Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

If you had to rate the selectivity of the schools, the one least likely to depend on your SATs, and thus would be easier to enter which would it be?
Brown, Darthmouth or UPenn?
And is Darthmouth considered too "white" as I've heard critics say? Are they socially cliquish due to their big Greek scene? However, I love their language abroad program
Any criticism about Brown either? Besides the fact that it is too far far my beloved NYC, I don't see any other fault with it, love the liberal majors..but I would love to hear constructive criticism about it.

Im considering applying to either those or Stanford..I heard that because Stanford as a non-Ivy League does not offer financial aid for international student and thus will mean that in'tn students have less competition compared to the need-blind Ivy Leagues. Is this debatable in any way?

Which chances would I have better as an International student considering my SAT scores are not too great

By Haon (Haon) on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Cornell is the easiest Ivy to get into...
Brown's probably the next easiest, but neither Dartmouth nor UPenn are significantly easier to get into than Brown. Cornell is around that level of selectivity as well.

The ONLY schools that are 100% needblind for international students are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, and Williams. The rest of the Ivy league is NOT.

By Rogerevans (Rogerevans) on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 04:47 am: Edit

Brown and Penn are both easier to get into than Cornell overall, and Columbia and Dartmouth are also less selective for admission than either Arts and Sciences or Engineering at Cornell. You shouldn't toss in Ag and Human Ecology (nee Home Economics) and then say that Cornell is easier to get into if you are comparing the Ivies when looking for traditional liberal arts majors or engineering. Brown, especially, is on rapid (relative) decline in desirability.

By Godavarian (Godavarian) on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 06:20 am: Edit

I'm an intl student as well, but I applied early to Stanford anyway. Although I haven't got much hope of getting in early, it's by far my first choice college, and I felt it was worth applying early. I'm applying regular to MIT and Harvard as well, by the way.

By Haon (Haon) on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Cornell includes Ag and Human Ecology...you get a Cornell degree from those schools so they are part of Cornell...you can't selectively include some of the schools but not others.

Dartmouth, Brown, and Penn are all as or more selective than Cornell Arts and Sciences anyways. Brown has some financial issues, but is still a very desirable school (just look at their acceptance rate).

By Zymosan2004 (Zymosan2004) on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Godavarian, do you think there is an university of equal match in engineering academics and reputation of Stanford in the UK? (cambridge, oxford, nottingham, bristol?)

By Doddy1 (Doddy1) on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 05:11 pm: Edit

I have just completed a degree in Biomedical Sciences at newcastle university (ranked number med school in da UK 2000), UK and have applied to Harvard Law School, what are my chances??!!!!!!????

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Just a thought... if Brown is too far away from NYC, then you would probably hate Dartmouth. (Nothing against Dartmouth, before people start jumping down my throat!) If you love NYC, then you are probably far too much of a city person to spend four years in Hanover. Yes, Hanover is lovely, the skiing is great, the campus is beautiful, it's a great college town... but it is the antithesis if NYC. Just a thought.

By Procrastinator (Procrastinator) on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 05:01 am: Edit

Ariesathena-I think you'll be right because ive considered the rural aspect of Darthmouth but ive heard many good reviews of darthmouth and besides its prestige is too much of a lure-is this the wrong way to look at it? Do you know much about the college?
And anybody else would like to recommend northeastern colleges that have a pretty good academic background-strong eng/lit departments and have good prestige too of course-and not too rural. I am open to any suggestions-I am considering UMass, ConnColl, Pitzer as my safeties..are there any body out there who could comment on these colleges..and its proximity to city centres too?

By Bern700 (Bern700) on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 10:20 pm: Edit

IMO, I'd say that the these are the selectivity ratings of the ivies (from least to most selective)

1. Cornell
2. Brown
3. Dartmouth,Columbia, Penn
4. Yale
5. Harvard, Princeton

I'd say that the only exception that I would note is that if applying to Wharton at Penn the selectivity is very very high (similar to Harvard, Princeton) but if you apply to the School of Nursing at Penn then it is not selective at all (I heard that their acceptance rate was over 50%)

By Metz (Metz) on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 10:50 pm: Edit

All of the Ivy's except for HYP and Cornell have a simlar SAT average, so with those it just comes down to acceptance numbers. Using an actual analysis of the numbers, I would say it would be:
1. Cornell
2. Dartmouth/Penn
3. Brown
4. Columbia
5. Yale
6. Harvard/Princeton (though probably Harvard is a little bit harder)

If you look at the numbers, I don't think you could come up with anything significantly different than that.

By Kyle (Kyle) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 03:00 am: Edit

Cornell is the easiest ivy to get into. Next would be Dartmouth/Penn/Brown, followed by Columbia, Yale, Princeton, and Harvard(the hardest).

Stanford is probably harder to get into than Yale, but slightly easier than Princeton/Harvard, and MIT is easier than Yale, but harder than Columbia. Northwestern, Berkeley (out of state), Wash U in St. Louis, Swarthmore, Amherst, and Cal Tech are all equally, if not more, selective than the bottom ivy's.

By Rogerevans (Rogerevans) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Brown, Dartmouth and Penn (excpet for Wharton) are demonstrably less selective than Cornell A & S or Engineering. Yes, you can "back door" through ILR or Hotel or Architecture, or Ag or Hum EC if in-state, but it is misleading to assert that it is "easier" to get into Cornell than all except HYP.

By Rogerevans (Rogerevans) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Brown, Dartmouth, and Penn (except for Wharton) are demonstrably less selective than Cornell ARts and Sciences or Engineering. Yes, you can "back door" through ILR, Ag, or HumEC if you are in-state, or get into Hotel or Architecture with somewhat lower test score credentials if you demonstrate great interest and aptitude for those programs, but Cornell Arts and Eng are more selective than all Ivies except HYP.

By Haon (Haon) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 08:18 pm: Edit

That's arguable Rogerevans. However, what's NOT arguable is that Cornell Arts and Eng are PART of Cornell...much like Ag and Hotel management are PART of Cornell...
thus when you talk about which Ivy is the easiest to enter, you MUST include each school as a whole--comparing the most selective school of Cornell to ALL of the parts of other schools is not a fair comparison.

While Cornell Eng *MAY* be more selective than Penn or Brown, Cornell as a whole isn't, and that's the only comparison that reasonably can be made.

By Haon (Haon) on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 08:25 pm: Edit

According to the USNWR 2004 selectivity ranking, the Ivies are ranked in this order:

Princeton (2)
Harvard (4)
Yale (4)
UPenn (7)
Dartmouth (9)
Columbia (9)
Brown (9)
Cornell (16)

According to The Atlantic Monthly Group's ranking (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/11/collegetable.htm) the order, including LACs is:

Princeton (2)
Yale (4)
Harvard (5)
Columbia (7)
UPenn (8)
Brown (9)
Dartmouth (15)
Cornell (21)

By Rogerevans (Rogerevans) on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Again, I do not disagree but think there is an important point which is overlooked in lumping Ag and HumEC and Hotel and Arch and ILR into the mix. One of Cornell's great and enduring strengths is that you can study a much broader range of subjects in Ithaca than anywhere else, as it includes "specialty" schools which do not demand, nor attract, those only bent on studying "traditional" Ivy League offerings. (Can you imagine studying to be a veterinarian at Princeton?) In my view, that is part of what makes Cornell a unique, diverse and wonderful American university. I also went to Harvard and Columbia, and was admitted at Yale and Penn (and did not apply to Princeton, Brown or Dartmouth), so do not have a particular axe to grind, just that it is misleading to view Cornell as a monolith when students are trying to assess their admissions chances at Arts and Sciences or Engineering, or at its other schools, each of which makes independent admissions decisions.

By Bern700 (Bern700) on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 04:38 am: Edit

Haon those are pretty accurate in my opinion

By Stanfordhopeful (Stanfordhopeful) on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 09:14 am: Edit

In my opinion (hardest to easiest):

Harvard
Yale/Princeton
Dartmouth/Columbia
U Penn (inflated because they take 50-60% of the class ED!)
Brown
Cornell

By Gs86 (Gs86) on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Overall acceptance rates:
Brown: 16% rd, 24% Ed

Columbia 12 rd, 34 ED

Cornell 31 rd

Dartmouth 21 rd, 33 ED

Harvard 8% rd, 11% early

Penn 26 rd, 46 ED

Princeton 11 rd, 31 ED

Yale 16 rd, 36 early

-- go by the numbers. Cornell is the easiest, followed by Penn and Dartmouth. Give Brown some credit!

By Cybernetica (Cybernetica) on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:00 am: Edit

Greetings aspiring ivy league statisticians,

I realize when ranking colleges and "how hard they are to get into" (particularly with that ever famous football league) it is tempting to go by selectivity indices (i.e. percentage of apps selected and so-called yield rates). However, you have to realize there are some fundamenta flaws of simplicity and false conclusions in the model of college selectivity analysis you presuppose.

If acceptance rates were the best measure of "how hard a college is to get into," than the U.S. Coast Guard academy would, for the past half decade, be by far the hardest school to get into in the country. Yet, if numerous applicants on this board to prestigious schools applied to the coast guard academy, given they didn't blow off the app/essays, didn't have any crippling asthma, etc, it would be very unlikely for any NOT to get in.

How do explain this disparity?

The answer lies in the COMPOSITION of applicants to a given school.

Columbia's Fu Foundation Undergrad Engineering program probably has a far higher acceptance rate than that of the U.S. coast guard academy, and I know for a fact that the aggregate acceptance rate for applications to Oxford University colleges (the most competitive being Baliol, New College, etc) was much higher than that of the U.S. coast guard academy or even the honors program at UT-Austin. (Obviously, much greater than that of Rice University where I live.) This, however does not actually mean that Oxford is actually easier to get INTO than the UT-Austin honors program.

Why is this?

Answer: The applicant pool for places like Oxford and Columbia's Fu program is far more SELF-SELECTING than it is for UT-Austin, the U.S. coast guard academy, or a generic Brown liberal arts major.

Comparitively very few high school students in the U.S. have the mathematical/scientific self-confidence, demonstrated skills, and bent of mind (other sociological factors at work also, no doubt) to make them feel confident enough to apply to a highly competitive engineering program. Particularly since the hosting school Columbia is stereotyped in being a liberal arts elite in the national consciousness and not a technical one, it is only a certain kind of serious candidate that applies to Fu as opposed to say the guy who finished most of his state school apps and applies to MIT's engineering for the rep/heck of it.

On the other hand, there are tons of perfectly normal, non-academic/extracurricular superstar high school students all across America who figure "hey! I could use some extra dough, a free three year(?) education, and the opportunity to bust cocaine smugglers, instead of paying for a lousy community college/ vocational school, etc". Thus, the U.S. coast guard academy recieves a far higher volume of applicants for its spaces than Columbia's Fu foundation, and this is turn makes its "selectivity rating" (by your formula) go up.

In the same vane of thought, the number of U.S. high school students seriously interested enough in a particular field of study to commit to that major permanently for their first undergrad degree, submit an original research paper involving an issue on that field, and undergo timed oral and written examinations in that field as part of the normal Oxford or Cambridge application process from the U.S. is significantly lower than the number of run-of-the-mill "free time poets" or "newspaper writers" who are convinced come november of their senior year that joy-ride, grade-free Brown would be "the perfect place for them." Last year, only 200 people from the U.S. applied to Oxford. TWO HUNDRED...versus thousands upon thousands applying as freshman to Brown. In addition to the foreign factor and others already mentioned, most people weren't willing to sign an official statement saying "I intend to concentrate in PPP - Philosophy, Psychology, and Physiology - as part of an integrated cognitive science study program, (or say PPE - Politics, Philosophy, and Economics - as part of an education in the sociopolitioeconomic factors of developing nations) for the next three years of my life with no courses outside my major, no questions asked). But quite a few were willing to write vague major statements about their love for "history" or "writing" and their adoration of Brown's educational "freedom policies."

And so? Oxford accepted 25% of applications last year (around 50 people) while Brown accepted 16% (24%, ED). Does this mean Oxford is far easier school to get into than Brown, or (going even further), a far less educationally effective or internationally "prestigious" school than Brown? Most likely not.

So acceptance rates, unfortunately, tell you relatively little about either the difficulty involved in getting into a school and far less about the quality of the school you are applying to.

If the college admissions games were so easily reduced to numbers, I am sure it would be a lot less stressful. But, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way .

All the best guys - thanks for entertaining my diatribe.

Warmly,
Sahil

By Admissioner (Admissioner) on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 07:45 am: Edit

Sahil provides an interesting post, and the basic argument is sound although admissions rates generally do tell you a bit about how easy it is to get into a school. However, the comments about Brown are not really accurate.

According to the Admissions Office at Brown, the average rejected applicant has close to the same statistics as the average accepted candidate - similar SATs and APs but slightly lower average class rank. This class rank skew exists at all selective schools including Oxford and Cambridge, as it is easier to be accepted if one has a higher class rank (check out the Brown web site to see the acceptance rates for various class ranks and deciles).

Since the stats for accepted and rejected are similar, if one is impressed by the stats of the accepted applicants, then one should be impressed with the stats of the total applicant pool. This implies that the candidate pool is strong and most likely self-selection is already occurring, albeit to a lesser extent than at Oxford or Cambridge.

Brown may be attractive because f its open curriculum, but it is neither "grade-free" nor a "joy-ride". According to a past review of its curriculum, over 75% of Brown courses are taken with an A/B/C/NC option rather than an S/NC one. Furthermore, the grand majority of students graduate with transcripts that comprehensively cover the same areas of study featured in most schools' core curricula.

To paraphrase the Admissions Office, the emphasis and responsibility for education lies primarily with the student, which is not the best approach for everyone. I recognise that this is not understood or its effects appreciated by those who would often rather dismiss the college as being lightweight. And there really is no such thing as a "generic Brown liberal arts major"... at all Ivy and Ivy-like schools, there really is no generic student.

As for Oxford and Cambridge admissions (I am a New College man myself), the US high school system is not set up to prepare its seniors for an Oxbridge education. In practice, most UK-source Oxbridge students have already had a year's worth of university-level education in their high schools (preparing for A levels mainly) before entering an Oxbridge college. This is one main reason why neither school promotes heavily in the US - most US seniors would not be ready to undergo the tutorial process that is central to an Oxbridge education. I believe although I cannot validate that is the main source of self-selection; most US seniors do not know about Oxford or Cambridge in the first place, and most of those that do would not have nearly the chance of acceptance that they do to an elite US-based university.

An interesting topic. Thanks for considering my sometimes defensive diatribe. Good luck to all of you hopefuls out there.

By Morgantruce (Morgantruce) on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 08:25 am: Edit

Procrastinator,

Your original question makes it sound to me that you don't really think of yourself as good candidate for getting into such an elite group of colleges, and are attempting to squeak in at the lowest possible level that will still allow you to say "I am an Ivy League student."

Besides asking yourself "Why is this so important to me?" you should be finding the few colleges that are indeed the very best match for YOU.

By Haon (Haon) on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 03:06 pm: Edit

The fact that students average 1 S/NC class per semester quite honestly, shocks me. I also didn't realize that there were no failures at Brown...only NCs...

Yes, Brown has a lower acceptance rate than many of the Ivies. However, Brown also doesn't have quite the same applicant pool as many of the schools it seems to be more selective than.

Brown is about the same selectivity as Dartmouth, Columbia, and UPenn...it's acceptance rate may be slightly lower, but all in all it's about equally as hard to get into all three schools.

By Subparasian (Subparasian) on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Cornell's ED acceptance rate is like 58% or 68%

By Rogerevans (Rogerevans) on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 05:28 pm: Edit

"like" 58 or 68?

By Oogabooga (Oogabooga) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Well, here's the deal. You can't go by selection rates alone thanks to "self-selection", as another post indicated. Besides, often those rankings don't group liberal arts and national universities together. The Princeton Review did a pretty good job of cutting through the miasma to get the list of the schools toughest to get into:

1. United States Military Academy
2. Princeton University
3. Harvard College
4. Yale University
5. United States Naval Academy
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
7. Davidson College
8. Stanford University
9. Dartmouth College
10. Cooper Union

Also relevant to this discussion are Brown (#11), Penn (#12), and Columbia (#15). They specify specifically "Columbia University, Columbia College"...i.e. the Fu Foundation is not considered. Cornell is not in the top 20. Regarding a post about its early decision acceptance rates, it's actually 40.7%, according to http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/7247/

So...Cornell is the easiest, followed by Columbia, then Penn-Brown-Dartmouth all fit rather snugly together, Dartmouth just eking out the coveted "#4 Ivy" spot.

Anyone will tell you, though, that lists like these need to be taken with a grain of salt...thousands of kids get accepted into schools higher on this list and rejected from those lower down. I, for one, got accepted into Ivy League schools but rejected from Berkeley, which isn't on the top 20 list.

As a Dartmouth man, I can field questions about Dartmouth's social atmosphere, too. It's not too white anymore...I'm not white, for instance. The current administration has taken pains to shed that image. There are huge liberal factions on campus, now. There are probably as many hardcore liberals as there are hardcore conservatives here in Hanover...our student body president is a Che Guevara wannabe. As for the Greek scene, yeah, it's a bit cliquish. Parties are generally open, though. That scene really ISN'T my scene, if you dig me. But there are some nerd frats that have some genuinely good people.

You can definitely live a Greek-free life at Dartmouth, if you want. All the parties anyone attends are at fraternities, however. It's up to you. If you don't mind fraternities dominating the social scene but without being too cliquish, then Dartmouth should be all right for you. If not, you might want to think about it a little. I have a pretty comical love-hate relationship with the school, as a lot of students like me seem to have. But the top-notch education, small classes, and undergraduate focus that you don't get at other schools more than makes up for it, for me. I'm not a snob, but the reputation helps, too. For grad school and jobs and all that. A fact of life, really. But you'll be fine in that regard if you go to any Ivy League school. Even Cornell.

My advice is you apply to all schools you are remotely interested in, if you can afford the application fees. Don't let anyone tell you the school isn't right for you unless you're 100% convinced of that yourself. Yeah, filling out twenty applications is a hassle, but it will pay off in the long run. That way you're guaranteed to get in somewhere, and from the schools you got into you can select the one you most want to attend.

Anyway, that's it. Hope this post helps!