US News 2020 rankings

[Anonymous]

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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

[Anonymous]

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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

Tier 1: HYM
Tier 2: Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Caltech
Tier 3: Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Vanderbilt, WashU

I think Princeton and Yale have ceased to be in the same league as the other 3 for a while now.

[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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

Tier 1: HYM
Tier 2: Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Caltech
Tier 3: Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Vanderbilt, WashU

I think Princeton and Yale have ceased to be in the same league as the other 3 for a while now.

Sorry, I meant Tier 1: HSM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I and no person in my family studied at Harvard. However, I have appreciated that many Harvard grads whom I have met rarely brag. When folks ask where they went to school, Harvard grads often reply “a school in Cambridge.”. Also, they are often kind and willing to consider different points of view.

On the other hand, some Harvard recent grads occasionally appear to suffer from delusions of grandeur and demand such perks as business class tickets for entry type positions. It does not go down well for anyone from wherever they graduated from to demand status and payment that is not commensurate with work provided. Whatever school you go to, you need to prove your mettle through making valuable contributions and simply being a good person.

Hopefully, there is a good fit for everyone out there and hopefully Young people will find ways to cultivate their unique gifts to contribute the maximum good to society and at the same time to be true to themselves.

That is 1,000,000x more obnoxious and less humble than just saying "Harvard."

Totally agree. Just like the parents at our Big 3 who say they are visiting “some schools in New England” with their student.

[Anonymous]

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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

[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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

Tier 1: HYM
Tier 2: Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Caltech
Tier 3: Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Vanderbilt, WashU

I think Princeton and Yale have ceased to be in the same league as the other 3 for a while now.

Sorry, I meant Tier 1: HSM

I would not put Duke in the same group as Princeton and Yale.

[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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona definitely belong in tier 2, and I'd bump Caltech to tier 1 and Chicago to tier 2

[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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona definitely belong in tier 2, and I'd bump Caltech to tier 1 and Chicago to tier 2

I don't agree, I know several students that were rejected or waitlisted to Vandy, Emory, WashU, Rice, CMU and accepted to Amherst, Williams, or Swarthmore to say those latter 3 are better than the former. I think there the same level. And CalTech isn't better than MIT in anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

Tier 1: HYM
Tier 2: Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Caltech
Tier 3: Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Vanderbilt, WashU

I think Princeton and Yale have ceased to be in the same league as the other 3 for a while now.

Sorry, I meant Tier 1: HSM

I would not put Duke in the same group as Princeton and Yale.

Evidently Stanford is even lower than that . . .

[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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

I don't see that clear of distinctions on your tier 3, 3B, 4. A number of those may be great graduate and research universities, but not sure about their commitment to undergraduates. Caltech should be tier 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

Tier 1: HYM
Tier 2: Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Caltech
Tier 3: Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Vanderbilt, WashU

I think Princeton and Yale have ceased to be in the same league as the other 3 for a while now.

Sorry, I meant Tier 1: HSM

I would not put Duke in the same group as Princeton and Yale.

If you are making fine distinctions:

1) Harvard, Stanford, MIT
2) Yale, Princeton, Caltech
3) Columbia, Penn (pulled up by Wharton), Duke, Chicago, Brown

I'd stop there.

[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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

I don't see that clear of distinctions on your tier 3, 3B, 4. A number of those may be great graduate and research universities, but not sure about their commitment to undergraduates. Caltech should be tier 1.

The ones in three are typically ranked 15-20. Some of them aren't 20 right now but have been in the recent past. The ones in 3B are typically 25-30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

I don't see that clear of distinctions on your tier 3, 3B, 4. A number of those may be great graduate and research universities, but not sure about their commitment to undergraduates. Caltech should be tier 1.

The ones in three are typically ranked 15-20. Some of them aren't 20 right now but have been in the recent past. The ones in 3B are typically 25-30.

You are just following USNWR. I am saying there isn't going to be a difference in outcomes allowing for differences in majors and where graduates settle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'd stop there.

Please do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona definitely belong in tier 2, and I'd bump Caltech to tier 1 and Chicago to tier 2

I don't agree, I know several students that were rejected or waitlisted to Vandy, Emory, WashU, Rice, CMU and accepted to Amherst, Williams, or Swarthmore to say those latter 3 are better than the former. I think there the same level. And CalTech isn't better than MIT in anything.

That's probably because those schools give a bump to kids who are full pay, while the WASP schools are fully need blind.