I would put the top LACs in the 2A and 2B tiers.

2A: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore (along with Hopkins, Brown, etc.)
2B: Pomona, Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton (along with Vanderbilt, Berkeley, etc.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1A) Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Princeton
1B) Caltech, Penn, Chicago, Columbia

2A) Hopkins, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern
2B) Vanderbilt, Berkeley, UCLA, Georgetown, Notre Dame, WashU, Rice

3A) CMU, Emory, Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts
et al.

You took off SLACs...I think you need to include the ones that are consistently top 5 Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Wellesley. And another tier with near misses like Barnard and few others. Honestly I think Northwestern moves to 2A or 2B. Not in same tier as CalTech, Pen Chicago Columbia. Columbia and CalTech should be above 1B but below 1A.

I wouldn't call Barnard a "near miss" for the top five LACs. Doesn't USN rank it at about 26? Bowdoin, Carleton, maybe Middlebury are the "near misses."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1A) Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Princeton
1B) Caltech, Penn, Chicago, Columbia

2A) Hopkins, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern
2B) Vanderbilt, Berkeley, UCLA, Georgetown, Notre Dame, WashU, Rice

3A) CMU, Emory, Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts
et al.

You took off SLACs...I think you need to include the ones that are consistently top 5 Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Wellesley. And another tier with near misses like Barnard and few others. Honestly I think Northwestern moves to 2A or 2B. Not in same tier as CalTech, Pen Chicago Columbia. Columbia and CalTech should be above 1B but below 1A.

No one cares about LACs.

lol continue living in your delusion

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1A) Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Princeton
1B) Caltech, Penn, Chicago, Columbia

2A) Hopkins, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern
2B) Vanderbilt, Berkeley, UCLA, Georgetown, Notre Dame, WashU, Rice

3A) CMU, Emory, Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts
et al.

You took off SLACs...I think you need to include the ones that are consistently top 5 Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Wellesley. And another tier with near misses like Barnard and few others. Honestly I think Northwestern moves to 2A or 2B. Not in same tier as CalTech, Pen Chicago Columbia. Columbia and CalTech should be above 1B but below 1A.

No one cares about LACs.

This is silly.

Anonymous wrote:1A) Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Princeton
1B) Caltech, Penn, Chicago, Columbia

2A) Hopkins, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern
2B) Vanderbilt, Berkeley, UCLA, Georgetown, Notre Dame, WashU, Rice

3A) CMU, Emory, Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts
et al.

You took off SLACs...I think you need to include the ones that are consistently top 5 Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Wellesley. And another tier with near misses like Barnard and few others. Honestly I think Northwestern moves to 2A or 2B. Not in same tier as CalTech, Pen Chicago Columbia. Columbia and CalTech should be above 1B but below 1A.

Anonymous wrote:On that list too many discrepancies. No Barnard which is usually only behind Wellesley in terms of women's schools (should be in the 40s). Cornell too low. Harvard too low. USC Tufts are both too low. No way UCLA is a head of Georgetown (at least not on planet Earth). Lot of discrepancies--suggest you look for the chain from a couple years ago about tiers of schools. I am tired but I am sure I could find a lot more.

Does UCLA really get good outcomes given its selectivity? Alumni survey responses that are lukewarm about their experience. Medical school acceptance rate is about national average. These lists become about putting up schools that have appeared on other lists.

1A) Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Princeton
1B) Caltech, Penn, Chicago, Northwestern, Columbia

2A) Hopkins, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Duke
2B) Vanderbilt, Berkeley, UCLA, Georgetown, Notre Dame, WashU, Rice

3A) CMU, Emory, Michigan, NYU, USC, UVA, Tufts
et al.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope to god that in 4 years when my kid is applying to colleges I am not this nuts.

These threads are usually from people who don't have kids going through the process (you quickly learn how meaningless these list are) or quibbling Ivy grads stuck in glory days.

Or wait till they think Chad and Susan will get into an Ivy without a hook because they are at a top private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope to god that in 4 years when my kid is applying to colleges I am not this nuts.

These threads are usually from people who don't have kids going through the process (you quickly learn how meaningless these list are) or quibbling Ivy grads stuck in glory days.

A lot of truth there. Over the last few years I've read posters who are so definitive about x, y, and z in admissions, points that seem much less relevant to someone with DCs going through the process, and then they acknowledged that their kids graduated in the early aughts up to 2017 or so.

And the glory day folks - my SIL is one. In her mind, even though I attended an Ivy for grad, that cannot compensate for my undergrad at a "no name" LAC and our children are only redeemed because her brother (same alma mater) is their father. She has been fairly successful in her own right as well as a great mom and wife, yet she cleaves on to her alum status as if that stands between her and the after life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope to god that in 4 years when my kid is applying to colleges I am not this nuts.

These threads are usually from people who don't have kids going through the process (you quickly learn how meaningless these list are) or quibbling Ivy grads stuck in glory days.

Or people who went to very good schools but want their schools ranked higher, especially higher than schools that rejected them or ones their friends are attending.

Anonymous wrote:I hope to god that in 4 years when my kid is applying to colleges I am not this nuts.

These threads are usually from people who don't have kids going through the process (you quickly learn how meaningless these list are) or quibbling Ivy grads stuck in glory days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move number 46 up to 45 and 17 down to 20 and this is perfect.

Nonsense. PP is clearly not reading the same list I am not reading.

Anonymous wrote:I hope to god that in 4 years when my kid is applying to colleges I am not this nuts.

The fact that you are posting in this site 4 years in advance makes me less hopeful. I did not even know about this forum until my kid was in the application cycle.

Anonymous wrote:On that list too many discrepancies. No Barnard which is usually only behind Wellesley in terms of women's schools (should be in the 40s). Cornell too low. Harvard too low. USC Tufts are both too low. No way UCLA is a head of Georgetown (at least not on planet Earth). Lot of discrepancies--suggest you look for the chain from a couple years ago about tiers of schools. I am tired but I am sure I could find a lot more.

Question was “your list.” I know what the various rankings say and what prior threads say. My response reflects my opinions and preferences, and I don’t think any list is definitive. (Any fwiw, UCLA is ahead of Gtown on US News’s list, which some people do consider definitive.) Anyway, this is the opinion of one person who used to be in the college-rankings business and who still follows them closely. That’s all.