US News 2020 rankings

[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?

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.

I got a kid that got into Pomona and Emory.

[Anonymous]

What jobs are these tiers being used to hire in?

It's laughable to me that anyone would hire a Washington University over Berkeley in any engineering or math/science field. Berkeley's humanities and liberal arts are very rigorous as well and has a reputation of grade-deflation.

For an ambiguous job, beyond the high Ivies, Stanford/MIT/Caltech and potentially Duke, the private universities that have been listed (Rice, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, Brown) aren't considered any more rigorous than Berkeley.
In sciences/engineering its unclear to me if even Harvard/Yale/Princeton are considered more rigorous than Berkeley - they have a reputation of grade inflation.

Other than Berkeley, the publics are mixed. UVA has historical prestige but the school itself is not considered very difficult. Same for Michigan for liberal arts.

Now if you are a student choosing colleges, Dartmouth will provide far more resources and a much less stressful environment to you than Berkeley, while also having social prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What jobs are these tiers being used to hire in?

It's laughable to me that anyone would hire a Washington University over Berkeley in any engineering or math/science field. Berkeley's humanities and liberal arts are very rigorous as well and has a reputation of grade-deflation.

For an ambiguous job, beyond the high Ivies, Stanford/MIT/Caltech and potentially Duke, the private universities that have been listed (Rice, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, Brown) aren't considered any more rigorous than Berkeley.
In sciences/engineering its unclear to me if even Harvard/Yale/Princeton are considered more rigorous than Berkeley - they have a reputation of grade inflation.

Other than Berkeley, the publics are mixed. UVA has historical prestige but the school itself is not considered very difficult. Same for Michigan for liberal arts.

Now if you are a student choosing colleges, Dartmouth will provide far more resources and a much less stressful environment to you than Berkeley, while also having social prestige.

Have you actually hired engineering grads? In my experience, individual qualities (experience, personality, grades, critical thinking skills) make more difference in hiring than a perceived difference between WUSTL and Berkeley. Berkeley is obviously the better school. BUT not every student at Berkeley is a better candidate than every student at WUSTL.

[Anonymous]

Undergraduate Tiers
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton
1B) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Caltech

2A) Northwestern, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst
2B) Rice, Cornell, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Notre Dame, Emory, Swarthmore, UCLA, Wellesley

3A) Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts, Middlebury, Barnard
3B)UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, W&L, Davidson

Tier 2A is very debatable is there are a lot of great schools that could go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate Tiers
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton
1B) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Caltech

2A) Northwestern, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst
2B) Rice, Cornell, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Notre Dame, Emory, Swarthmore, UCLA, Wellesley

3A) Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts, Middlebury, Barnard
3B)UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, W&L, Davidson

Tier 2A is very debatable is there are a lot of great schools that could go there.

If you think those schools are third tier, I can only imagine what you think of the school my kid goes to. Not that I care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate Tiers
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton
1B) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Caltech

2A) Northwestern, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst
2B) Rice, Cornell, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Notre Dame, Emory, Swarthmore, UCLA, Wellesley

3A) Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts, Middlebury, Barnard
3B)UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, W&L, Davidson

Tier 2A is very debatable is there are a lot of great schools that could go there.

If you think those schools are third tier, I can only imagine what you think of the school my kid goes to. Not that I care

You shouldn't. These tiers exist only in the head of PP. They are both analytically and functionally meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What jobs are these tiers being used to hire in?

It's laughable to me that anyone would hire a Washington University over Berkeley in any engineering or math/science field. Berkeley's humanities and liberal arts are very rigorous as well and has a reputation of grade-deflation.

For an ambiguous job, beyond the high Ivies, Stanford/MIT/Caltech and potentially Duke, the private universities that have been listed (Rice, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, Brown) aren't considered any more rigorous than Berkeley.
In sciences/engineering its unclear to me if even Harvard/Yale/Princeton are considered more rigorous than Berkeley - they have a reputation of grade inflation.

Other than Berkeley, the publics are mixed. UVA has historical prestige but the school itself is not considered very difficult. Same for Michigan for liberal arts.

Now if you are a student choosing colleges, Dartmouth will provide far more resources and a much less stressful environment to you than Berkeley, while also having social prestige.

I am also wondering about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate Tiers
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton
1B) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Caltech

2A) Northwestern, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst
2B) Rice, Cornell, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Notre Dame, Emory, Swarthmore, UCLA, Wellesley

3A) Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts, Middlebury, Barnard
3B)UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, W&L, Davidson

Tier 2A is very debatable is there are a lot of great schools that could go there.

Good stuff.

[Anonymous]

I doubt employers will hire people based on usn ranking, or even taking the ranking into account except for the HYPMS graduates.

[Anonymous]

Oh my God, such hair splitting.

Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Amherst, Williams, etc. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Go to wherever works best for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt employers will hire people based on usn ranking, or even taking the ranking into account except for the HYPMS graduates.

They don't, but the people who obsess about this stuff are the same type of people who argue over whether LeBron James is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate Tiers
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton
1B) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Caltech

2A) Northwestern, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst
2B) Rice, Cornell, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Notre Dame, Emory, Swarthmore, UCLA, Wellesley

3A) Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts, Middlebury, Barnard
3B)UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, W&L, Davidson

Tier 2A is very debatable is there are a lot of great schools that could go there.

Good stuff.

Thank you, I was trying my best to be fair but accurate of what people think. I also work for a top pharmaceutical company FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What jobs are these tiers being used to hire in?

It's laughable to me that anyone would hire a Washington University over Berkeley in any engineering or math/science field. Berkeley's humanities and liberal arts are very rigorous as well and has a reputation of grade-deflation.

For an ambiguous job, beyond the high Ivies, Stanford/MIT/Caltech and potentially Duke, the private universities that have been listed (Rice, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, Brown) aren't considered any more rigorous than Berkeley.
In sciences/engineering its unclear to me if even Harvard/Yale/Princeton are considered more rigorous than Berkeley - they have a reputation of grade inflation.

Other than Berkeley, the publics are mixed. UVA has historical prestige but the school itself is not considered very difficult. Same for Michigan for liberal arts.

Now if you are a student choosing colleges, Dartmouth will provide far more resources and a much less stressful environment to you than Berkeley, while also having social prestige.

Have you actually hired engineering grads? In my experience, individual qualities (experience, personality, grades, critical thinking skills) make more difference in hiring than a perceived difference between WUSTL and Berkeley. Berkeley is obviously the better school. BUT not every student at Berkeley is a better candidate than every student at WUSTL.

I definitely agree, but I am not the one ranking tiers here. There was someone ranking tiers where supposedly they would always hire someone from Tier 2 over Tier 3, etc.

Also rigor of courses and cutthroat environment do matter in engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate Tiers
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton
1B) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Caltech

2A) Northwestern, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst
2B) Rice, Cornell, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Notre Dame, Emory, Swarthmore, UCLA, Wellesley

3A) Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts, Middlebury, Barnard
3B)UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, W&L, Davidson

Tier 2A is very debatable is there are a lot of great schools that could go there.

Good stuff.

Thank you, I was trying my best to be fair but accurate of what people think. I also work for a top pharmaceutical company FYI.

OMG haha. I'm a tenured professor at a research 1 institution, and I think your ranking is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate Tiers
1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton
1B) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Caltech

2A) Northwestern, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst
2B) Rice, Cornell, Pomona, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Notre Dame, Emory, Swarthmore, UCLA, Wellesley

3A) Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts, Middlebury, Barnard
3B)UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, W&L, Davidson

Tier 2A is very debatable is there are a lot of great schools that could go there.

Good stuff.

Thank you, I was trying my best to be fair but accurate of what people think. I also work for a top pharmaceutical company FYI.

OMG haha. I'm a tenured professor at a research 1 institution, and I think your ranking is a joke.

Good for you, there are over 100 schools considered Research 1 institutions. The vast majority of them are not considered prestigiuos, especially at the undergrad level.