Which colleges are considered top elite in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The very tippy top college is MIT.

Everyone else - Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton - has diluted their brand with questionable admissions decisions over the past 15 years. From legacy to sports to wealth to an emphasis on diversity. It’s not the best and brightest going to Harvard and Stanford these days.

So really talented students are going elsewhere these days - the T10 to T20 range and honors programs at state colleges. Eventually the prestige thing will catch up.

MIT is only engineering. The best is Harvard or Stanford with both depth and breadth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The very tippy top college is MIT.

Everyone else - Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton - has diluted their brand with questionable admissions decisions over the past 15 years. From legacy to sports to wealth to an emphasis on diversity. It’s not the best and brightest going to Harvard and Stanford these days.

So really talented students are going elsewhere these days - the T10 to T20 range and honors programs at state colleges. Eventually the prestige thing will catch up.

MIT is only engineering. The best is Harvard or Stanford with both depth and breadth.

MIT has depth beyond engineering including biology, economics, chemistry, physics, business, statistics, etc etc. It only lacks in the humanities. Harvard sucks at engineering but has better humanities (English, History). I'd give MIT the edge. Princeton and Stanford are likely tops for excellence at scale followed by MIT. Too bad Berkeley sucks at undergrad level relative to the elite schools.

[Anonymous]

It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

Uh no. Look up the research of faculty, the grants, the private corporate partnerships, the talent of “even” lowly grad students and postdocs. Stem is chem math physics and engineering. The top universities dominate in that. You cannot teach “top” stem at the appropriate intellectual pace for truly top students at schools where the average stem student is not close to the top 2% nationally (ie highly gifted). Top stem teaching is at the schools with top-talent undergraduates. Ask professors at NC State vs Duke. It is a world of difference in how the classes are taught, breadth and depth. Top tech companies recruit almost exclusively at elite universities in stem which includes many but not all of the ivies, plus MIT stanford CMU Berkeley Duke UChicago Northwestern . Same with phD tracking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The very tippy top college is MIT.

Everyone else - Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton - has diluted their brand with questionable admissions decisions over the past 15 years. From legacy to sports to wealth to an emphasis on diversity. It’s not the best and brightest going to Harvard and Stanford these days.

So really talented students are going elsewhere these days - the T10 to T20 range and honors programs at state colleges. Eventually the prestige thing will catch up.

Huh? There are very talented stem kids at T10-20, but there are more at most of the T1-9s. Honors state college education does not come close to either group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

Uh no. Look up the research of faculty, the grants, the private corporate partnerships, the talent of “even” lowly grad students and postdocs. Stem is chem math physics and engineering. The top universities dominate in that. You cannot teach “top” stem at the appropriate intellectual pace for truly top students at schools where the average stem student is not close to the top 2% nationally (ie highly gifted). Top stem teaching is at the schools with top-talent undergraduates. Ask professors at NC State vs Duke. It is a world of difference in how the classes are taught, breadth and depth. Top tech companies recruit almost exclusively at elite universities in stem which includes many but not all of the ivies, plus MIT stanford CMU Berkeley Duke UChicago Northwestern . Same with phD tracking.

extremely dumb take. top tech companies like google, meta, apple recruit at tons of state schools like michigan, maryland, texas, washington, uva.

they do not in fact “almost exclusively” recruit at the ivies. and that’s cs. the other schools i listed are shit when it comes to mechanical, electrical, chemical, and several other engineering majors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

Uh no. Look up the research of faculty, the grants, the private corporate partnerships, the talent of “even” lowly grad students and postdocs. Stem is chem math physics and engineering. The top universities dominate in that. You cannot teach “top” stem at the appropriate intellectual pace for truly top students at schools where the average stem student is not close to the top 2% nationally (ie highly gifted). Top stem teaching is at the schools with top-talent undergraduates. Ask professors at NC State vs Duke. It is a world of difference in how the classes are taught, breadth and depth. Top tech companies recruit almost exclusively at elite universities in stem which includes many but not all of the ivies, plus MIT stanford CMU Berkeley Duke UChicago Northwestern . Same with phD tracking.

extremely dumb take. top tech companies like google, meta, apple recruit at tons of state schools like michigan, maryland, texas, washington, uva.

they do not in fact “almost exclusively” recruit at the ivies. and that’s cs. the other schools i listed are shit when it comes to mechanical, electrical, chemical, and several other engineering majors

and lol - a world of difference between duke and nc state cs? have you checked their curriculum or are you talking out of your ass like the other parts of your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

Uh no. Look up the research of faculty, the grants, the private corporate partnerships, the talent of “even” lowly grad students and postdocs. Stem is chem math physics and engineering. The top universities dominate in that. You cannot teach “top” stem at the appropriate intellectual pace for truly top students at schools where the average stem student is not close to the top 2% nationally (ie highly gifted). Top stem teaching is at the schools with top-talent undergraduates. Ask professors at NC State vs Duke. It is a world of difference in how the classes are taught, breadth and depth. Top tech companies recruit almost exclusively at elite universities in stem which includes many but not all of the ivies, plus MIT stanford CMU Berkeley Duke UChicago Northwestern . Same with phD tracking.

extremely dumb take. top tech companies like google, meta, apple recruit at tons of state schools like michigan, maryland, texas, washington, uva.

they do not in fact “almost exclusively” recruit at the ivies. and that’s cs. the other schools i listed are shit when it comes to mechanical, electrical, chemical, and several other engineering majors

as for faculty, most ivies are abysmal in eng funding and number faculty in NAE (national academy of engineering - an objective measure) compared to texas, michigan, washington, etc

[Anonymous]

U.S. news top 10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

God, you are ignorant.

Have you ever visited the research labs at those schools?

No? Gosh how did I know that…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

Uh no. Look up the research of faculty, the grants, the private corporate partnerships, the talent of “even” lowly grad students and postdocs. Stem is chem math physics and engineering. The top universities dominate in that. You cannot teach “top” stem at the appropriate intellectual pace for truly top students at schools where the average stem student is not close to the top 2% nationally (ie highly gifted). Top stem teaching is at the schools with top-talent undergraduates. Ask professors at NC State vs Duke. It is a world of difference in how the classes are taught, breadth and depth. Top tech companies recruit almost exclusively at elite universities in stem which includes many but not all of the ivies, plus MIT stanford CMU Berkeley Duke UChicago Northwestern . Same with phD tracking.

extremely dumb take. top tech companies like google, meta, apple recruit at tons of state schools like michigan, maryland, texas, washington, uva.

they do not in fact “almost exclusively” recruit at the ivies. and that’s cs. the other schools i listed are shit when it comes to mechanical, electrical, chemical, and several other engineering majors

and lol - a world of difference between duke and nc state cs? have you checked their curriculum or are you talking out of your ass like the other parts of your post.

Direct curriculum comparison

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

Isn’t Duke actually pretty good at STEM? Their biomed eng is one of the best programs in the world, same with their undergrad math/statistics. And they have amazing science research. Same with Harvard, they are exceptional in the S, T, and M aspects of STEM.

[Anonymous]

Us news T25, minus UNC and Umich. Plus Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Wellesley so 30 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

Harvard and Chicago are top 5 (top 10) for physics. Is there anything more STEM than physics?

I agree engineering is a glaring weakness for many top schools. Probably because engineering is more a "doing stuff" and less a "thinking about stuff" field

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It amazes me why so many ivies and elite schools are bad at STEM or Engineering.

Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, Chicago collectively suck at engineering or some/all aspects of STEM.

Isn’t Duke actually pretty good at STEM? Their biomed eng is one of the best programs in the world, same with their undergrad math/statistics. And they have amazing science research. Same with Harvard, they are exceptional in the S, T, and M aspects of STEM.

Outside of BME, Duke is pretty poor for most other engineering disciplines. Physics is also meh.