Anonymous wrote:Harvard will fall out of top 10 unless they invest in STEM (CS) heavily for the next 10 years.

Anonymous wrote:Harvard will fall out of top 10 unless they invest in STEM (CS) heavily for the next 10 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

What kind of ridiculous logic does it take to 1) tier elite colleges and then 2) decide yale is somehow in a second tier? Where is you logic, your metrics, your analytics? Oh, you don't have any and you pulled this right out of your a$$? Ok, makes sense now.

The whole thing makes NO sense and you should stop.

It’s fair to put Yale a tier lower honestly. The tier 1 schools excel across the board whereas Yale has been lacking in STEM for decades. Yale STEM is not bad by any means of course but not the best of the best like the rest of tier 1. This is also reflected by the fact that the tier 1 schools (HPSM) don’t have to offer any scholarships or special programs to recruit students. All of the tier 2 schools (including Yale) have special scholarship programs.

Harvard does not excel in STEM as well and thus the decline for the past decade or so. The decline may accelerate if the near future due to increasing importance of technology and STEM in general. I know someone who received both BS and MS in CS from Harvard and is working for Capitol One...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

What kind of ridiculous logic does it take to 1) tier elite colleges and then 2) decide yale is somehow in a second tier? Where is you logic, your metrics, your analytics? Oh, you don't have any and you pulled this right out of your a$$? Ok, makes sense now.

The whole thing makes NO sense and you should stop.

It’s fair to put Yale a tier lower honestly. The tier 1 schools excel across the board whereas Yale has been lacking in STEM for decades. Yale STEM is not bad by any means of course but not the best of the best like the rest of tier 1. This is also reflected by the fact that the tier 1 schools (HPSM) don’t have to offer any scholarships or special programs to recruit students. All of the tier 2 schools (including Yale) have special scholarship programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

What kind of ridiculous logic does it take to 1) tier elite colleges and then 2) decide yale is somehow in a second tier? Where is you logic, your metrics, your analytics? Oh, you don't have any and you pulled this right out of your a$$? Ok, makes sense now.

The whole thing makes NO sense and you should stop.

It’s fair to put Yale a tier lower honestly. The tier 1 schools excel across the board whereas Yale has been lacking in STEM for decades. Yale STEM is not bad by any means of course but not the best of the best like the rest of tier 1. This is also reflected by the fact that the tier 1 schools (HPSM) don’t have to offer any scholarships or special programs to recruit students. All of the tier 2 schools (including Yale) have special scholarship programs.

It is mystifying how Yale continues to be ranked in the top 10. As the previous poster noted, Yale does not have a meaningful STEM program. Maryland, UIUC, Purdue, Georgia Tech, Texas, Michigan, Berkeley are all far better schools in the hard subjects. I'm sure Yale is a lovely place if you'd like to become an English teacher, but if you want to do something meaningful at NASA or FAANG you don't go to Yale. That's your grandmother's school. Today, Yale in the top 10 is an anachronism.

I heard CS at Yale kinda sucks and they are desperate for talent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite:

HYPSM + Ivies
Chicago
Duke
Northwestern
Caltech
Johns Hopkins
Williams
Amherst

That's it. The rest of the top 20-30 are "top schools" but I would not categorize them as elite.

Skip Duke and Hopkins and I'll buy it.

and cmon folks, deep down no one really considers Williams or Amherst elite. Great schools but meh prestige. Williams alumns always have to
mention LAC ranking when explaining where they went

Anonymous wrote:I think a top college is top 25 national, top 10 LAC; but some people won’t recognize the LAC’s.
Elite is HYPSM

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

Anonymous wrote:Five seconds on this board indicates that “top colleges” are, actually, an obsession for so many people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me elite means if you want, you can get a your foot in the door in almost any career without too much difficulty based on the reputability of the degree/strength of the alumni base (and of course with some relevant skills on the kid’s behalf). I would say

Group 1: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Group 2: Yale, Duke, UPenn, Columbia, Caltech

Group 3: Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona

Group 4: Georgetown, WashU, Notre Dame, etc…

Anything in the top 3 groups is probably fair to consider “universally elite” if one wants to be safe. Some may not know the LACs as well though so beware of that

this is the best post on this thread

but geez, no luv for Cornell?