Do you agree with this undergrad list

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What will the list look like ten years from now ? Any thoughts ?

Vandy, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, WashU, CMU, Columbia, and MAYBE Duke move up

Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Wellesley, USC, CMC, Yale, UChicago, Georgetown, UCLA, and UCB Move down. MOst of these schools aren't what they used to be and USC just has so many issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best undergraduate
1. Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Yale

1b. Columbia, Caltech, Upenn, U Chicago

2. Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins

2b. Dartmouth, Brown

What does this even mean? Are you talking about the prestige of the name or the quality of education? Harvard, for instance is kind of indifferent to undergraduates, but prestige associated with the name is unmatched.

For prestige, I've always thought these lists with lots of tiers don't really have much basis in reality. Even within a top tier of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Stanford, if you went to Yale or Princeton, many people are going to assume you probably didn't get into Harvard or probably Stanford. MIT occupies a bit of another dimension in that only Stanford among this set is competitive in some of its core strength areas. Caltech is competitive with MIT for undergraduates, but it is so small it is really a niche school.

The ones below your top tier have more asterisks. UPenn I've always thought is buoyed by Wharton, and is not as well regarded outside of that. Duke and Northwestern are viewed by some as interlopers. Hopkins is kind of pre-med specialist school. Dartmouth and Brown are strong undergraduate schools, but are dinged by some for not having strong graduate programs.

Once you get below a couple of top prestige tiers, I think the water is really muddy. I don't think employers and graduate school admissions are making incremental distinctions between schools that many people think they are. Law school and medical school in particular are numbers driven, so they are looking much more at GPA and standardized test scores than the name of the undergraduate school.

If I were rewriting your tiers based on prestige, with declining prestige even within tiers, it would look like this. I recognize it is only my 2 cents:

Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton (note that 10+ years at the top of USNews hasn't really budged Princeton upward for cross-admits)

Columbia, Caltech, Duke, Penn, Brown, Chicago, Dartmouth, Northwestern (Caltech so specialized they are difficult to place. If you want to be a star STEM academic, it is very strong.)

By the time you get to Rice, Hopkins, Georgetown, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Cornell, I'm not convinced there is that much differentiation between a number of other privates, LACs, and a number of stronger public schools (e.g. Michigan).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will the list look like ten years from now ? Any thoughts ?

Vandy, Rice, Emory, Notre Dame, WashU, CMU, Columbia, and MAYBE Duke move up

Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown, Williams, Amherst, Pomona, Wellesley, USC, CMC, Yale, UChicago, Georgetown, UCLA, and UCB Move down. MOst of these schools aren't what they used to be and USC just has so many issues.

USC has had issues all along but it hasn't stopped its rise.

[Anonymous]

Stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we create a list of affordable state universities, please?


I like UVa and William and Mary. Excellent state universities which are more affordable for in-state, very pleasant environments. However for out of state, terribly expensive.

A lot of people on this board like to compare state universities, but due to the in-state/OOS cost differentials, they really don't compare on even terms for many applicants. If you are in Texas and interested in engineering, for instance, you might think Berkeley might be a bit better, but would it be worth the significant difference in cost? Probably not.

UVA and William and Mary get a significant number of applications from OOS, but with the decline in state support, their OOS fees really have gotten to the level of selective privates, so the yield rates are on the low side.

[Anonymous]

The next ten years will be even more competitive for colleges. Increases in population, increase in use of common application, increase in URM's applying through the concerted efforts of government agencies, private organizations and the schools themselves, increase in globalization attracting more international students, especially ones whose parents will pay the full sticker price.

Very possibly, the colleges will increase their freshman classes to boost their revenue and to take pressure off the burgeoning numbers of applicants.

Tiers 2, 3, 4 will grow in prestige, and tiers 1, 1b. will remain as they are and get even more difficult to get in.
Harvard had 57,000 applications, Columbia 60,500 applications, Yale about 47,000 applications, Tufts about 31,000 applications.

Even if this is an off-year because of COVID, the handwriting is on the wall for greater applications DUE TO INCREASED DEMAND AND STAGNANT SUPPLY.

[Anonymous]

And, do not forget the role of technology such as ZOOM , etc. which make communication, meetings, virtual tours, and submitting applications easier than ever before. Tese technological miracle will add to a tsunami of domestic and global applications in future years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would argue 1a and 1b are pretty far apart

So. Stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best undergraduate
1. Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Yale

1b. Columbia, Caltech, Upenn, U Chicago

2. Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins

2b. Dartmouth, Brown

What does this even mean? Are you talking about the prestige of the name or the quality of education? Harvard, for instance is kind of indifferent to undergraduates, but prestige associated with the name is unmatched.

For prestige, I've always thought these lists with lots of tiers don't really have much basis in reality. Even within a top tier of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Stanford, if you went to Yale or Princeton, many people are going to assume you probably didn't get into Harvard or probably Stanford. MIT occupies a bit of another dimension in that only Stanford among this set is competitive in some of its core strength areas. Caltech is competitive with MIT for undergraduates, but it is so small it is really a niche school.

The ones below your top tier have more asterisks. UPenn I've always thought is buoyed by Wharton, and is not as well regarded outside of that. Duke and Northwestern are viewed by some as interlopers. Hopkins is kind of pre-med specialist school. Dartmouth and Brown are strong undergraduate schools, but are dinged by some for not having strong graduate programs.

Once you get below a couple of top prestige tiers, I think the water is really muddy. I don't think employers and graduate school admissions are making incremental distinctions between schools that many people think they are. Law school and medical school in particular are numbers driven, so they are looking much more at GPA and standardized test scores than the name of the undergraduate school.

If I were rewriting your tiers based on prestige, with declining prestige even within tiers, it would look like this. I recognize it is only my 2 cents:

Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton (note that 10+ years at the top of USNews hasn't really budged Princeton upward for cross-admits)

Columbia, Caltech, Duke, Penn, Brown, Chicago, Dartmouth, Northwestern (Caltech so specialized they are difficult to place. If you want to be a star STEM academic, it is very strong.)

By the time you get to Rice, Hopkins, Georgetown, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Cornell, I'm not convinced there is that much differentiation between a number of other privates, LACs, and a number of stronger public schools (e.g. Michigan).

Or perhaps one might assume you weren't among those simply chasing a name and didn't apply to a school known to be indifferent to undergraduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best undergraduate
1. Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Yale

1b. Columbia, Caltech, Upenn, U Chicago

2. Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins

2b. Dartmouth, Brown

What does this even mean? Are you talking about the prestige of the name or the quality of education? Harvard, for instance is kind of indifferent to undergraduates, but prestige associated with the name is unmatched.

For prestige, I've always thought these lists with lots of tiers don't really have much basis in reality. Even within a top tier of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Stanford, if you went to Yale or Princeton, many people are going to assume you probably didn't get into Harvard or probably Stanford. MIT occupies a bit of another dimension in that only Stanford among this set is competitive in some of its core strength areas. Caltech is competitive with MIT for undergraduates, but it is so small it is really a niche school.

The ones below your top tier have more asterisks. UPenn I've always thought is buoyed by Wharton, and is not as well regarded outside of that. Duke and Northwestern are viewed by some as interlopers. Hopkins is kind of pre-med specialist school. Dartmouth and Brown are strong undergraduate schools, but are dinged by some for not having strong graduate programs.

Once you get below a couple of top prestige tiers, I think the water is really muddy. I don't think employers and graduate school admissions are making incremental distinctions between schools that many people think they are. Law school and medical school in particular are numbers driven, so they are looking much more at GPA and standardized test scores than the name of the undergraduate school.

If I were rewriting your tiers based on prestige, with declining prestige even within tiers, it would look like this. I recognize it is only my 2 cents:

Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton (note that 10+ years at the top of USNews hasn't really budged Princeton upward for cross-admits)

Columbia, Caltech, Duke, Penn, Brown, Chicago, Dartmouth, Northwestern (Caltech so specialized they are difficult to place. If you want to be a star STEM academic, it is very strong.)

By the time you get to Rice, Hopkins, Georgetown, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Cornell, I'm not convinced there is that much differentiation between a number of other privates, LACs, and a number of stronger public schools (e.g. Michigan).

Duke should be around Dartmouth/Northwestern. Also you can argue that Brown belongs in lower tier

[Anonymous]

This is a vomit thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a vomit thread.

+1

[Anonymous]

The definitive guide for top 30 (undergraduate):

1. Harvard, Stanford
3. MIT
4. Yale, Princeton

6. Columbia, Penn Wharton, Caltech
9. Penn CAS, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, (CMU CS, UCB CS)
12. Chicago, Duke, Northwestern
15. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona

19. Vandy, Rice, CMU, WashU, Emory, Georgetown, USC, Notredame, UCLA, UCB, UVA
30. UMich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about UMD and Virginia Tech?

Also, I think Emory should be grouped under 1, just based on the reputation of their Engineering program.

Solid troll right here.

But a funny one!!! Roll Tide mom and the Emory engineering debate always make me smile! Thank you, PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The definitive guide for top 30 (undergraduate):

1. Harvard, Stanford
3. MIT
4. Yale, Princeton

6. Columbia, Penn Wharton, Caltech
9. Penn CAS, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, (CMU CS, UCB CS)
12. Chicago, Duke, Northwestern
15. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona

19. Vandy, Rice, CMU, WashU, Emory, Georgetown, USC, Notredame, UCLA, UCB, UVA
30. UMich

Splitting HYPSM into 3 tiers? sigh