Anonymous wrote:I think the really 'top of top' colleges are Harvard, Stanford and MIT.

Then some gap, then Princeton, Yale, Caltech.

Then some more gap

then Columbia, Chicago, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Columbia?

No.

This survey has NO credibility.

Have to admit it, New York does give off one massive edge (and will only get bigger), especially going into the 21st century with young people pouring into the cities. Plus it's an Ivy and people associate it with Wall Street and so on. It will only keep rising in rankings, popularity, and prestige as long as it gets to keep a top 5 ranking and more people move into the cities. Even COVID-19 won't reverse this trend. Columbia was historically a top 3 school during the 1960s, then urban decay and white flight during the 70s and 80s brought it to the verge of bankruptcy along with the rest of New York. Lots of good professors gone and students left. There were also campus riots. But now it's on a comeback.

I went to an HYP for undergrad and knew kids from Columbia. Spent time in Morningside Heights as a grad student too. Back in the days it was probably the least desirable Ivy. Just went coed, situated in a dangerous neighborhood inside a dangerous city. It was just plain dirty and filthy. There were some high achievers from local publics like Stuy or Bronx Science but a lot more were just the urban, hipster, and creative types who are dead set on living in a city and won't really consider anywhere else, those from my prep school who went there mostly didn't really fit in but at Columbia those misfits were the mainstream. John Lennon's son went there - which probably gives you a general idea of their student body. Now the city experience has drastically improved and the demographics is lot more like HYP, plus a lot of international wealth, more so than you can imagine. The international wealthy don't send their kids to Princeton or Yale anymore (or never to begin with) but to schools in big cities like Harvard, Columbia, or Penn/Wharton. Would I have gone to Columbia in 2021 instead? Probably. DS is also looking into Columbia and didn't even bother looking at my alma mater.

Duke used to be that high, like really high, when everyone was moving into the suburbs and the countryside during the 80s and 90s, then it just stopped being popular and went into decline in rankings on all fronts: Forbes, US News, you name it, because it no longer has the pull for high-achieving kids these days. Was #12 last year I think, first time in 40 years it fell out of the rankings. How times have changed! Unless it's a southern school, it's also no longer the top college where all the prep school kids would go outside of HYP or Dartmouth (was the #4 ivy back in my age). To give you an example, Andover used to send a dozen kids to Duke every year but in 2021, just one. Eight or nine went to Columbia. Exeter sent 40 to Columbia in the past 3 years but just 5 to Duke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No interest in splitting hairs or engaging in the ranking nonsense beyond seeing the top ranked schools as a group of outstanding institution and within that - choose the best fit for each particular student.

Saying YHMS are better than princeton is really silly unless you know the individual involved and which place will be the better fit.

Just as nonsensical as assuming that beyond HYPSM there seems to be a massive drop off, or to even have an acronym as such. I was the previous Andover and H/Y poster. It makes our grads look narcissist, elitist, and foolishly insecure as if getting into one of those schools was the biggest ever accomplishment of our lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend the HYPSM acronym with yield rates, “daring” Columbia to change to SCEA and have a 70% yield rate is beyond insufferable. This is a typical chicken-or-egg fallacy that they use so it’s impossible for any school to join the acronym.

They believe that what separates HYPSM from the rest is their SCEA program and 70% yield rate. In other words, they believe that popular schools among laymen should be considered the best schools.

If you’re a high school student and you got into both Princeton and Columbia, chances are you are going to choose Princeton because it’s a “HYPSM school.” But since HYPSM is a term that is based on popularity, it creates a never ending cycle of reinforcing the HYPSM distinction.

The problem lies in that HYPSM was constructed out of measuring popularity through yield rates and early action programs. As long as those insufferable people don’t consider the academics of the schools, there would be no way for any school to join the HYPSM acronym.

So, please disregard any argument that uses yield rates to distinguish which school is better over another.

If you get into Princeton and Columbia for undergraduate, the odds are you are going to attend Princeton because it has a greater focus on undergraduate education, offers its undergraduates institutional resources that Columbia doesn't provide, and is located in a safe and beautiful location. There is a cohort that will always prefer Columbia because it's in New York City, and some students prefer urban environments and to live more independently, but changing an acronym isn't going to move that needle significantly.

I have yet to see anyone (personally) who got into both and chose Columbia. In the 5-6 cases all chose Princeton

Actress Brook Shield went to Princeton. She even chose to publish her Princeton transcript. It was all Micky mouse courses. People’s choice can be a function of how easy the program is.

Anonymous wrote:No interest in splitting hairs or engaging in the ranking nonsense beyond seeing the top ranked schools as a group of outstanding institution and within that - choose the best fit for each particular student.

Saying YHMS are better than princeton is really silly unless you know the individual involved and which place will be the better fit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just look at yield rates for Columbia, even below Penn and Chicago

Chicago has two rounds of ED, please. Princeton has the same yield rate as Penn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend the HYPSM acronym with yield rates, “daring” Columbia to change to SCEA and have a 70% yield rate is beyond insufferable. This is a typical chicken-or-egg fallacy that they use so it’s impossible for any school to join the acronym.

They believe that what separates HYPSM from the rest is their SCEA program and 70% yield rate. In other words, they believe that popular schools among laymen should be considered the best schools.

If you’re a high school student and you got into both Princeton and Columbia, chances are you are going to choose Princeton because it’s a “HYPSM school.” But since HYPSM is a term that is based on popularity, it creates a never ending cycle of reinforcing the HYPSM distinction.

The problem lies in that HYPSM was constructed out of measuring popularity through yield rates and early action programs. As long as those insufferable people don’t consider the academics of the schools, there would be no way for any school to join the HYPSM acronym.

So, please disregard any argument that uses yield rates to distinguish which school is better over another.

If you get into Princeton and Columbia for undergraduate, the odds are you are going to attend Princeton because it has a greater focus on undergraduate education, offers its undergraduates institutional resources that Columbia doesn't provide, and is located in a safe and beautiful location. There is a cohort that will always prefer Columbia because it's in New York City, and some students prefer urban environments and to live more independently, but changing an acronym isn't going to move that needle significantly.

I have yet to see anyone (personally) who got into both and chose Columbia. In the 5-6 cases all chose Princeton

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend the HYPSM acronym with yield rates, “daring” Columbia to change to SCEA and have a 70% yield rate is beyond insufferable. This is a typical chicken-or-egg fallacy that they use so it’s impossible for any school to join the acronym.

They believe that what separates HYPSM from the rest is their SCEA program and 70% yield rate. In other words, they believe that popular schools among laymen should be considered the best schools.

If you’re a high school student and you got into both Princeton and Columbia, chances are you are going to choose Princeton because it’s a “HYPSM school.” But since HYPSM is a term that is based on popularity, it creates a never ending cycle of reinforcing the HYPSM distinction.

The problem lies in that HYPSM was constructed out of measuring popularity through yield rates and early action programs. As long as those insufferable people don’t consider the academics of the schools, there would be no way for any school to join the HYPSM acronym.

So, please disregard any argument that uses yield rates to distinguish which school is better over another.

If you get into Princeton and Columbia for undergraduate, the odds are you are going to attend Princeton because it has a greater focus on undergraduate education, offers its undergraduates institutional resources that Columbia doesn't provide, and is located in a safe and beautiful location. There is a cohort that will always prefer Columbia because it's in New York City, and some students prefer urban environments and to live more independently, but changing an acronym isn't going to move that needle significantly.

I have yet to see anyone (personally) who got into both and chose Columbia. In the 5-6 cases all chose Princeton

Anonymous wrote:Plus, at harvard you get to be surrounded by students that are very secure they are the track to pre-eminence as opposed to merely excellence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend the HYPSM acronym with yield rates, “daring” Columbia to change to SCEA and have a 70% yield rate is beyond insufferable. This is a typical chicken-or-egg fallacy that they use so it’s impossible for any school to join the acronym.

They believe that what separates HYPSM from the rest is their SCEA program and 70% yield rate. In other words, they believe that popular schools among laymen should be considered the best schools.

If you’re a high school student and you got into both Princeton and Columbia, chances are you are going to choose Princeton because it’s a “HYPSM school.” But since HYPSM is a term that is based on popularity, it creates a never ending cycle of reinforcing the HYPSM distinction.

The problem lies in that HYPSM was constructed out of measuring popularity through yield rates and early action programs. As long as those insufferable people don’t consider the academics of the schools, there would be no way for any school to join the HYPSM acronym.

So, please disregard any argument that uses yield rates to distinguish which school is better over another.

If you get into Princeton and Columbia for undergraduate, the odds are you are going to attend Princeton because it has a greater focus on undergraduate education, offers its undergraduates institutional resources that Columbia doesn't provide, and is located in a safe and beautiful location. There is a cohort that will always prefer Columbia because it's in New York City, and some students prefer urban environments and to live more independently, but changing an acronym isn't going to move that needle significantly.

I have yet to see anyone (personally) who got into both and chose Columbia. In the 5-6 cases all chose Princeton

Same with Princeton vs. Yale or Harvard. It's a notch below HYPM if you really want to split hairs like this, sure. I went to H/Y and Andover. Most techies chose MIT or Stanford. Harvard or Yale for the prestige. Princeton is like the ugly cousin for rich, well-endowed nerds and athletes who don't have the stats to get into any of them, but just connections.

That is a very strange post . Single choice early action fills up about forty percent of the class at PY and H.

Right, it was back in my days. Still P ranks the lowest of HYPSM if you really want to split hairs like this to make P look bad relative to their #1 US News Ranking when it's more like #5 based on real student preferences followed by Columbia and Penn maybe. Maybe 20 years ago it could outshine Stanford or MIT but not anymore these days. And kids do prefer big cities now. SCEA does not require you to commit to one school unliked ED.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just look at yield rates for Columbia, even below Penn and Chicago

This list gives you a general ballpark idea of how schools are ranked. But it doesn't change people's mind much. I guess the Princeton alumni still work at US News. But very few believes Princeton being #1. Its yield rate in the 60% range is the lowest out of HYPSM. No one believes Chicago is tied with Stanford. Duke's yield rate is less than 50%. Few believes Columbia being #2 either. If you want to be in the top 5, you need to get rid of ED and see what your yield rate is with only EA as HYPSM do.

+1
Almost no one chooses to go to Chicago or Columbia if they think they can be accepted at HYPSM.

Note: if they *think*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend the HYPSM acronym with yield rates, “daring” Columbia to change to SCEA and have a 70% yield rate is beyond insufferable. This is a typical chicken-or-egg fallacy that they use so it’s impossible for any school to join the acronym.

They believe that what separates HYPSM from the rest is their SCEA program and 70% yield rate. In other words, they believe that popular schools among laymen should be considered the best schools.

If you’re a high school student and you got into both Princeton and Columbia, chances are you are going to choose Princeton because it’s a “HYPSM school.” But since HYPSM is a term that is based on popularity, it creates a never ending cycle of reinforcing the HYPSM distinction.

The problem lies in that HYPSM was constructed out of measuring popularity through yield rates and early action programs. As long as those insufferable people don’t consider the academics of the schools, there would be no way for any school to join the HYPSM acronym.

So, please disregard any argument that uses yield rates to distinguish which school is better over another.

If you get into Princeton and Columbia for undergraduate, the odds are you are going to attend Princeton because it has a greater focus on undergraduate education, offers its undergraduates institutional resources that Columbia doesn't provide, and is located in a safe and beautiful location. There is a cohort that will always prefer Columbia because it's in New York City, and some students prefer urban environments and to live more independently, but changing an acronym isn't going to move that needle significantly.

I have yet to see anyone (personally) who got into both and chose Columbia. In the 5-6 cases all chose Princeton

Same with Princeton vs. Yale or Harvard. It's a notch below HYPM if you really want to split hairs like this, sure. I went to H/Y and Andover. Most techies chose MIT or Stanford. Harvard or Yale for the prestige. Princeton is like the ugly cousin for rich, well-endowed nerds and athletes who don't have the stats to get into any of them, but just connections.

That is a very strange post . Single choice early action fills up about forty percent of the class at PY and H.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend the HYPSM acronym with yield rates, “daring” Columbia to change to SCEA and have a 70% yield rate is beyond insufferable. This is a typical chicken-or-egg fallacy that they use so it’s impossible for any school to join the acronym.

They believe that what separates HYPSM from the rest is their SCEA program and 70% yield rate. In other words, they believe that popular schools among laymen should be considered the best schools.

If you’re a high school student and you got into both Princeton and Columbia, chances are you are going to choose Princeton because it’s a “HYPSM school.” But since HYPSM is a term that is based on popularity, it creates a never ending cycle of reinforcing the HYPSM distinction.

The problem lies in that HYPSM was constructed out of measuring popularity through yield rates and early action programs. As long as those insufferable people don’t consider the academics of the schools, there would be no way for any school to join the HYPSM acronym.

So, please disregard any argument that uses yield rates to distinguish which school is better over another.

If you get into Princeton and Columbia for undergraduate, the odds are you are going to attend Princeton because it has a greater focus on undergraduate education, offers its undergraduates institutional resources that Columbia doesn't provide, and is located in a safe and beautiful location. There is a cohort that will always prefer Columbia because it's in New York City, and some students prefer urban environments and to live more independently, but changing an acronym isn't going to move that needle significantly.

I have yet to see anyone (personally) who got into both and chose Columbia. In the 5-6 cases all chose Princeton

Same with Princeton vs. Yale or Harvard. It's a notch below HYPM if you really want to split hairs like this, sure. I went to H/Y and Andover. Most techies chose MIT or Stanford. Harvard or Yale for the prestige. Princeton is like the ugly cousin for rich, well-endowed nerds and athletes who don't have the stats to get into any of them, but just connections.