Penn doesn't have the Harvard/Yale type name of an actual person that it is named after (like all 7 other Ivies). Pennsylvania is a Quaker institution - where that kind of boasting and conspicuousness is frowned upon and always has been (ask anyone who has gone there if they have noticed that type of subculture).

I think a lot of this comes from name/prestige snobs from New England who have trouble accepting that a school in Philadelphia has actually done well for itself. Read Digby Baltzell's Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia and you will understand the history of why prominent attorneys from Philadelphia turned down offers to be on the US Supreme Court (Penn Grads) while prominent attorneys from Boston ran tripping over themselves when offered spots (Harvard Grads). There is a deep sociological explanation for the vastly different cultures of New England v. Philly. That is part of why these post and this issue exists.

However - to those who NEED to know - Penn is considered very elite in terms of its overall prestige because of its nearly unparalleled research facilities and government funding. And like most good schools - it has recognition for its overall prominence - and its undergraduate institution benefits from that - just like all the other Ivies and other prestigious institutions.

Basically I think what happened was Penn's administration realized that a lot of shmos (like the ones on this board) have the views promulgated here – that Penn is not a good ivy, that it’s confused with Penn State, etc. all of the things that insecure students are not interested in dealing with (how terrible for them!).

So the school, to advance its image, decided to take action on this matter. It started a massive fundraising and PR drive to move up in the rankings and enter the "middle" ground between HYP and the other 5 ivies. This began when I was there and really picked up speed about say 10+ years ago – when US News used to have it in the 9-15 range in the rankings. Now it is consistently between 4-6.

The argument can reasonably be made that the effort thus far has been successful.

Here are some reasons and fun facts as to why Penn is not a TTT:

1) Penn is a financial giant and is just now catching up and surpassing its Ivy brethren. Penn tops the Ivy League in actual spending. In 2007, it was FOURTH in fundraising by all universities. It's the first university in the US (1740) (Harvard, Wiliam and Mary and Yale were places where clergy went for education only) and is a founding member of the Association of American Universities. So historically it’s there.

2) For those who think it's all Wharton (which is ridiculous given that Wharton is a very small percentage of the school) - the College of Arts and Sciences accepted 11% last year. Princeton Review consistently names it a top 10 toughest school to crack for applicants. According to wikipedia's listing: Penn has a slightly higher acceptance rate than some of its Ivy League fellows (it is either largest or second largest with Cornell up there in terms of size), yet is arguably the most selective of the "middle" or "lower" Ivies (i.e. Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, and Cornell). To wit, 96% of Penn's incoming freshmen for 2007 were ranked in the top 10% of their high school classes, compared to Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth and Cornell, whose statistics were 93%, 90%, 91%, and 87%, respectively. Similarly, Penn's average SAT scores are higher than the other "lower" Ivies. To quote a recent article about the university regarding its admissions policy and research prowess, "The University of Pennsylvania holds its own against the best of its Ivy League brethren."

3) The Center for Measuring University Performance ranks Penn in its top cluster of research universities in the nation tied with Columbia, Harvard, MIT and Stanford universities. I don’t see Yale, Princeton or any of the other Ivies there in this one. Not even Cal Tech or Johns Hopkins which is very surprising.

4) In 2007, The Washington Monthly published a unique ranking that focused on universities' contributions to national service (Research: total research spending, Ph.D.s granted in science and engineering; Community Service: the number of students in ROTC, Peace Corps, etc.; and Social Mobility: percentage of, and support for, Pell grant recipients); Penn ranked 17th overall, and 4th among private institutions behind Cornell, Stanford and MIT.

So for all the haters out there. Sorry – it’s a reasonable conclusion to say that not only is Penn not a TTT, but that it is pulling ahead of the pack and distancing itself from Columbia, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth and moving into an intermediate area behind Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

But yes – it’s still called just plain old University of Pennsylvania.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10488535)

Hopefully this doesn't become a flame war.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10489381)

As a matter of fact, I've this post before and I've already ripped a hew holes in it. But I'll do the honors again.

1) "Penn doesn't have the Harvard/Yale type name of an actual person that it is named after (like all 7 other Ivies)"

Princeton and Columbia are both thankful for their wonderful naming benefactors, a geographic location and a patriotic symbol.

2) "This began when I was there and really picked up speed about say 10+ years ago – when US News used to have it in the 9-15 range in the rankings. Now it is consistently between 4-6."

It didn't "pick up speed" - it all happened in exactly one year. From 1988 to 1997 Penn finished no higher than 13th overall and 7th relative to the other ivies with the exception of one year (not 1997). Since 1998 Penn has finished no lower than 7th overall and 4th among the ivies. We'd all like to know just exactly how Penn magically flipped the rankings in just 12 months.

3) "It's the first university in the US (1740)"

I've actually gotten tired of debunking this one. Penn was not founded in 1740. In fact, nothing was founded in 1740. The people who eventually founded the college at Penn opened a grammar school and secondary school in 1751. There was no college until 1755, a year after Columbia (the school you keep trying to say you're older than, since most of you have given up on trying to beat Princeton) had opened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10489705)

Before Rodin, in the early 90s, Penn wasn't that great a school. Now that's changed, and it's a respectable middle-lower ivy (I don't buy that it's better than Columbia).

One of the biggest problems with it - and what made me choose Chicago over Penn in my final college decision - is that a lot of the students there seem extremely status-conscious and a little insecure. They always want to make sure everyone knows how good Penn is, and how favorably it stacks up to other top schools. Every school has a little of this, but Penn kids I met always seemed very aware of the school's ranking, perceived slights by other schools, etc.

I doubt that Penn is distancing itself from Columbia, but it has a lot going for it.

Overall, Penn's a good school, but people like you need to relax.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10491199)

At Cornell, everyone is sad because they couldn't get into ANY other Ivy.

At Brown and Columbia, everyone is weeny-tad bit self-conscious about having been waitlisted at HYP. Actually, among my Brown friends I've seen a lot of this. It's kind of weird. They really seem to cultivate their self-loathing. They can't always seem to enjoy the fact that they're at great schools.

At Penn, in CAS anyway, students are rarely if ever self-conscious or upset about college. Similarly to Dartmouth, they're all absolutely thrilled to be here. A bunch turned down Columbia/Brown/Dartmouth, a bunch were on the waitlist at HYP, and everyone else simply applied early.

(In Wharton obviously, a lot of kids were ACCEPTED to HYP and chose Wharton in the first place. But we're not talking about them, are we?)

Really, the only evidence of insecurity that I've witnessed is on this board! It's got to stop, mostly because no one looks at Penn this way anymore. The biggest evidence that I've seen of the elite world's acceptance of Penn undergrad is from the New York Times, which time and again discusses Penn in its articles about the elite universities, now always in parity with Columbia. This is a huge change, especially considering the paper's home base...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10491327)

On my tour, the tour guide repeteadly mentioned that Penn was a "Top 5" school according to the rankings. Kids just seemed kinda like materialistic-striver types. Very focused on status, always mentioning how Penn should NEVER be confused with Penn State, and the students just seemed very very pre-professional. Kids seemed to make a big deal about being a "top 5" school but also a "big party school."

I did meet, though, a bunch of kids that applied ED, and since Penn is still one of the more "manageable" top schools to get into early, they were just happy to be there, and realized it was about the best they could do.

It just made for a weird dynamic. A big portion of the student body seemed toolish and insecure, and the ED portion seemed complacent, but also just as pre-professional.

I just didn't get this vibe at all when I talked to kids from Brown and Dartmouth. Both these schools just seemed a lot more chill. I'm sure kids from B and D get the same great jobs and grad school positions as kids from Penn, but there wasn't this same sense of insecurity or status-consciousness lingering around campus.

I dunno, I was put off by Penn. I could never figure out what the identity of the school was (it's much easier to place at Chicago, and, I felt, at Brown and Dartmouth too). It seems like a big bland good school where a significant portion of the student body wishes the school was more recognized, and are a little indignant that it's not.

Great school, I just have no idea what the drawing points would be for applicants (outside of Wharton).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10492026)

On the other hand, I would say Penn has a very firm identity as a work hard/Party hard school, similar to Stanford or Dartmouth or Cornell. In contrast to those, however, it is very urban. So it definitely has its own identity: an urban, elite, yet SOCIAL and FUN school. It's basically a good version of Columbia (just kidding (not really)).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10493465)

Columbia has the fabled Core Curriculum, is known for being in NYC, kinda aloof and impersonal, strong traditions in a wide range of academic departments (econ, the beatniks, manhattan project, etc. etc.)...

Brown has the Open Curriculum, is known for having (for better or worse) kind of a laid back super liberal student body, kinda lax academic requirements (no +or - grades).

Dartmouth has a generally outdoorsy, New England liberal arts college vibe, comparable in some ways to an Amherst or Williams.

Chicago has the Core Curriculum, and is known for being one of the more "intellectual," rigorous liberal arts schools. Little grade inflation, generally strenuous and challenging academic requirements. Located in a great city, with very little emphasis on sports or the like on campus. (I've found this to be true so far.) From how I understood it, Chicago was kinda like the MIT for liberal arts nerds (this has definitely held true).

Penn is... elite, urban, and fun? I dunno - again, I could never get a handle on what Penn was all about, outside of those generalities. I know my descriptors for the schools above are vague, but I was struck by how many of the kids I met from those schools reflected the identity of the school.

I guess maybe Penn has a Wharton/Business/Pre-professional feel?

So when I was deciding between Penn and Chicago, with Chicago, I felt I knew what I was getting, and I really wanted a school with a really great academic rep that was kinda intellectual/liberal-arts nerdy. With Penn, I just didn't know anything that struck people. Penn kids tried to sell it in three ways: 1.) It's an Ivy, 2.) It's highly ranked and elite, and 3.) it's fun. Kids at Columbia and Brown at least talked about their curriculums, location, etc. They didn't seem to lean as much on the Ivy status or their rank or eliteness. This was kind of a given at those schools. At Penn, there was none of this. It was definitely a turn off.

Sorry, when I think of Penn, all I really think of is the big bland bookstore with a Gap right next to it. Somehow that seemed fitting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10495477)

Penn has precisely the same draws; I think you simply failed to make the connection.

In terms of curriculum: the One University model, wherein students can take classes in any of the colleges, the law school, and the med school.

In terms of location: it's urban. Hurrah.

In terms architecture: perhaps you missed the 3 beautiful gothic-collegiate quads, or the fisher fine arts library, or Houston Hall, or College Hall, or Irvine Auditorium, or Cohen Hall, or the Museum, or Franklin Field?

I'm sorry, but if all you can remember is the bookstore, it appears as though you didn't even visit the campus.

My final point: the most important part of your education, once you have your Ivy League degree or comparable, is the student body. Penn has a great one, certainly on parity with Brown's or Columbia's. Even the "pre-professional" Wharton kids will sit and discuss Descartes or Hume if you give them the time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10498663)

I really liked Brown. I dunno what it was - kids just seemed sorta laid back and happy to be there, very chill place. I don't think it has a lot of academic horsepower though, so that was a bit of a turn off for me.

Anyways, for Penn, sure it has all those factors - good student body, nice architecture (some of the high rises not so much, the Freshman Quad was really nice though - it's kind of a hit or miss campus), but it just didn't come together for me. <Shrugs> I dunno what to tell you man - maybe location means a lot, and that's why Dartmouth and Columbia stick out so much more to me? Either way, if a kid is good enough to get into Penn and other schools, I dunno what draws that applicant to Penn.

Well, I should say, probably a lot of kids want "fun and elite," so Penn picks up kids that way. For applicants looking for anything more specific, it's hard to see how CAS has that much of a draw. Maybe location is just a big deal, but I do think it allows a college to have more of a distinctive feel.

Again, I dunno what to say. Sounds like you are having a good time at Penn, and that's great. I was probably in the minority when I was applying to schools, because I had some more specific reqs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10498743)

Brown was also, as you yourself said, lacking in an academic way. I was concerned that it's 10-year stagnancy would not soon be rectified, and I didn't feel like gambling on my future.

Penn has a promise of ascendancy, though, and I like that. Just as you see Chicago having (and on this I would agree).

How does that sound to you?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10498770)

Penn is very much a school in transition - it's only been REALLY good relatively recently. So it's still kind of in the process of finding itself, so to speak. That's why I'm interested in how Gutmann is doing - Rodin just set the bar so high.

On another note, from what I've heard, Philadelphia is getting a LOT better, and this bodes well for Penn. One of the best things Rodin did in her Penn Compact was acknowledge Penn's responsibility to make West Phila better (whether this means more gentrified, who knows, but it'll help Penn a LOT if Phila returns to significance).

What do you think? Is philly getting better?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10498797)

Have you ever heard of the BosWash Megalopolis? That is what a growing number of urban planners have started to call the heavily, continuously populated corridor between Boston and Washington. Boston maintains its significance vis-a-vis its status as one of the end points of the corridor. Washington and New York have their obvious points of relevance. Philadelphia is a vital in-between, and I believe that the city is in a state of flux in principle measures of economy.

In terms of safety, however, Philly is getting MUCH better.

Also, I agree with you that as Penn re-adjusts to its new position in the elite world, it will be able to re-define itself as a student body.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10498841)

Ah I didn't know it was shrinking. There are so many schools (Penn, Swat, Bryn Mawr, Nova, Haverford, Drexel, etc.) and a strong base of wealthy, entrenched people (i.e. the Main Line), that I was surprised that Philly didn't have more of a Boston - college town feel. I liked Philly when I visited, and it sorta seemed like Boston with all the schools in one small area, and it had a colonial feel.

If Philly can become more of a "happening" city, that'd be a plus. Areas like Rittenhouse Square seemed BEAUTIFUL, so maybe if Penn connects to the downtown area a bit more somehow, it can capitalize on that? I'm just brainstorming here, but Philly definitely had some good parts to it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10498879)

One other thing. There is a paucity of rigorous data to compare where top students would prefer to attend if they receive multiple acceptances from top undergraduate institutions. One of the few studies that attempted to provide some comparative metrics was the Revealed Preferences Survey by NBER in the early 2000s. That study still has relevance in the case of Brown because year after year the schools Brown consistently loses more students to than they take from remains the same. Those schoos are HYPSM and Caltech. That hasn't changed. In fact, even with Penn's ascendency in the U.S. News rankings Brown maintains a consistent advantage over Penn for top students. The relative strengths of the two student bodies are reflected, in my opinion, in the fact that Brown students consistently do better than Penn students in garnering more awards in spite of the fact that Brown is a much smaller institution overall than Penn. Again, not to take anything away from Penn, it's a great school, but to say that, because the students at Brown seemed chill, and the curriculum is open, there is a lack of academic horsepower, is not accurate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10499362)

1) The preference study used data from the years of 1999 and 2000!

At that point, Penn had only been ranked in the top 10 for 2 years, and Brown was still in it. And I believe the numbers were 40% choose Penn, 60% Brown.

Now, I'm no sociologist, but I'd say things are pretty even around now, if not in Penn's favor (actually, I'd say that they're in Penn's favor, but I don't want to cause a fuss).

2) Penn and Brown have equivalent numbers of Rhodes scholars in the last 5 years: 4 from Penn and 3 from Brown. Outside of Harvard, no institution really commands a consistent or steady number of Rhodes scholarsships, regardless of institution size or quality. This is a bad metric.

3) Hate to break it to you, but Fullbrights aren't prestigious or very difficult to come by. They're more indicative of a school's atmosphere than anything else (which for Brown is obviously social activism).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10499434)

Thank god for research and initiative to find facts else we would be in a Boston/NY black hole.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10499525)

I mentioned fellowships in aggregate, including the Rhodes. Penn has a student body of about 20,000. Brown has a student body of about 7500. It would appear that Brown still attracts stronger students overall than Penn, and this would be consistent with Brown's continual success in winning the cross-admit battle against Penn.

Roughly the same number of Harvard and Yale applicants apply for the Fulbrights as Brown yet they are not as successful, and Penn really isn't even really in the game. Many people would beg to differ with you about the prestigiousness of the Fulbrights. I guess it depends on one's own perspective about the Fulbrights' prestigiousness. Never the less, the fact remains that excellent students from some of the nature's finest public and private universities vie for the Fulbrights and some universities do much better than others. I do believe it is a metric, but certainly not a definitive metric, to compare the intellectual passion and abilities of different student bodies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10500115)

Again, I had a lot of specific reqs when applying for colleges, and for me, I really wanted to be able to study with some great scholars in a range of subjects. I'm sure Brown has great TEACHERS (it kinda has a liberal arts college feel), but it doesn't have the scholarly rep of a Chicago or Columbia. I really wanted exposure to top-flight scholars, and at Chicago, I just like knowing I can take a class with Kevin Murphy or Rob Lucas or Andrew Abbot in sociology or whatever.

Brown is transitioning into a more comprehensive research university, so in the road ahead, it may get better. In terms of accumulating some of the best scholars in the world though, Brown pales in comparison to many of its peers.

Again, I had some specific reqs for college, and Brown ultimately wouldn't have fulfilled them. From my point of view, it doesn't boast the academic clout of the more significant research universities.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10500413)

1) The Rhodes go largely to undergraduates. Penn has 9,700, Brown has 5,800.

2) Here's the kicker, though; you included grad students. Brown's graduate programs in pretty much everything can't even begin to compete with Penn's. Penn is a leader in a number of fields, and is in the top-10 (according to old NRC rankings, can't wait for the new) in much of everything. Brown... is not.

Example: Med school.

Penn: 4

Brown: 31

And so it goes, dear Pinderhughes, for many other subjects.

So Penn's 10,000 stellar grad students should be able to whip Brown's bum into a righteous Freudian sexual frenzy of self-loathing and envy-based desire(not really sure where I'm going here).

I still don't buy the fullbright thing at all. The kids I know who won them weren't brilliant students, they just loved helping people (which is GREAT, but not what, for example, the Rhodes scholarship indexes).

Brown is obviously a great school, but I don't think it attracts better students then Penn. I will now play my trump card. DRUMROLL.

There was a poster on here a while ago who posted all about the Brown/Penn thing. He's long gone, but he is a transfer to Penn and on the Penn transfer group on facebook, there was a thread labeled "Penn vs Brown."

The group is open to the Penn network. I looked it up and double-checked.

A few transfers had applied to Brown as well, and a number had been cross-admitted. As I recall, 3 out of 4 chose Penn. The one who chose Brown admitted to the forum that he felt Penn was "more prestigious" but he was looking for a less work-driven, "more chill" atmosphere (I don't necessarily agree about a difference in prestige, but whatever).

Oh, and as anecdotal as that and this is, I have 3 friends who all turned down Brown for Penn. Although I believe they told me they wanted some sort type of community presence Brown lacked; the decision was not purely academic.

Let's just agree to disagree, but I have a great deal of faith that if the revealed preference study were duplicated today, it would find the Brown and Penn are, at the very least, split down the middle.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10501814)

At the undergraduate level, it is quite possible to get an education at Swarthmore, Amherst, Pomona and Williams (as examples) that is superior to what can be acquired at Penn, Harvard and Cornell because there is an intimate atmosphere of learning with faculty as bright (if not as well-published) as those at Penn, et al...

Undergraduates simply are not a priority for these Ivy's, and they don't have or need to be.

Indeed, Penn - for instance - is, to almost everyone out there in the world - a relatively great university to all but a very, very small number of schools. Similarly, Harvard is a big graduate school with a college affixed to its backside. They know that it doesn't really matter how their undergrads are treated - be it via the 800-1000 students in intro psychology or intro afro am, or the intimidating heirarchy of math instructors who keep undergrads at bay from the senior professors. People will always be willing to endure the chattel-like treatment at these schools because of what they are - great universities in spite of their shortcomings.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#13271990)

http://blackbooklegal.blogspot.com/2009/03/university-fundraising-in-this-economy.html

Penn was in the top 5

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#11256825)

They are not self-defined metrics (please read the post again).

Also - the post is in RESPONSE to numerous posts on this board bashing Penn for no reason so please get the logical flow straight.

Re the nitpicking on Princeton/Columbia - yes you are technically correct but those names are more unique and still have the same impact of a distinctive "name" and are not named the University of New Jersey (Princeton was the College of New Jersey) or the University of New York for Columbia.

To the other post mentioning Rodin - good call bringing her up - she was instrumental in the PR boost. She knew what she was doing :)

For the info surrounding Penn's founding - please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania with relevant excerpt at:

In 1740, a group of Philadelphians joined together to erect a great preaching hall for the evangelist George Whitefield. Designed and built by Edmund Woolley, it was the largest building in the city and it was also planned to serve as a charity school. The fundraising, however, fell short and although the building was erected, the plans for both a chapel and the charity school were suspended. In the fall of 1749, eager to create a college to educate future generations, Benjamin Franklin circulated a pamphlet titled "Proposals for the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania," his vision for what he called a "Public Academy of Philadelphia."[8] However, according to Franklin's autobiography, it was in 1743 when he first drew up a proposal for establishing the academy, "thinking the Rev. Richard Peters a fit person to superintend such an institution." Unlike the other three American Colonial colleges that existed at the time — Harvard, William and Mary, and Yale — Franklin's new school would not focus merely on education for the clergy. He advocated an innovative concept of higher education, one which would teach both the ornamental knowledge of the arts and the practical skills necessary for making a living and doing public service. The proposed program of study became the nation's first modern liberal arts curriculum.

Franklin assembled a board of trustees from among the leading citizens of Philadelphia, the first such non-sectarian board in America. At the first meeting of the 24 members of the Board of Trustees (November 13, 1749) the issue of where to locate the school was a prime concern. Although a lot across Sixth Street from Independence Hall was offered without cost by James Logan, its owner, the Trustees realized that the building erected in 1740, which was still vacant, would be an even better site. On February 1, 1750 the new board took over the building and trusts of the old board. In 1751 the Academy, using the great hall at 4th and Arch Streets, took in its first students. A charity school also was opened in accordance with the intentions of the original "New Building" donors, although it lasted only a few years.

Quad in the Fall, facing Ware College House

For its date of founding, the University uses 1740, the date of "the creation of the earliest of the many educational trusts the University has taken upon itself"[9] (the charity school mentioned above) during its existence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10492590)

What're your thoughts? Rodin is a REALLY hard act to follow.

Also, it's interesting to me because Chicago currently has a president, Robert Zimmer, who seems to be (to a lesser degree) taking Chicago in a somewhat similar direction as Penn. Chicago def still has the "intellectual" bent, but Zimmer - like Rodin in her Penn Compact - openly mentioned that rankings matter, he wants to make the College much more selective, and he was in favor of lightening up our Core Curriculum a little bit. There's controversy surrounded Zimmer, but I think kids at Chicago - like any College - don't mind being better ranked, more selective, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10493074)

Of course, this is also indicative of the strides that Penn has taken; it's still growing into its own.

The point is, oushoudmod99, do not initiate any more threads for this purpose alone. Save your arguments for when they're brought up in different context. There they will be more effective and accepted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10493414)

Penn has nothing to be ashamed of, but I really think this Ivy/Non-ivy dichotomy BS has to stop. People need to stop feeling entitled simply because they go to an "ivy" school.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#11256813)

The Ivy League is a football league. In this day and age, its prestige outside HYP is highly questionable and it defiantly does not consist of the very best schools.

99% of the world thinks Penn is a state school. ROFLMAO!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10499536)

HYP rejects? LOL you are so funny Wharton is filled with kids that laughed at HYP (and Stanford, MIT, etc.) - and the College of Arts & Sciences given that it's not HYP level is making headway ahead of the other "lower" ivies...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10499856)

He went to ITT Tech, and as such derides pretty much everyone's education. Even the HYP kids that he begrudgingly accepts he still holds in contempt, because they succeeded where he failed.

I have no doubt that he will write something extremely distasteful and offensive in response to my post.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10499917)

At least you saved money by attending a state school.

LOLZ @ YOUR LIFE.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#10501876)

...... am I wrong?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#11257891)

Yeah, Penn was crappy 20 years ago. Who gives a fuck? Columbia was ranked 16th in the '80s to early '90s and had an acceptance rate only 2% lower than Cornell! But no one cares about that shit anymore.

Grow a pair, sferret, and deal with your shit. And whoever else there was. I got into fucking Brown by email, and I threw out the acceptance package without opening it - because I was accepted to a college that consistently kicks ass, instead. Does this response look defensive to you?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#11296648)

Yes. And you might want to check your previous argument before writing such a thing:

"Look, I'd say everyone here agrees that Penn is in the middle ivy range of Columbia, Dartmouth and Brown" -Peleven

...But I guess you don't agree with that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#11297030)

like on the lawboard, people "defending" Cardozo

seriously.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=896637&forum_id=1#11264802)