|By Dazed04confused (Dazed04confused) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit|
In March 2001, The Wall Street Journal published a non-exhaustive list of the New Ivy League and New Backups labeled as Safe, Safer and Safest.
THE NEW IVY LEAGUE (Once considered backups to Ivy League and other top schools, now selective enough to be in a league of their own)
Duke, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, NYU, Northwestern, Pomona, Rice, Swarthmore, Notre Dame, Vassar, Williams
SAFE (Still selective, but regarded as first-tier backup schools to the New Ivies)
Boston College, Colgate, Emory, Fordham, George Washington, Hamilton, Harvey Mudd, Tulane, University of California-San Diego, USC, Wash U in Saint Louis
SAFER (Prestigious, but the bar here is generally a little lower than at the schools above)
American, Boston U, Case Western Reserve, Furman, Georgia Tech, Lehigh, Loyola Marymount, Pepperdine, Providence, Reed, Saint Louis U, Syracuse, University of Georgia, University of Miami, University of Rochester, University of San Diego, Vanderbilt
SAFEST (And if you can't get into these schools...)
Elon, Goucher, Gustavus Adolphus, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rollins, Southern Methodist, St. Olaf, University of Denver, University of Wisconsin, University of Vermont, Xavier
|By Jab93 (Jab93) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:47 pm: Edit|
And yet ANOTHER utterly useless thread on an utterly meaningless "ranking"
that has nothing to do with actual education quality...
|By Mini (Mini) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 11:53 pm: Edit|
Never could figure out why the capacity to reject perfectly qualified candidates in favor of other (usually richer) ones is considered a sign of educational quality. (I mean, they might just as well give out "merit" badges.)
|By Tri_Fm (Tri_Fm) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit|
Um, those are nothing close to the Ivies. Calling them "new ivies" is an insult to the Ivies, especially HYP.
|By Haithman (Haithman) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:33 am: Edit|
Forgot Wharton Tri. Oh wait, its a league ahead of HYP
|By Chapter322 (Chapter322) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:58 am: Edit|
The person who put this together is probably a really young jet set.
She/He didn't mean "new ivies" as in replacing the old ones...hence lots of obvious schools not being included. "The New Ivy League" was probably meant in a sort of hip/slang way as "good schools to look out for." (like, green is the new pink) This is why many of the obvious schools like MIT are not even included. We all know what schools are the real deal.
|By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:03 am: Edit|
Why are people so protective of HYP and the Ivies. If they are that good, they can take a little competition. With 3,000 plus schools in the country, HYPSM hardly have the market on quality education cornered. The list above is interesting in that it is a fruit basket turnover over of USNWR. I guess not everyone agrees with their rankings. Surprise!
|By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 01:54 am: Edit|
The placement of these schools directly contradicts admissions difficulty data re: SAT scores and GPAs.
|By Marite (Marite) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 07:34 am: Edit|
I find this list strange.
MIT and Caltech are not included, but Georgia Tech and RIT are, so techie schools are not excluded a priori.
UCSD is, so public universities are allowed in, but what about Berkeley and UCLA, surely more prestigious than UCSD? And if Williams'in, why not Amherst or Wesleyan? What's happened to Chicago, where academics like to send their children? And why BU and BC but not Tufts, where apparently a lot of HYP hopefuls apply?
There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason behind the groupings.
|By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 09:15 am: Edit|
Ditto what Marite wrote. I don't follow rankings, nor did my kids weigh them in choosing colleges. But since I did open this thread and read this particular list, it does seem like a strange one in the ways Marite stated above.
I agree with a poster who said that the top Ivies do not have the corner on the best quality education. But some very top schools are not on this list and it is just a weird list/order overall.
|By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 09:49 am: Edit|
What a crock de merde! Let me start by questioning how Washington University, Emory and Harvey Mudd are classified as "safe"? What has this person been smoking? Last time I checked, all three had mean SAT scores in the 1410 range with an acceptance rate of 25%-35% and at least 90% of their entering class graduated in the top 10% of their high school class. That makes those schools as selective as some of the Ivy League. Groupiong those three schools along with Tulane and BC in terms of selectivity is inaccurate.
And putting Syracuse, St. Louis University and U of San Diego in the same selectivity category as Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt is laughable.
Whatever happened to Cal-Berkeley, Caltech, Chicago, MIT, Michigan-Ann Arbor and Stanford? You cannot add Duke, Johns Hopkins and Northwestern and ignore the 6 schools above.
If Wisconsin and UCSD are mentioned, why aren't UT-Austin, UNC-Chapel Hill, UVA, William & Mary, UCLA and Illinois-Urbana Champaign included?
And if Pomona, Reed, Swarthmore and Williams made the list, why didn't Amherst, Bowdoin, Carleton, Davidson, Grinnell, Haverford, Middlebury, Oberlin, Vassar and Wesleyan?
I am severely disapointed in the WSJ. They usually come up with good rankings, but this is preposterous!!!
|By Patient (Patient) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:08 am: Edit|
If I read the OP correctly, this is from March 2001, so over 3 years ago. Don't know whether things have changed that much in 3 years, but some of the schools currently mentioned have in fact been experiencing changes in admissions data in the last few years.
|By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit|
I noticed that Patient and realized that was a factor but still found the list a bit odd in the ordering and in the omissions.
|By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit|
I thought the same as Chapter 322, it was just a list of up and comers, not an Ivy replacement list - but an IVY expansion list.
|By Marite (Marite) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:14 am: Edit|
Patient, you are right about changes since 2001, but never has UCSD been more prestigious than Berkeley or UCLA; Tufts has long been seen as more prestigious than BC or BU, Caltech and MIT have always been among the most selective schools (surely more than RIT?), Amherst is considered a twin of Williams, etc...
I am baffled.
|By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:20 am: Edit|
Alexandre, I would suggest reading the President's report for Tulane for this year. I think a lot of your info on the school is dated. This year, they had over 17,000 applications, and their acceptance rate has plummeted over the last few years. It also gives some interesting information on the increase in funding to the school.
I think that a lot of schools, not just Tulane, have been experiencing a Renaissance. That could account for why the schools we have information on from the last couple of years not being considered on this list. I personally find it exciting and gratifying to see the strides that many of these schools are making.
|By Missmolly (Missmolly) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:37 am: Edit|
I agree with Alexandre!
|By Garland (Garland) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit|
Vanderbilt is safer than Fordham???
|By Alexandre (Alexandre) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:20 pm: Edit|
That may be the case Alongfortheride. But there are plenty of inaccuracies and omissions nonetheless. And I am well aware of Tulane. It has been on my radar for quite some time. Two of brightest students in my Cornell University graduate school program were two incredibly poslished Tulane graduates.
|By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit|
It's hard to buy into a list like the one above at all when there's no criteria listed. It's hard to know if the factors they used were accurate or not. They may well have been accurate, it's just that stats can be manipulated to prove just about any position. (I have mentioned this on a thread before, but my stats TA proved in his masters thesis that trailer parks caused tornadoes - thereby proving how susceptible stats are to manipulation.) I just think it's interesting when someone breaks from the norm. Look at all of the discussion this one's stirred up and it's an old article!
|By Mitwannabe (Mitwannabe) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit|
mit caltech stanford are in a league of their own
|By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 07:12 pm: Edit|
I think when the article referred to Ivy League they meant the Ivies and those universities (because most people in this country still overlook even the best and most selective LACs) that were about as difficult to get into. The "New Ivy League" refers to schools that were once considered backups to the Ivies. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Berkley, etc. were never considered backup schools (unless maybe if you were in California for Berkley). The info here is just provided as an example chart accompanying the rest of the article. That list was not meant to be a comprehensive ranking like US News, it was designed to just give readers an idea of the new tiers in college selectivity. That is why when certain schools overlap (ie. Amherst and Williams), the WSJ would only include some
|By Slipstream99 (Slipstream99) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 12:05 pm: Edit|
Chapter 322, pink is the new green, not vice versa...lol
this article was in my paper today, i'm not just some fashion freak...
|By Chapter322 (Chapter322) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit|
Haha Slipstream99. That's a fantastic article! I once mentioned pink being a hot color for men on CC. (I think I misunderstood the meaning of pink-collar worker or something like that, but anyway...)
Before, I was quoting an episode of Gilmore Girls. There was a parent obsessed with dressing her newborn girl completely in green. When she was questioned about this, she replied with "green is the new pink." But you know how fashion can change within seconds. LOL.
|By Sdk7x7 (Sdk7x7) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:07 pm: Edit|
Stanford? MIT? They should be up there, i didn't see them when I skimmed.
As for the "new ivy league," I think people need to stop trying to justify the fact that their kids haven't gotten into Ivy schools. Get over it.
|By Leanid (Leanid) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:28 pm: Edit|
Sdk7x7 - Oh, kind of like Catholics telling everybody else that they will never get to heaven because they are not in the "true church". LOL
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|