To you, what's the bottom of the "elite" colleges?

[Anonymous]

All. I would be impressed by all. I would assume "fit" would determine the student's choice. I would also consider a student, a student of any qualifications, lucky to be admitted to any of them. However, most college experiences would work out just fine for virtually all students.

[Anonymous]

There is no "bottom" of the elites. The elite colleges / universities are a moving quantity, at the top of the league tables.

How are you finding a "bottom" in that, is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HYPSM, caltech, chicago, Columbia, Williams.

That's my list.

+1 as defined by the academic cohort at the top 10% (arbitrary) of their respective classes

Pomona has more students in the top 10% of the class than Williams. There are plenty of others as well like Dartmouth and Brown. If that's your criteria, you're clearly not informed.

I'm referring to the top 10% of the college's own classes (not entry HS grades or SAT scores for admissions to the institutions).
My personal opinion is that the cohort at the top are strongest at the schools listed because it's a mix of our best plus the top international students. I'm not saying that there aren't brilliant students at other schools but I think there are less of them and they are not tested on a daily basis in the same way. Williams is also rated as one of the most rigorous schools in the country among universites and LACs. For their grade inflation alone I agreed with the original posters assessment. Ther are plenty of students at Pomona, Brown and Dartmouth that go on to have successful and lucrative careers but that's not the same as the academic elites who are game changers. IMO.

I agree that HYPMS and maybe UChicago/Caltech/Columbia are in a tier of their own. I only disagree with Williams. It's really not at the HYPMS level in terms of selectivity/strength of student body, and not so much higher than Amherst/Pomona/Swarthmore/Bowdoin at this day and time. Here's the list of colleges sorted by average SAT of enrolled students: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-50-smartest-colleges-in-america-2016-10 Williams is 17th.

Also, just a side-note that HYS all have median GPAs above 3.6 and are known for having a ton of grade inflation. I've heard that less than 10% of grades given out there are C's or below. If you want to identify the most rigorous elite schools by a combination of workload and average GPA, that'd be Reed, Swarthmore, UChicago, Princeton, and Davidson. I'd include Williams too- it's definitely rigorous- but being rigorous and attracting the smartest students are two different measures.

Not saying I would know how to break out the 10%. It wouldn't be based on grades. I think there is a group of students at schools who take the most challenging courses, double/triple major, walk out with masters, do cutting edge research as undergraduates, break new ground with original thinking. I think more of them are attracted to HYPSMCCC because of the faculty, academic resources and hope of finding like minded peers. Grades are not their focus. IMO it's a mix of the top tier a school attracts or builds through their teaching that establishes a school's elite reputation and sets the bar for others. HYPSMCCC all had their own way of building that cluster. BTW I agree with you about Williams after thinking about your comments; I did intertwine rigor with smartest and it isn't the same. This has been a fun string for a silly theoritical debate. I don't really care about elite (unless it gets my kid that first great job )

[Anonymous]

Any school which accepts less than 20 % counts as elite, IMO

[Anonymous]

# 20 on that list. I know Berkeley is an amazing school and I'm impressed by people who went there.

I'm not so impressed by WUSTL. I think it's terribly overrated.

[Anonymous]

It depend on the crowd you run with. Elite is always defined relative to your peers.

[Anonymous]

Who cares. I know morons from Harvard and very competent people from State U.

-Person with Ivy degrees who learned long ago that competence and ability matter far more than pieces of paper.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure that with your personal academic credentials, you can appreciate how much they smooth the way to opportunities that show your competence and ability. The reality is that people do make assumptions and use academic credentials for initial screening. That can be overcome, it just takes a lot more effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure that with your personal academic credentials, you can appreciate how much they smooth the way to opportunities that show your competence and ability. The reality is that people do make assumptions and use academic credentials for initial screening. That can be overcome, it just takes a lot more effort.

Some people do. Others screen out. We've found a lot of these grads are too entitled and not willing to put in extra hours or take direction gracefully. I no longer look at top 20 unless I have a rec. from a colleague I really trust. We much prefer a really motivated hire from mid tier.

[Anonymous]

I thought elitism, especially coastal elitism, was a bad thing. At least, this is what a lot of politicians tell us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure that with your personal academic credentials, you can appreciate how much they smooth the way to opportunities that show your competence and ability. The reality is that people do make assumptions and use academic credentials for initial screening. That can be overcome, it just takes a lot more effort.

Some people do. Others screen out. We've found a lot of these grads are too entitled and not willing to put in extra hours or take direction gracefully. I no longer look at top 20 unless I have a rec. from a colleague I really trust. We much prefer a really motivated hire from mid tier.

Goldman, MBB, the top hedge funds and even tech startups, however, keep hiring elite grads, even a few years out of college.

[Anonymous]

Acceptance rates are skewed because more people are applying then ever as a result of the common application. Back in the day, applications had to be customized for each university and thus there were fewer applicants per school. I think there is merit to that model as it weeds out those not fully committed.

[Anonymous]

HYPSM
Chicago
Columbia

Duke and Johns Hopkins and Northwestern are meh. The rest of the Ivies are where you go when you end up after being rejected from above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HYPSM
Chicago
Columbia

Duke and Johns Hopkins and Northwestern are meh. The rest of the Ivies are where you go when you end up after being rejected from above.

+1
Which is why over 1/3 of TJ's graduating class applied to Cornell.

[Anonymous]

Having just gone through the college process last year, I can tell you that any kid who goes to any of the top 20 schools, on merit alone, is extremely bright. It is ultra competitive and many of these schools are looking for a certain profile.
Grades and SAT scores at a minimum need to be almost perfect and your child needs to stand out in a unique way. Even then, it's still random if and where they'll get in.
These colleges are all so different in their offerings. There is no way a kid would be interested in Georgetown and Notre Dame and Berkeley and Brown. They are just so vastly different in their cultures. However, like anything else in life, what matters after college is if the kids can hit the ground running and be very motivated. And that kind of grit can be found at every school.