Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind these are not necessarily undergraduate rankings. They weigh graduate programs and research very highly. Hence schools like Berkeley and U Washington compete very well compared to their comparative undergraduate prestige in the US.

What exactly is undergraduate prestige? School prestige comes primarily from the research, citations, department strength, and school history.

Also, Berkeley has the most top 5 undergrad programs in the country. U.s. news only ranks a handful of undergraduate programs and Berkeley is well represented.

That can’t be! It’s just a dirty public!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

I actually disagree. Undergraduates have better access to research opportunities in well funded and endowed SLACs or smaller universities. Do you know how cash strapped some of the departments in these universities are that they accept foreign money to "do research"? Just google and you will find some of these top 10 schools guilty of taking foreign money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind these are not necessarily undergraduate rankings. They weigh graduate programs and research very highly. Hence schools like Berkeley and U Washington compete very well compared to their comparative undergraduate prestige in the US.

What exactly is undergraduate prestige? School prestige comes primarily from the research, citations, department strength, and school history.

Also, Berkeley has the most top 5 undergrad programs in the country. U.s. news only ranks a handful of undergraduate programs and Berkeley is well represented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind these are not necessarily undergraduate rankings. They weigh graduate programs and research very highly. Hence schools like Berkeley and U Washington compete very well compared to their comparative undergraduate prestige in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Availability of internship opportunities is one issue, but what about the lab interview with a PI and lab manager? How does the lack of personality in the test optional, orchestra clarinetist with a grade-inflated 4.98 GPA shine through?

Many of the top privates have alumni interviews - not the case for state schools. Kids getting into these schools are personable and polished, hardly the social laggards you think they might be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Availability of internship opportunities is one issue, but what about the lab interview with a PI and lab manager? How does the lack of personality in the test optional, orchestra clarinetist with a grade-inflated 4.98 GPA shine through?

Many of the top privates have alumni interviews - not the case for state schools. Kids getting into these schools are personable and polished, hardly the social laggards you think they might be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Availability of internship opportunities is one issue, but what about the lab interview with a PI and lab manager? How does the lack of personality in the test optional, orchestra clarinetist with a grade-inflated 4.98 GPA shine through?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.