<p>
</p>
<p>On the contrary, these colleges probably don’t mind admitting prestige whores. Some actually seek them out. You see, prestige whores usually end up making a lot of money, some of which the schools hope and pray will be donated back…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This almost doesn’t even sound like English…</p>
<p>Its pretty clear to me. But then, we apparently don’t agree on the prestige thingie…whatever. Yes, some prestige whores make money and donate back. But most of the time, prestige whores bore everyone in the office with their prestige silliness and sometimes get fired for it. A lot of big donors to universities are just hard working and humble people who will tell you that they got lucky in life and want to give back. </p>
<p>I am not denying prestige exists and that the top 20 schools glow in that prestige. Only that many of them are focused openly on social justice issues and other more humanitarian interests than narcissism. Reality economics means they admit people of wealth and fame, some of whom are prestige whores. </p>
<p>I just want to do my part to respond here to those who want to perpetuate the myths and academic class warfare. Its wrong. And pitting even one Ivy against another is also wrong in my view.</p>
<p>If you got in, congratulations and best of luck. Now go and do something positive with that opportunity and become part of the solution, not part of the problem.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d appreciate if you refrain from attacking me, and rather focus on the conversation at hand.</p>
<p>That set aside, my comments were merely said to illuminate that this entire thread is full of arguing for the sake of arguing. There isn’t going to be a right or wrong answer about the prestige/education/blahblah of Penn v Dartmouth v Brown, its a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things.</p>
<p>Initially, this thread didn’t strike me as very serious, and so I was reluctant to post (I tend to get involved in a lot of flame wars on this forum), but the conversation appears to have matured slightly, so I’ll sally forth:</p>
<p>First, I’d like to say that as much as I respect hmom5’s experience and age, it is precisely those two factors that discredit much of what she has to say about both Penn and Dartmouth. She doesn’t care to update her reality about Penn admissions over the last 2 decades, and consequently her “experience” has become her historical prejudice. Combined with her son’s matriculation to Dartmouth, and we have quite the biased arbitrator.</p>
<p>Now, to the facts. To reduce variables and make this a more manageable topic, I’ll divide college’s desirability into 3 categories that generally interest prospective high school seniors: A) selectivity B) prestige C) depth, breadth and quality of departmental offerings.</p>
<p>Selectivity:
This is a function of the comparative quality of incoming freshman between these schools, based (admittedly primitively) on average ACT/SAT score and HS ranking.
Penn:
ACT: 31.5
SAT: 1425 (2140)</p>
<h1>in top decile: 99%</h1>
<p>Brown:
ACT: 30.5
SAT: 1430 (2145)</p>
<h1>in top decile: 94%</h1>
<p>Dartmouth:
ACT: 31.5
SAT:1440 (2165)</p>
<h1>in top decile: 91.2%</h1>
<p>Conclusion:
Brown = Dartmouth = Penn</p>
<p>Brief Caveat: Should acceptance rates be used as a judgment of selectivity? The simple answer is no. To exaggerate for rhetoric’s sake: schools like Caltech, UChicago and Swarthmore classically have acceptance rates north of 17%, yet they are all as “selective” (if not more so) than any Ivy League school. In these cases, where the SATs, ACTs and class rank are all aligned, acceptance rates are merely a function of school size and applicant pool size - NOT actual selectivity.</p>
<p>Whew! We got past the ugly parts. Onto the more important categories:
Prestige:
How does one measure prestige? Until the 1960s, Brown was the Ivy League doormat, until it suddenly became one of the most popular schools in the country. Dartmouth was always fairly selective, but never had its moment in the spotlight. Penn’s fate was similar to Brown’s, but it rose to prominence in the mid-1990s. Now it has considerable momentum, and the administration’s goal is to bring it up to par with the world’s greatest universities. To quote President Rodin in a 2000 interview: “We think the cohort that includes Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, and Stanford ought to include Penn. That’s where we think we need to be now.”
At any rate, prestige is a function of many things. One of them is a school’s desirability. A great place to look for trends in a college’s popularity are the nation’s top private schools. For the last 4 years, out of the Ivies + Stanford and MIT, Andover’s matriculation ranks look like this:
Harvard: 70
Yale: 55
Stanford: 45
UPenn: 45
Princeton: 37
Brown: 36
Columbia: 36
Cornell: 29
MIT: 26
Dartmouth: 25
The numbers for Harvard-Westlake, in California, are very similar. Another statistic one might consider is how well each school places its students following graduation. Here are some related numbers to consider:
1)Undergraduate schools represented at Harvard Law School for the 2006-7 Academic year:
a) Penn - 57
b) Brown - 48
c) Dartmouth-35
2) Fulbright rankings for the 2006-7 academic year.
Brown-24
Penn-18
Dartmouth-Too few to enumerate.
LSAT Avg
Brown 163
UPenn 163
Dartmouth 163</p>
<p>What about the actual departmental rankings? Penn wins here by a long shot. Dartmouth, at least, doesn’t pretend to offer full-on graduate study in many fields, and thus its offerings are very concentrated, if slightly more shallow in comparison (at Dartmouth, you can’t take graduate English seminars from a top-5 department - at Penn, you can). Brown has some top-flight departments (applied math, for example) but in terms of overall offerings, it really can’t match Penn’s research prowess.</p>
<p>This is all that I have to say. Most of my information concerns Penn - all I can do is set up the comparison. I won’t make a judgment call. I leave it to the OP and contributors to decide.</p>
<p>
I propose two alternative metrics: yield and application numbers. </p>
<p>2013 RD Yield
Penn 47.4%
Brown 44.2%
Dartmouth 40.6%</p>
<p>2013 Applications
Brown 24,988
Penn 22,939
Dartmouth 18,130</p>
<p>2013 Applications-Per-Spot
Dartmouth 16.6:1
Brown 16.0:1
Penn 9.38:1</p>
<p>muertepablo’s post, more than anything I’ve seen before, stands as conclusive proof that the overall quality difference between these schools is all but negligible. If you get into all three and need to choose one, basing your decision on prestige is bordering on irresponsible.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Where are you getting these numbers? Is there a link?</p>
<p>
The link on the HLS site from which I (and probably muerteapablo) pulled the numbers appears to be defunct, but I’ve posted the numbers before and can verify.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063171091-post3.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063171091-post3.html</a></p>
<p>I am always hesitant to rely on HLS and YLS numbers. For one, the matriculation numbers are only a small piece of the puzzle – more useful would be the numbers of applicants and admits from each university. For another, Penn has its own highly ranked law school that draws a considerable number of Penn undergrads.</p>
<p>Not correcting for size of applicant pool makes the law school numbers a lot less useful. I think looking at average LSATs is a slightly better metric if that’s one direction you want to go.</p>
<p>I would never use popularity amongst big time private schools as a metric. That’s the silliest stuff I’ve seen on this forum that’s almost exclusively pitched by graduates of similar schools. For starters, legacy status would probably make those schools lagging indicators rather than leading indicators. Second, it makes prestige an input metric based on the perception of 17 y.os kids-- admittedly rich, intelligent, and well-connected 17 y.os but kids nonetheless. After already using student choices for “selectivity”, why use them for prestige, especially since that’s at least a few degrees away from prestige that other factors can more directly measure?</p>
<p>Meh, who am I kidding, prestige is a largely qualitative notion with far less important than people on this board are willing to admit anyway.</p>
<p>The discussion hasn’t really evolved because people are having the discussion in the first place. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it a 1000 more times like a broken record I’m sure, but these schools are just different and anyone claiming to conclusively paint an overall picture to apply to any student who claims otherwise is full of crap.</p>
<p>The pointlessness of this thread makes me feel like losing my lunch. How would you rank these according to their prestige as up-chuck recepticles: Stanford red plastic wastebasket, Amherst crystal punch bowl, or a Boise State cowboy hat?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m hesitant to use them because it’s a very incomplete, cherry-picked list. More useful would be a complete list of the numbers from all schools that sent graduates to HLS. As I recall from this list, BYU always had an impressive number of grads enrolled at HLS (20? 30? I don’t remember, which is why I was hoping for a link) - far more than many schools that are regarded as much more prestigious. Which in turn would show why this number is such a lousy measure of prestige and why “prestige” is such a lousy predictor of subsequent success.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If reading pointless threads makes you hurl, you better quit reading CC for the sake of your health. CC is so packed with pointless threads that you’ll be vomiting several times a day here. That can’t be good for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Boise State cowboy hat > Amherst crystal punch bowl > Stanford red plastic wastebasket</p>
<p>The prestige of up-chuck recepticles is inversely proportional to the prestige of the schools with which the up-chuck recepticles are associated…</p>
<p>
Anyone who’s ever been tailgating would tell you cowboy hat FTW.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMHO, Wharton > Dartmouth=Brown; Dartmouth=Brown > non-Wharton Penn</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a borderline slanderous remark. hmom5’s statements such as the following are among the most objective, logical and well-founded in CC:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many ‘in the know’ and rankings by credible surveys are two of the highest authoritative sources to which a rational person can appeal.</p>
<p>Based on her articulate arguments, it is patently clear that:</p>
<p>Dartmouth >>> Princeton > any LAC > the rest of the ivies > community colleges >>> UC’s</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t flatter yourself. I was not talking to you.</p>
<p>FYI, “^^^” does not mean: “see three posts above.” It usually refers to the most recent post.</p>
<p>So it’s Boise State Cowboy hat > Stanford waste basket = Amherst punch bowl ??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, if and only if university prestige is defined by potato productivity instead of student and faculty productivity…</p>
<p>I just cheked, and McDonald’s sold a lot more orders of french fries last year than Borders sold copies of Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason.” A LOT more.</p>