If Stanford was in the northeast, would it be an Ivy League?

<p>Academically/Selectivity-ly I mean.</p>

<p>I want to apply to Stanford, but not any Ivy Leagues because I'm positive I wouldn't get in... But would I even have a chance for Stanford then? xD</p>

<p>Stanford is more selective than most of the Ivy League and equal in selectivity to the top ones, i.e. HYP. It's absurd to refuse to apply to them simply because they're part of a specific athletic conference. And it isn't membership in some group that makes a college selective. MIT, Stanford, Caltech, etc. are all non-Ivies and are still more selective than most of the Ivy League.</p>

<p>Apply where you feel a personal fit. If the vibe of the Ivies doesn't fit you, then don't apply. The same goes for Stanford.</p>

<p>I group all Ivy League schools as more science-y, which is not my domain.</p>

<p>CSIHSIS, how can you say that? Brown and Yale are definitely not "more-science-y." Stanford is more STEM oriented than most of the Ivies are though. I'd say it's on par with Princeton and MIT for sciences.</p>

<p>Even so, at Stanford and all of the Ivies, there will be a very sizable number of people studying non-sciences.</p>

<p>The Ivies are historically more liberal artsy. Notice that many of them have a separate "college" for undergraduates, emphasize a liberal arts education, and are typically strongest in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. A few have managed to be strong in the sciences (like Harvard and Princeton) or engineering (Cornell). But most of the Ivies still maintain their strength in softer subjects, a reputation that goes back centuries, when they taught mainly the classics, required Latin and Greek study, had a stronger emphasis in theology, etc.</p>

<p>It's funny that you have that perception of the Ivies, but don't think the same of Stanford. In reality, what people always assume about Stanford is that it's a strong science/engineering school. It definitely is, but it's also one of top schools for humanities, arts, and social sciences. For example, in the US News subject rankings, Stanford's in the top 5 for every discipline (except bioengineering where it's #8) - from English to earth sciences, history to civil engineering. But people in general only associate Stanford with STEM fields. That's probably because it created Silicon Valley, has spawned thousands of tech companies, and is known for developments like the laser, GPS, microwaves, etc.</p>

<p>So you definitely have a different perception of Stanford and the Ivies than most people do. ;)</p>


<p>Stanford is the Harvard of the West.</p>

<p>I am sure many kids from China yearn to go to Stanford, not Harvard.</p>

<p>No, Stanford would want to be in an athletic conference where it can give athletic scholarships!</p>

<p>No, Stanford has D1 sports. It would probably join the Big 10, Big East or be an independent.</p>

<p>OP: No, Stanford would remain in a league of its own, no matter where it was located. :)</p>

<p>Apathetic11, Ivies are D1 also.</p>

<p>OP: If you don't think you'll get into the Ivy Leagues, chances are you won't get into Stanford.</p>

<p>D1 FBS then, you can't really place the unquestionably best school for athletics in a conference that doesn't give athletic scholarships or can't participate in bowls.</p>

<p>No- MIT, Amherst, Willliams, etc. are in the northeast, equivalent to or better than all of the ivies, but are not in the ivy league because it was strictly defined as an athletic league for those specific eight schools. "Ivy" is not a Good Housekeeping seal of approval, but rather an arbitrary designation that applied to a small cluster of what happen to be old, overall very good (some great) schools.</p>

<p>^ lol if I had a nickel for every time I saw you casually lump SWA in with top-5 universities...</p>