US News 2020 rankings

[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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

[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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

Assuming you are the PP responded to, it wasn't about your "grouping" it was about the statement that "students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown.", which is preposterous on the merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

Assuming you are the PP responded to, it wasn't about your "grouping" it was about the statement that "students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown.", which is preposterous on the merits.

That's just my personal experience. Low income, low stat, minority students have an easier time with Williams and Amherst than the major universities mentioned.

[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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

I would disagree based on my experience- the top LACs directly compete with the lower Ivies/Ivy tiers (this includes Cornell) and each other. Almost every admit to WAS + Pomona I know in recent years was deciding between a competitor top LAC, an Ivy, Ivy level school. Schools like Emory and UVA wouldn't even be in the discussion, if they were also admitted there. The percent picking the Ivy vs. the LAC was relatively even. It wouldn't make sense to put them in a lower tier. I do agree very few are turning down HYPS to attend them, however.

Forbes and WSJ (where these LACs rank in the 15-25 position) heavily weigh salaries and university based factors such as # of accredited programs/research expenditures. The WASP LACs are more service-grad school oriented than universities, and of course undergrad only schools. If rankings were tweaked to weigh the factors where those LACs excel, they'd rank higher (and they did, on Forbes older methodology, when all 4 were usually in or near the top 10). I guess it's arguable whether the top LACs are in the Ivy tier or lower than them, but my experience has been that admits to both generally perceive them evenly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

Assuming you are the PP responded to, it wasn't about your "grouping" it was about the statement that "students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown.", which is preposterous on the merits.

That's just my personal experience. Low income, low stat, minority students have an easier time with Williams and Amherst than the major universities mentioned.

That's also not what you said, and even it it had been, you did not mention it was your personal (and obviously very limited) experience. You stated it as fact, and you are wrong. Someone reading it might mis-estimate their chances for admission, so it needs to be corrected.

[Anonymous]

The statement doesn't make sense either. Not only are Williams and Amherst taking a higher percent of low-income/minority students than most of those universities, they have standardized testing standards similar to or higher than them. Where are those "low stat" minority/low income students getting hidden?

AMHERST--
Students of color: 47%
Students from low-income families: 30%
First-Generation: 15%
International (non-U.S.): 7%

Academic profile of applicants admitted to the Class of 2022:
SAT middle 50%: Evidence-Based Reading & Writing: 700-770; Math 720-790

WILLIAMS-

Among American students, 58 percent identify as students of color. Among those admitted to the Class of 2023, nearly 30 percent are affiliated with a community-based organization focused on college access. Average scores on the SAT are 733 in evidence-based reading and writing and 749 in math.

[Anonymous]

A lot of the arguments here reduce to opinions on how selective these schools are. I think tiers should be based on whether the education and opportunities provided by schools in those tiers provide better opportunities and satisfaction than schools in lower tiers. Same kid, same entering stats, same choice of major, does the school make a difference? I'd argue if you look at it from this perspective, many of the perceived differences are illusory.

[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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.

Where should Georgetown go then? With Wake Forest and BC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the arguments here reduce to opinions on how selective these schools are. I think tiers should be based on whether the education and opportunities provided by schools in those tiers provide better opportunities and satisfaction than schools in lower tiers. Same kid, same entering stats, same choice of major, does the school make a difference? I'd argue if you look at it from this perspective, many of the perceived differences are illusory.

I read a study that showed that kids accepted to Ivy schools (I think they had specific schools) but then chose to go elsewhere (for instance public honors) did the same as kids with similar stats that did attend the Ivy school. The factor was whether they could be admitted, not actual value add from the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.

Where should Georgetown go then? With Wake Forest and BC?

Sure as hell doesn't go with Williams, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.

Where should Georgetown go then? With Wake Forest and BC?

For whatever it is worth, USNWR is the most influential ranking, and they placed Georgetown at 24 and Wake at 27. Is failing to draw a tier delineation between them really an LOL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.

Where should Georgetown go then? With Wake Forest and BC?

For whatever it is worth, USNWR is the most influential ranking, and they placed Georgetown at 24 and Wake at 27. Is failing to draw a tier delineation between them really an LOL?

Real question: on average, if a kid is admitted to Georgetown and chooses to attend Wake instead, will they have demonstrably different outcomes than if they attended Georgetown? If so, is this limited to certain fields and majors? How about Georgetown and UVA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.

Where should Georgetown go then? With Wake Forest and BC?

For whatever it is worth, USNWR is the most influential ranking, and they placed Georgetown at 24 and Wake at 27. Is failing to draw a tier delineation between them really an LOL?

Real question: on average, if a kid is admitted to Georgetown and chooses to attend Wake instead, will they have demonstrably different outcomes than if they attended Georgetown? If so, is this limited to certain fields and majors? How about Georgetown and UVA?

I truly think Wake isn't as good as Gtown or UVA, US news doesn't get it right all the time. And frankly, we know the vast majority, over 70% , of Wake students aren't getting into Gtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.

I personally think many on DC are anti southern schools, however I do not have a bias I posted my tier list already.

Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

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

3A- 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

Columbia and UChicago belong with HYPSM. Location gives Columbia a boost, while campus culture ( Life of the Mind) gives UChicago a boost. Caltech may be as good as those schools, however, because it is very niche and the things it does well, MIT does better it gets knocked down a bit. Teir 2 has the weaker ivy's and Duke and NW--ie strong ivy-like privates. Just because Williams and Amherst are the "Ivy's of the LAC's" doesn't mean they belong in this group. Just like UC Berkely and UCLA don't belong in this group despite being "Public Ivy's".
3A has the schools that are at the top of the LAC group and the schools typically ranked 14-22 ish. This group is elite while not being academic juggernauts. They have great academics and ridiculously difficult to get into. It has the top LAC's Top 2 Publics and the top southern and midwest schools. Some other poster lumped Emory and Vandy in with schools like Boston College and that shows how biased that person is, The Deans at BC would even say that. Gtown gets a boost because of history, and CMU gets a boost due to its prowess in tech.

3B has the other top privates that are a step below the privates listed in 3A. It also has the rest of the top 5 publics. Then theirs T4 where I could add Tulane and the rest of the top 50 colleges.

If Georgetown is such an old, great school, why does it have a low alumni giving rate and and endowment of $1.82B for nearly 18,000 students? That is lower than the endowment of George Washington. Notre Dame has 12X the endowment per student. Washington and Lee has nearly 10X. Williams 13.5X.

Where should Georgetown go then? With Wake Forest and BC?

Sure as hell doesn't go with Williams, etc.

It does,... you guys are seriously overrating Williams and Amherst. They aren't getting the Ivy student except for Cornell and Brown. But so are Emory and Vandy thus they are the same level.