That is a fairly bold prediction. Given that Stanford was able to achieve so much in less than 125 years, I would say that fortunes of educational institutions can rapidly rise and fall. If the administrators of any of these Universities take their eye off the ball for a few decades, then they might find themselves playing catch up.
Also we don’t know where the next “big industry” will arise. If the focus shifts away from the Valley, then Stanford’s fortunes might follow. If the weather or any major climatic change plagues California, we may also see a decline in its popularity. Remember that CA is dependent on water from the Colorado river and if climate changes severely impacts that, we could also see a shift. And then there is the San Andreas Fault.
Another factor might be the kind of students these Universities recruit. Lets say these universities continue to expand access to education and increase the percentage of first generation kids to lets say 30 or even 40% of the incoming class and also expand access to minority and lower SES students, because their strong endowment allows them that flexibility and yet income inequality continues to grow and in fact worsens in the US, could that affect the strength of these universities in 100 years? Who knows? Too hard to tell right now. It would depend on whether success in US becomes dependent on “who you know” or on “raw talent”.
In other countries when income inequality became too great, it became very hard for folks to rise to the top from the bottom even if they went to the best schools if they didn’t have the right connections. So that might also affect the fortunes of these universities, as the next generation of alums grows.
In short I don’t think it is easy to predict these things. Too many factors.
While comparing yield rates is interesting in its own right, it reflects a concern with “objective criteria” that is methodologically inappropriate for assessing prestigiosity.
Prestigiosity is a free-floating currency, not anchored to any purported gold standard (yield rates, endowment per student, test scores, cross-admit preferences, etc.), but arising instead from the fevered imaginations of ambitious, CC-haunting high-school students and from the pi$$ing contests of young analysts at investment banks and private equity firms.
To hunt the snark of “objectivity” in the forest of prestigiosity is ever to be disappointed.
Conversely, look at schools like Rochester, Syracuse and Case Western. 50 to 60 years ago, there were much more prestigious schools, but the MSA’s they are located in have not thrived and the schools have slid in the rankings.
Emory and Tulane are are good studies. 30 years ago, they were similar in terms of prestige in the south. Today, Emory has ridden Atlanta’s coat tales to a top 20 ranking, while Tulane has been hit hard by Katrina and the economics of New Orleans.
@zinhead you are correct sir. Emory was also helped by a huge gift of Coca-Cola stock, but the real difference has been the rise of the South in population and economic power. As that has happened, the better schools in the South naturally reap the benefits of better applicants, more donations, more research money, etc. Emory is the top dog in its area, and naturally moves up.
Other factors can come into play in addition to regional economic activity. 30 years ago, Duke was a very good school but primarily regional in its appeal. The high profile success of its basketball team arguably helped just as much as the growing North Carolina economy to propel Duke into the top of the desirability rankings among high schoolers. Same thing with Georgetown. Georgetown has ridden the economic and political tide as the best college in the Washington DC area, as that area become more and more rich and important. But the high-profile basketball team played a huge part as well.
Who knows what the next thing will be? I suspect that some college in the growing Mountain States is going is going to move up over time, perhaps one in Denver or Phoenix. I also suspect that Texas schools will move up.
@Zinhead, Tulane is doing great. #39 is not too shabby, with an admit rate in the 20s and an ACT ramge that is identical to Emory’s (30-33). I think that you overstated it when you saId that Tulane had been " hit hard by Hurricane Katrina and the economics of New Orleans." I think it is more accurate to say that “Tulane has thrived despite Hurricane Katrina and the economics of New Orleans.” This, of course, is to take nothing away from Emory and the success is has had over the last two decades, Coca Cola money or no Coca Cola money. I just think that the juxtaposition with Tulane creates a misleading impression.
@Penn95, i think it’s proper to consider what exactly a ranking is attempting to rank.
Harvard, Stanford and MIT might top Princeton and Yale in international rankings and prestige, but those rankings are for the total university – not just undergrad – and consider grad school rep, research spending, and other variables that have little-to-nothing to do with the quality of undergraduate academics.
The (main/most famous) USNews ranking, on the other hand, is focused on only the undergraduate level… or so we are told, anyway.
If i want to know about the top schools overall – undergrad, grad/PhD, research, etc. – i do look at the international rankings like Times and ARWU. But if I want more focus on the undergrad experience, I look at rankings that focus solely on that level, like USNews. I would include Forbes’ ranking, but i’m not a huge fan of using ROI to rank academic quality, given known self-selection and other issues.
@NJDad68 - My point was that 30 years ago, Tulane and Emory were in the same place, chasing Duke and Vanderbilt as the best private universities in the south. Today, Emory has has gotten very close to those schools, while Tulane is in the same relatively position they were a few decades ago.
One set of schools that I am surprised is not doing better is the Texas privates. Given the strong growth of that state, one would expect schools like Rice, SMU, TCU and Baylor to move up in the rankings.
@prezbucky
Definitely true what you are saying, but I think for national universities the overall prestige and strength of a school directly affects its undergraduate standing. Given how focused on undergrad Princeton is, it is almost definitely true that it has better undergraduate quality than Harvard or Stanford. Yet Princeton loses the cross admit battle to both Harvard and Stanford. USNews does TRY to measure undergrad quality (i personally don’t completely agree with methodology and would prefer to see a combination of the USNews-WSJ rankings methodologies but anyway). However USNews does not have the power, for the most part, to change perceptions of the schools based on the individual positions it gives them, especially within the top 10 - it rather has the influence to create tiers for the schools (top 10, top 20 etc). For example USNews has ranked Princeton #1 since forever and has not put Stanford in the top #4 since 1992, but that does not change applicant and cross-admit preferences towards Stanford, Harvard over Yale and Princeton. and I believe this has to do with the overall strength of the schools which lead to stronger names domestically and globally which in turn affects perception for undergrad too.
Yep, agreed – perception influences reality, even if it isn’t necessarily applicable to the undergrad experience.
(Of course, even if a kid chose Harvard or Stanford over Princeton or Yale for the wrong reasons, they’re still probably going to get an outstanding education and be privy to great opportunities.)
I think this is an interesting list, but I think it measures something different from what I mean by “prestigiosity” (which I would say is the perception of prestige among people like those who congregate on CC). Maybe “desireability?” It is notable, though, that the list isn’t all that different from mine, or from the USNews list. I think it shows, perhaps, that some of the leading LACs may have less desirability than their perceived level of prestige.
OP, you’ll know you have a good ranking system when people start to post that Berkeley is rated too low.
In order to separate true “prestigiosity” from “fair weather effects” the yield to admit ratio needs to be multiplied by the annual snowfall on campus. The resulting rank seems much more realistic.