For today, SOG has won the internet.
Time again to link my favorite college ranking system. Be sure to refresh it several times to get the point http://www.rankyourcollege.com/jggtcmethod.html
One of the reasons people use phrases like “top tier” is that it allows them to talk conceptually without having to come to agreement on exactly what the “top tier” or “second tier” comprises. People can agree on the value of going to a “top tier” college – which includes in many cases agreeing that there’s limited if any such value – without necessarily agreeing whether Vanderbilt or USC is in that tier or some other tier, or what you do with liberal arts colleges.
What’s more, the size and composition of the top and other tiers will vary depending on the context. If a kid is saying “What will give me the best shot at becoming a Rhoads Scholar?,” and he or she legitimately seems to have the goods, then you don’t need all of your fingers to count the top tier of colleges. If, however, the kid is saying “I want to go to medical school,” well, the top tier could get to three digits (not fingers, digits). The top tier for computer science or engineering will look very different from the top tier for math, not to mention French literature or anthropology.
In most situations, most people believe there IS a top tier, and either they believe that being in the top tier matters or they believe that most OTHER people think being in the top tier matters (but those other people are wrong). But you are never going to get more than a handful of people at a time to agree which precise institutions, and no others, constitute the top tier. It’s useless to try, and it’s not even that important.
In the old days, US News ranked each category of college into quartiles then called them tiers, so tier=quartile. Top tier would be numbered, stopping at 50 if there were more than 200 being ranked. They have since changed it.
Naturally, research university and LAC rankings were closely followed, though there is probably a “top tier” of regional Bible Colleges.
My favorite meaningless ranking: http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/
These types of threads typically devolve into “Harvard is not all it’s cracked up to be” versus “Yes it is.”
But I’ll throw in that re lacs, Forbes ranked Williams number one overall in the whole world, followed by Stanford at two.
I can’t answer this question, but I suspect it would help to know that it’s spelled Rhodes.
Stanford isn’t a LAC, latichever.
that wasn’t latichever’s point. Williams is. Forbes did a ranking where it intermingled LACs and universities. Swarthmore did pretty well too as I recall 
“Devolve?” As if the posts were not vapid to begin with!
The Forbes listing comprises only American schools, so Williams is not “ranked number one overall in the whole world.” So much the better–that ranking is drivel, .
Re “devolve,” an innocent lamb of a poster asks a sincere question, and we’re off to our agendas.
Yes, my point was a response to an implication that top lacs are a lower tier than top unis. That’s why I pointed to Forbes ranking it above Stanford. Very few rankings compare lacs to unis.
And I could have sworn there was a world ranking where Williams was number 1, but even my memory can fail.
In my opinion a top tier school is one that primarily attracts the top 5% of students, has enormous resources per capita, and is generally strong across the board (few departments are allowed to be truly weak as far as undergrad education is concerned). Top tier schools by major are a different story as they may have a few outstanding programs but undergraduate education, departmental resources, etc are generally average in most fields.
Williams, Amherst, and Swat have been at the top of the LAC list for years.
“In my opinion a top tier school is one that primarily attracts the top 5% of students, has enormous resources per capita, and is generally strong across the board (few departments are allowed to be truly weak as far as undergrad education is concerned).”
It should be easy enough to then say - X number of students graduate high school in any given year, the top 5% are therefore (0.05*x), and then see - using size of the freshman class - how many colleges it takes “from the top” to fill them all. If you want, you can intermingle national u’s and LAC’s so no one complains top LAC’s are overlooked.
The enormous resources per capita don’t impress me particularly if they are being spent on things I don’t value or care about. A new football stadium- yawn. A new nano-technology lab- sure. Hiring the former SVP of Customer Service at the Ritz Carlton- yawn. Hiring 15 new faculty for endowed chairs in their fields- now I’m excited.
I have always drawn the line at schools that admit the top 10% of students. Acceptance rates are not very reliable. Many schools get applications from students that have no chance of getting in but count them anyway. Anything less than top 10% of students is too restrictive.
You can use a third party system to measure top tier or you and your student can make your own list of criteria to judge colleges by. I placed the 6 most popular International & National ranking systems on one page with links (Shanghai, Times Higher Ed, QS, US News, Forbes, and Payscale). Third party ranking systems are a great way to begin, but I ask my students/parents to create their own list of what they are looking for. Safety is often times at the top along with housing guarantee or availability.
^^ the students better realize what the different rankings mean, and especially what it means to undergrads.
I think, in terms of selectivity, the “Top Tier” is the group - with flexible membership - where the odds of admission are against students with perfect, or near-perfect, academic credentials. That includes the Ivy League, Stanford, Duke, some LACs (e.g. Pomona, Williams, Amherst, Wesleyan, Bowdoin, Swarthmore, et al), some STEM institutions (e.g. MIT, Harvey Mudd, CalTech, and possibly Olin). Some specialized Honors colleges or departments at larger universities might also belong in that group. Georgetown, University of Chicago, Tufts, Vanderbilt, and WUSTL might straddle this tier, also. I would define the “Second Tier” as including elite state flagships, a number of private colleges that would likely be lower choices for students with Ivy aspirations or reaches for everyone else. It could include some of the traditional women’s colleges, Tulane, Emory, Notre Dame, Bucknell, and some divisions of NYU, BU, GWU, et al would probably qualify. I think these are colleges where the aforementioned “perfect” student has an excellent chance of admission, and where we would all be shocked to learn he or she was rejected. How many tiers are usually provided? For many on CC, the only tiers that matter are the ones we mentioned. I would say that many Catholic colleges, regular liberal arts colleges at most public universities or large private universities would fit in here, as would many small liberal arts colleges with regional reputations. They are likely to have acceptance rates in the 40%-60% range, with strong enough resources and curricula to provide any motivated student with a good education and prospects for employment or graduate school.
That may be the real divide. Because, to be honest, I’ve never heard anyone in real life bring up the very idea of “top tier” colleges as something that warrants much discussion at all.
Brava!