<p>kwu it seems like you are pretty biased towards Catholic schools from your previous posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought Stanford people are supposed to open-minded?</p>
<p>Indeed, I am biased toward Catholic schools. </p>
<p>I’ve been educated at Catholic schools for most of my life, and I attended the premiere Jesuit high school of this country. A handful of students from my alma mater attend Fordham every year, and I myself was offered a full scholarship there after having invested a significant amount of time researching the university, visiting its facilities, and speaking with its professors and administrators.</p>
<p>You cannot fail to acknowledge that Fordham’s sub-par ranking can be attributed primarily to anti-Catholic bias–I am referring to its abysmal Peer Assessment score–, the same sort that you exude in revolting abundance. </p>
<p>While ghostbuster is at fault for mocking Stanford without having done sufficient research to support his claim, you are no better than he is for unabashedly insulting a superb institution on account of its Catholic affiliation and its USNWR ranking.</p>
<p>So South Harmon Institute of Technology is now on par with MIT because I’m “open-minded”? Sorry but by being an institution with a more than just de-facto religious status it is no longer a university in my eyes. Perhaps an ill-befitted seminary would be more suiting. That is against the principles of open-mindedness that a liberal arts university is supposed to embody. And it is not just me that believes this, many in the higher rung of academia also share my opinion.</p>
<p>kwu, yes I am biased against Catholic universities, not against Catholics. It is a firm belief of mine that religion cannot accompany a university much less a superb one, in this day and age. But at least you admit your bias, so there’s no way I’m changing your mind and there’s no way in hell you are changing mine or a significant subsection of the academic elite’s.</p>
<p>Schmaltz: Is the caliber of the average student at #1 higher than the average student #40? Yes. Is the faculty more distinguished at 1 than 40? Unquestionably. Is what being taught in the classroom at 1 all too different or better than what’s being taught at 40? No. Not even close to the great extent that, courtesy of these rankings, we think. I stand by my point that the difference in quality of education between 1 and 40 is negligible.</p>
<p>haha, excellent question to the UF folks, nice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it is. The content tends to be more difficult at 1 than at 40.</p>
<p>^well, I would say it depends on the curriculum, take engineering, will the content of MIT engineering courses be more in depth than lets say UF’s, you sure as hell better believe it. Will it be more intense, oh hell yeah. Will it be more intense simply because it is private, I would say so. Would more be expected out of the students by the prof., oh yeah. Would the research at MIT be more cutting edge, sure is. Also, the emphasis at MIT will be placed more on creating researchers, inventors, and prof. than kicking out engineers just to supply the work force like UF. See, argument fails, you can go on and compare things like physics, mathmatics, and the likeness, but all would go to MIT’s favor. Why, because of the caliber of students, professors, and money, money, money.</p>
<p>Morsmordre:</p>
<p>Although I am not a Catholic (and in fact consider myself an agnostic), I think it’s undeniable that Jesuits have been great educators for hundreds of years. Notre Dame, for example, is an excellent university, and I know for a fact that they accept students even if they describe themselves as atheists. When you say that in your eyes an institution cannot be a university if it has a religious status you do not seem very open-minded to me. Perhaps you did not pay enough attention during open-mindedness class in your own higher rung of academia liberal arts elite university.</p>
<p>^ I agree with you whole-heartedly, Jesuits are some of the finest scholars around.</p>
<p>I just wanted to point out that Notre Dame is not Jesuit, it’s Brothers of the Holy Cross, still a great school, though!</p>
<p>simpson98:</p>
<p>I meant to say that they were Catholic, not Jesuits. I should have worded it better. It’s just that it irritates me when someone wants open-mindedness to go only one way-his or her way.
“Let them live in freedom, if they live like me”-Jim Croce.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is also likely true of some voters in the Peer Assessment survey. OTOH, it does not appear that BC nor Notre Dame have any members of the National Academy of Science. (NAS membership seems to correlate positively with a higher PA score.)</p>
<p>can you please post the top 30-50 undergraduate business schools</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True and truer! :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also true, and a testament to Penn’s abject failure in marketing itself.</p>
<p>williamsdad, no I did pay attention. You and others seem to conviniently forget that the reason that Catholic institutions cannot be considered universities is not because they discriminate against others, it is because they discriminate against intellectual views. Why do you think Harvard dropped its religious affiliation? Was it to welcome Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists? At the time only WASPs were welcomed to Harvard with the very very token Jew. It is because a religious affiliation binds the body of work, the scope of ideas of a religious institution. How comfortable would a Professor at Fordham without tenure feel writing about the benefits of stem cell research, the benefits of abortion to the American populus, why God doesn’t exist, or a harsh crticization of the Catholic church? Well perhaps the last one maybe accepted but the other two would not. That binds the body of work, the ideas a faculty can sustain-a view held by many others. If I were assigning PA’s to a school like Fordham it would be a 0 (or 1 if that’s the lowest). Again I’m not going to talk about how welcoming Catholic institutions are of their non-Catholic bretheren, since that is A)nothing special, it should be done and B) not even apropos to the discussion of intellectual freedom. This freedom that Fordham and its ilk lack make it impossible for me to consider them universities.</p>
<p>^ there are Jesuit scholars who will destroy you in any field of study. you’re the sort of snobby undergrad student that shifts public opinion against great universities such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc</p>
<p>When did I ever claim to be a Professor? Apples to Apples high school child. The Professors at Stanford decimate the Jesuit “scholars” when it comes to Nobel Prizes, National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, and every other elite honor known to academia. Is it because all the people deciding which bodies of work belong are “snobby undergrad students that shift public opinion against great universities” or because they are bound by religious to shackles to produce largely mediocre uninteresting bodies of work?</p>
<p>So as someone who hasn’t done jack, I can’t have things to say against the President? Good analogy there buster!</p>
<p>you’re saying an entire university is trash based on positions that some of its faculty/administrators have on a small handful of issues, and ignoring its overall strength and breadth as a teaching/research university. and my only connection to fordham is that a few kids from my high school matriculate every year, i just recognize it for what it is, without resorting to hyperbole.</p>
<p>bdl108, I was AGREEING with you about the education at the first several dozen schools having negligible differences at the undergrad level. I agree that there is nothing taught at the undergrad level that the profs at Dartmouth and Duke know that the profs at Georgia Tech and Wisconsin don’t also know.</p>