Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
Maintenance will occur on the site beginning at 10:00 am PT tomorrow morning. While it is very unlikely, this may result in intermittent down time. Thank you in advance for your understanding!

The most Prestigious Universities in the USA

RMLRML Registered User Posts: 5,827 Senior Member
edited December 2009 in Graduate School
I compiled the data from USNews and THES-QS to come up with a better ranking of America's most prestigious colleges, and here they are (in order):

30.00 Harvard
30.00 Princeton
29.70 Stanford
29.70 MIT
29.40 Yale
29.10 Caltech
28.70 Columbia
28.70 Chicago
28.10 Penn
27.70 Cornell
27.50 Berkeley
26.70 JHU
26.60 Duke
25.90 UCLA
25.60 Brown
25.60 Northwestern
25.20 Dartmouth
25.10 Michigan
24.60 Washington USL
24.50 CMU
24.10 Uva
23.70 Rice
23.70 Emory
23.60 Georgetown
23.40 Vanderbilt
23.40 UNC
22.80 NYU
22.70 Notre Dame
22.70 USC
21.50 Tufts
21.30 Wake Forest
Post edited by RML on

Replies to: The most Prestigious Universities in the USA

  • willmingtonwavewillmingtonwave Registered User Posts: 3,344 Senior Member
    So essentially some sort of Peer Assessment/Review counts as 75% of your rankings?
    That seems a bit much. I guess I just do not understand the point of overall prestige of a school. I see validity in analyzing the quality of the undergraduate, business, law, medical, and different graduate programs, but why lump them all together?
    Hatch warns against a “slavish” following of such simplistic and largely capricious measures. He said that the there is “always a danger of chasing fame and success” because ultimately the “goal to chase is the best learning environment.”

    I agree with Dr. Hatch with the sentiment that the best learning environment is the most important aspect to an institution of higher education. (This quote is from: Rankings taken with grain of salt Old Gold & Black)
  • willmingtonwavewillmingtonwave Registered User Posts: 3,344 Senior Member
    I mean, generally I agree with it. I do not see much that seems very wrong if we are talking about OVERALL INSTITUTION RESEARCH PRESTIGE within the INTERNATIONAL REALM. I guess I am just philosophically opposed to such ideas. It is interesting, but I doubt it would be much different if you just ranked it by the USNWR PA...
  • ghostbusterghostbuster - Posts: 1,590 Senior Member
    "Prestige whores." You got that right. Happiness, success are not the same as prestige. It is what it is.
  • SchmaltzSchmaltz - Posts: 3,114 Senior Member
  • barronsbarrons Registered User Posts: 24,594 Senior Member
    Wiki on the THES rankings

    The Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University has been suggested to be more respectable despite its perceived bias towards the natural sciences.[5] [6] The THE Rankings have been criticized[7] for placing too much emphasis on peer review, which receives 40% of the overall score. Some have expressed concern on the manner in which the peer review has been carried out. In a certain report[5], Peter Wills from the University of Auckland, New Zealand wrote of the QS-THE Ranking:

    "But we note also that this survey establishes its rankings by appealing to university staff, even offering financial enticements to participate (see Appendix II). Staff are likely to feel it is in their greatest interest to rank their own institution more highly than others. This means the results of the survey and any apparent change in ranking are highly questionable, and that a high ranking has no real intrinsic value in any case. We are vehemently opposed to the evaluation of the University according to the outcome of such PR competitions."

    Although THES-QS had introduced several changes in methodology in 2007 which were aimed at addressing some of the above criticisms[10], the ranking has continued to attract criticisms. In an article[11] in the peer-reviewed BMC Journal authored by several scientists from USA and Greece, it was pointed out:

    "If properly performed, most scientists would consider peer review to have very good construct validity; many may even consider it the gold standard for appraising excellence. However, even peers need some standardized input data to peer review. The Times simply asks each expert to list the 30 universities they regard as top institutions of their area without offering input data on any performance indicators. Research products may occasionally be more visible to outsiders, but it is unlikely that any expert possesses a global view of the inner workings of teaching at institutions worldwide. Moreover, the expert selection process of The Times is entirely unclear.

    The survey response rate among the selected experts was only <1% in 2006 (1 600 of 190 000 contacted).

    In the absence of any guarantee for protection from selection biases, measurement validity can be very problematic."

    Alex Usher, Vice President of the Educational Policy Institute in USA, commented:[6]

    "Most people in the rankings business think that the main problem with the Times is the opaque way it constructs its sample for its reputational rankings - a not-unimportant question given that reputation makes up 50% of the sample. Moreover, this year's switch from using raw reputation scores to using normalized Z-scores has really shaken things up at the top-end of the rankings by reducing the advantage held by really top universities - University of British Columbia (UBC) for instance, is now functionally equivalent to Harvard in the Peer Review score, which, no disrespect to UBC, is ludicrous. I'll be honest and say that at the moment the THES Rankings are an inferior product to the Shanghai Jiao Tong's Academic Ranking of World Universities."

    The latest criticism of the QS-THE league tables came from Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics at University of Warwick:[12]

    "This put Oxford and Cambridge at equal second in the world. Lower down, at around the bottom of the world top-10, came University College London, above MIT. A university with the name of Stanford appeared at number 19 in the world. The University of California at Berkeley was equal to Edinburgh at 22 in the world. Such claims do us a disservice. The organisations who promote such ideas should be unhappy themselves, and so should any supine UK universities who endorse results they view as untruthful. Using these league table results on your websites, universities, if in private you deride the quality of the findings, is unprincipled and will ultimately be destructive of yourselves, because if you are not in the truth business what business are you in, exactly? Worse, this kind of material incorrectly reassures the UK government that our universities are international powerhouses. Let us instead, a bit more coolly, do what people in universities are paid to do. Let us use reliable data to try to discern the truth. In the last 20 years, Oxford has won no Nobel Prizes. (Nor has Warwick.) Cambridge has done only slightly better. Stanford University in the United States, purportedly number 19 in the world, garnered three times as many Nobel Prizes over the past two decades as the universities of Oxford and Cambridge did combined. "
  • College YahooCollege Yahoo Registered User Posts: 198 Junior Member
    While this list looks about right, Dartmouth/Brown should be higher and Chicago should be lower, there is no way that any school would be equal to Harvard in terms of prestige. Harvard is simply the most prestigious school in the country...no ifs, ands, and buts...
  • sarbruissarbruis Registered User Posts: 290 Junior Member
    What exactly is the point of these?
  • willmingtonwavewillmingtonwave Registered User Posts: 3,344 Senior Member
    [moved to graduate school forum]
    I found this amusing.
  • pdl2010pdl2010 Registered User Posts: 10 New Member
    Wow, Rice should be much higher up than that. A degree from Rice would look better than Michigan certainly, I would presume.
  • Sam LeeSam Lee Registered User Posts: 9,449 Senior Member

    Read barrons' post (#9). THES-QS' Peer Review is not an accurate measure of research power, IMO.

    You should use The Academic Ranking of World Universities by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, as barrons said.
  • tenisghstenisghs Registered User Posts: 3,955 Senior Member
    pdl2010, Michigan surpasses Rice in every category at the graduate level.
  • ticklemepinkticklemepink Registered User Posts: 2,764 Senior Member
    RML, have you got anything better to do than to worry about the prestige of US universities? To get in is like finding a needle in the haystack. As long people are getting their degrees from top 20-30, they'll survive.
This discussion has been closed.