Overall Tiers of the Top Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Not sure where you saw this, but its likely someone with an engineering bias. Hense why Berkeley, Olin, CMC is so high, etc.
It should be....

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)
Yale

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)

-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-Williams and Amherst (Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier)

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):
Berkeley- (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads, VERY weak undergrad admissions)

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention, Very weak undergrad admissions)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources, Very Weak undergrad admissions)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Emory (Best Nursing, Public health programs in the country, good business as well)
Swarthmore and Pomona- 2nd best LACs

Why split up the LACs? they're equally resourced.

They're not as prestigious.

Then don’t include any of them. Most people would not put Williams and Amherst anywhere near the schools you ranked. Their student quality is also worse.

+1, it’s quite silly to put Williams on the same tier as Berkeley. No offense to Williams, good small school, but Berkeley blows it out of the water on impact in academia, course availability, and research output. I don’t know why people try to merge these lists together.

Williams is much harder to get into than Berkeley, but Berkeley has better academic so its a wash.

[Anonymous]

The obsession dc people have with prestige is very unhealthy. It’s not just in the college section, it’s everywhere; public and private schools, suburb rankings, travel sports clubs, vacation destinations, etc. it’s a very strange place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The A+ tier failed to include UVA.

Most Americans have never heard of it once you get past the Virginia area. All he schools mentioned have national recognition. Nothing surprising, the same schools.

I believe previous poster was joking.

[Anonymous]

Is it the same few people that keep posting on and on and on about rankings?

I don't know anyone in real life who cares even a fraction of this about rankings and my kids go to a Big3 school and we are surrounded by high high achieving, wealthy families.

Who are you people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Not sure where you saw this, but its likely someone with an engineering bias. Hense why Berkeley, Olin, CMC is so high, etc.
It should be....

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)
Yale

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)

-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-Williams and Amherst (Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier)

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):
Berkeley- (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads, VERY weak undergrad admissions)

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention, Very weak undergrad admissions)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources, Very Weak undergrad admissions)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Emory (Best Nursing, Public health programs in the country, good business as well)
Swarthmore and Pomona- 2nd best LACs

Why split up the LACs? they're equally resourced.

They're not as prestigious.

Then don’t include any of them. Most people would not put Williams and Amherst anywhere near the schools you ranked. Their student quality is also worse.

+1, it’s quite silly to put Williams on the same tier as Berkeley. No offense to Williams, good small school, but Berkeley blows it out of the water on impact in academia, course availability, and research output. I don’t know why people try to merge these lists together.

Williams is much harder to get into than Berkeley, but Berkeley has better academic so its a wash.

How does acceptance rate affect school quality? You're silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it the same few people that keep posting on and on and on about rankings?

I don't know anyone in real life who cares even a fraction of this about rankings and my kids go to a Big3 school and we are surrounded by high high achieving, wealthy families.

Who are you people?

You don’t care about rankings, but describe your kids school as “Big3”. lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it the same few people that keep posting on and on and on about rankings?

I don't know anyone in real life who cares even a fraction of this about rankings and my kids go to a Big3 school and we are surrounded by high high achieving, wealthy families.

Who are you people?

Immigrant families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who grew up in (traditionally) hierarchical societies, like East Asia, are extremely obsessed about rankings. In those countries the authorities rank every student for every test and announce the rankings on posters for everyone to see and comment. Many of those people were so traumatized by the system that they suffered Stockholm syndrome and continued being played by the ranking game.

+2 It is the Asian immigrants and their kids that are so obsessed with the top 20 schools. Go on Reddit A2C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it the same few people that keep posting on and on and on about rankings?

I don't know anyone in real life who cares even a fraction of this about rankings and my kids go to a Big3 school and we are surrounded by high high achieving, wealthy families.

Who are you people?

You don’t care about rankings, but describe your kids school as “Big3”. lol.

I'm a different poster (and don't have kids there), but that's the DCUM term for the top private schools in DC. It's useful context for the rest of their comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Not sure where you saw this, but its likely someone with an engineering bias. Hense why Berkeley, Olin, CMC is so high, etc.
It should be....

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)
Yale

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)

-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-Williams and Amherst (Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier)

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):
Berkeley- (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads, VERY weak undergrad admissions)

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention, Very weak undergrad admissions)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources, Very Weak undergrad admissions)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Emory (Best Nursing, Public health programs in the country, good business as well)
Swarthmore and Pomona- 2nd best LACs

Why split up the LACs? they're equally resourced.

They're not as prestigious.

Then don’t include any of them. Most people would not put Williams and Amherst anywhere near the schools you ranked. Their student quality is also worse.

+1, it’s quite silly to put Williams on the same tier as Berkeley. No offense to Williams, good small school, but Berkeley blows it out of the water on impact in academia, course availability, and research output. I don’t know why people try to merge these lists together.

Williams is much harder to get into than Berkeley, but Berkeley has better academic so its a wash.

How does acceptance rate affect school quality? You're silly.

No you're facetious. Student Quality affects school quality. Students at Williams are smarter students from better backgrounds and families.

[Anonymous]

This has been such an embarrassment thread. Form the OP to the responses. Be better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it the same few people that keep posting on and on and on about rankings?

I don't know anyone in real life who cares even a fraction of this about rankings and my kids go to a Big3 school and we are surrounded by high high achieving, wealthy families.

Who are you people?

Immigrant families.

This makes sense. And yet the reality is that most top jobs (even in 2025) will go to kids with connections and/or high EQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Not sure where you saw this, but its likely someone with an engineering bias. Hense why Berkeley, Olin, CMC is so high, etc.
It should be....

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)
Yale

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)

-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-Williams and Amherst (Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier)

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):
Berkeley- (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads, VERY weak undergrad admissions)

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention, Very weak undergrad admissions)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources, Very Weak undergrad admissions)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Emory (Best Nursing, Public health programs in the country, good business as well)
Swarthmore and Pomona- 2nd best LACs

Why split up the LACs? they're equally resourced.

They're not as prestigious.

Then don’t include any of them. Most people would not put Williams and Amherst anywhere near the schools you ranked. Their student quality is also worse.

+1, it’s quite silly to put Williams on the same tier as Berkeley. No offense to Williams, good small school, but Berkeley blows it out of the water on impact in academia, course availability, and research output. I don’t know why people try to merge these lists together.

Williams is much harder to get into than Berkeley, but Berkeley has better academic so its a wash.

How does acceptance rate affect school quality? You're silly.

No you're facetious. Student Quality affects school quality. Students at Williams are smarter students from better backgrounds and families.

Last year Williams had an acceptance rate of 7.5%. NEU had acceptance rate of 5.5%. So...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)
-Yale (Amazing humanities but lagging S+ tier in STEM)
-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Berkeley (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-WASP + Bowdoin (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin) Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Harvey Mudd + Olin College of Engineering + Claremont McKenna (Specialized LACs that are very strong in their areas of expertise)

Not sure where you saw this, but its likely someone with an engineering bias. Hense why Berkeley, Olin, CMC is so high, etc.
It should be....

S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton (No glaring weaknesses)
Yale

S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige):

-Caltech (Amazing STEM but worse at humanities than MIT)

-Duke (Very well rounded and perhaps greatest upside in S tier, but youngest of elite schools)
-Columbia (Very well rounded but hurting from recent scandals, still benefits from being in NYC)
-UChicago (Strong humanities and sciences but lacking in engineering)
-UPenn (Very well rounded but perhaps too centered around Wharton that can create odd dynamic with the non-Wharton students)

A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige):

-Northwestern (Very well rounded, closest to being S tier)
-Johns Hopkins (Pointy in strengths, perhaps too centered around medicine)
-Dartmouth (Strong undergrad focus, but lacking strong research backing and global reputation of S tier)
-Cornell (Good at STEM and niche programs like agriculture, but lagging in other traditional fields and a bit weaker in undergrad focus)
-Brown (Weakest academically of ivies | Not quite as undergrad focused as Dartmouth and not quite an S tier research institution)
-Williams and Amherst (Most elite liberal arts educations, minimal global prestige compared to others in this tier)

A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige):
Berkeley- (Academically phenomenal all around similar to S+ tier and high global prestige, but significantly hurt in lack of resources and attention for undergrads, VERY weak undergrad admissions)

-Vanderbilt (Needs to cement itself as a top research institution, closest to being A+ tier)
-Rice (Strong undergrad focus and very well resourced, but lacking global reputation)
-UMich (Well rounded with strong research, lacking undergrad attention, Very weak undergrad admissions)
-Georgetown (Incredibly elite for humanities, but severely lacking in STEM and could use more financial resources)
-Notre Dame (Superb financial resources, but limited research excellence)
-Washington University in St. Louis (Great financial resources, but pointy in strengths towards medicine/science)
-UCLA (Strong research, but struggles with undergraduate resources, Very Weak undergrad admissions)
-Carnegie Mellon (Inverse Georgetown: strong STEM, severely lacking in humanities despite strong points in arts and theatre)
-Emory (Best Nursing, Public health programs in the country, good business as well)
Swarthmore and Pomona- 2nd best LACs

Why split up the LACs? they're equally resourced.

They're not as prestigious.

Then don’t include any of them. Most people would not put Williams and Amherst anywhere near the schools you ranked. Their student quality is also worse.

+1, it’s quite silly to put Williams on the same tier as Berkeley. No offense to Williams, good small school, but Berkeley blows it out of the water on impact in academia, course availability, and research output. I don’t know why people try to merge these lists together.

Williams is much harder to get into than Berkeley, but Berkeley has better academic so its a wash.

How does acceptance rate affect school quality? You're silly.

No you're facetious. Student Quality affects school quality. Students at Williams are smarter students from better backgrounds and families.

The student who got into Williams from DC's private school a couple of years ago got in ED when ED acceptance rate was close to 25% whereas my nephew got into Berkeley in RD (11% acceptance rate) and had better stats. So no, this is hardly a given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has been such an embarrassment thread. Form the OP to the responses. Be better.

I shared this with some of my real life friends. We're all getting a good laugh over it.