Evanston, about as far away. UCLA is 6 hours away from Berkeley, the fact you are bringing UCLA up shows you are a moron.

Berkeley compared to Duke and Northwestern is absolutely hilarious. The latter two are widely known party schools that are regionally respected, perhaps even regionally "prestigious".

The fact you are brining up "historical" rankings when arguing against the fact that Berkeley is ranked higher is hilarious. Duke's law school has always been at the lower end of the T14 below the state schools, in fact even regionally UVA's law school has always been considered better. Northwestern's law school has generally been lower than Berkeley as well, to argue that its better in any form is hilarious.

Berkeley and Northwestern are not in separate "tiers" for business schools, lmao. There's a top tier of Harvard, Wharton, Stanford and perhaps Booth. Northwestern is no where close to that tier. It's in the next tier with Columbia, Berkeley, Michigan, etc.
Berkeley is renowned world-wide as a top university.

DP but you lost all credibility with this. Northwestern is in the M7 and until the early 2000s was considered a peer of Wharton and Booth (and still is in many respects). Berkeley is not an M7 school and is considered a peer of Michigan, Duke, Yale, Dartmouth and the like — all great schools. I’m gonna go ahead and guess you don’t have an MBA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bit of a nebulous concept but I think most would say that these kinds of lists are trying to capture some mixture of prestige, student caliber, desirability, teaching quality, and research productivity. While I think PP's list is a good one, I think it leans a bit heavy toward the graduate schools and research output.

My list is pretty much identical to this earlier list upthread:

1. Harvard
2. Yale
3. Stanford
4. Columbia
5. Princeton
6. U. Pennsylvania
7. U. Chicago
8. Northwestern
9. Duke
10. Johns Hopkins

I'm not quite sure UC Berkeley would be considered a top 10 university. For many PhD programs, absolutely. But not many would consider it within the context of these other super-schools.

Caltech, too, strikes me as a bit too small to be included here, although I would also consider it world-class. Along with Juilliard, those two schools sort of occupy polar ends of a spectrum of higher education, and are arguably the world's best in each of their respective domains.

I disagree that UCB should not be included in the top ten. After HYPSM, there are about 15 schools that could be considered top ten. So many posters are stuck on USNWR undergraduate ratings they forget that universities have multiple purposes, and that includes graduate programs. When a poster asks about the top ten universities in the USA, it shouldn’t automatically exclude the reputation of the entire school.

I don't disagree with you there! While UCB is a powerhouse in academia (one of the best), however, schools like Northwestern & Duke, for example, have stronger law schools, med schools, and in the case of NW, a stronger business school as well. They also have much stronger undergraduate offerings.

As an aside, would throw MIT into that list up top as well.

Duke and Northwestern do not have stronger law schools than Berkeley, Berkeley law is considered stronger. Duke has a worse business school and Northwestern is about the same.

Berkeley doesn't have a medical school so comparing medical schools makes no sense. If you want to count UCSF as Berkeley's medical school, it blows Duke and Northwestern's medical school out of the water.

Berkeley Law is not considered stronger than Duke and Northwestern. They're peers within the T14, but Duke and Northwestern historically rank above Berkeley. Northwestern's business school is widely considered a whole tier above Berkeley, not just "about the same."

UCSF is a different school (unless you're also about to claim UCLA's achievements for Berkeley as well).

If you're going to shill Berkeley, at least be a little bit less obvious about it.

First of all, you are imagining up medical schools that Berkeley does not have. You making up a non-existent Berkeley medical schools to compare Northwestern's or Duke's medical schools favorably, which is utterly idiotic. So yes, it makes sense to compare it to the next closest thing - UCSF's medical school which is 20 minutes drive away.

Northwestern's medical school is in Chicago, not Evanston, about as far away. UCLA is 6 hours away from Berkeley, the fact you are bringing UCLA up shows you are a moron.

Berkeley compared to Duke and Northwestern is absolutely hilarious. The latter two are widely known party schools that are regionally respected, perhaps even regionally "prestigious".

The fact you are brining up "historical" rankings when arguing against the fact that Berkeley is ranked higher is hilarious. Duke's law school has always been at the lower end of the T14 below the state schools, in fact even regionally UVA's law school has always been considered better. Northwestern's law school has generally been lower than Berkeley as well, to argue that its better in any form is hilarious.

Berkeley and Northwestern are not in separate "tiers" for business schools, lmao. There's a top tier of Harvard, Wharton, Stanford and perhaps Booth. Northwestern is no where close to that tier. It's in the next tier with Columbia, Berkeley, Michigan, etc.
Berkeley is renowned world-wide as a top university.

DP but you lost all credibility with this. Northwestern is in the M7 and until the early 2000s was considered a peer of Wharton and Booth (and still is in many respects). Berkeley is not an M7 school and is considered a peer of Michigan, Duke, Yale, Dartmouth and the like — all great schools. I’m gonna go ahead and guess you don’t have an MBA.

The above statement is absolutely correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard Stanford MIT
Yale Princeton Columbia
Penn Chicago Caltech
Northwestern Duke Dartmouth Brown Berkeley
Cornell Johns Hopkins

Best list so far.

Harvard Stanford MIT
Yale Princeton Columbia
Penn Chicago Caltech
Northwestern Duke Dartmouth Brown
Cornell Johns Hopkins
Berkeley

If you have to include Berkeley in the list, I agree that this is about the right position it should be at.
Berkeley is a public school. By definition it has to accept many in-state students that it would otherwise not accept if it were a private. So you have different quality of peers.
Also, if you ever took some popular courses at Berkeley, the huge size of classes (some in thousands) would immediately remind you this is not what an elite school experience should be. You would not have that kind of yuk feel at a private. That's the difference.

[Anonymous]

Are Berkeley boosters just as bad as UVA boosters? The insecurity doesn’t just reek, it’s aggressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are Berkeley boosters just as bad as UVA boosters? The insecurity doesn’t just reek, it’s aggressive.

I’m not a Berkeley booster, just a realist. Cal is a superlative university. UVA is simply not in its class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are Berkeley boosters just as bad as UVA boosters? The insecurity doesn’t just reek, it’s aggressive.

Yes very aggressive insecurity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are Berkeley boosters just as bad as UVA boosters? The insecurity doesn’t just reek, it’s aggressive.

I’m not a Berkeley booster, just a realist. Cal is a superlative university. UVA is simply not in its class.

Great for graduate programs and research, but not for focus on the undergraduate program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard Stanford MIT
Yale Princeton Columbia
Penn Chicago Caltech
Northwestern Duke Dartmouth Brown Berkeley
Cornell Johns Hopkins

Best list so far.

Harvard Stanford MIT
Yale Princeton Columbia
Penn Chicago Caltech
Northwestern Duke Dartmouth Brown
Cornell Johns Hopkins
Berkeley

An excellent list but Columbia should be in a tier by themselves just below Yale and Princeton. HYPSM should not share a tier with any other schools.

Harvard Stanford
Yale Princeton MIT
Columbia
Penn Chicago Caltech
Duke Northwestern Dartmouth Brown
Cornell Johns Hopkins
Berkeley

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s due to where I am in the country but I don’t know many people (if at all) who would prefer Berkeley over Duke or Northwestern.

Outside of STEM, sure. Those universities are less rigorous and student quality of academic life (small class sizes, signing up for classes, etc.) is certainly better.

But this thread is about the top 10 universities, not universities for undergraduate education or student life. And the best undergraduate education is provided SLACs anyways, especially outside of STEM.

“And the best undergraduate education is provided SLACs anyways, especially outside of STEM.”

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you have to include Berkeley in the list, I agree that this is about the right position it should be at.
Berkeley is a public school. By definition it has to accept many in-state students that it would otherwise not accept if it were a private. So you have different quality of peers.
Also, if you ever took some popular courses at Berkeley, the huge size of classes (some in thousands) would immediately remind you this is not what an elite school experience should be. You would not have that kind of yuk feel at a private. That's the difference.

Have to agree. Both me and my spouse are Berkeley alumn. One of my first impressions of Berkeley was from freshmen Econ 1. Wow! Professor was a super charismatic lecturer, a nobel laureate. I tried to always sit in the first few rows of the jam packed 1000 seat auditorium, and he is still a tiny figure on a huge stage. I never interacted with him, only his TAs. My GF at the time was inspired to major in economics but could not get accepted into the department (or the business admin dept) despite multiple appeals in her Jr year. They treated undergrads like dirt.

And yes, being a public university, they seek to admit a student body that reflects CA demographics. And they have to take transfers from CCs. So while there are super smart students in Berkeley, as in other state schools, the quality of the average student would not be as high as in privates despite the school's world-class reputation.

While we encouraged our DC to apply to several UCs, they were not among our top choices. Not even close. Then, they aren't easy to get in so you can't call Berkeley or UCLA safeties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard Stanford MIT
Yale Princeton Columbia
Penn Chicago Caltech
Northwestern Duke Dartmouth Brown Berkeley
Cornell Johns Hopkins

Best list so far.

Harvard Stanford MIT
Yale Princeton Columbia
Penn Chicago Caltech
Northwestern Duke Dartmouth Brown
Cornell Johns Hopkins
Berkeley

An excellent list but Columbia should be in a tier by themselves just below Yale and Princeton. HYPSM should not share a tier with any other schools.

Harvard Stanford
Yale Princeton MIT
Columbia
Penn Chicago Caltech
Duke Northwestern Dartmouth Brown
Cornell Johns Hopkins
Berkeley

And what are you basing that on? You must be old. Look at the acceptance rates for this year. They may surprise you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard Stanford MIT
Yale Princeton Columbia
Penn Chicago Caltech
Northwestern Duke Dartmouth Brown Berkeley
Cornell Johns Hopkins

Best list so far.

Not sure Stanford is above Yale, Princeton, Columbia. I know multiple kids who were rejected by Yale, Princeton, Columbia but admitted to Stanford.

[Anonymous]

As a HYP graduate, I'd be careful not to overemphasize US News et al in making a college decision.
Sounds cliche, but the best school for X person is one where they will be able to make the most of opportunities, thrive (academically and socially), and stand out. For many people, this place will be a super elite uni, but for others, an honest answer would take them elsewhere.

A few thoughts:
Yes, there are certain field in which having pedigree is immense leverage (investment banking, MBB consulting), but you'd be mistaken to think that going to Harvard will seal the deal.
Firms will interview maybe 12 people/300 candidates within your class for 3-4 IBD analyst slots (for that school and class year). Not getting the junior year summer analyst stint will set you back unless you're fortunate to land a full-time gig during senior year.
Consulting recruiting is more rigorous than banking and there are even fewer firms/positions for new grads.

In light of the odds of landing the kind of job for which Ivy prestige is a near prerequisite, consider what skills you're building in college. While it's true that banks and consultancies will take Ivy humanities majors (these places have extensive training programs), there are too few of these jobs to bank on getting one. many "less" prestigious companies may focus on raw skills. The best compromise between raw prestige and skill building is to go to Wharton (Penn) or Cornell and get an actual finance degree. You'll be set for that F100 Corporate Fin job if Goldman doesn't call back!

And , if you're 60%+ set on professional grad school (law, medicine), realize that ugrad prestige plays a nonexistent to negligible role in admissions. Go somewhere cheap, crush it, and save $$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Have to agree. Both me and my spouse are Berkeley alumn. One of my first impressions of Berkeley was from freshmen Econ 1. Wow! Professor was a super charismatic lecturer, a nobel laureate. I tried to always sit in the first few rows of the jam packed 1000 seat auditorium, and he is still a tiny figure on a huge stage. I never interacted with him, only his TAs. My GF at the time was inspired to major in economics but could not get accepted into the department (or the business admin dept) despite multiple appeals in her Jr year. They treated undergrads like dirt.

And yes, being a public university, they seek to admit a student body that reflects CA demographics. And they have to take transfers from CCs. So while there are super smart students in Berkeley, as in other state schools, the quality of the average student would not be as high as in privates despite the school's world-class reputation.

While we encouraged our DC to apply to several UCs, they were not among our top choices. Not even close. Then, they aren't easy to get in so you can't call Berkeley or UCLA safeties.

No one, even in state, calls these schools safeties. Finishing in the top 5% guarantees a seat at a UC school, but not necessarily UCLA or Cal. And certainly no one from OOS has called these safeties since Ike was President of the US.