Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it like 80-20% Princeton for cross-admits?

The last time i heard of Princeton in the news was when brook shield published her Princeton transcript. That incident caused a scandal because people realized Princeton is a micky mouse University with basket weaving courses. It’s easy to graduate from P with a high GPA. This goes a long way in explaining its popularity.

This shows how little you know, because applications to Princeton are affected by its reputation among the Ivies for grade deflation. And yet it retains its #1 ranking on US News and has a 4.0% admission rate. Sorry if you/your kid was in the 96.0% rejected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Move Caltech a notch below. Not really above Columbia or Chicago. It’s not a comprehensive university and in the public eye, generally not as well known.

CalTech is a niche school, don’t belong with ivy schools. It’s like Olympics athletes who are born with skills that the average people can’t compete with. I actually give them less credit than DCUM. It’s like mike Tyson and his destructive punches. I don’t doubt he worked hard, but the gift from God made it that much easier. Likewise, science and math geeks will have an easier time getting into CalTech. USNews for it right to place it below most ivies next to WashU, Vandy, Emory, NU...

You have no idea what you're saying and are wrong on various counts here.

For CalTech to say it should be ranked higher on par with ivies is like saying Mike Tyson should have sweeped Nobel prizes bc he was #1 in boxing. CalTech is for kids who are born with natural talent in math/sciences - but nothing else.

1) It's Caltech.
2) This is an extremely limited and uninformed view of both Caltech and people who are gifted in STEM.
3) Science and math geeks will not have an "easier" time getting into Caltech.
4) Northwestern is not "below" the Ivies, and is perennially ranked above WashU, Vandy, and Emory. I don't believe in touting the rankings, but since that's the metric you're using...
5) Your analogy with Mike Tyson makes zero sense, as STEM fields constitute many of the categories for the Nobel Prizes.

You seem not to know too much about Caltech. Have you ever visited?

No, saying it’s “Caltech” won’t simply get you as many “wows” as having said I went to MIT or Stanford. Most layman don’t know it, and if you’re not in STEM, chances are you don’t know how good it is. It’s too focused on STEM, so should be ranked a notch below when you’re looking at colleges holistically. Which is why Princeton and Yale are a notch below Harvard and Stanford, which I think is about right. It’s not god-tier. No, the yield is about 40% or something.

+1

It’s like JHU being #1 in the medical field and rightfully taking its spot below Ivy +.

CalTech is a one trick pony. It’s not in the league with MIT or ivies +.

It's pretty elite, but just too small to be as competitive as other major research institutions.

Anonymous wrote:Harvard Yale Princeton Stanford MIT Columbia: CHYMPS

+1

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CHYMPS&=true

Look at the like to dislike ratio (88:0 and 73:0) and the ratio when you swap Columbia for another school like Chicago (7:92) or Berkeley (35:111).

Not the best of websites, but the consensus itself speaks volumes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Move Caltech a notch below. Not really above Columbia or Chicago. It’s not a comprehensive university and in the public eye, generally not as well known.

CalTech is a niche school, don’t belong with ivy schools. It’s like Olympics athletes who are born with skills that the average people can’t compete with. I actually give them less credit than DCUM. It’s like mike Tyson and his destructive punches. I don’t doubt he worked hard, but the gift from God made it that much easier. Likewise, science and math geeks will have an easier time getting into CalTech. USNews for it right to place it below most ivies next to WashU, Vandy, Emory, NU...

You have no idea what you're saying and are wrong on various counts here.

For CalTech to say it should be ranked higher on par with ivies is like saying Mike Tyson should have sweeped Nobel prizes bc he was #1 in boxing. CalTech is for kids who are born with natural talent in math/sciences - but nothing else.

1) It's Caltech.
2) This is an extremely limited and uninformed view of both Caltech and people who are gifted in STEM.
3) Science and math geeks will not have an "easier" time getting into Caltech.
4) Northwestern is not "below" the Ivies, and is perennially ranked above WashU, Vandy, and Emory. I don't believe in touting the rankings, but since that's the metric you're using...
5) Your analogy with Mike Tyson makes zero sense, as STEM fields constitute many of the categories for the Nobel Prizes.

You seem not to know too much about Caltech. Have you ever visited?

No, saying it’s “Caltech” won’t simply get you as many “wows” as having said I went to MIT or Stanford. Most layman don’t know it, and if you’re not in STEM, chances are you don’t know how good it is. It’s too focused on STEM, so should be ranked a notch below when you’re looking at colleges holistically. Which is why Princeton and Yale are a notch below Harvard and Stanford, which I think is about right. It’s not god-tier. No, the yield is about 40% or something.

+1

It’s like JHU being #1 in the medical field and rightfully taking its spot below Ivy +.

CalTech is a one trick pony. It’s not in the league with MIT or ivies +.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Move Caltech a notch below. Not really above Columbia or Chicago. It’s not a comprehensive university and in the public eye, generally not as well known.

CalTech is a niche school, don’t belong with ivy schools. It’s like Olympics athletes who are born with skills that the average people can’t compete with. I actually give them less credit than DCUM. It’s like mike Tyson and his destructive punches. I don’t doubt he worked hard, but the gift from God made it that much easier. Likewise, science and math geeks will have an easier time getting into CalTech. USNews for it right to place it below most ivies next to WashU, Vandy, Emory, NU...

You have no idea what you're saying and are wrong on various counts here.

For CalTech to say it should be ranked higher on par with ivies is like saying Mike Tyson should have sweeped Nobel prizes bc he was #1 in boxing. CalTech is for kids who are born with natural talent in math/sciences - but nothing else.

1) It's Caltech.
2) This is an extremely limited and uninformed view of both Caltech and people who are gifted in STEM.
3) Science and math geeks will not have an "easier" time getting into Caltech.
4) Northwestern is not "below" the Ivies, and is perennially ranked above WashU, Vandy, and Emory. I don't believe in touting the rankings, but since that's the metric you're using...
5) Your analogy with Mike Tyson makes zero sense, as STEM fields constitute many of the categories for the Nobel Prizes.

You seem not to know too much about Caltech. Have you ever visited?

No, saying it’s “Caltech” won’t simply get you as many “wows” as having said I went to MIT or Stanford. Most layman don’t know it, and if you’re not in STEM, chances are you don’t know how good it is. It’s too focused on STEM, so should be ranked a notch below when you’re looking at colleges holistically. Which is why Princeton and Yale are a notch below Harvard and Stanford, which I think is about right. It’s not god-tier. No, the yield is about 40% or something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate:
Harvard Stanford MIT
Yale Princeton Columbia Caltech
Penn Chicago
Dartmouth Brown Duke Northwestern
Cornell JHU Berkeley

Overall:
Harvard Stanford
MIT Columbia Berkeley
Yale Princeton Caltech
Penn Chicago
Duke Northwestern JHU Cornell

We are tiers or whatever but Berkeley and Cornell for undergrad (or otherwise) are not and never been on JHU's level.

Maybe in your mind maybe

+1. Berkeley and Cornell outperform JHU in post-career outcomes in just about every aspect. JHU’s post career earnings is woefully low and list of prominent alumni is practically nonexistent if you take out its grad school. Its only claim to fame is having educated Mike Bloomberg, who basically just bankrolled the university to its recent prominence. His kids didn’t even bother to go to Hopkins but went to Princeton and NYU instead.

Anonymous wrote:(Note: This table will be updated as new data are released. Princeton canceled early action for the Class of 2025.) Early Decision + Regular Decision

Overall Acceptance Rates Early Action/Early Decision Acceptance Rates Regular Decision Acceptance Rates
Accepted Applied Acceptance Rate Accepted Applied Acceptance Rate Accepted Applied Acceptance Rate
Brown* 2,537 46,568 5.4% 885 5,540 16.0% 1,652 41,028 4.0%
Columbia* 2,218 60,551 3.7% – 6,435 – – 54,116 –
Cornell* 5,836 ~68,000 ~8.6% – – – – – –
Dartmouth* 1,749 28,357 6.2% 566 2,664 21.2% 1,183 25,693 4.6%
Harvard^ 1,968 57,435 3.4% 745 10,086 7.4% 1,223 47,349 2.6%
Penn* 3,202 56,333 5.7% 1,194 7,962 15.0% 2,008 48,371 4.2%
Princeton^ 1,498 37,601 4.0% – – – 1,498 37,601 4.0%
Yale^ 2,169 46,905 4.6% 837 7,939 10.5% 1,332 38,966 3.4%
Total 21,177 ~401,750 ~5.3% – – – – –

Harvard, Princeton, and Yale—known as the “Big Three”—are historically the three toughest Ivy League schools to get into. In recent years, they have been joined by Columbia in the top half of the most selective Ivy League schools. In 2021, Columbia edged past Princeton to become the second-most competitive Ivy. While all four schools reported overall acceptance rates below 5%, with a 3.4% acceptance rate, Harvard continues to be the hardest Ivy League school to get into.

The remaining schools had overall acceptance rates ranging between 5.4% (Brown) and approximately 8.6% (Cornell), meaning that, for the first time, acceptance rates for all Ivy League schools were in the single digits. The average acceptance rate across all eight schools was approximately 5.3%.

Here is a list of the Ivy League schools in ascending order of overall selectivity:

Harvard (3.4%)
Columbia (3.7%)
Princeton (4.0%)
Yale (4.6%)
Brown (5.4%)
Penn (5.7%)
Dartmouth (6.2%)
Cornell (~8.6%)
Selectivity is highly associated with Ivy League rankings; that is, the highest-ranked schools tend to have the lowest acceptance rates.

https://collegelearners.com/ivy-league-acceptance-rates-2025/

(Note: This table will be updated as new data are released. Princeton canceled early action for the Class of 2025.) Early Decision + Regular Decision

Overall Acceptance Rates Early Action/Early Decision Acceptance Rates Regular Decision Acceptance Rates
Accepted Applied Acceptance Rate Accepted Applied Acceptance Rate Accepted Applied Acceptance Rate
Brown* 2,537 46,568 5.4% 885 5,540 16.0% 1,652 41,028 4.0%
Columbia* 2,218 60,551 3.7% – 6,435 – – 54,116 –
Cornell* 5,836 ~68,000 ~8.6% – – – – – –
Dartmouth* 1,749 28,357 6.2% 566 2,664 21.2% 1,183 25,693 4.6%
Harvard^ 1,968 57,435 3.4% 745 10,086 7.4% 1,223 47,349 2.6%
Penn* 3,202 56,333 5.7% 1,194 7,962 15.0% 2,008 48,371 4.2%
Princeton^ 1,498 37,601 4.0% – – – 1,498 37,601 4.0%
Yale^ 2,169 46,905 4.6% 837 7,939 10.5% 1,332 38,966 3.4%
Total 21,177 ~401,750 ~5.3% – – – – –

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Move Caltech a notch below. Not really above Columbia or Chicago. It’s not a comprehensive university and in the public eye, generally not as well known.

CalTech is a niche school, don’t belong with ivy schools. It’s like Olympics athletes who are born with skills that the average people can’t compete with. I actually give them less credit than DCUM. It’s like mike Tyson and his destructive punches. I don’t doubt he worked hard, but the gift from God made it that much easier. Likewise, science and math geeks will have an easier time getting into CalTech. USNews for it right to place it below most ivies next to WashU, Vandy, Emory, NU...

You have no idea what you're saying and are wrong on various counts here.

For CalTech to say it should be ranked higher on par with ivies is like saying Mike Tyson should have sweeped Nobel prizes bc he was #1 in boxing. CalTech is for kids who are born with natural talent in math/sciences - but nothing else.

1) It's Caltech.
2) This is an extremely limited and uninformed view of both Caltech and people who are gifted in STEM.
3) Science and math geeks will not have an "easier" time getting into Caltech.
4) Northwestern is not "below" the Ivies, and is perennially ranked above WashU, Vandy, and Emory. I don't believe in touting the rankings, but since that's the metric you're using...
5) Your analogy with Mike Tyson makes zero sense, as STEM fields constitute many of the categories for the Nobel Prizes.

You seem not to know too much about Caltech. Have you ever visited?

Some of Math/science talent is innate, just as Mike tyson’s talent was. That’s not to say they don’t work hard. Edison said genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. If you don’t have that 1% innate talent, you can’t make that up with 100% perspiration. It is in this sense being a GOAT for Tyson was easier than the nerds. But for the math/science nerds, CalTech is infinitely easier than the boxing GOAT Mike Tyson. These nerds who may be talented in math/science, however, may have trouble at ivies that evaluate students holistically. CalTech will always be below the GOATs of the intellectual world.

You come across like a 15 year old with limited real-life experience.

You sound like a DCUM striver who hasn’t lived long enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Move Caltech a notch below. Not really above Columbia or Chicago. It’s not a comprehensive university and in the public eye, generally not as well known.

CalTech is a niche school, don’t belong with ivy schools. It’s like Olympics athletes who are born with skills that the average people can’t compete with. I actually give them less credit than DCUM. It’s like mike Tyson and his destructive punches. I don’t doubt he worked hard, but the gift from God made it that much easier. Likewise, science and math geeks will have an easier time getting into CalTech. USNews for it right to place it below most ivies next to WashU, Vandy, Emory, NU...

You have no idea what you're saying and are wrong on various counts here.

For CalTech to say it should be ranked higher on par with ivies is like saying Mike Tyson should have sweeped Nobel prizes bc he was #1 in boxing. CalTech is for kids who are born with natural talent in math/sciences - but nothing else.

1) It's Caltech.
2) This is an extremely limited and uninformed view of both Caltech and people who are gifted in STEM.
3) Science and math geeks will not have an "easier" time getting into Caltech.
4) Northwestern is not "below" the Ivies, and is perennially ranked above WashU, Vandy, and Emory. I don't believe in touting the rankings, but since that's the metric you're using...
5) Your analogy with Mike Tyson makes zero sense, as STEM fields constitute many of the categories for the Nobel Prizes.

You seem not to know too much about Caltech. Have you ever visited?

Some of Math/science talent is innate, just as Mike tyson’s talent was. That’s not to say they don’t work hard. Edison said genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. If you don’t have that 1% innate talent, you can’t make that up with 100% perspiration. It is in this sense being a GOAT for Tyson was easier than the nerds. But for the math/science nerds, CalTech is infinitely easier than the boxing GOAT Mike Tyson. These nerds who may be talented in math/science, however, may have trouble at ivies that evaluate students holistically. CalTech will always be below the GOATs of the intellectual world.

You come across like a 15 year old with limited real-life experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Move Caltech a notch below. Not really above Columbia or Chicago. It’s not a comprehensive university and in the public eye, generally not as well known.

CalTech is a niche school, don’t belong with ivy schools. It’s like Olympics athletes who are born with skills that the average people can’t compete with. I actually give them less credit than DCUM. It’s like mike Tyson and his destructive punches. I don’t doubt he worked hard, but the gift from God made it that much easier. Likewise, science and math geeks will have an easier time getting into CalTech. USNews for it right to place it below most ivies next to WashU, Vandy, Emory, NU...

You have no idea what you're saying and are wrong on various counts here.

For CalTech to say it should be ranked higher on par with ivies is like saying Mike Tyson should have sweeped Nobel prizes bc he was #1 in boxing. CalTech is for kids who are born with natural talent in math/sciences - but nothing else.

1) It's Caltech.
2) This is an extremely limited and uninformed view of both Caltech and people who are gifted in STEM.
3) Science and math geeks will not have an "easier" time getting into Caltech.
4) Northwestern is not "below" the Ivies, and is perennially ranked above WashU, Vandy, and Emory. I don't believe in touting the rankings, but since that's the metric you're using...
5) Your analogy with Mike Tyson makes zero sense, as STEM fields constitute many of the categories for the Nobel Prizes.

You seem not to know too much about Caltech. Have you ever visited?

Some of Math/science talent is innate, just as Mike tyson’s talent was. That’s not to say they don’t work hard. Edison said genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. If you don’t have that 1% innate talent, you can’t make that up with 100% perspiration. It is in this sense being a GOAT for Tyson was easier than the nerds. But for the math/science nerds, CalTech is infinitely easier than the boxing GOAT Mike Tyson. These nerds who may be talented in math/science, however, may have trouble at ivies that evaluate students holistically. CalTech will always be below the GOATs of the intellectual world.

Ivies seem to more interested in kids that are exceptional in a particular discipline that in anything wholistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Move Caltech a notch below. Not really above Columbia or Chicago. It’s not a comprehensive university and in the public eye, generally not as well known.

CalTech is a niche school, don’t belong with ivy schools. It’s like Olympics athletes who are born with skills that the average people can’t compete with. I actually give them less credit than DCUM. It’s like mike Tyson and his destructive punches. I don’t doubt he worked hard, but the gift from God made it that much easier. Likewise, science and math geeks will have an easier time getting into CalTech. USNews for it right to place it below most ivies next to WashU, Vandy, Emory, NU...

You have no idea what you're saying and are wrong on various counts here.

For CalTech to say it should be ranked higher on par with ivies is like saying Mike Tyson should have sweeped Nobel prizes bc he was #1 in boxing. CalTech is for kids who are born with natural talent in math/sciences - but nothing else.

1) It's Caltech.
2) This is an extremely limited and uninformed view of both Caltech and people who are gifted in STEM.
3) Science and math geeks will not have an "easier" time getting into Caltech.
4) Northwestern is not "below" the Ivies, and is perennially ranked above WashU, Vandy, and Emory. I don't believe in touting the rankings, but since that's the metric you're using...
5) Your analogy with Mike Tyson makes zero sense, as STEM fields constitute many of the categories for the Nobel Prizes.

You seem not to know too much about Caltech. Have you ever visited?

Some of Math/science talent is innate, just as Mike tyson’s talent was. That’s not to say they don’t work hard. Edison said genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. If you don’t have that 1% innate talent, you can’t make that up with 100% perspiration. It is in this sense being a GOAT for Tyson was easier than the nerds. But for the math/science nerds, CalTech is infinitely easier than the boxing GOAT Mike Tyson. These nerds who may be talented in math/science, however, may have trouble at ivies that evaluate students holistically. CalTech will always be below the GOATs of the intellectual world.

Anonymous wrote:I toured Princeton with my son hoping he would fall in love with it but he hated it. He disliked the suburban feel of it and found it boring. I kept telling him it is rated #1 for undergrad education but he said he didn’t care. He would rather go to a #2, 3,4 or 5 rated school that is more exciting. He is planning to apply ED to Columbia this November. It’s fine if he doesn’t get in as he is excited about some other schools as well. But Princeton has been crossed off his list.

Has a similar issue with my DD. Princeton is best toured when in session if possible or it suffers from a sleepy vibe. It does not have the advantage of urban excitement or more remote outdoorsy adventure vibe. It was first on my list of what I thought would be a great match for DD but did not make it to first place for that early application.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Move Caltech a notch below. Not really above Columbia or Chicago. It’s not a comprehensive university and in the public eye, generally not as well known.

CalTech is a niche school, don’t belong with ivy schools. It’s like Olympics athletes who are born with skills that the average people can’t compete with. I actually give them less credit than DCUM. It’s like mike Tyson and his destructive punches. I don’t doubt he worked hard, but the gift from God made it that much easier. Likewise, science and math geeks will have an easier time getting into CalTech. USNews for it right to place it below most ivies next to WashU, Vandy, Emory, NU...

You have no idea what you're saying and are wrong on various counts here.

For CalTech to say it should be ranked higher on par with ivies is like saying Mike Tyson should have sweeped Nobel prizes bc he was #1 in boxing. CalTech is for kids who are born with natural talent in math/sciences - but nothing else.

1) It's Caltech.
2) This is an extremely limited and uninformed view of both Caltech and people who are gifted in STEM.
3) Science and math geeks will not have an "easier" time getting into Caltech.
4) Northwestern is not "below" the Ivies, and is perennially ranked above WashU, Vandy, and Emory. I don't believe in touting the rankings, but since that's the metric you're using...
5) Your analogy with Mike Tyson makes zero sense, as STEM fields constitute many of the categories for the Nobel Prizes.

You seem not to know too much about Caltech. Have you ever visited?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Move Caltech a notch below. Not really above Columbia or Chicago. It’s not a comprehensive university and in the public eye, generally not as well known.

CalTech is a niche school, don’t belong with ivy schools. It’s like Olympics athletes who are born with skills that the average people can’t compete with. I actually give them less credit than DCUM. It’s like mike Tyson and his destructive punches. I don’t doubt he worked hard, but the gift from God made it that much easier. Likewise, science and math geeks will have an easier time getting into CalTech. USNews for it right to place it below most ivies next to WashU, Vandy, Emory, NU...

You have no idea what you're saying and are wrong on various counts here.

For CalTech to say it should be ranked higher on par with ivies is like saying Mike Tyson should have sweeped Nobel prizes bc he was #1 in boxing. CalTech is for kids who are born with natural talent in math/sciences - but nothing else.