Anonymous wrote:What has happened in the past 20 years which puts Duke ahead of Williams and Amherst ?

Those are the two best LAC's.

Also, don't students look at the overall history of a college or university and at a place's facilities, etc., and not pigeonhole a place within a present five year time period ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

1b. Columbia, Caltech

2. UChicago, UPenn, Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins

2b. Brown, Williams, Amherst, Cornell, Dartmouth

3?. Vanderbilt, Swarthmore, Rice, Pomona

3b. Notre Dame, WashU, Georgetown, Bowdoin, UCLA, UCB, CMU

4. Emory, UVA, UMich, Tufts, Wellesley, USC, UNC, CMC

Emory isn't 4, not with its test score avg, Goizueta, and premed.

Williams, Amherst and Swarthmore are all the same and should be tier 2 or 2b at least. Why are you selling them short and behind Northwestern, JH, Penn CAS, Duke ? No way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

1b. Columbia, Caltech

2. UChicago, UPenn, Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins

2b. Brown, Williams, Amherst, Cornell, Dartmouth

3?. Vanderbilt, Swarthmore, Rice, Pomona

3b. Notre Dame, WashU, Georgetown, Bowdoin, UCLA, UCB, CMU

4. Emory, UVA, UMich, Tufts, Wellesley, USC, UNC, CMC

Emory isn't 4, not with its test score avg, Goizueta, and premed.

Williams, Amherst and Swarthmore are all the same and should be tier 2 or 2b at least. Why are you selling them short and behind Northwestern, JH, Penn CAS, Duke ? No way.

Anonymous wrote:

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

1b. Columbia, Caltech

2. UChicago, UPenn, Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins

2b. Brown, Williams, Amherst, Cornell, Dartmouth

3?. Vanderbilt, Swarthmore, Rice, Pomona

3b. Notre Dame, WashU, Georgetown, Bowdoin, UCLA, UCB, CMU

4. Emory, UVA, UMich, Tufts, Wellesley, USC, UNC, CMC

Emory isn't 4, not with its test score avg, Goizueta, and premed.

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

1b. Columbia, Caltech

2. UChicago, UPenn, Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins

2b. Brown, Williams, Amherst, Cornell, Dartmouth

3?. Vanderbilt, Swarthmore, Rice, Pomona

3b. Notre Dame, WashU, Georgetown, Bowdoin, UCLA, UCB, CMU

4. Emory, UVA, UMich, Tufts, Wellesley, USC, UNC, CMC

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

1b. Columbia, Caltech

2. UChicago, UPenn, Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins

2b. Brown, Williams, Amherst, Cornell, Dartmouth

3?. Vanderbilt, Swarthmore, Rice, Pomona

3b. Notre Dame, WashU, Georgetown, Bowdoin, UCLA, UCB, CMU

4. Emory, UVA, UMich, Tufts, Wellesley, USC, UNC, CMC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, Pomona... should be on there if it's undergrad. They probably slot somewhere around 1b

I went to Wash. U.

First, rating schools is like racing turtles, or playing a toy slot machine. Doing this has no relevance to anything but is oddly soothing.

Anyhow: These schools should all come before Wash. U. Amherst should be in the Harvard tier, because, like Harvard, it’s need-blind and meets full need for international students.

Johns Hopkins should probably rank below Wash. U. because the stories about how unpleasant it is.

Berkeley and UCLA should rank below Wash. U. until they make it easier for students to get the classes needed to graduate on time. Rankings like this shouldn’t reward schools that do a poor job of helping hard-working, bright students graduate on time.

Dartmouth should rank below Wash. U. because of the alum who comes on DCUM and is so nasty.

Notre Dame and Vanderbilt should rank at the same level as Wash. U. or a little lower. I think the only reason they’re higher here is that they have Division I sports.

To me, it always seemed as if Tufts was at the same level as Wash. U., or a little higher. NYU and USC seemed to be schools for boring rich kids. But all three schools are really teaching hospitals with universities attached. Maybe all three of those schools are at the same level as Wash. U.

Similarly, the University of Rochester gets less attention than the other schools here, but my understanding is that it’s about the same as Wash. U. Should it be on the Wash. U. level?

If all of those schools are listed, is there any great reason to keep off the University of Texas, UNC, UVA and some more University of California schools?

So, my version of the list:

1. Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Yale, Amherst

1b. Columbia, Caltech, Upenn, U Chicago, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, Harvey Mudd

2. West Point, Annapolis

2b. Rice, Brown, Cornell

3. Vandy, Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, Emory, WashU, CMU, UVA, Rochester

3b. UCLA*, UCB*, Johns Hopkins*, Dartmouth*, UNC, Texas, Air Force Academy*, Georgetown*, Smith, Wellesley, Barnard,

3c. UC San Diego, UC Irvine, University of Illinois, University of Florida, Rutgers, Coast Guard Academy, Ohio State, Penn State, Oberlin, Grinnell, Carlton, Davidson, Washington & Lee, Reed, Case Western


* Downgraded due to stories about problems with access to classes, videos of rats in dorms, or reports of students being awful to each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Williams, Swarthmore, Amherst, Pomona... should be on there if it's undergrad. They probably slot somewhere around 1b

I went to Wash. U.

First, rating schools is like racing turtles, or playing a toy slot machine. Doing this has no relevance to anything but is oddly soothing.

Anyhow: These schools should all come before Wash. U. Amherst should be in the Harvard tier, because, like Harvard, it’s need-blind and meets full need for international students.

Johns Hopkins should probably rank below Wash. U. because the stories about how unpleasant it is.

Berkeley and UCLA should rank below Wash. U. until they make it easier for students to get the classes needed to graduate on time. Rankings like this shouldn’t reward schools that do a poor job of helping hard-working, bright students graduate on time.

Dartmouth should rank below Wash. U. because of the alum who comes on DCUM and is so nasty.

Notre Dame and Vanderbilt should rank at the same level as Wash. U. or a little lower. I think the only reason they’re higher here is that they have Division I sports.

To me, it always seemed as if Tufts was at the same level as Wash. U., or a little higher. NYU and USC seemed to be schools for boring rich kids. But all three schools are really teaching hospitals with universities attached. Maybe all three of those schools are at the same level as Wash. U.

Similarly, the University of Rochester gets less attention than the other schools here, but my understanding is that it’s about the same as Wash. U. Should it be on the Wash. U. level?

If all of those schools are listed, is there any great reason to keep off the University of Texas, UNC, UVA and some more University of California schools?

So, my version of the list:

1. Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Yale, Amherst

1b. Columbia, Caltech, Upenn, U Chicago, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, Harvey Mudd

2. West Point, Annapolis

2b. Rice, Brown, Cornell

3. Vandy, Notre Dame, Duke, Northwestern, Emory, WashU, CMU, UVA, Rochester

3b. UCLA*, UCB*, Johns Hopkins*, Dartmouth*, UNC, Texas, Air Force Academy*, Georgetown*, Smith, Wellesley, Barnard,

3c. UC San Diego, UC Irvine, University of Illinois, University of Florida, Rutgers, Coast Guard Academy, Ohio State, Penn State, Oberlin, Grinnell, Carlton, Davidson, Washington & Lee, Reed, Case Western


* Downgraded due to stories about problems with access to classes, videos of rats in dorms, or reports of students being awful to each other.