Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

NEU sends low-stat students to study abroad so that they can return to campus for the spring. This allows them to retain high-testing students for the fall (the only ones who get formally counted) so their testing numbers are as high as possible and acceptance rates can be reported as lower than they actually are. USC and Middlebury do the same thing with spring admits.

This is part of why NEU will never be viewed as elite or prestigious by either academia or the prestige-driven industries. The whole institution reeks of desperation.

*source

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

Hahahahaha NEU is not elite by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't say it's elite. Just provided the most objective stats.

NP. Interesting you bring up NEU. DS, an 11th grader, is very excited about applying there. While I wouldn't consider it prestigious and has benefitted from playing the "ratings game", is it that far off? Another decade of acceptance rates in the teens? What defines "prestigious" anyway?

PP. As a follow up, endowment numbers for each mentioned:

NEU $1.1B
UVa $15.4B
GA Tech $2.2B
UCB $5B
Mich $17B

What's the source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment

UVa 7.26
Mich 12.48

Your sour pcr is 2 years old. Try to keep up!

Anonymous wrote:Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

NEU sends low-stat students to study abroad so that they can return to campus for the spring. This allows them to retain high-testing students for the fall (the only ones who get formally counted) so their testing numbers are as high as possible and acceptance rates can be reported as lower than they actually are. USC and Middlebury do the same thing with spring admits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

Hahahahaha NEU is not elite by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't say it's elite. Just provided the most objective stats.

NP. Interesting you bring up NEU. DS, an 11th grader, is very excited about applying there. While I wouldn't consider it prestigious and has benefitted from playing the "ratings game", is it that far off? Another decade of acceptance rates in the teens? What defines "prestigious" anyway?

I would not wait with bated breath for Northeastern to become prestigious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

Hahahahaha NEU is not elite by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't say it's elite. Just provided the most objective stats.

NP. Interesting you bring up NEU. DS, an 11th grader, is very excited about applying there. While I wouldn't consider it prestigious and has benefitted from playing the "ratings game", is it that far off? Another decade of acceptance rates in the teens? What defines "prestigious" anyway?

PP. As a follow up, endowment numbers for each mentioned:

NEU $1.1B
UVa $15.4B
GA Tech $2.2B
UCB $5B
Mich $17B

What's the source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment

UVa 7.26
Mich 12.48

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

Hahahahaha NEU is not elite by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't say it's elite. Just provided the most objective stats.

NP. Interesting you bring up NEU. DS, an 11th grader, is very excited about applying there. While I wouldn't consider it prestigious and has benefitted from playing the "ratings game", is it that far off? Another decade of acceptance rates in the teens? What defines "prestigious" anyway?

PP. As a follow up, endowment numbers for each mentioned:

NEU $1.1B
UVa $15.4B
GA Tech $2.2B
UCB $5B
Mich $17B

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

Hahahahaha NEU is not elite by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't say it's elite. Just provided the most objective stats.

NP. Interesting you bring up NEU. DS, an 11th grader, is very excited about applying there. While I wouldn't consider it prestigious and has benefitted from playing the "ratings game", is it that far off? Another decade of acceptance rates in the teens? What defines "prestigious" anyway?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

Hahahahaha NEU is not elite by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't say it's elite. Just provided the most objective stats.

Anonymous wrote:Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

Hahahahaha NEU is not elite by any stretch of the imagination.

Northeasetern has better stats than some of the colleges here.

Northeastern - SAT:1390-1540, accpetance rate: 18%

UVA - SAT:1340-1520, accpetance rate: 24%
GIT - SAT:1300-1510, accpetance rate: 21%
Berkeley - SAT:1330-1530, accpetance rate: 16%
Michigan - SAT:1340-1530, accpetance rate: 23%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what makes Williams and Amherst more elite than Swarthmore and Pomona, to the point of being several tiers over? I am looking at several rankings (including national ones) and I see them all clustered in the same general area with no clear consensus on the best. Swarthmore and Pomona have the lowest acceptance rates, and are the most diverse LACs as well.

No one will be able to explain this, but I agree with you. To me, given the question from the OP - what are the "bottom" of the elites, it includes UCLA, Cal and Michigan from the publics, at least 4-6 SLACs and the core list of IVY/MIT/Stanford.CalTEch etc. Probably 30-35 or so schools mostly covered on different lists debated here.

It's because Amherst and Williams- athletics-dominated schools which only went co-ed in the 70s- have produced numerous predominantly white alumni who work for top-tier investment banking, finance, and politics. Their grads are pretty well-known in the elite stratosphere of NYC/DC/Boston because their alumni network has a strong, visible pipeline for them.

Swarthmore and Pomona- coed from the beginning and emphasizing diversity over athleticism- have egalitarian roots. Their grads are more inclined to go into academia or civil service. That's not seen as socially "elite", though it doesn't change the fact that as institutions they very much are comparable to A/W.

Fundamentally, being elite is less about objectivity and more about perception. Harvey Mudd College, another one in the Pomona consortium, objectively has absurdly high-stat students and outcomes in top academia/technology/engineering exceeding most of the Ivy League and rivaling MIT/Caltech. But how many here will recognize it as an elite institution?

Anonymous wrote:Imagine thinking West point is more elite than Emory, Notre Dame or Rice...Just delusional. Pomona is also not elite.

If you dont think Pomona is elite then you don’t think any LAC is elite.

Imagine thinking West point is more elite than Emory, Notre Dame or Rice...Just delusional. Pomona is also not elite.