Date: July 25th, 2007 10:46 AM
Author: MobyDick (not casper)

stanford gets my vote, but col is close behind.

Date: July 25th, 2007 11:34 AM
Author: LoisMustDie

Easily Stanford...and I live in NYC.

Date: July 25th, 2007 11:04 AM
Author: setstein

Stanford, of course. The only relevant question would be S, Y or Pr.

Date: July 25th, 2007 11:06 AM
Author: UninvisibleMMW

Stanford is better than Columbia, but not on par with HYP.

Date: July 25th, 2007 11:38 AM
Author: MobyDick (not casper)

I never understood what exactly is so great about Y.. ok, it has a great residential college system.. big ****ing deal.

Date: July 25th, 2007 11:48 AM
Author: Nathan Hale
Subject: What's so great about Y?

Why don't you ask the last 3 presidents?

By your logic, one should just ask what the big deal about any school is?

(

Date: July 25th, 2007 7:15 PM
Author: ... .. ..... ... .. .. .. .. ..... ..........

"500 mile radius of Grand Central"

thats a ****-ton of people.

Date: July 25th, 2007 11:51 AM
Author: Nathan Hale
Subject: Stanford..hands down.

Date: July 25th, 2007 12:14 PM
Author: rednblue
Subject: Huhhh!!!!!!!!!

That's not EVEN a real question. Stanford by LIGHT YEARS>>>

Columbia is a top school with some areas of stellar strength. Stanford is a stellar school with a small number of areas which are not top 10.

Across the board - natural sciences, social sciences, arts, humanities, engineering, health sciences, other professions (law, business, design, etc.) Stanford leads almost all other universities by a large margin. Only Harvard and perhaps Berkeley can match its academic firepower in so many distinct disciplines.

And pound for pound, Stanford even beats H and B.

Yale, as someone mentioned, is a extraordinary place but its greatness is narrower (primarily in the humanities and arts, plus a VERY long legacy of producing national leaders and intellectuals). But even Yale is not Stanford.

Date: July 25th, 2007 12:29 PM
Author: MobyDick (not casper)

A masTTTer's degree is anything but prestigious

Date: July 25th, 2007 12:13 PM
Author: RWC (Striving towards the best swing possible)
Subject: Clearly it depends entirely on what one's interest is

among other factors. Attempting to make universal determinations about any institution is the height of absurdity, with one possible exception, and even then there a subjective crieria to be considered.

Date: July 25th, 2007 12:27 PM
Author: VicomteDeValmont

If one applies the commonly used metric that the academic profundity of a school is inversely related to that school's comparative athletic accomplishments and performance, then Columbia wins hands down. By that metric, Columbia excels all universities worldwide.

In addition, Columbia gave America the A Bomb, the H Bomb and the New Deal. Stanford just gave us the Mac.

Go Lions!

Date: July 25th, 2007 5:05 PM
Author: SuperTrader
Subject: Are you kidding?

"Columbia gave America the A Bomb, the H Bomb and the New Deal"

That's a very very big stretch there. MIT has a played a much greater role in America's development of nuclear weapons and the New Deal pres. was a Harvard man.

Date: July 25th, 2007 7:17 PM
Author: ... .. ..... ... .. .. .. .. ..... ..........

"Stanford just gave us the Mac."

Uh, no.

But Stanford did give us Google, youtube, Yahoo, HP....

Date: July 25th, 2007 9:03 PM
Author: LoisMustDie

UIUC gave us Playboy, YouTube, PayPal, AMD, Lotus, the transistor, Oracle, the MRI, Plasma TVs, LEDs, Mortal Kombat and last, but not least, the web browser (mosaic and netscape).

I still don't think it's that prestigious and I went there.

I wasn't aware that there was a Stanford connection to YouTube. I thought it was 2 UIUC grads and someone else from another midwestern school that founded it.

Date: July 25th, 2007 1:03 PM
Author: Alexander MacMillan (Hingham, MA)

Stanford.

This is not close.

Date: July 25th, 2007 4:39 PM
Author: expatriot

Stanford > Columbia.

Harvard or Yale > Stanford.

Princeton is slightly better than Stanford.

1. Harvard

2. Yale

3. Princeton

4. Stanford

5. MIT

6. Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, U Pennsylvania

7. Amherst, Williams, Duke, Cornell, U Chicago, Northwestern, Georgetown

8. Top publics like UC Berkeley, UVA, U Michigan, etc. (the others are borderline/debatable); runner-up LAC's like Swarthmore, Wellesley, Wesleyan, etc. (the others are borderline/debatable); for African-Americans (many choose these over Ivies and they are heavily recruited at by the same employers that come to HYP and they place well in professional schools) Howard + Spelman/Morehouse ONLY, and a small list of specialty schools or programs that probably should just be considered in the "OTHER" BUT NOTABLE category: top military academies (Westpoint, U.S. Naval Academy basically the only ones that count; Air Force Academy is MAYBE borderline), Caltech, Julliard, USC Cinema-Television, NYU Tisch, pre-med at WUSTL, etc.

I am 100% sure that there are a lot of people on this board that will disagree with me. But, it's not just about the admissions statistics, U.S. News rankings from departments or the undergraduate school as a whole, or anecdotes about how rigorous a school is...It is also about the SUCCESS of their ALUMNI and whether or not the schools produce leaders in their fields or professions - whatever they may be. I'm sorry, but Emory maybe ranked higher than Georgetown, but it has nowhere near the list of influential and prominent alumni. WUSTL games the numbers, and doesn't belong on the list (sorry), though it is a great place for pre-meds academically and in terms of extracurricular options - the hospital, clinical/research opportunities, etc.. Neither do the LAC's not listed with great numbers - they have unimpressive reputations in terms of actually producing impressive graduates. Colby College, for example, pretty much produces private high school or boarding school teachers pretty well, but that's about it (the same goes for someplace like Kenyon). Many would argue with Howard + Spelman/Morehouse but the reality is that they do have many famous and important alumni. Grinnell, Haverford, and Carleton may be ranked higher than Wesleyan, but their reputations may or may not be sustained and their alumni are lackluster or nonexistant in the echelons of power politically, economically, and socially.

This list is also reflective of what schools will CONTINUE to maintain their status regardless of what may happen in the future and also lay prestige, which is believe it or not is important. It simply isn't true that everyone who "matters" knows what Hamilton College, Claremont McKenna, Rice, or Carnegie Mellon is. Also, yield and how much demand there is among high school students is also part of the criteria used as well.

Will defend if necessary...

Date: July 25th, 2007 5:14 PM
Author: SuperTrader
Subject: Exactly how are you measuring success of alumni?

Number of billionaires, nobel prize winners, judges, senators? What? Your ranking in this regard seems rather random and wishy washy to me.

Date: July 25th, 2007 5:24 PM
Author: expatriot

The only reason people drool over Caltech on this board is because it is afterall an online forum - naturally there is going to be a nerd/techie/white or Asian male bias that permeates these types of discussions about schools.

In terms of success of alumni, obviously it isn't something that you can easily quantify, and your propensity to want to quantify it is indicative of your own bias. But, yes, all of the things you listed (for judges it would only be Supreme Court judges, celebrity judges or judges that have significant historical import, or MAYBE federal judges)...Nobel prize winners that ATTENDED these schools as undergraduates are more important criteria than Nobel Prize winners on the faculty of these institutions. Senators and top public figures in politics is of course part of the criteria as well as CEO's or billionaires or elite members of the business community of course. But, things like celebrities that have HUGE cultural, often political, but also economic influence are relevant as well. Not only are many of them much more wealthy than some of the Caltech science/engineering grads that have done compelling research in the ivory tower, but they also shape the way the masses behave, dress, speak, etc. Yale, for example, has a long history of producing people that are successful or influential in the art and entertainment world, which I think ijust as important if not more important than the science and engineering world in some respects. When you look at the numbers, getting an Oscar or Golden Globe for acting is an EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE process. Think about the number of average Americans that want to be a an actress or performer of some kind. Many Yale alumni from Jodi Foster to Glenn Close to Angela Bassett to Phillip Seymour Hoffman have earned one or the other prize and I think, GASP, it is significant.

I also think where the children of the elite go to school is relevant as well because they have more access to (at the top) lucrative yet less purely meritocratic fields like entertainment, media, and the art world just to name a few. Brown is getting tons of these uber-wealthy (both domestic and internationally) and celebrity kids and their investment in retaining and recruiting these students (and their decision to lower statistical academic standards to get them) will pay off big time in terms of their reputation in the future, despite the meritocracy critics.

Many places don't see places like Yale or Brown as feeders to these fields and think that getting your foot in the door as a successful say Broadway theater producer or noteworthy author or editor in the literary/journalism world are pure chance and luck because there are so many competitive individuals that seek those positions but they are wrong.

I also think people that inspire social change are important as well - i.e. MLK Jr. (Morehouse alumni).

Date: July 25th, 2007 7:00 PM
Author: Zhuge Liang-- Master of the Universe (Columbia CS '08)

This is pretty much credited.

Date: July 26th, 2007 1:06 PM
Author: greatonizuka

i second expatriot.

Date: July 25th, 2007 1:13 PM
Author: Zhuge Liang-- Master of the Universe (Columbia CS '08)

Oh, give me a break. A school that's not in the northeast cannot possibly be prestigious.

Date: July 25th, 2007 4:59 PM
Author: Debussy

Lawl at schools ahead of Caltech

Date: July 25th, 2007 5:07 PM
Author: expatriot

Sorry but Caltech is almost a TTT. Its admissions criteria is not WHOLISTIC, which is why they have the numbers they do. Their list of alumni is UNIMPRESSIVE, as is the percentage of alumni that are successful that donate. Their whole endowment comes from like one big donation as does Grinnell College's. Either alumni aren't making money or they didn't enjoy their experience enough to give back. Sorry but being a random medical/science researcher or teaching Biology or Chemical Engineering at Plymouth State University is not prestigious. I'm looking for schools that offer a varied curriculum and provide a solid, balanced liberal arts education - not a club of techie nerds that can memorize equations and do lab work. I also think, SHOCKER, that diversity is important and interacting with people with different backgrounds is crucial as an undergraduate, which Caltech ignores in its admissions criteria (which is part of the reason its stats are skewed as well). Its student body is also too small to be significant as is the number of people in its alumni network (at the undergraduate level). Be HONEST and name people that chose Caltech over HYPSM -> yes there are some but few.

HTH.

(

Date: July 25th, 2007 5:32 PM
Author: ohnoes II

As of 2005, Caltech has 31 Nobel laureates to its name. This figure includes 17 alumni, 14 non-alumni professors, and 4 professors who were also alumni (Carl D. Anderson, Linus Pauling, William A. Fowler, and Edward B. Lewis).

keeping in mind how tiny caltech is, lulz. you're just angry because you're the token AA-obsessed, kind of dumb megaposter

Date: July 25th, 2007 5:36 PM
Author: expatriot

Again, professors don't count, and the Caltech alumni are mostly (if I remember correctly PhD or master's degree alumni not former UNDERGRADUATES, which is again the whole focus of my post). And, producing Nobel laureates in the sciences is too narrow a list of successful alumni for it to make the list. This is the same reason Julliard didn't make the list. I changed my initial post to put Caltech in the OTHER category so that it did not damage the list.

And, I'm not AA obsessed. Don't quite get that post. And you would qualify as much more of a megaposter than I would. HTH.

Making significant additions to scientific/engineering innovation is important if it has significant and influential ramifications outside of academia, and was part of my criteria. But again, that is only ONE AREA that is impressive in, which means in all of the other fields it is UNIMPRESSIVE, and again my schools are intended to be schools that contribute leaders in a wide variety of careers and professions, not just a few. Julliard produces great ballet dancers but hasn't produced (maybe I'm wrong) a Supreme Court Justice or U.S. President.

Date: July 25th, 2007 5:46 PM
Author: expatriot

Caltech being tiny is a positive for the academic experience of undergraduates while they're there (arguably) but it is a definite NEGATIVE when it comes to the alumni network, which is part of my criteria.

(

Date: July 26th, 2007 9:39 AM
Author: unas

Jesus, I would kill myself if I had to live among those nerds for 4 years. Oh, and I can only imagine lack of desirability of members of the opposite sex. Limme pose a rhetorical question to myself...I wonder if there is a female at Caltech that isn't at least one of the following obese, socially inept, out of shape or have severe acne??? Hmmmm. This poor reflection of the femininity probably only makes up 25% of the campus.

Again, unless you are legacy I really don't understand why half of you guys put so much emphasis on these select undergraduate programs. It is a waste of time and money. At the end of the day prestige only comes into play with law, academia and business. Engineering opportunities will be the same whether it's Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech or Florida State. It baffles me that someone would spend 110K or whatever the hell CalTech's yearly tuition is now for a job that won't pay anymore than 65K when they graduate. I suppose if you are gonna be in academia going to Caltech is a better route, but all things being equal who gives a ****.

Date: July 25th, 2007 7:19 PM
Author: ... .. ..... ... .. .. .. .. ..... ..........

lol, columbia CS.

Date: July 25th, 2007 7:13 PM
Author: ... .. ..... ... .. .. .. .. ..... ..........

FLAME.

Date: July 25th, 2007 8:05 PM
Author: rednblue

1. Stanford/Harvard

2. Yale/Princeton

3. MIT

4. Penn/Columbia

5. Duke

6. Chicago

7. Cornell

8. Brown/Dartmouth

Caltech - superb, but it's an academic boutique. You can't compare it to full blown universities,

Date: July 25th, 2007 8:13 PM
Author: spaceship

lol, penn troll doesnt know how to use numbers.

Date: July 25th, 2007 9:10 PM
Author: ohnoes II

lol@rancid cornell trolling

Date: July 26th, 2007 12:31 AM
Author: setstein

Quality ranking:

Chicago

CalTech

Stanford

MIT

Harvard

Berkeley

Princeton

Yale

Penn

Columbia

Ie Brown is clearly below all of these: a fine little college in New England.

CalTech, by contrast, is indisputably a world-class institution.