Washington Post actually combined and averaged the composite ranking of universities and LACs by many rankings last years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/10/20/heres-a-new-college-ranking-based-entirely-on-other-college-rankings/

The universities top 5? Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale.

The LAC top 5? Amherst, Pomona, Williams, Wellesley, Bowdoin (Swarthmore was 8th).

No cute 5 word acronym to make with A/P/W/W/B!

Anonymous wrote:They are only more prestigious for the unwashed masses. The people who are in the know would be more impressed by AWS undergrads with the appropriately distinguished graduate degree (varies with subject matter).

Lol AWS is not a thing, there is one poster who repeatedly tries to make it happen. it won't.

I used HYPSM in the comparative sense against Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore since that is what the topic/posts were about. I don't use the term myself, nor do I hear grads from those 5 schools using it. Referring to others who don't know your liveral arts college as "unwashed masses" feels extremely elitist and narcissistic. I know how excellent these schools are, and I could see the right student picking them over HYPSM, but that is not something which happens when the average yield for these schools is 42% compared to 75% at the 5 universities.

And regardless of whether or not I use the term, HYPSM do show up at the usual top 5 for a bunch of factors among their peers group- acceptance rates, yields, endowments, most rankings. The only time I've seen WAS in that position was by US News, and even then Swarthmore is in a three way tie. If you or the AWS poster (or if you are one and the same) can substantiate many distinct rankings and factors where these 3 are the consistent top performers among top LACs, I'll take back my point about it being a silly acronym. Even then, I will not back my assertion that these schools hold not a candle against HYPSM.

Sorry for typos/grammar errors, typing on phone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are only more prestigious for the unwashed masses. The people who are in the know would be more impressed by AWS undergrads with the appropriately distinguished graduate degree (varies with subject matter).

No, the only unwashed mass is you. Anyone who actually knows what these schools against HYPSM looks like knows there is no comparison. You think a school with a 17% admit rate, 45% yield (inflated by filling half the class with ED), and that only ranks 17th for test scores nationally is comparable to HYPSM or even other lower ranked universities with higher profiles? No research facilities, world class professors, a limited course selection in rural MA with only 2000 undergrads means as robust of an experience? Yeah, keep telling yourself that lie if it'll help you sleep at night. The leagues of insecurity by LAC grads- especially the immature ones who use terms like AWS or whatever to feel good about themselves- is inane. And unlike HYPSM who clearly are a league above other schools by most factors, AWS aren't even better than other some other LACs as measured by the aformentioned and other institutional factors. Look to your surroundings first before looking to the clouds that your alma mater is nowhere near.

Who's the immature one? One who uses "HYPSM" but puts down someone who uses "AWS"? You seem to like putting others down to feel better about yourself.

MIT may be more prestigious for engineering and computer science (roughly the equal of Stanford).

Anonymous wrote:They are only more prestigious for the unwashed masses. The people who are in the know would be more impressed by AWS undergrads with the appropriately distinguished graduate degree (varies with subject matter).

No, the only unwashed mass is you. Anyone who actually knows what these schools against HYPSM looks like knows there is no comparison. You think a school with a 17% admit rate, 45% yield (inflated by filling half the class with ED), and that only ranks 17th for test scores nationally is comparable to HYPSM or even other lower ranked universities with higher profiles? No research facilities, world class professors, a limited course selection in rural MA with only 2000 undergrads means as robust of an experience? Yeah, keep telling yourself that lie if it'll help you sleep at night. The leagues of insecurity by LAC grads- especially the immature ones who use terms like AWS or whatever to feel good about themselves- is inane. And unlike HYPSM who clearly are a league above other schools by most factors, AWS aren't even better than other some other LACs as measured by the aformentioned and other institutional factors. Look to your surroundings first before looking to the clouds that your alma mater is nowhere near.

They are only more prestigious for the unwashed masses. The people who are in the know would be more impressed by AWS undergrads with the appropriately distinguished graduate degree (varies with subject matter).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT was MIT for a long time before it got incorporated into HYPSM. *It* didn't change; the perception of its desirability did. The point is prestige is faddish. Tech is in vogue. How long that will last is a matter of debate (see NYT article about job prospects). And if it does last, it could easily represent a threat to elite colleges as we know them.

A part of me thinks that the M is in there as an attempt to bolster the scholarly cred of HYPS -- i.e. to pretend that this constellation represents an aspiration to academic excellence rather than to fame/power/status/fortune or perhaps that acceptance into the club is a mark of brains and determination rather than of privilege. The kids for whom HYPS are essentially interchangeable are typically not good candidates for MIT (and vice versa).

The kids who went to MIT when I went to an Ivy had typically been rejected by HYP. Has that changed?

So you mean to say that an engineering applicant would be rejected at Yale but accepted to MIT? really? when was that? must have been very very long ago.

Not true nowadays. MIT is arguably harder than both Princeton and Yale to get in. Also has a more prestigious name internationally than either. Same goes for S.

HYPS are all more prestigious than MIT here in the USA.

I think MIT is more prestigious than Princeton and Yale even within the US. Might have to do with location within the US, but I have my doubts because MIT has a higher yield than both Yale and Princeton.

Agree with person above though, outside the US MIT, Harvard and Stanford are for sure more prestigious than Yale and Princeton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT was MIT for a long time before it got incorporated into HYPSM. *It* didn't change; the perception of its desirability did. The point is prestige is faddish. Tech is in vogue. How long that will last is a matter of debate (see NYT article about job prospects). And if it does last, it could easily represent a threat to elite colleges as we know them.

A part of me thinks that the M is in there as an attempt to bolster the scholarly cred of HYPS -- i.e. to pretend that this constellation represents an aspiration to academic excellence rather than to fame/power/status/fortune or perhaps that acceptance into the club is a mark of brains and determination rather than of privilege. The kids for whom HYPS are essentially interchangeable are typically not good candidates for MIT (and vice versa).

The kids who went to MIT when I went to an Ivy had typically been rejected by HYP. Has that changed?

Lol......I seriously doubt that you went to an HYP. Nobody, and I mean nobody, i know that went to one of these schools would be so insecure and crass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT was MIT for a long time before it got incorporated into HYPSM. *It* didn't change; the perception of its desirability did. The point is prestige is faddish. Tech is in vogue. How long that will last is a matter of debate (see NYT article about job prospects). And if it does last, it could easily represent a threat to elite colleges as we know them.

A part of me thinks that the M is in there as an attempt to bolster the scholarly cred of HYPS -- i.e. to pretend that this constellation represents an aspiration to academic excellence rather than to fame/power/status/fortune or perhaps that acceptance into the club is a mark of brains and determination rather than of privilege. The kids for whom HYPS are essentially interchangeable are typically not good candidates for MIT (and vice versa).

The kids who went to MIT when I went to an Ivy had typically been rejected by HYP. Has that changed?

So you mean to say that an engineering applicant would be rejected at Yale but accepted to MIT? really? when was that? must have been very very long ago.

Not true nowadays. MIT is arguably harder than both Princeton and Yale to get in. Also has a more prestigious name internationally than either. Same goes for S.

HYPS are all more prestigious than MIT here in the USA.

Re: original question.

imo there are no major practical advantages compared to other top 10 schools. A top student will not have a tangible advantage in their careers by attending Yale as opposed to Columbia for example.

What is pretty clear is that HYPSM is way way ahead of the other elites in terms of prestige. Which is why it is so desirable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT was MIT for a long time before it got incorporated into HYPSM. *It* didn't change; the perception of its desirability did. The point is prestige is faddish. Tech is in vogue. How long that will last is a matter of debate (see NYT article about job prospects). And if it does last, it could easily represent a threat to elite colleges as we know them.

A part of me thinks that the M is in there as an attempt to bolster the scholarly cred of HYPS -- i.e. to pretend that this constellation represents an aspiration to academic excellence rather than to fame/power/status/fortune or perhaps that acceptance into the club is a mark of brains and determination rather than of privilege. The kids for whom HYPS are essentially interchangeable are typically not good candidates for MIT (and vice versa).

The kids who went to MIT when I went to an Ivy had typically been rejected by HYP. Has that changed?

So you mean to say that an engineering applicant would be rejected at Yale but accepted to MIT? really? when was that? must have been very very long ago.

Not true nowadays. MIT is arguably harder than both Princeton and Yale to get in. Also has a more prestigious name internationally than either. Same goes for S.

Anonymous wrote:MIT was MIT for a long time before it got incorporated into HYPSM. *It* didn't change; the perception of its desirability did. The point is prestige is faddish. Tech is in vogue. How long that will last is a matter of debate (see NYT article about job prospects). And if it does last, it could easily represent a threat to elite colleges as we know them.

A part of me thinks that the M is in there as an attempt to bolster the scholarly cred of HYPS -- i.e. to pretend that this constellation represents an aspiration to academic excellence rather than to fame/power/status/fortune or perhaps that acceptance into the club is a mark of brains and determination rather than of privilege. The kids for whom HYPS are essentially interchangeable are typically not good candidates for MIT (and vice versa).

The kids who went to MIT when I went to an Ivy had typically been rejected by HYP. Has that changed?

MIT was MIT for a long time before it got incorporated into HYPSM. *It* didn't change; the perception of its desirability did. The point is prestige is faddish. Tech is in vogue. How long that will last is a matter of debate (see NYT article about job prospects). And if it does last, it could easily represent a threat to elite colleges as we know them.

A part of me thinks that the M is in there as an attempt to bolster the scholarly cred of HYPS -- i.e. to pretend that this constellation represents an aspiration to academic excellence rather than to fame/power/status/fortune or perhaps that acceptance into the club is a mark of brains and determination rather than of privilege. The kids for whom HYPS are essentially interchangeable are typically not good candidates for MIT (and vice versa).

I don't think this is true at the schools that lean grade deflated...e.g. MIT, Caltech, Williams, UChicago, Berkeley and may be Princeton. They do a pretty good job of reminding even the brightest that they're not all that and all are tough on average sudents.