"Ivy" School Status Forum

[AngryAvocado]

If US News ranked undergrads like it ranked grad programs, Berkeley would be top 6. Columbia would not.

Yeah, look at the rep scores...

Columbia's is twice as selective (10% vs 20%), has about a 200 point higher median SAT (on the 2400 scale), and is far higher ranked than Berkeley. I know rankings aren't the end-all-be-all, but it's not like we're arguing between 8 and 10. This is between 8 and 20+ (not that I think Berkeley should necessarily be THAT far behind, but it says something when USNWR has them behind schools like NoTTTre Dame and Emory). As far as rep scores, I've never heard of such a thing for UG but I'd like to see it. Either way, I don't think rep scores for something as amorphous as UG would be nearly as important as they would be for a clearly defined professional field like medicine or law.

But yeah, regarding the engineering school, I agree. Berkeley's is far superior.

[bloodonthetracks]

FUCK USNEWS. seriously, stop drinking the kool-aid, everyone.

[showNprove]

.

[Nom Sawyer]

UNC > Berkeley by far... I mean can the Golden Bears even play basketball??

[bloodonthetracks]

Columbia's is twice as selective (10% vs 20%), has about a 200 point higher median SAT (on the 2400 scale), and is far higher ranked than Berkeley. I know rankings aren't the end-all-be-all, but it's not like we're arguing between 8 and 10. This is between 8 and 20+ (not that I think Berkeley should necessarily be THAT far behind, but it says something when USNWR has them behind schools like NoTTTre Dame and Emory). As far as rep scores, I've never heard of such a thing for UG but I'd like to see it. Either way, I don't think rep scores for something as amorphous as UG would be nearly as important as they would be for a clearly defined professional field like medicine or law.

But yeah, regarding the engineering school, I agree. Berkeley's is far superior.

The rep scores for undergrad:

1. Harvard (4.9)
1. Princeton (4.9)
1. Stanford (4.9)
1. MIT (4.9)
5. Yale (4.8 )
6. Berkeley (4.7)
7. Columbia (4.6)
7. Chicago (4.6)
7. Cal Tech (4.6)
10. Penn (4.5)
10. Cornell (4.5)
10. Johns Hopkins (4.5)
13. Michigan (4.4)
13. Brown (4.4)
13. Duke (4.4)
16. Virginia (4.3)
16. Dartmouth (4.3)
16. Northwestern (4.3)
19. Carnegie Mellon (4.2)
19. UCLA (4.2)
21. UNC-Chapel Hill (4.1)
21. Wisconsin (4.1)
21. WUSTL (4.1)

I bet you even Brian Leiter thinks the USNWR undergrad rankings are more craptastic than the law school rankings. These represent what other academics think about the schools. I understand this may not be the end-all-be-all, but the USNWR formula ranking diverge from these so much that it's a joke.

I have no affiliation with Berkeley. I have an East Coast Bias. But even I think that anyone who doesn't believe that Berkeley is at least a Top-10 school doesn't have any idea what he is talking about.

i assume this is only a list of "national universities." because places like swarthmore, amherst, etc. etc. are certainly better than a lot of these schools for undergrad. and if undergrad is the measure, michigan has absolutely no business in the top 15; that's just absurd.

[Fevsi]

Those endowment estimates are way off. Harvard is more like 40 billion and Yale is around 20. Also, outside of HYP, the endowments drop dramatically to numbers quite comparable to their non-Ivy peers. To be honest, outside of the Top 3, the Ivy distinction is very overblown. There are so many schools that are at least as impressive as most of the Ivies (Stanford, MIT, CalTech, Chicago, Duke, etc.) that often the distinction just seems like an attempt for non-HYP Ivies to associate themselves with the Big 3.

Oh yeah, and it's a sports conference.

Stanford's endowment is fucking enormous; in fact, it's significantly larger than Princeton's and either very close to or larger than Yale's. Harvard's is the biggest by far. All endowments have taken a hit recently, but Stanford's has fared relatively well because so much of the school's money is tied to Silicon Valley tech (Google, Yahoo, HP all have very close ties to Stanford), which is faring better as an industry than most.

Also, this is a total urban legend. It did not happen:

Although schools like Stanford are relatively new, the founder of the school invested all his money into getting it all started (after getting rejected from Harvard for a deal that he was trying to pull on getting one of his family members' name on one of their buildings).

Believe me, people at Harvard would have had a very clear idea of who Leland Stanford was. He founded Stanford in honor of his son (which is why the school's official name is Leland Stanford Junior University), who died in Europe of TB or something.

Ok, just to clarify the issue of endowments once and for all:
Stanford: 12.6billion (from 18 two years ago, provost and I disagree with "it fared well," btw - 26% vs -20% Columbia, -22% Princeton)
Princeton: 12.6billion

Ivys:
H 25.6 (from 36 or sth)
Y 16.3
C 6
Penn 5
Cornell 4
Dartmouth 3
Brown 2

Non-Ivys:
U Texas 12
MIT 8
UoMichigan 6
NW 5.4
Chicago 5.1

The trend is clear, I think: outside the top 2 (HY), there is no big difference between top "Ivy" and top "non" Ivy in endowment. In fact, Cornell would be #18 by endowment, and Dartmouth and Brown don't even make it to top 20.

Non-Ivies

[showNprove]

i assume this is only a list of "national universities." because places like swarthmore, amherst, etc. etc. are certainly better than a lot of these schools for undergrad. and if undergrad is the measure, michigan has absolutely no business in the top 15; that's just absurd.

Do you go to Ohio State? Michigan is a great school.

[im_blue]

i assume this is only a list of "national universities." because places like swarthmore, amherst, etc. etc. are certainly better than a lot of these schools for undergrad. and if undergrad is the measure, michigan has absolutely no business in the top 15; that's just absurd.

Do you go to Ohio State? Michigan is a great school.

His profile says "non-HYP Ivy" so I'd say he goes to Brown, which is tied at #13 with Michigan for UG rep.

[Dany]

I can't believe this topic made it to four pages.

Anyway, to contribute: the plural of "Ivy" is "Ivies." Just like in elementary school, 'change the y to an i and add -es!'

[whitman]

If US News ranked undergrads like it ranked grad programs, Berkeley would be top 6. Columbia would not.

Yeah, look at the rep scores...

Columbia's is twice as selective (10% vs 20%), has about a 200 point higher median SAT (on the 2400 scale), and is far higher ranked than Berkeley. I know rankings aren't the end-all-be-all, but it's not like we're arguing between 8 and 10. This is between 8 and 20+ (not that I think Berkeley should necessarily be THAT far behind, but it says something when USNWR has them behind schools like NoTTTre Dame and Emory). As far as rep scores, I've never heard of such a thing for UG but I'd like to see it. Either way, I don't think rep scores for something as amorphous as UG would be nearly as important as they would be for a clearly defined professional field like medicine or law.

But yeah, regarding the engineering school, I agree. Berkeley's is far superior.

It's a state school. Of course it's ranked lower and has less selectivity. Cal (and UCLA) undergrad, like UNC undergrad and UVA, all have state-mandated quotas for in-state students. The stats are lower. Out of state stats compare favorably to HYS. The important thing, though, is that due to the criteria of USNWR, etc, rankings are weighed in favor of private schools. I think you'd find that the top publics - Cal, UCLA, UVA, UNC, Michigan - are generally considered better schools than their USNWR peers, ie the Notre Dame's and Emory's.

[Tofu]

I've always felt like Berkeley's UG hurts it when looking at the overall university (the top level feels more like HS instead of HSB for me). Assuming that HSB (HBS reminds me too much of the business school) make up the first tier for overall university, which schools do you guys think would make up the second tier?

Regarding UCSF, I think it'd be better to treat it as a separate school from Berkeley.

[im_blue]

I've always felt like Berkeley's UG hurts it when looking at the overall university (the top level feels more like HS instead of HSB for me). Assuming that HSB (HBS reminds me too much of the business school) make up the first tier for overall university, which schools do you guys think would make up the second tier?

Regarding UCSF, I think it'd be better to treat it as a separate school from Berkeley.

Here's an incomplete list of schools I'd put in the 2nd tier behind HSB, in no particular order:
Yale, Chicago, Princeton, Michigan, Columbia, Penn, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern, UCLA

Yale and Chicago have excellent professional and PhD programs (minus engineering), Princeton has top PhD programs in nearly every field, and Michigan and Cornell are the most well-rounded of this group.

[crackberry]

So, by my estimation (I have no idea why I'm interested in this; I really have no dog in the fight)...

Columbia has better: Undergraduate (significantly), business, law, and medical schools
Berkeley has better: Engineering (significantly), graduate/PhD programs (in aggregate)

I think a case could be made for either, but Columbia certainly belongs in the discussion.

Uhh what? Haas (Berkeley) is a better business school than Columbia Business School.

If we're saying UCSF is Berkeley's medical school then Berkeley > Columbia for that, too. If not, then the point is moot because Berkeley has no med school.

[parker09]

Jesus, this thread is ostentatious.

+1

ITT: Non-HYP undergrads wrestle it out for #4.

[underachiever]

Are we really having a Undergrad pissing match?

Berkeley gets hit rep wise b/c of its Left wing-hippy cultural (that many believe it has, wrong or right)

Columbia is in NYC and this helps (same reason it helped NYU come from somewhat obscurity to a known school)

Plus there is a natural East Coast bias in the US

Every damn kid thinks his UG is top20 or top10.....im sick of it...."baby ivy", "public ivy", "ivy"....its BS mostly, i mean the grade inflation at these places is unreal and most high school seniors in America, like me, have no idea of US News rankings. I applied to schools based on college sports teams and random free schools on common app. And being poor, I went to the cheapest school. Looking back, I thought my SAT was so low that I couldn't compete with these kids, wow I was wrong. Even at Penn UG now the average SAT is only a 1420 (out of 1600).

[englawyer]

Are we really having a Undergrad pissing match?

Berkeley gets hit rep wise b/c of its Left wing-hippy cultural (that many believe it has, wrong or right)

Columbia is in NYC and this helps (same reason it helped NYU come from somewhat obscurity to a known school)

Plus there is a natural East Coast bias in the US

Every damn kid thinks his UG is top20 or top10.....im sick of it...."baby ivy", "public ivy", "ivy"....its BS mostly, i mean the grade inflation at these places is unreal and most high school seniors in America, like me, have no idea of US News rankings. I applied to schools based on college sports teams and random free schools on common app. And being poor, I went to the cheapest school. Looking back, I thought my SAT was so low that I couldn't compete with these kids, wow I was wrong. Even at Penn UG now the average SAT is only a 1420 (out of 1600).

if you were poor, your SAT wouldn't have been the limiting factor most likely; instead it would have been lack of the proper softs (volunteer, science competitions, and whatnot). a softs-based admissions process also has its downsides.

[Borhas]

Jesus, this thread is ostentatious.

+1

ITT: Non-HYP undergrads wrestle it out for #4.

HYP aren't 1, 2, and 3, H might be 3, YP definitely not

[Fancy Pants]

Jesus, this thread is ostentatious.

+1

ITT: Non-HYP undergrads wrestle it out for #4.

HYP aren't 1, 2, and 3, H might be 3, YP definitely not

--ImageRemoved--

[Borhas]

[parker09]

[bloodonthetracks]

Those endowment estimates are way off. Harvard is more like 40 billion and Yale is around 20. Also, outside of HYP, the endowments drop dramatically to numbers quite comparable to their non-Ivy peers. To be honest, outside of the Top 3, the Ivy distinction is very overblown. There are so many schools that are at least as impressive as most of the Ivies (Stanford, MIT, CalTech, Chicago, Duke, etc.) that often the distinction just seems like an attempt for non-HYP Ivies to associate themselves with the Big 3.

Oh yeah, and it's a sports conference.

Stanford's endowment is fucking enormous; in fact, it's significantly larger than Princeton's and either very close to or larger than Yale's. Harvard's is the biggest by far. All endowments have taken a hit recently, but Stanford's has fared relatively well because so much of the school's money is tied to Silicon Valley tech (Google, Yahoo, HP all have very close ties to Stanford), which is faring better as an industry than most.

Also, this is a total urban legend. It did not happen:

Although schools like Stanford are relatively new, the founder of the school invested all his money into getting it all started (after getting rejected from Harvard for a deal that he was trying to pull on getting one of his family members' name on one of their buildings).

Believe me, people at Harvard would have had a very clear idea of who Leland Stanford was. He founded Stanford in honor of his son (which is why the school's official name is Leland Stanford Junior University), who died in Europe of TB or something.

Ok, just to clarify the issue of endowments once and for all:
Stanford: 12.6billion (from 18 two years ago, provost and I disagree with "it fared well," btw - 26% vs -20% Columbia, -22% Princeton)
Princeton: 12.6billion

Ivys:
H 25.6 (from 36 or sth)
Y 16.3
C 6
Penn 5
Cornell 4
Dartmouth 3
Brown 2

Non-Ivys:
U Texas 12
MIT 8
UoMichigan 6
NW 5.4
Chicago 5.1

The trend is clear, I think: outside the top 2 (HY), there is no big difference between top "Ivy" and top "non" Ivy in endowment. In fact, Cornell would be #18 by endowment, and Dartmouth and Brown don't even make it to top 20.

Non-Ivies

I agree that this thread fucking sucks. But I can't let this slip by. It makes no sense to judge by absolute endowments. You need to look at endowment PER CAPITA (undergrad + grad). UMich has 42,000 students; Dartmouth has 4,000. Texas has 51,000 students; Brown has 8,000. etc...