Reply to Overall Tiers of the Top Schools

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Overall Tiers of the Top Schools"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Saw this online elsewhere, how do people here feel about this?

[b]S+ Tier (Exceptional at everything, extremely resourced, global prestige)[/b]:

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

[b]S Tier (Exceptional at nearly everything, extremely resourced, global prestige)[/b]:

-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)

[b]A+ Tier (Exceptional at many things, heavily resourced, national prestige)[/b]:

-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

[b]A Tier (Exceptional at many things, well resourced, national prestige)[/b]:

-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)[/quote]

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

[/quote]
Why split up the LACs? they're equally resourced.[/quote]
They're not as prestigious. [/quote]
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.[/quote]
+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.[/quote]
Williams is much harder to get into than Berkeley, but Berkeley has better academic so its a wash. [/quote]

Berkeley undergraduate education experience isn't remotely as robust as any top SLAC or Private.[/quote]
This definitely is only true if you don’t take your education seriously at Berkeley. You have access to some of the best professors and even graduate courses if you want to take advantage. Berkeley is better in every stem subject, better at English/History, and better in the social sciences than Williams.[/quote]

You can keep telling yourself that is the case but it isn't. It never has been and never will be because for the most part your kids won't have much if any access to the top professors as an undergrad. I went to grad school there, and I taught there while in grad school. I have posted on this forum exactly what the experience will be, others have chimed in in support but people just don't want to accept the reality of a factory education taught in large part by TAs. Top professors aren't paid to teach, they are paid to run labs and make money for the school. Teaching undergrads (or having them in their labs) is a waste of time and resources.[/quote]
professors have teaching responsibilities, even if you have a Nobel prize. There are many top academics and researchers who teach undergraduates. No reason to get so emotional and start lying.[/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