Ivy-equivalents

College Search & Lists
21

<p>Thanks for the link, ucb.</p>

<p>So, back to the OP; I really like the outcome-based methodology. It’s interesting to note that many of the usual suspects at the top of other rankings show up here too, suggesting that better inputs (incoming students) result in better outcomes. Not that surprising.</p>

<p>I’m less familiar with the LACs, but there are a few RUs that rank highly on, e.g., the USNWR rankings but not in this ranking methodology. That I find that interesting. What’s happening at Vandy and WUSTL, for example? The kids have the stats, but they lack that “something extra” that the Ivies seek out?</p>

22

<p>@mobius911:</p>

<p>WashU and (especially) Vandy probably are gaming harder by weighing test scores more heavily than, yes, that “something extra” that the Ivies/Ivy-equivalents look for. Possibly giving merit aid more based on test scores than other qualities as well.</p>

23

<p>@Mastadon‌:</p>

<p>Yes, the WSJ ranking is a decade old now. Unfortunately, it’s the best we have for that particular component.</p>

<p>How was the methodology discredited, though? Obviously, it’s incomplete, so using that ranking solely would give you an incomplete idea of where schools stand. Using that ranking with the 3 Forbes component rankings, though, gives us 2 rankings of professional success and 2 rankings of academic achievement. Combine them together, and you have something pretty solid.</p>

24

<p>I’m fascinated by @tk21769‌ 's post because it seems to turn @PurpleTitan‌ 's ranking on its head. It isn’t just Dartmouth. Many, if not most, of the “ivy equivalents” are gathered near the bottom of the doctoral producers, even though ironically, quite a few of them are RUs and presumably magnets for doctorate-seekers. Is there an inverse relationship between producing PhDs and producing future leaders?</p>

25

<p>@circuitrider:</p>

<p>???</p>

<p>Dunno why you find it ironic. The LACs do very well in the academic categories (like producing PhDs). They may actually draw more academic types. The Ivies do better in the pre-professional sphere. All Ivies are 25th or better in the 2 professional rankings, but only 75th or better in the academic categories.</p>

26

<p>I agree with @PurpleTitan. </p>

<p>If you are talented enough to pursue a Phd., whether you choose to do it may in part be determined by what your other options are. If you have a math or engineering undergraduate degree and are being offered a $80k per year job as a 21 year old ivy league graduate, that money may look very tempting.</p>

27

<p>@PurpleTitan‌

</p>

<p>Now that you mention it, of the eight LACs you list in the ivy-equivalent category, seven are clearly in the bottom half of @tk21769‌ 's PhD ranking. Yes, there are LACs in the top half, but only one - Swarthmore - falls under the category you defined as an ivy-equivalent. There are a number of ironies here. One is, that it would seem that the more ivy-like the strongest LACs become, the less “academic” they become. The other is, that RUs, while sending a disproportionate number of their undergraduates into the professional world, simultaneously maintain some of the world’s most highly leveraged PhD programs. </p>

28

<p>One commenter in another thread semi-jokingly suggested that because LAC students have no involvement with grad students, their idealistic view of grad life remains intact. Undergrads at RUs see firsthand that it’s not all wine and roses and may be dissuaded from that path. I wonder if there’s anything to that.</p>

29

<p>@mobius911‌ : That may be. They also see different types of profs. At most RUs, the emphasis for faculty is heavily on research. At LACs, it’s more on teaching, so those LAC profs may share more of their love of a subject and pull undergrads in to pursuing research in to a subject.</p>

30

<p>

This relates to tk21769‌ dividing the rate of S&E PhDs by the rate of 700-800 math SAT scorers. So if a college had no students who scored 700+ on math, then that college would rank above all ivies/Stanford/MIT/top 50 USNWR/… under this system (assuming at least 1 student received a PhD). The top ranked college (Allegheny ) only had 8% above 700 math. HYPSMC… type colleges tend to have about 10x more 700+ scores, so Allegheny only needs ~1/10th the rate of PhDs as HYPSMC… to rank above HYPSMC… under this system. </p>

<p>If you want to control for SAT score, a more meaningful system might be identifying the typical rate of PhDs for colleges with similar SAT scores, and measuring how the PhD rate for a particular college differs from this typical rate. That said, I’d expect a variety of other criteria to correlate with the rate of S&E PhDs besides test scores, such as the proportion of students in S&E majors, and possibly the proportion of international students (one study found ~2/3 of engineering PhDs students in the US do not have a visa for remaining in the US after college).</p>

31

<p>Somewhat hilariously/amazingly, the group owners of the “Alumni of the Ivy League: Ivy & Oxford Cambridge MIT Stanford Caltech Berkeley Chicago Northwestern” LinkedIn group list the exact same 15 of the 17 Ivy/Ivy-equivalent RU’s I listed that are Wall Street targets (Rice and JHU aren’t Street targets, or are semi-targets at best): </p>

<p><a href=“Sign Up | LinkedIn”>Sign Up | LinkedIn;

<p>They add Oxbridge as well.</p>

<p>"Alumni and students of the Ivy League Universities. Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania (Penn) and Yale. Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, Stanford, Duke, Caltech, Berkeley, Chicago and Northwestern alumni also welcome. "</p>

32

<p>BTW, if you use the criteria of 25th or higher in the 2 professional categories of “American Leaders” and Percentage in Elite Professional Schools + 75th or higher in the 2 academic categories of per capita PhDs and per capita prestigious student award (which all the Ivies meet),
Stanford, MIT, Northwestern, Chicago, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore meet all 4 of those criteria.</p>

<p>CalTech, Duke, Cal, Rice, JHU, Georgetown, Pomona, Wellesley, Wesleyan, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard, Oberlin, & Middlebury meet 3 of those 4 criteria.</p>

<p>In the category of “Near-Ivies” (meeting all 4 less-strict criteria of 50th or higher in the 2 professional categories of “American Leaders” and Percentage in Elite Professional Schools + 100th or higher in the 2 academic categories of per capita PhDs and per capita prestigious student awards) are
UMich, Notre Dame, Tufts, Vassar & Reed (UVa misses barely)
as well as
CalTech, Duke, Cal, Pomona, Barnard, Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Wesleyan
but not
JHU, Georgetown, Rice, Oberlin & Middlebury (Georgetown misses barely)
from the group that met 3 of the original 4 criteria.</p>

<p>So if you count as Ivy-equivalent those who meet all 4 original criteria <or> 3 of the 4 original criteria but still all 4 of the less-strict criteria (with the rest being “near-Ivies”), you get</or></p>

<p>Ivy-equivalent:
Stanford, MIT, Northwestern, Chicago, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore & CalTech, Duke, Cal, Pomona, Barnard, Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Wesleyan : 7 research universities and 9 LACs; (+ the 8 original Ivies, of course)</p>

<p>Near-Ivies:
JHU, Georgetown, Rice, Oberlin, and Middlebury & UMich, Notre Dame, Tufts, Vassar and Reed (and I’ll throw UVa in here as well): 7 research universities and 4 LACs.</p>

<p>BTW, both the USMA & USNA would make the Near-Ivies list handily if not for their subpar PhD production (but it’s hard to hold that against them given their mission).</p>

33

<p>My thoughts of the two links in the first post of this thread:</p>

<p>Using retension rate and graduation rate to measure an university is a mistake! The more regiorous a school is, the worse the ranking shows. This would encourage universities to set bar lower for graduation qualification and engage in grade inflation. These ranking criterias are just not right at all. I don’t know why the education administration would come up with these kind of ideas, they introduced a huge impact in my university.</p>

34

<p>Um, @Findmoreinfo, I don’t use retention rate or graduation rate anywhere, so what the heck are you talking about?</p>

35

An amendment:

Since I gave UVa credit for barely missing my criteria for being a Near-Ivy, I should give Bryn Mawr and CMU credit as well, since they also just barely miss.

Rice just barely misses my criteria for being an Ivy-equivalent.

So the revised list (with schools that barely miss in parentheses):
HYPSM:
HYPSM (Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore). WAS LACs are the only schools close to HYPSM. 5 RUs and (maybe?) 3 LACs

(non-HYPSM) Ivy+Ivy-equivalent:
Other Ivies + Northwestern, Chicago, & CalTech, Duke, Cal, Pomona, Barnard, Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Wesleyan (and Rice). 11 RUs and 6 LACs

Near-Ivies:
JHU, Georgetown, Oberlin, Middlebury & UMich, Notre Dame, Tufts, Vassar and Reed (and UVa, CMU, and Bryn Mawr): 7 research universities and 5 LACs.

36

Still remiss. Georgetown barely misses the Ivy-equivalent tier, so:

HYPSM:
HYPSM (Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore). WAS LACs are the only schools close to HYPSM. 5 RUs and (maybe?) 3 LACs

(non-HYPSM) Ivy+Ivy-equivalent:
Other Ivies + Northwestern, Chicago, & CalTech, Duke, Cal, Pomona, Barnard, Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Wesleyan (and Rice & Georgetown). 12 RUs and 6 LACs

Near-Ivies:
JHU, Oberlin, Middlebury & UMich, Notre Dame, Tufts, Vassar and Reed (and UVa, CMU, and Bryn Mawr): 6 research universities and 5 LACs.

37

http://www.businessinsider.com/smartest-liberal-arts-colleges-in-america-2014-10 Did you read this article?

38

Here is another list including both LAC and Research University. http://www.businessinsider.com/smartest-colleges-in-america-2014-10

39

@bambi0611, I specifically didn’t use inputs as a measurement because they can be gamed. For instance, a college that simply admitted the applicants with the highest test scores would shoot up that ranking, but the applicants with the highest test scores may not be the ones with highest potential or contribute the most in class/to the school/to society. Furthermore, inputs tells you nothing about how good a job a school does in actually educating its student body.

That’s why I based my ranking solely on outputs (alumni achievements). Obviously, there is a strong correlation between inputs and outputs, and I’d rather have a smarter student body than a dumber student body, but I think that how well a school’s alumni do tells you more about how good a school is than how high an SAT score their students got in HS.

40

I agree with you. Only it is kind of hard to judge how well alumni do. Means goes to academic field like Phd’s? Or how much alumni make? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-50-schools-that-produce-science-phds/ http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/bachelors#