<p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT </p>
<p>Columbia, UPenn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, WUSTL, UC Berkeley, Georgetown</p>
<p>why are peopl so obsessed with uchicago?</p>
<p>it is not very well-known and it has like a 40 percecnt acceptance rate. who cares?</p>
<p>Because it is an outstanding research university that everyone in academia has heard of.</p>
<p>Thus, it’s a “prestigious” school.</p>
<p>Columbia is more selective than Princeton, but you’d be hard-pressed to find even a handful of people who know what they’re talking about to argue that the former is better than the latter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would hardly call sub-2100 SATs subpar … to say so is arrogant and just plain stupid …</p>
<p>I never said that people with 2100s are subpar.</p>
<p>I said that 25 percent of ppl at H arvard and Yale have sub-2100 sats.</p>
<p>In addition to that, the Ivies DO admit plenty of atudents who are subpar academically (athletes, developmental admits, and the like).</p>
<p>Therefore, People need to stop automatically revering people that go the Ivies.</p>
<p>Colombia and Princeton are really similar in their difficulties to get into, both really selective.</p>
<p>“I said that 25 percent of ppl at H arvard and Yale have sub-2100 sats.” How many schools have less than 25% of ppl with sub - 2100 stats?</p>
<p>
I wish some posters would actually think before posting. They just show their ignorance.</p>
<p>Prestige and acceptance rate often go together, but as I said before, acceptance rate alone is not a good indicator. The College of the Ozarks has a 12% acceptance rate. Is it more prestigious than Penn or Dartmouth? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Chicago, as someone mentioned, is a research powerhouse. Only a handful of schools (Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech) can go head-to-head with Chicago at the graduate level.</p>
<p>Incidentally, Chicago’s acceptance rate was not “like 40 percent” last year. It was 27.9%.</p>
<p>uchicago seems to be the school having a huge gap how a typical high school student thinks and how a typical post-graduate respects.</p>
<p>There may be a gap on its recognition by US population in general and the rest of world.</p>
<p>Harvard
Princeton
Yale
MIT
Stanford
Cal Tech
UPenn
Columbia
University of Chicago
Brown
Dartmouth
Duke
Cornell
Johns Hopkins
Northwestern</p>
<p>hahah i mentioned yale twice. oops. must be because my uncle went there (doesnt matter for me anyways cause i am not applying there).</p>
<p>i agree that uchicago, northwestern, and wustl are tremendously overrated (uchicago especially for undergrad).</p>
<p>Stanford
Harvard
MIT
Princeton/Yale
UPenn/Columbia
Duke
Notre Dame (often overlooked)
Hopkins/Cornell
Dartmouth/Brown
Northwestern
UChiacgo
WUSTL</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you stop and think about this for a second? Those 25% are athletes or very influential legacy/development cases and in a few scenarios extreme URMSs. If you meet a normal kids who goes there I doubt they have a sub 2100… </p>
<p>Here is mine
Harvard
Yale
Stanford
Princeton
MIT
Penn/Columbia
Duke
Brown/Dartmouth
Cornell/Wash U/ Northwestern/ Hopkins
Chicago</p>
<p>
Since I sincerely doubt the admissions officers at Harvard and Yale, with 7% and 8.3% admit rates and the [third</a> and fourth highest test scores in the country](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/563455-most-selective-colleges-based-sats.html]third”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/563455-most-selective-colleges-based-sats.html), decided to admit those applicants out of the goodness of their hearts, one must assume that those students had something more impressive to offer than extremely high test scores.</p>
<p>
Developmental admits make up a very tiny portion of the admitted pool at most elite colleges (a dozen or so applicants at most).</p>
<p>"Those 25% are athletes or very influential legacy/development cases and in a few scenarios extreme URMSs. If you meet a normal kids who goes there I doubt they have a sub 2100… "</p>
<p>Exactly. That’s why people should stop automatically being so impressed with a Harvard or Yale degree because 25 percent of the time the person with the degree only got in because of how he is " an influential legacy/development cases and or an extreme URM."</p>
<p>
Nonsense. Harvard has every qualified URM applicant in the country banging on its door. Unlike some schools, it has no need to lower its standards. </p>
<p>In any case, Harvard is one of the top three or four colleges in selectivity. Like it or not, it <em>is</em> more difficult to get into Harvard than, say, Emory or Rice. Why shouldn’t people be impressed?</p>
<p>Re: the bottom 25% of the quartiles in reported SAT scoring: It <em>is</em> critical for an applicant to know if this group is comprised of students similarly situated to the applicant… otherwise that metric is irrelevant.</p>
<p>If in fact that bottom 25% of the SAT quartiles is comprised, say 80%, of truly hooked admits (development, cronyism, athletic, Univ. empoyee kids, URM, <em>extreme</em> adversity), then a “regular” applicant should not think that their 2080 score fits into a huge pool of 25%. They have none of the hooks, therefore the hooked stats are irrelvant to the applicant’s chances. That applicant fits into the remainder of the bottom 25% to which the applicant may possibly compare… that is the remaining 20% of the original 25%, or about 5%. And it is quite possible that that remaining 20% under 2100 score have a non-hooked incredibly extraordinary EC… the kind where people would say --That’s unbelievable!! I can’t believe a 17 year old could (fill in the blank). Or that that applicant has never seen a B at a well known competitive school, has taken multiple college courses all with As, has won academic competitions… but clearly simply cannot perform on standardized “intelligence” type tests… weird but happens all the time.</p>
<p>There is a big difference between 5% of the admitted students having under 2100, and 25%, of “similarly situated students”.</p>
<p>At much smaller selective schools, say those with around 1,500 - 2,000 undergrads and therefore 375 - 500 new matriculants each year, the entire bottom 25%, and possibly the bottom 30% of the SAT scoring range might be hooked, especially if athletic recruiting is a priority for that school. It athletics is absolutely unimportant, the hooked range is probably 10-15%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A 2100 SAT is still probably ~ top 3%. Only on CC would someone scoff at only being in the top 3% and view it as “not vey impressive.”</p>
<p>What about Rice? Isn’t it considered the Harvard of the South?</p>
<p>I am guessing you guys don’t actually go to these schools, or you would realize having 25-75s of 700-800, 700-790 and 690-790 does NOT mean either that 25% have below 2100 or that 25% have 2380+.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Rice’s location severely hurts its prestige. Where I am from very few people know about Rice simply because it is in Texas.</p>