Outcomes - Prestige and Perceptions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP: a lot of the bashing of schools 10ish to 30ish reflects a lack of perceived value/ability to pay or anger at limited seats at great public universities. The hating reflects the human defense mechanism of destroying what you want but can’t have.

For privates, the cost is equivalent to HPYSM, but the prestige is not. Thus, though the schools are excellent, there is the criticism that you’ve over paid, unless you’ve received a ton of financial aid. This leads to the negative stereotype that these schools are for rich kids who can’t get admitted to HYPSM. Though this stereotype carries some truth, it misses that the schools ARE excellent and the kids ARE TOO. Should one apologize for being the 97th, 98th, 99th, 99.5 percentile instead of the 99.9 percentile? Of course not. But, the negative stereotype allows those who get rejected or don’t qualify to destroy what they can’t have. Of course, the stereotype doesn’t apply to HPYSM because they are the standard for exceptional education.

For the publics, they are not quite HPYSM, but they are awesome instate values. Here, the anger becomes the lack of seats. Naysayers roll out the line, “I pay taxes. My kid should get a seat.” However, these people never seem to realize that it is the school’s selectivity is part of what makes it great, and that not many of their tax dollars go to the institution. Again, they fight their frustration by degrading what they can’t have.

In some ways, it reflects society’s increasingly clamorous debate about wealth, privilege, meritocracy, social justice, etc. today’s communication channels have laid bare the lifestyles of the rich and famous and now everyone wants part of the pie. Also, it just seems easier to get a piece of the pie, so everyone is trying to grab it. Why not.

This. It is kind of like saying that someone who sits on the bench in the NBA is not a good basketball player. They are literally better than millions around the world, they just happen to behind a few people on their current squad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other way around is probably William and Mary in Virginia. The school has seen falling applications, drops in rankings, etc. but is still perceived as very prestigious by older individuals.

Miami of Ohio and University of Vermont followed the same trajectory, only a generation earlier. At some point time catches up and colleges can't rely on historic perceptions to recruit students when they have nothing else to show for it.

Incorrect. From 2004-2005 to 2020-2021, William and Mary had an 81% increase in applications with increases in applications in 14 of the 16 years. This year had a 23% increase in applications.

You are correct that William and Mary has had some decline in the USNWR national university ranking, where it went from 31 to 39 from 2004 to 2020, but it isn't alone. UVA went from 21 to 26th during the same period. USNWR is somewhat problematic for William and Mary because some of the ratings like financial resources are positively influenced by having medical schools and engineering schools, which William and Mary does not have, unlike almost all of the schools above it in the rankings. It has, however, remained close to the top and is currently 4th in quality of undergraduate teaching.

It not having an engineering school and medical school counts against it in the ranking, but it does so in reality as well, so you are only just supporting my argument.

This is the 21st century when healthcare and technology sectors are the driving forces of the economy.
Schools like MIT and Stanford have become as renowned as Harvard and perhaps surpassed Princeton & Yale due to their strengths in engineering and sciences.

Miami of Ohio is another school that doesn't have a medical or engineering school. It's also ranked very highly in the "undergraduate teaching" list. That's a bit meaningless in terms of prestige though. Looks like W&M is facing the same issue.

UVA dropped in the same period, it's also weak in engineering and sciences. Again, just adding to my point.

Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan and Georgia Tech have either stayed the same, or increased. Same for UT-Austin.

You can argue all you want that I supported your point, but when you start with the completely erroneous claim that applications have declined when in fact they have risen for 14 of the last 16 years and rose 23% this year, you have clearly undermined yourself and any subsequent claims you make. You need to own your mistakes and misstatement rather than trying to deflect.

You don't get any facts straight before you post. You say Miami of Ohio doesn't have an engineering school. That is wrong. You suggest Miami of Ohio and the University of Vermont were highly ranked (by US News) but they never were. They appeared in a book called The Public Ivies from the 1980s, but that was really just the view of one person and was never reflected in US News.

I never stated that Miami of Ohio or University of Vermont were ranked highly by US News. I said it was held in high regard in the past, and has since fallen off and lost its luster. Pretty sure USNews did not even do rankings in the 1980s.

That you are referencing a highly referred to book regarding "Public Ivies", which many universities still today use in their advertising material, only further helps my point about how Miami of Ohio and UVM were held in high regard once. As you yourself pointed out, USNews ranks both Miami and UVM rather low today, nowhere close to their supposed "Public Ivy" peers. Older generations will still consider Miami a prestigious school but middle-aged individuals today don't.

W&M is going through the same generational change. Middle-aged adults today consider it to be a prestigious school. It's falling out of popularity rapidly with younger adults. When those young adults become middle-aged, they will not view it as a prestigious school. Of course, the middle-aged adults that are then seniors still might, but they will be retired and will have no influence in the job market.

That is, of course, if W&M continues on its current trajectory. But the future outlook for small, public liberal arts colleges isn't very good. It may as well privatize, or pseudo-privatize as UVA has.

Where do you get this idea from? It's just not true. My DD is a W&M grad who lives on the West Coast, where here degree has served her very well. Her colleagues attended Ivies, Stanford, Berkeley, etc, and she fits right in.

Regarding WM's drop in the rankings a couple of years ago, here's a long explanation https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2018/changes-in-methodology-impact-wms-spot-in-u.s.-news-annual-list.php

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other way around is probably William and Mary in Virginia. The school has seen falling applications, drops in rankings, etc. but is still perceived as very prestigious by older individuals.

Miami of Ohio and University of Vermont followed the same trajectory, only a generation earlier. At some point time catches up and colleges can't rely on historic perceptions to recruit students when they have nothing else to show for it.

Incorrect. From 2004-2005 to 2020-2021, William and Mary had an 81% increase in applications with increases in applications in 14 of the 16 years. This year had a 23% increase in applications.

You are correct that William and Mary has had some decline in the USNWR national university ranking, where it went from 31 to 39 from 2004 to 2020, but it isn't alone. UVA went from 21 to 26th during the same period. USNWR is somewhat problematic for William and Mary because some of the ratings like financial resources are positively influenced by having medical schools and engineering schools, which William and Mary does not have, unlike almost all of the schools above it in the rankings. It has, however, remained close to the top and is currently 4th in quality of undergraduate teaching.

It not having an engineering school and medical school counts against it in the ranking, but it does so in reality as well, so you are only just supporting my argument.

This is the 21st century when healthcare and technology sectors are the driving forces of the economy.
Schools like MIT and Stanford have become as renowned as Harvard and perhaps surpassed Princeton & Yale due to their strengths in engineering and sciences.

Miami of Ohio is another school that doesn't have a medical or engineering school. It's also ranked very highly in the "undergraduate teaching" list. That's a bit meaningless in terms of prestige though. Looks like W&M is facing the same issue.

UVA dropped in the same period, it's also weak in engineering and sciences. Again, just adding to my point.

Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan and Georgia Tech have either stayed the same, or increased. Same for UT-Austin.

You can argue all you want that I supported your point, but when you start with the completely erroneous claim that applications have declined when in fact they have risen for 14 of the last 16 years and rose 23% this year, you have clearly undermined yourself and any subsequent claims you make. You need to own your mistakes and misstatement rather than trying to deflect.

You don't get any facts straight before you post. You say Miami of Ohio doesn't have an engineering school. That is wrong. You suggest Miami of Ohio and the University of Vermont were highly ranked (by US News) but they never were. They appeared in a book called The Public Ivies from the 1980s, but that was really just the view of one person and was never reflected in US News.

I never stated that Miami of Ohio or University of Vermont were ranked highly by US News. I said it was held in high regard in the past, and has since fallen off and lost its luster. Pretty sure USNews did not even do rankings in the 1980s.

That you are referencing a highly referred to book regarding "Public Ivies", which many universities still today use in their advertising material, only further helps my point about how Miami of Ohio and UVM were held in high regard once. As you yourself pointed out, USNews ranks both Miami and UVM rather low today, nowhere close to their supposed "Public Ivy" peers. Older generations will still consider Miami a prestigious school but middle-aged individuals today don't.

W&M is going through the same generational change. Middle-aged adults today consider it to be a prestigious school. It's falling out of popularity rapidly with younger adults. When those young adults become middle-aged, they will not view it as a prestigious school. Of course, the middle-aged adults that are then seniors still might, but they will be retired and will have no influence in the job market.

That is, of course, if W&M continues on its current trajectory. But the future outlook for small, public liberal arts colleges isn't very good. It may as well privatize, or pseudo-privatize as UVA has.

As someone else pointed out, you started your long post with yet another factual error. US News did start rankings in the 1980s, and it started a couple of years before the publishing of Public Ivies book. Public Ivies represented the opinion of one man on schools that he thought might provide an Ivy-like experience. It was not a consensus view on prestige. US News did not rank Miami of Ohio and UVM that high at any time.

Why don't you state where UVM and Miami were ranked in the 1980s by USNews then? Go ahead and post your holy grail USNews ranking of Miami and UVM from the 1980s, and we'll see which college has declined massively and which hasn't.

Of course you won't, because USNews ranked Miami and UVM much higher than they are ranked today - today they are ranked 100+.

More deflection and obfuscation. I am not the one that claimed UVM and Miami fell precipitously from a high level. Both Miami and UVM fell below the cutoff of even being ranked in early USNews rankings. USNews didn't rank below 25 at one time, and then expanded over time.

The Public Ivies book by Moll that seems to have influenced you to highlight UVM and Miami included the UC System, Michigan, UNC, Texas, UVA, William and Mary, UVM, and Miami of Ohio. Of those, UC Berkeley, Michigan, UNC, UVA, William and Mary, and Texas were ranked in the 1988 USNews rankings. So UVM, Miami (and the rest of the UC System) were not highly ranked by USNews then as they fell below the cutoff.

Vermont's funding for higher education is 49th out of 50 in the country. Any issues they have had over time should be seen in the context of a state school that actually gets very little funding from the state and has to try to fund itself with out of state students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.

NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-ranking...world-university-rankings/2021
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #187, Georgetown #230)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-univers...ank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #111, Georgetown #120))

Even USNEWS has Cornell at #22 globally, while dropping Vanderbilt to #72 and Georgetown to #322
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

The reason Cornell was brought into the conversation was to dispute the notion that Vanderbilt is a regional school. The point was made that every school, even the best, have a strong regional pull. Cornell’s student body is one-third New York State and no one considers it a regional school. Arguing that Cornell is an international school further makes the point. By comparison, Vanderbilt admits nowhere near one-third of its students from Tennessee. Earlier posters never intended to compare Vanderbilt and Cornell beyond this perspective, as they are very dissimilar schools. Cornell is a much larger, science-focused school that will have a larger research reach, precisely because of those characteristics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other way around is probably William and Mary in Virginia. The school has seen falling applications, drops in rankings, etc. but is still perceived as very prestigious by older individuals.

Miami of Ohio and University of Vermont followed the same trajectory, only a generation earlier. At some point time catches up and colleges can't rely on historic perceptions to recruit students when they have nothing else to show for it.

Incorrect. From 2004-2005 to 2020-2021, William and Mary had an 81% increase in applications with increases in applications in 14 of the 16 years. This year had a 23% increase in applications.

You are correct that William and Mary has had some decline in the USNWR national university ranking, where it went from 31 to 39 from 2004 to 2020, but it isn't alone. UVA went from 21 to 26th during the same period. USNWR is somewhat problematic for William and Mary because some of the ratings like financial resources are positively influenced by having medical schools and engineering schools, which William and Mary does not have, unlike almost all of the schools above it in the rankings. It has, however, remained close to the top and is currently 4th in quality of undergraduate teaching.

It not having an engineering school and medical school counts against it in the ranking, but it does so in reality as well, so you are only just supporting my argument.

This is the 21st century when healthcare and technology sectors are the driving forces of the economy.
Schools like MIT and Stanford have become as renowned as Harvard and perhaps surpassed Princeton & Yale due to their strengths in engineering and sciences.

Miami of Ohio is another school that doesn't have a medical or engineering school. It's also ranked very highly in the "undergraduate teaching" list. That's a bit meaningless in terms of prestige though. Looks like W&M is facing the same issue.

UVA dropped in the same period, it's also weak in engineering and sciences. Again, just adding to my point.

Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan and Georgia Tech have either stayed the same, or increased. Same for UT-Austin.

You can argue all you want that I supported your point, but when you start with the completely erroneous claim that applications have declined when in fact they have risen for 14 of the last 16 years and rose 23% this year, you have clearly undermined yourself and any subsequent claims you make. You need to own your mistakes and misstatement rather than trying to deflect.

You don't get any facts straight before you post. You say Miami of Ohio doesn't have an engineering school. That is wrong. You suggest Miami of Ohio and the University of Vermont were highly ranked (by US News) but they never were. They appeared in a book called The Public Ivies from the 1980s, but that was really just the view of one person and was never reflected in US News.

I love the way you argue!

[Anonymous]

Chiming in here as someone with no dog in this, but I would say across the board, Cornell >> Vanderbilt. The recent rise of Vandy is impressive to be sure, but it's one thing to scale one ranking, and another to have generations of prestige attached to your name and significant research output to boot.

I say this as someone whose child chose another school over Cornell. It's a great school, wasn't for us, but we recognize it for what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.

NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-ranking...world-university-rankings/2021
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #187, Georgetown #230)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-univers...ank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #111, Georgetown #120))

Even USNEWS has Cornell at #22 globally, while dropping Vanderbilt to #72 and Georgetown to #322
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

The reason Cornell was brought into the conversation was to dispute the notion that Vanderbilt is a regional school. The point was made that every school, even the best, have a strong regional pull. Cornell’s student body is one-third New York State and no one considers it a regional school. Arguing that Cornell is an international school further makes the point. By comparison, Vanderbilt admits nowhere near one-third of its students from Tennessee. Earlier posters never intended to compare Vanderbilt and Cornell beyond this perspective, as they are very dissimilar schools. Cornell is a much larger, science-focused school that will have a larger research reach, precisely because of those characteristics.

OK fine but the reason I cited the huge delta between Cornell and Vandy/Georgetown in global university rankings is because the poster above said the folliowing:

But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.

And the answer is no, people rate Vandy and G'Town lower than Cornell because they are ranked 50-300 places below Cornell according to every single global university ranking out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason Cornell was brought into the conversation was to dispute the notion that Vanderbilt is a regional school. The point was made that every school, even the best, have a strong regional pull. Cornell’s student body is one-third New York State and no one considers it a regional school. Arguing that Cornell is an international school further makes the point. By comparison, Vanderbilt admits nowhere near one-third of its students from Tennessee.

New York has three times as many people as Tennessee, so this is a terrible way to make the argument even though I agree that Cornell is not a regional school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.

NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-ranking...world-university-rankings/2021
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #187, Georgetown #230)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-univers...ank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #111, Georgetown #120))

Even USNEWS has Cornell at #22 globally, while dropping Vanderbilt to #72 and Georgetown to #322
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chiming in here as someone with no dog in this, but I would say across the board, Cornell >> Vanderbilt. The recent rise of Vandy is impressive to be sure, but it's one thing to scale one ranking, and another to have generations of prestige attached to your name and significant research output to boot.

I say this as someone whose child chose another school over Cornell. It's a great school, wasn't for us, but we recognize it for what it is.

This is dumb, global rankings have little to do with prestige and a lot to do with research output. Hense why schools like Boston University, NYU, University of Washington are ranked sky high and schools like Vandy, Georgetown, Emory etc. are ranked above Dartmouth and Brown in the global rankings. By your logic Brown and Dartmouth should be ranked higher than all of these schools in the global ranking due to "generations of prestige" but they aren't. Cornell has great research but its prestige is in line with Vanderbilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.

NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-ranking...world-university-rankings/2021
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #187, Georgetown #230)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-univers...ank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #111, Georgetown #120))

Even USNEWS has Cornell at #22 globally, while dropping Vanderbilt to #72 and Georgetown to #322
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.

We are talking about prestige and perception which is not -- and cannot -- be based solely on "undergrad". Views of a schools prestige is influenced by the interactions others have with a university in any and all of its facets (undergrad, graduate, professional, faculty, research, alumni, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.

NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-ranking...world-university-rankings/2021
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #187, Georgetown #230)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-univers...ank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #111, Georgetown #120))

Even USNEWS has Cornell at #22 globally, while dropping Vanderbilt to #72 and Georgetown to #322
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.

We are talking about prestige and perception which is not -- and cannot -- be based solely on "undergrad". Views of a schools prestige is influenced by the interactions others have with a university in any and all of its facets (undergrad, graduate, professional, faculty, research, alumni, etc.).

You're wrong. See post 16:24 above. If what you're saying was somehow true, UT Austin must be more prestigious than Dartmouth and Brown. UT Austin's highly ranked graduate programs, its large alumni base, and global reach must mean it's more prestigious than Dartmouth whose medical school is ranked 45th. Most people in the know realize prestige of a university comes from it's undergraduate program, which is why Dartmouth is more coveted than almost all of the schools mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shit even Vandy was considered a regional school 25-30 years ago.

+1 My Vandy HS friend didn't get into Penn State.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. I would never pay to send my kid to GMU. It was basically a commuter community college when I was growing up.

DH said he took some math classes “at community college” when he was in high school in the early 2000s. He later realized it was GMU...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I was just thinking that this morning.

Seems like people should take into account the trickle down of good students. As the number of applicants to top schools has increased while the number of spots has remained constant, kids that in the past would have gotten into Ivies are now going one tier down. The second tier kids are now going third tier and on and on. There are plenty of smart kids at all of the top 100 schools so we need to rethink how we perceive certain schools.
Something that I remember hearing back when I was touring colleges - schools that are in good locations attract good professors. So even if you may think Northeastern isn't so great, Boston can attract good profs.

Agreed. For national universities, maybe something like this: tier 1 = top 10; tier 2 = 11-25ish. That said, placed in the context of 4000 colleges, anyone attending one of these colleges is attending an elite institution. The notion that smart kids are only at Ivies is nonsense.

The top 25 schools being tier 2 is laughable and tone-deaf. But either way, some of you don't seem to remember there are 3 ivy league schools in the 11-25 section. But some of you would still rate schools like Vandy and Gtown lower than Cornell just because Cornell is an ivy, it's hypocritical.

NP here. As a Georgetown alum I rate Vandy and Georgetown below Cornell because that is where every single ranking (including US NEWS) puts those universities when comparing universities on a global basis.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-ranking...world-university-rankings/2021
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #187, Georgetown #230)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-univers...ank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.
(Cornell #19, Vanderbilt #111, Georgetown #120))

Even USNEWS has Cornell at #22 globally, while dropping Vanderbilt to #72 and Georgetown to #322
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings

We're talking undergrad honey not graduate. Stay on topic. At the undergrad level These schools are the same.

We are talking about prestige and perception which is not -- and cannot -- be based solely on "undergrad". Views of a schools prestige is influenced by the interactions others have with a university in any and all of its facets (undergrad, graduate, professional, faculty, research, alumni, etc.).

You're wrong. See post 16:24 above. If what you're saying was somehow true, UT Austin must be more prestigious than Dartmouth and Brown. UT Austin's highly ranked graduate programs, its large alumni base, and global reach must mean it's more prestigious than Dartmouth whose medical school is ranked 45th. Most people in the know realize prestige of a university comes from it's undergraduate program, which is why Dartmouth is more coveted than almost all of the schools mentioned.

You sound like a clueless 18 year old who was just admitted to Dartmouth.