Can anybody explain to me the difference between first second and third tier schools? Are third tier schools bad or…? I’m so confused.
Those are arbitrary terms, usually describing the level of selectivity. There is no fixed definition, and don’t believe anyone who says otherwise.
No, 3rd tiers aren’t bad. They’re fine for many/most majors. They can be VERY good for certain majors…especially if they’re located where there are local recruiters…
And, the definition of tiers has changed. Do you mean the old or new definition?
Tier 1: 1-5
Tier 2: 6-15
Tier 3: 16-35
Ranking for the major of your choice.
@YunSyed Utter nonsense, unless we’re referring to the graduate level rather than undergrad, and even then that’s discipline dependent.
Let’s look at the [NRC’s rankings](NRC Rankings in Geosciences) of geology programs. Though these are still fraught with problems, the NRC is somewhat respected and it’s about as good a ranking as one would get. According to your definition the geology program at the University of Colorado - Boulder is third tier. Should you tell any real geologist this, they would probably respond with an askew look and telling you that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Especially for most undergraduate work, save for the few subdisciplines it lacks, Boulder is a first rate school with outstanding opportunities for field work. A true third tier school in geology would only offer a few courses to service the gen ed needs of the student body, lack funding for field work, and not have professors involved in researching various questions.
Generally speaking, if a program is ranked, it’s not a third tier one.
Here is the US News explanation of how they currently use these terms in their ranking system:
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/09/08/frequently-asked-questions-2015-best-colleges-rankings#12
This is very different from the system used by the poster immediately above.
In fact, it is different even from the distinctions US News used a few years ago.
@YunSyed I don’t think Grinnell, Smith or Bates (tied at #19 on US News rankings) consider themselves third tier schools!!!
@tk21769 I was responding to YunSyed’s claim of major rankings rather than actual school rankings. It’s safe to say that a program ranked in the 15-30s is not third tier, even if the school may not be spectacular.
I’ll try to do so. First – and probably most important – these term are used only as “shorthand descriptors;” there are no precise definitions, quantitative metrics, or authoritative listing of first, second, and third tier (or, for that matter, fourth and fifth tier) research universities or LACs.
To illustrate, there probably is a strong consensus that Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Stanford are “first-tier” National Research Universities. However, where is that imprecise line between first- and second-tier drawn – it’s entirely personal opinion – and would (for example) Cornell, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Brown, UVa, Hopkins, etc. be included in the first-tier? Many knowledgeable individuals would understandably feel that of course they are, but others might suggest they are not. Further, that determination will obviously then effect whether an individual would define an Ohio State or an Arizona as an x tier, or an x+1 tier, or an x-1 tier, and so forth. This same paradigm exists with LACs and with MANY other truly outstanding universities; I’m sure you get the idea.
With this said, in general the top tier institutions have some things in common: most selective undergraduate (and postgraduate, for that matter) admissions, national/international credibility and stature, excellent faculties and other resources, noteworthy academic research, and strong, enduring reputations.
You specifically asked if “third tier schools” – again, and critically, there is no exact, quantitative definition – are “bad?” In my opinion, they are perfectly good, although not as excellent, selective, or as prestigious as those in the higher tiers (however delineated). They will be entirely respected, full accredited, place graduates in excellent jobs and postgraduate/professional schools, and so forth. They just aren’t quite as competitive or celebrated as some other LACs and universities.
Finally, you specifically mentioned the term “bad,” which clearly also implies “good.” That compels me to ask, good or bad for what? If kid #1 wants to become a secondary school History teacher and eventually a principal – and that’s a fine goal and a nobel career choice – he can unquestionably accomplish those objectives with a Bachelor’s degree for “East Swampy State.” On the other hand, if kid #2 ardently wants to serve on the U. S. Supreme Court, he’s certain to find that VERY few Justices attended East Swampy State (and, in fact, that an OVERWHELMING majority attended “elite” (however defined) undergraduate and law schools). Happiness, success, and satisfaction are PERSONALLY established goals – your achievement-criteria will appropriately differ from others. Consequentially, your educational objectives should be YOURS ALONE, not ones that are imposed by anyone else’s idea of what’s best or most prestigious.
@whenhen OK, I missed it too. Even on majors, Yun’s tiers seem too narrow.
I think every school in the top 50 is first tier in one major or another. The ones outside the top 100 could be third tier but there’s no way to judge.
I, too, was referring to that post (#3). It was “immediately above” mine (#5) when I first started writing it. I did not notice yours (#4) before I posted.
Anyway, “tier 1” in USNews parlance refers to many more than just 5 colleges … and I’m not aware of any other major college ranking that uses “tier” distinctions at all. The Barron’s Profiles do group schools into 4 categories by selectivity. Category 1 includes more than 80 schools.
@TopTier Thanks, you’re answer was really helpful! 
@mom2collegekids I’m sorry, but I didn’t know that there was an old and new kind of tier. Can you explain them to me?
There was a time when the Top 50 national univs were called First Tier
and the #51 to about #120 were called second tier (or mid tier)
and the ones from about $121 to XXX were third tier
and then the rest were Unranked.
Several years ago, the Tier meanings changed…I don’t know the formal reason, but I suspect that it had something to do with the fact that only about 40% of the rankings have to do with quality of teaching. So, considering that, the strict rankings might seem unfair. Obviously, if only 40% of the ranking is based on quality of instruction, then it’s hard to argue that a school ranked #45 is going to be noticeably better than a school that is ranked #60…
The new tier ranking has over 100 national univs identified as Tier 1 (I can’t remember all of the cut-offs)
@MidwestDad3 My ratings were based off of what we were told about Universities. After reading everyone else’s posts, I’m surprised at how many universities are considered Tier 1. I don’t see how MIT and UIC (University of Illinois at Chicago) are in the same league. The average math major at MIT would be much more intelligent than the smartest math major at UIC. The professors at MIT are only slightly better than those at UIC.
Read post #13 again. US News has their rankings, yours may be very different. That’s why rankings don’t mean too much IMO.
“The average math major at MIT would be much more intelligent than the smartest math major at UIC.”
Would that “average math major” be intelligent enough to know that “ratings” (for example) are based ON something rather than “…based OFF…”?
Wow! I suppose most reasonably astute observers could possibly agree that the average math major at MIT might be somewhat more intelligent than the average math major at UIC. However, to state that “The average math major at MIT would be much more intelligent than the smartest math major at UIC” verges on the ludicrous. @YunSyed, I suspect this is simply unsubstantiated garbage on your part; however, I’d certainly be interested in any authoritative FACTS that document your assertion.
Furthermore, intelligence obviously is a GREAT deal more than mathematical acumen. The English Literature major may well be blessed with greater intelligence than the math prodigy.
The difference between first, second and third “tier” departments/programs/schools/universities can only be understood by knowing the specific criteria that the listmaker is using to arrive at those categorizations.
I think the first thing that should have been specified in this thread is what ranking publication, if any, is being referenced.