Top Colleges

[Anonymous]

Five seconds on this board indicates that “top colleges” are, actually, an obsession for so many people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

this is the best post on this thread

but geez, no luv for Cornell?

In the context of this list and its stated purpose, I think I would rather have. Dartmouth degree than a Columbia degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Five seconds on this board indicates that “top colleges” are, actually, an obsession for so many people.

This thread has made me laugh so hard. Thanks all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

This is good but the top publics have great visibility as well if only due to sheer size. No one scoffs at a Berkeley or UMich degree, compared to say a Yale or Duke degree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a top college is top 25 national, top 10 LAC; but some people won’t recognize the LAC’s.
Elite is HYPSM

Elite would be top 20 nationals and maybe top 3-5 LACs. No more than 23-25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite:

HYPSM + Ivies
Chicago
Duke
Northwestern
Caltech
Johns Hopkins
Williams
Amherst

That's it. The rest of the top 20-30 are "top schools" but I would not categorize them as elite.

Skip Duke and Hopkins and I'll buy it.

and cmon folks, deep down no one really considers Williams or Amherst elite. Great schools but meh prestige. Williams alumns always have to
mention LAC ranking when explaining where they went

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

What kind of ridiculous logic does it take to 1) tier elite colleges and then 2) decide yale is somehow in a second tier? Where is you logic, your metrics, your analytics? Oh, you don't have any and you pulled this right out of your a$$? Ok, makes sense now.

The whole thing makes NO sense and you should stop.

It’s fair to put Yale a tier lower honestly. The tier 1 schools excel across the board whereas Yale has been lacking in STEM for decades. Yale STEM is not bad by any means of course but not the best of the best like the rest of tier 1. This is also reflected by the fact that the tier 1 schools (HPSM) don’t have to offer any scholarships or special programs to recruit students. All of the tier 2 schools (including Yale) have special scholarship programs.

It is mystifying how Yale continues to be ranked in the top 10. As the previous poster noted, Yale does not have a meaningful STEM program. Maryland, UIUC, Purdue, Georgia Tech, Texas, Michigan, Berkeley are all far better schools in the hard subjects. I'm sure Yale is a lovely place if you'd like to become an English teacher, but if you want to do something meaningful at NASA or FAANG you don't go to Yale. That's your grandmother's school. Today, Yale in the top 10 is an anachronism.

I heard CS at Yale kinda sucks and they are desperate for talent

Yes. CS sucks at Yale. They basically copy CS curriculum from other schools (look it up on the internet - and their intro class is “taught jointly with Harvard” Harvard btw isn’t so great at CS either.
STEM at Yale is way behind Stanford MIT Princeton etc. they are now trying to invest more in STEM, but it is a little too late to catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

What kind of ridiculous logic does it take to 1) tier elite colleges and then 2) decide yale is somehow in a second tier? Where is you logic, your metrics, your analytics? Oh, you don't have any and you pulled this right out of your a$$? Ok, makes sense now.

The whole thing makes NO sense and you should stop.

It’s fair to put Yale a tier lower honestly. The tier 1 schools excel across the board whereas Yale has been lacking in STEM for decades. Yale STEM is not bad by any means of course but not the best of the best like the rest of tier 1. This is also reflected by the fact that the tier 1 schools (HPSM) don’t have to offer any scholarships or special programs to recruit students. All of the tier 2 schools (including Yale) have special scholarship programs.

Harvard does not excel in STEM as well and thus the decline for the past decade or so. The decline may accelerate if the near future due to increasing importance of technology and STEM in general. I know someone who received both BS and MS in CS from Harvard and is working for Capitol One...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

What kind of ridiculous logic does it take to 1) tier elite colleges and then 2) decide yale is somehow in a second tier? Where is you logic, your metrics, your analytics? Oh, you don't have any and you pulled this right out of your a$$? Ok, makes sense now.

The whole thing makes NO sense and you should stop.

It’s fair to put Yale a tier lower honestly. The tier 1 schools excel across the board whereas Yale has been lacking in STEM for decades. Yale STEM is not bad by any means of course but not the best of the best like the rest of tier 1. This is also reflected by the fact that the tier 1 schools (HPSM) don’t have to offer any scholarships or special programs to recruit students. All of the tier 2 schools (including Yale) have special scholarship programs.

Harvard does not excel in STEM as well and thus the decline for the past decade or so. The decline may accelerate if the near future due to increasing importance of technology and STEM in general. I know someone who received both BS and MS in CS from Harvard and is working for Capitol One...

Lol what’s in your wallet? Not as much as CMU CS grads 😂

[Anonymous]

MIT is the new Harvard and CMU & Berkeley are rising fast.

[Anonymous]

You might as well ask, can I get an enjoyable dinner at a restaurant if it does not have a Michelin star? Or am I guaranteed to enjoy my entree at a two-star restaurant more than at a one-star restaurant, regardless of my personal taste preferences? It is not a binary outcome. Does the quality (and reputation for quality) of an undergraduate education convey any advantages? Yes. Is it outcome-determinative? No.

[Anonymous]

Harvard will fall out of top 10 unless they invest in STEM (CS) heavily for the next 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard will fall out of top 10 unless they invest in STEM (CS) heavily for the next 10 years.

You people are crazy.

Yeah, right, Harvard will drop and be "ranked" behind RPI (a fine school, no slight intended).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard will fall out of top 10 unless they invest in STEM (CS) heavily for the next 10 years.

Harvard is already out of top 5 for many people.

[Anonymous]

Harvard will remain at the top as long as its endowment remains at the top.