Pinderhughes

Bagels and Slipper, you both are hard-headed. Brown "is" significantly more difficult to get into than either Dartmouth or Columbia. Don't let Columbia's 9% admit rate, or this year's 13.2% admit rate for Dartmouth fool you. Historically both Dartmouth and Columbia have had higher admit rates for their ED admittees, and filled a higher proportion of their classes overall with ED admits. Look at it this way. Why has Brown been more successful in it's graduates snaring more Fulbrights, Rhodes, Udalls, Marshalls, Trumans, and Goldwaters than either Dartmouth or Columbia? Stronger students. Why does Brown have stronger students? Because when given the choice, brilliant students more often than not, choose Brown over either Dartmouth or Columbia. This is so obvious, it makes me wonder what anyone's agenda is in disputing this. Look at it another way. Harvard sits at the top for winning the most fellowships, and while inferior to Brown in winning Fulbrights, it does better than either Dartmouth or Columbia. Why does Harvard sit atop of the fellowships ranking? Stronger students. It has stronger students, overall, than any other Ivy, and it's fellowships performance reflects this. To be candid, the only three Ivy schools that have overall stronger student bodies are HYP, and Princeton and Brown are close. The rest of the Ivies simply are not competitive. Remember, fellowship winners can be undergrads, graduate students at the school, or graduates of the undergrad. For Brown to have more winners than Cornell, Penn, or Columbia, all much larger universities when you factor in graduate school and undergraduate students, attests to the much stronger student that is attracted to, and matriculates at, The University(Brown). If you can 't figure this out, or acknowledge this, then you have a personal agenda and an unobjective mind. Period.