Reply to How prestigious is Vanderbilt?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "How prestigious is Vanderbilt? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think that it is prestigious in some circles but I agree with that it doesn't have the universal name recognition of the ivies and elite publics. If I hadn't looked at the ranking before writing this post I would have thought that it was ranked similarly to BC and BU.[/quote]

This is off.  Vandy is top elite -- is it MIT, Uchi, HYP -- no but it is in the next tier.  Rankings are all messed up now.  You cannot use them for anything.  There are about 40 elite schools.  Yes some are more elite than others but there are about 40.  BC is in there -- BU is not.  Not the same kids/same results.[/quote]

If I can't use rely on the rankings then how would I know that Vanderbilt is prestigious, elite or top elite.  I have been told my entire life that Ivies are prestigious, that MIT and Stanford are prestigious and that UCLA, Cal and Michigan are prestigious.  I have never heard much about Vanderbilt except for them being a perennial SEC football doormat.  [/quote]

Michigan is not prestigious. It's a humongous state school with a so-so football team.[/quote]

Lol the poster whose kid got rejected from Michigan is back. The football team just won the *national championship* and kids on the east coast routinely pick Michigan over and among other top 20 schools, but whatever.[/quote]
Michigan is below Georgetown and Emory in prestige. 
It's 
1.HYPSM
2.Columbia, Duke, Upenn, Caltech, UChicago
3.Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins 
4.Vandy, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, Washu, UCB, Georgetown 
5. Umich, UCLA, CMU, USC, UCLA, UNC

[/quote]

One potential way to arrange private schools into loose tiers is to [b]examine the extent to which they feel the need to engage in yield-boosting tactics and/or entice "high performing" students to attend by discounting themselves[/b]. So, to consider whether a school offers [b]a binding early decision application plan[/b], [b]awards non-need-based ("merit") scholarships[/b] and/or c[b]onsiders "demonstrated interest"[/b]. Possibly also whether it is need-blind for admissions.

[b]The top tier would be those schools that don't offer binding early decision, don't award merit scholarships, don't consider demonstrated interest, and are need-blind for admission[/b]s. This set includes HYPMS, Caltech, and, interestingly, Georgetown.

The next tier includes those schools that meet [b]three out of these four criteria[/b]. Without checking, I believe all the rest of the Ivies are included. Some schools that would not be in this set: Duke, Northwestern, Hopkins, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, WashU, USC, Notre Dame. On the LAC side, of the top few that I checked (WASP + Bowdoin + Middlebury + HMC + Carleton), only Williams technically qualifies. Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona and HMC all offer a very small number of non-need-based scholarships, Bowdoin and Middlebury both consider demonstrated interest, and Carleton isn't need-blind. All of them have a binding early decision application plan.

The next tier would be those schools that meet only two of the four criteria. Here's where this method arguably starts to break down. USC would be included in this tier since it has early decision and offers merit scholarships but doesn't consider interest and isn't need-aware. Duke, on the other hand, would not be, since it has early decision, offers merit scholarships, and considers interest.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics