<p>I’d say that is the Big East (football)</p>
<p>I mean no original schools left? Sad</p>
<p>^ that would be the Big East. SDSU and Boise State?</p>
<p>cross posted with barrk… heh</p>
<p>^that’s true. i forgot about the Big East. but ACC started it though when it stole 3 schools from there. Ooops…I forgot the conference becomes very different when it comes to BB. Yes, it is the worst!</p>
<p>^ Ummm, technically the B1G and Pac-12 started the whole conference domino realignment.</p>
<p>The original tOSU Coat-of-Arm was altered…, the mystical protectors of the school - “Mighty Griffins” still grace the entrance of the old Pomerene Hall, guarding the sacred natural spring of nearby Mirror Lake. Personally, I prefer the Griffins over the Buckeyes as the school / state mascot… :D</p>
<p>Pomerene Hall - Front Entrance</p>
<p>The Original tOSU Seal</p>
<p>[All</a> sizes | Pomerene Hall | Flickr - Photo Sharing!](<a href=“http://www.■■■■■■■■■■/photos/oxfordblues84/2785939472/sizes/l/in/photostream/]All”>All sizes | Pomerene Hall | Flickr - Photo Sharing!)</p>
<p>Once gain, the original School Seal at the front entrance of the century-old Thompson Memorial Library.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.■■■■■■■■■■/photos/patentboy/4301932684/sizes/l/in/photostream/[/url]”>http://www.■■■■■■■■■■/photos/patentboy/4301932684/sizes/l/in/photostream/</a></p>
<p>Pomerene Hall - Rear Entrance</p>
<p>Coat of arms </p>
<p>[All</a> sizes | etc 011 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!](<a href=“http://www.■■■■■■■■■■/photos/srhbth/136279196/sizes/l/in/photostream/]All”>All sizes | etc 011 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!)</p>
<p>These Griffins need some good bath!! lol</p>
<p>P.S. Pomerene Hall was the original school natatorium. Legend has that a freshman girl actually drown in there… very spooky at night!!</p>
<p>UT’s greed started it</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. That statement says loads about you, goldenboy. But I think as you grow up you’ll find that most people care about much more than prestige; in fact, prestige ranks pretty low among most people’s priorities, as well it should.</p>
<p>But I’d also challenge your statement about the relative prestige of the ACC and the Big Ten. The only place the ACC arguably has an edge is in US News undergraduate rankings, and there it’s pretty gosh darned close. In all other rankings, the Big Ten comes out miles ahead.</p>
<p>AWRU top 30 world universities: Big Ten 5, ACC 0
THES top 30 world universities: Big Ten 3, ACC 2
THES top 30 US universities: Big Ten 4, ACC 2
QS top 30 world universities: Big Ten 2, ACC 1
QS top 30 US universities: Big Ten 4, ACC 2
NRC top 30 Math: Big Ten 7, ACC 1
NRC top 30 Physics: Big Ten 4, ACC 1
NRC top 30 Chemistry: Big Ten 8, ACC 2
NRC top 30 Biology/Integrated Biology: Big Ten 3, ACC 2
NRC top 30 Ecology/Evolutionary Biology: Big Ten 5, ACC 2
NRC top 30 Genetics/Genomics: Big Ten 4, ACC 2
NRC top 30 Economics: Big Ten 5, ACC 2
NRC top 30 Political Science: Big Ten 7, ACC 3
NRC top 30 Psychology: Big Ten 5, ACC 1
NRC top 30 History: Big Ten 6, ACC 2
NRC top 30 English: Big Ten 6, ACC 2
NRC top 30 French: Big Ten 7, ACC 2
NRC top 30 Chemical Engineering: Big Ten 8, ACC 2
NRC top 30 Electrical/Computer Engineering: Big Ten 6, ACC 4
NRC top 30 Materials Science/Engineering: Big Ten 6, ACC 2
NRC top 30 Mechanical Engineering: Big Ten 6, ACC 3
US News top 30 Undergrad Engineering: Big Ten 8, ACC 3
US News top 30 Undergrad Business: Big Ten 10, ACC 4
US News top 30 Graduate Business: Big Ten 6, ACC 4
US News top 30 Law: Big Ten 5, ACC 2
US News top 30 Medicine: Big Ten 4, ACC 3
US News top 25 Veterinary Medicine: Big Ten 6, ACC 2
US News top 30 Public Health: Big Ten 4, ACC 2
US News top 30 Social Work: Big Ten 6, ACC 2
US News top 30 Public Affairs: Big Ten 5, ACC 4
US News top 30 Fine Arts: Big Ten 5, ACC 0</p>
<p>It’s just not even close: the ACC schools may have a slight edge on overall undergrad admissions stats–not surprising, becuse they’re generally smaller schools. But the Big Ten schools display far more scholarly strength across almost all disciplines, and are generally recognized not only within academia but in various other kinds of rankings as the stronger institutions. I normally don’t put too much stock in any of these rankings, but what’s remarkable here is how consistent they are. The Big Ten trumps the ACC hands-down in prestige, except among 18-year-olds who slavishly follow the US News undergraduate rankings.</p>
<p>And that’s not even counting the University of Chicago which through the Committee on Institutional Cooperation is effectively part of the Big Ten’s “academic conference.”</p>
<p>What a load of rubbish. If you exchanged Michigan’s faculty with Harvard’s faculty, none of the Harvard students would notice a difference. It would be like if a tree fell in a forest. However, if you switched a randomly selected group of 1,650 UCLA or Michigan students with one Harvard College class (about 1,650 students), then the reputation of Harvard would sink faster than the Titanic.</p>
<p>
Small differences in student body strength and graduate outcomes are far more relevant to the undergraduate quality of an institution than even large differences in the strength of a faculty. There’s no proof that the undergraduate education in Math will be better or worse at an NRC rated school in the top 5 of a subject (lets say Michigan Math) than a university whose department in that area isn’t even in the top 50 according to the NRC (lets say UVA Math).</p>
<p>However, there’s ample proof that being surrounded by a more intelligent nucleus of peers leads to better outcomes for a given individual who’s part of the group.</p>
<p>The moderator Alexandre likes to say that the difference between his alma mater U of Michigan and the non-HYP Ivies with regards to student body is negligible and there’s no difference between how students from these schools fare in graduate school admissions.</p>
<p>Lets look at Brown and Michigan, who release a comprehensive report of where their undergraduates are admitted to law school, and see where their students most commonly matriculate.</p>
<p>Brown’s Top 10 Law Schools in 2011
[Admission</a> Statistics | Law School Advising](<a href=“http://brown.edu/academics/college/advising/law-school/statistics]Admission”>Admission Statistics | Pre-Law Advising)
Harvard Law: 26
Georgetown Law: 9
NYU Law: 9
Yale Law: 7
Berkeley Law: 6
Penn Law: 6
Fordham Law: 5
Columbia Law: 5
Michigan Law: 5
Duke Law: 4
Stanford Law: 4
Texas Law: 4</p>
<p>All of them are T14 Law Schools while Fordham and Texas are excellent regional law schools. By in large, Brown students essentially matriculate into the who’s who of elite legal institutions.</p>
<p>Michigan, on the other hand,…</p>
<p>UMich’s Top 10 Law Schools in 2011
[Statistics:</a> UM Undergraduate](<a href=“http://www.lsa.umich.edu/advising/academicplanning/prelaw/statisticsumundergraduate/top20lawschoolsattendedumgraduates8212fall2010_ci]Statistics:”>http://www.lsa.umich.edu/advising/academicplanning/prelaw/statisticsumundergraduate/top20lawschoolsattendedumgraduates8212fall2010_ci)</p>
<p>Michigan Law: 45
Cooley Law: 41
Wayne State Law: 30
Michigan State Law: 23
Brooklyn Law: 15
DePaul Law: 15
John Marshall Law: 14
Detroit Mercy Law: 13
Loyola University Chicago Law: 13
NYU Law: 13</p>
<p>Two T14 law schools make the top 10 law school list of where Michigan undergrads attend but the rest of the 8 are legal institutions where no Ivy, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, or MIT graduate would ever be found and if they are, it would be a very rare occurrence. </p>
<p>This is why Brown or Northwestern or Chicago are considered better institutions than UCLA or Michigan or Berkeley. The individuals who hold degrees from the former three schools are much more accomplished than the individuals who hold degrees from the latter institutions by in large.</p>
<p>Bringing this back to the ACC vs. Big 10 argument, the undergraduate education and student outcomes are far better for the ACC than the Big 10 (graduation rates, job placement, professional placement, etc.) so the ACC is considered the better conference.</p>
<p>The Pac 10 is top heavy but then the bottom kind of falls out.</p>
<p>As soon as I saw the title of the thread, I immediately thought University of Chicago. </p>
<p>These schools are constantly competing with each other so it’s not surprising that Chicago is no longer viewed as the single best university in the country. </p>
<p>I think especially today, with arguably the exception of Harvard, it’s hard to say what the best or top 3 schools are. The competition is so intense nowadays. Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, and Caltech can all lay claim to the title or top spots. </p>
<p>Depending on what and how much you’re weighing various factors, any of these schools could come out on top.</p>
<p>Btw, how did this thread get moved to the graduate school section?</p>
<p>This bizarro yell-at-each-other nonsense ******** “prestige” thread has no business in this forum.</p>
<p>I don’t think that schools like Wisconsin have really ‘fallen’ - it’s just that these days people are more snobby toward public schools than they were then. It wasn’t so crazy back then that a public school could indeed be among the best. It may also have had something to do with funding; by 1910, the endowment-focused approach of private universities hadn’t really developed yet (although around 1900, Harvard had a $5 million endowment, Columbia $6 million, Stanford ~$40 million, and Chicago $50+ million). Public universities were going through a renaissance of sorts, with many of them established and funded by the Morrill acts. So back then, it was very possible that a public school was better-funded than a top private.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that Stanford still made it to the top 13 in 1910, a mere 4 years after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which destroyed most of the campus. It wasn’t large either, with only 1,500 students in 1910 (yet it still produced enough eminent alumni to place decently on the list).</p>
<p>Whisked off to CC Neverland. Stifling a great debate that should be prominently placed in the College Search & Selection forum.</p>
<p>Overall Ranking 1910:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>University of Chicago</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>U. S. Geological Survey</li>
<li>Dept. of Agriculture</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>California</li>
<li>Carnegie Institute</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Smithsonian</li>
<li>Illinois</li>
<li>Pennsylvania</li>
<li>Bureau of Standards</li>
<li>Missouri</li>
<li>Minnesota
22. Ohio State :p</li>
<li>New York</li>
<li>Amer. Museum</li>
<li>Clark</li>
<li>West. Reserve</li>
<li>Brywn Mawr</li>
<li>N. Y. Bot. Gar.</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Indiana</li>
<li>Virginia</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Rockefeller Institute</li>
<li>North Carolina</li>
<li>Nebraska</li>
<li>Darmouth</li>
<li>Washington (St. Louis)</li>
<li>Kansas</li>
<li>Iowa State</li>
<li>Syracuse</li>
<li>Case</li>
<li>Field Museum</li>
<li>Tufts</li>
<li>Vassar</li>
<li>Smith</li>
<li>Cincinnati</li>
<li>Wesleyan</li>
<li>Wistar Insti.</li>
<li>Tulane</li>
<li>Wellesley</li>
<li>Conn. Sta.</li>
<li>Pittsburgh</li>
<li>Colorado Coll.</li>
<li>Gen. Elect. Co.</li>
<li>G. Washington</li>
<li>Worcester</li>
<li>Texas</li>
<li>U.S. Navy</li>
</ol>
<p>The whole list… lol</p>
<p>Source: [A</a> statistical study of American men of science, … . - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library](<a href=“http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark%3A%2F13960%2Ft9x060c2t;page=root;seq=63;view=1up;size=100;orient=0;89;num=589]A”>http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark%3A%2F13960%2Ft9x060c2t;page=root;seq=63;view=1up;size=100;orient=0;89;num=589)</p>
<p>Overall Ranking 1910</p>
<p>(Top-20)</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>California</li>
<li>Carnegie Institute</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Illinois</li>
<li>Pennsylvania</li>
<li>Missouri</li>
<li>Minnesota</li>
<li>Ohio State</li>
<li>New York</li>
<li>Clark</li>
</ol>
<p>**Note: I took away the governmental organizations from the original ranking.*</p>
<p>Source: [A</a> statistical study of American men of science, … . - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library](<a href=“http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark%3A%2F13960%2Ft9x060c2t;page=root;seq=63;view=1up;size=100;orient=0;89;89;num=589]A”>http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark%3A%2F13960%2Ft9x060c2t;page=root;seq=63;view=1up;size=100;orient=0;89;89;num=589)</p>
<p>Overall Ranking 1925</p>
<p>(Top-20)</p>
<p>1) Chicago
2) Harvard
3) Columbia
4) Yale
5) Wisconsin
6) Princeton
7) Johns Hopkins
8) Michigan
9) California
10) Cornell
11) Illinois
12) Pennsylvania
13) Minnesota
14) Stanford
15) Ohio State
16) Iowa
17) Bryn Mawr
18) Caltech
19) MIT
20) Northwestern </p>
<p>Source: <a href=“http://www.worldcat.org/title/study-of-the-graduate-schools-of-america/oclc/05110051[/url]”>http://www.worldcat.org/title/study-of-the-graduate-schools-of-america/oclc/05110051</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>+1</p>
<p>^You might find this 1910 volume of interest:
Slosson, “Great American Universities”
[Great</a> American universities. . - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library](<a href=“http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b58878;q1=great%20american%20universities;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=1;orient=0]Great”>http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b58878;q1=great%20american%20universities;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=1;orient=0)
It covers the following schools:
Harvard, Yale University, Princeton, Stanford, California, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Cornell, Penn, Johns Hopkins, Chicago, Columbia</p>
<p>^^ Interesing!! Thanks for sharing, zapfino!! </p>
<p>As I’ve alluded in the past, I look forward to Ohio State joining (or rejoining) this group of “Great American Universities” by 2020. Go Bucks!! :)</p>
<p>^I’m sure Ohio State will get to join that august group someday, just as they got to join the Western Conference back in '13. Just think of it: Back in 1910, Ohio State was in the Ohio Athletic Conference playing the likes of Case Institute of Technology, Kenyon, Oberlin, Ohio Wesleyan, Western Reserve, Denison, Heidelberg, Wooster, Wittenberg, Cincinnati, and Ohio U. In a few short years, it joined the greatest conference in the history of collegiate football. So, who knows, 2020 isn’t that far off…</p>
<p>OK, everyone back to their original conferences! College football will be better off for it.</p>
<p>1910
Western Conference: Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Chicago, Northwestern, Purdue.
Eastern Independent Conference: Princeton, Penn, Bucknell, Michigan, Pitt, Lafayette, Carlisle, Washington & Jefferson, Penn State, Lehigh, Villanova, Dickinson, Carnegie Mellon
Mid-Atlantic Independents: Navy, Georgetown, NC State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Washington & Lee, Davidson, Citadel, UNC, S. Carolina, Wake Forest, Virginia
Northeast Independents: Harvard, Army, Brown, Yale, Cornell, Colgate, Syracuse
Southern Independent: Vanderbilt, Auburn, Sewanee, Mississippi, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Chattanooga, LSU, Tennessee, Alabama, Tulane, Mercer, Samford
Western Independents: Arkansas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Texas, Southwestern, TCU, Haskell
Rocky Mountain Conference: Colorado, Denver, Utah, Colorado C, Colorado Mines, Colorado State, Wyoming
Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association: Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Iowa State, Kansas, Drake, Washington U (MO)</p>
<p>1925
Eastern Independent Conference: Princeton, Penn, Pitt, Washington & Jefferson, Penn State, Carnegie Mellon, West Virginia, Notre Dame, Navy, Michigan State
Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association: Missouri, Drake, Kansas State, Nebraska, Iowa State, Oklahoma, Grinnell, Kansas, Washington (MO), Oklahoma A&M
Northeast Independent: Dartmouth, Harvard, Yale, Colgate, Cornell, Brown, Syracuse, Columbia, Army
Pacific Coast Conference: Washington, Stanford, Cal, USC, Oregon State, Washington State, Idaho, Montana, Oregon
Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference: Colorado State, Utah, Utah State, Colorado, BYU, Wyoming, Colorado C, Montana State, Western State (Denver), Colorado Mines, Denver, N. Colorado
Southern Conference: Alabama, Georgia Tech, Tulane, Washington & Lee, Florida, UNC, Virginia, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, VaTech, Georgia, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Sewanee, VMI, Maryland, NC State, Mississippi, Clemson
Southwestern Athletic Conference: Texas A&M, TCU, Texas, SMU, Baylor, Rice, Arkansas
Southwestern Independent Conference: William & Mary, Wake Forest, Mercer, Furman, Citadel, Oglethorpe, Davidson, Duke, Newberry, Richmond, Hampden-Sydney, Presbyterian, Centre, Wofford
Western Conference: Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa, Chicago, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Purely an artifact of small numbers v large numbers, my boy. If you took the stats of the top 1,650 students in Michigan’s entering class, they would outshine the credentials of the 1,650 students in Harvard’s entering class. Do the math. For the class of 2014, a full 25% of Harvard’s entering class had SAT CR+M scores below 1390, and/or ACT scores below 31. The top quartile of Michigan’s entering class–which works out to 1,624 students, awfully close to 1,650–had SAT CR+M scores of 1440 or higher, and/or ACT scores of 31 or higher. The top quartile at Michigan also had unweighted HS GPAs of 3.9 or higher, and they were all in the top 10% of their graduating class (in fact, 90% of Michigan’s entering class were). Harvard doesn’t tell us about HS GPAs, but it’s a safe bet that some were below 3.9. And 5% were not in the top 10% of their HS class.</p>
<p>Bottom line, if you exchanged the top 1,650 students in Michigan’s entering class for the 1,650 in Harvard’s, Harvard’s raw US News score would go up a bit, because statistically, looking at the things US News measures (SAT/ACT scores plus percentage in top 10% of HS class), Harvard’s entering class stats would be stronger if it had Michigan’s top 1,650 students rather than the 1,650 it’s stuck with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually there’s ample evidence to the country, at least at the college level. Numerous studies have concluded that high-stats, highly motivated individuals tend to have extremely similar outcomes wherever they do their undergraduate work. Other studies have concluded that the supposedly superior outcomes of elite private university graduates are mostly (or perhaps entirely) selection bias effects; if you select a bunch of kids who do well on the SAT, it’s a good bet a fair number of them will do well on the LSAT. That, combined with rampant grade inflation at many elite private schools, means that they have a lot of grads with the credentials to get into top law schools.</p>
<p>But even if we accept your premise, there’s clearly a sufficient critical mass of really, really smart people at Michigan for anyone who needs the reassurance of being in that peer group. And they tend to move together. They come in as part of LS&A Honors, or Ross, or Engineering. They take an accelerated curriculum and end up taking graduate-level courses in their junior and senior years, in some of the top graduate programs in the country. These people are not starved for top-shelf peers. Far from it.</p>
<p>As for the Brown versus Michigan law school admission numbers you provide, it proves nothing. For Brown you go down to as few as 4 admissions per law school. For Michigan the lower bound is 13. If we threw in all the T-14 law schools where Michigan had as few as 4 admits, it might easily equal or exceed Brown’s figures. If we just compare what we can compare–T-14 law schools with 13 or more matriculated from each school-- the score would be MIchigan 58, Brown 26. Again, I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge that we’re comparing the top part of Michigan’s class with all of Brown’s. But the top part of Michigan’s class appears to be doing awfully well. </p>
<p>And that, in a nutshell, is the whole fallacy of the US News ranking system: it rewards institutions that exclude all but a few, and makes them appear to be doing great things when in fact they’re probably doing little more than being exclusionary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I knew and noticed. I participated in The Veritas Forum. </p>
<p>[Veritas</a> Intro Video - YouTube](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHciQpySryw&feature=player_embedded]Veritas”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHciQpySryw&feature=player_embedded)</p>
<p>^ And did you also notice that the founding dates for Oxford and Cambridge on these windows are way off the mark. They shave centuries off the actual likely dates. It’s unlikely that universities were founded at Oxford and Cambridge before the Norman invasion, as these windows depict, and certainly, they were not founded before the University of Paris.</p>
<p>And the founding date for U Oklahoma is indicated as 1892, but the correct date is 1890.</p>
<p>Oh well, I like the windows anyway.</p>