<p>Actually, calling him a ■■■■■ would be paying him too high a compliment. A ■■■■■ is successful at angering people. He’s just embarrassing himself.</p>
<p>I’d like to think I’m a ■■■■■. :-(</p>
<p>Good point Deagledan. Perhaps ‘The Michigan ■■■■■ of CC’ can learn a thing or two from ‘The Duke ■■■■■ of CC’ ;)</p>
<p>^Yea, Stanford, Northwestern, and Duke are pretty much the top 3 most well rounded and consistently excellent elite non-ivy privates.</p>
<p>I know it’s meant well – but I really dislike the phrase “The Stanford of the Midwest” for Northwestern.</p>
<p>I think I prefer to say – it’s Northwestern!!. The school has its own brand and has its own philosophy. Northwestern is not Stanford and Stanford is not Northwestern. No need to get into silly comparisons as to which school is better (I’ll concede that Stanford is the higher ranked school, and among most has a better reputation). However, I don’t particularly care. Northwestern is an excellent school, and by all accounts one of the top universities in the US and in the World.</p>
<p>Northwestern stands on its own reputation.</p>
<p>^I agree.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t even say Stanford is necessarily “better” than Northwestern. Granted, it probably is more well known and higher ranked, but it partially depends on your program of study, too.
Northwestern matches Stanford in some subjects like Chemistry and Econ. And if your looking to study journalism, communications or theatre, Northwestern is probably stronger.</p>
<p>^IS stronger…substantially. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stop it. I’ve lived in the Chicago area for 25+ years at this point, attended NU (u-grad and grad), have a son who attends NU, and no … there is no one who calls “NU the Stanford of the midwest.” Such comparisons are stupid and pointless anyway. NU doesn’t need to be a midwestern Stanford or a midwestern Harvard or anything else. It can be its very own thing and that’s great. It’s needy to want your school to be called “Harvard of the --” or whatever, except in a joking fashion. Be proud of what your school is instead of trying to pretend it’s a junior Something-Else.</p>
<p>No question that, on average, Northwestern has the strongest students in the Big Ten. Michigan is #2, though as noted upthread, that’s mostly because Michigan needs to fill a much larger class. At its top end, Michigan enrolls as many or slightly more top students than Northwestern; e.g., more Michigan freshmen scored 32+ on the ACT than Northwestern has who scored 31+.</p>
<p>When it comes to faculty strength, Michigan is by far #1 in the Big Ten. I was prepared to give the #2 spot to Northwestern, but as I look at the numbers I think NU needs to share the #2 position with Wisconsin; one could even argue that overall Wisconsin’s faculty strength is greater than Northwestern’s.</p>
<p>The following are (except as noted) US News graduate program rankings in core disciplines; these aren’t cherry-picked, it’s just the academic mainstream. Graduate program rankings are almost entirely a function of perceived faculty strength in the discipline as rated by others in that field:</p>
<p>Biological Sciences: Wisconsin #16, Michigan #20, Northwestern #26
Business (grad): Northwestern #4, Michigan #14, Wisconsin #34
Business (undergrad): Michigan #3, Wisconsin #17, Northwestern n/a
Chemistry: Northwestern #7, Wisconsin #7, Michigan #16
Computer Science: Wisconsin #11, Michigan #13, Northwestern #35
Earth Sciences: Michigan #9, Wisconsin #13, Northwestern #39
Economics: Northwestern #7, Michigan #13, Wisconsin #13
Engineering (grad): Michigan #9, Wisconsin #18, NU #20
Engineering (undergrad): Michigan #7, Northwestern #13, Wisconsin #13
English: Michigan #13, Wisconsin #17, Northwestern #20
History: Michigan #7, Northwestern #14, Wisconsin #14
Law: Michigan #9, Northwestern #12, Wisconsin #33
Math: Michigan #8, Northwestern #16, Wisconsin #16
Medicine (research): Michigan #8, Northwestern #18, Wisconsin #29
Medicine (primary care): Michigan #8, Wisconsin #14, Northwestern #31
Philosophy (Philosophical Gourmet): Michigan #4, Wisconsin #22, Northwestern #31
Physics: Michigan #11, Wisconsin #17, Northwestern #30
Political Science: Michigan #4, Wisconsin #15, Northwestern #21
Psychology: Michigan #4, Wisconsin #9, Northwestern #14
Sociology: Wisconsin #1, Michigan #4, Northwestern #10
Statistics: Michigan #12, Wisconsin #12, Northwestern #48</p>
<h1>of top 5 programs: Michigan 5, Wisconsin 1, Northwestern 1</h1>
<h1>of top 10 programs: Michigan 13, Northwestern 4, Wisconsin 3</h1>
<h1>of top 25 programs: Michigan 21 (of 21 = 100%), Wisconsin 18 (of 21 = 85.7%), Northwestern 13 (of 20 = 65%)</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, in at least three respects, they are. They’re large and they’re public. They have (big) graduate programs. No matter how great their faculty strength (as measured by journal publications and citations), those 3 features - for better or worse - set them apart from smaller, private institutions that focus more attention on undergraduates.</p>
<p>tk21769, how are Cal, Michigan and UVa’s graduate programs larger than those at Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, Penn, Chicago or Stanford?</p>
<p>Columbia: 20,000 graduate students
Michigan: 15,000 graduate students
Harvard: 14,000 graduate students
Northwestern: 11,000 graduate students
Penn: 11,000 graduate students
Cal: 10,000 graduate students
Chicago: 10,000 graduate students
Stanford: 9,000 graduate students
UVa: 7,000 graduate students</p>
<p>I don’t see how public universities have larger graduate student populations that many private universities, or how private universities with equally large graduate student populations can claim to be more focused on undergrads than their public peers. Not all major research universities with large graduate student populations and a faculty that prioritizes research and publications are public. Many top private universities share those characteristics.</p>
<p>Sadly, prejudice against public universities is based mostly on ignorance.</p>
<p>^Where did you get 11,000 for Northwestern? I don’t think anyone is thinking UVA as big; its graduate rankings are worse anyway.</p>
<p>[Our</a> Students and Alumni : Northwestern University](<a href=“http://www.northwestern.edu/about/facts/our-students-and-alumni.html]Our”>Facts : Northwestern University)</p>
<p>According to NU website, there are only 8,100 graduate students; out of those, less than 3,600 are in arts & sciences or engineering.</p>
<p>Being in one of the largest metropolis in the US, NU does have ~3,000 part-time students; but they are full-time professionals in evening programs.</p>
<p>^^ Fair enough. But I didn’t claim there are no private universities with large graduate programs (relative to undergraduate population size). And you have to look at the balance of resources across the whole university ecosystem.</p>
<p>The 3 public universities on your list all have many more undergraduate students than the private schools on your list (from UChicago at 5,400 … to Cal at 26,000). The public schools have bigger S:F ratios and significantly higher percentages of large classes (>= 50) than the private schools do. Compare Chicago at ~4.9% >=50 to Michigan at 16.8% >= 50. Compare private v. public class sizes of intro courses in popular majors (Bio, Econ, Psych), where course scheds and enrollments are available online. Ex: Chicago S2013 Core Bio lecture, 47 student enrollment v. Cal S2012 General Bio lecture, 653 student enrollment.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, I looked it up on Wiki, which admittedly is not the best source of information. But I just looked at NU’s common data set for 2011, and NU listed almost 10,000 graduate students. And I did not differentiate between full time and part time graduate students. All universities have large numbers of part time, night time, correspondance graduate students, and I include them for all universities, public or private.</p>
<p>Also, any reason why you do not include the number of graduate students enrolled at NU’s schools of Music, Education and Journalism? Those schools also enroll both undergrads and graduate students. </p>
<p>[2011-12</a> Enrollment and Persistence, Common Data Set, University Enrollment - Northwestern University](<a href=“http://enrollment.northwestern.edu/common-data/2011-12/b.html]2011-12”>http://enrollment.northwestern.edu/common-data/2011-12/b.html)</p>
<p>tk, Chicago may have tiny core classes, but enrolment in undergraduate intro classes that I have seen at top many private universities easily exceeds 200 students. And while classes of 200 or more students are not uncommon at top public universities, they are far from the norm and are usually restricted to intro-level classes in very popular subjects such as intro to college Chem, intro to college Bio, intro to Micro and Marco, and intro level Political Science and Psychology classes. At the intermediate and advanced levels, classes seldom exceed 100 students, and in most majors, have fewer than 30 students. The fact is, while Michigan has far more undergraduate students than many of its private peers, it also has a far larger faculty. For example, Michigan’s undergraduate student population is roughly 3 times larger than NU’s (27,000 vs 9,000), and its instructional faculty size in programs that teach both undergraduate and graduate students is 2 times larger than NUs (2,400 vs 1,200). Once you include graduate students in those programs that enroll undergrads and graduate students, Michigan has 37,000 students while NU has 14,000 students taught by that instructional faculty. </p>
<p>As for S:F ratios, please do not quote them. In the 1990s, most universities, private reported ratios of 12:1-14:1 (publics were a little higher at 14:1-18:1). Overnight, private universities reported ratios of 6:1-8:1. Fascinating transformation. I suppose those private universities doubled the size of their faculties from one year to the next. Or perhaps they simply stopped including graduate students that were enrolled on those programs shared with undergraduate students?</p>
<p>
How can these graduate students possibly learn anything if they have to compete for resources?</p>
<p>/sarcasm</p>
<p>On CC and in the Common Data Sets, I see fairly abundant evidence (both data and anecdotal reports) that selective private universities (and of course LACs) have smaller class sizes, on average, than even the most selective and prestigious state flagships. Of course, for any given individual, the experience may be influenced strongly by choice of major or by placing out of some high-enrollment classes. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree this is true at some top private universities. Before we can agree or disagree on more than that, I suppose we’d have to comb through the online course registrations, and also define what we mean by “many” and “top”. </p>
<p>Princeton has a higher ratio of big classes (>= 50 students) than 6 of the other Ivies.
Example class sizes:
Intro to Microeconomics (Spring 2013), 422 students
Intro to Psychology (Spring (2013), 171 students
General Chemistry I (Fall 2012), 189 students
Organic Chemistry I (Fall 2012), 274 students
General Computer Science (Fall 2012), 269 students
United States Since 1974 (Fall 2012), 184 students
American Cinema (Fall 2012), 360 students</p>
<p>I’d be interested to see how many other T20-or-so private schools have similar numbers in intro/intermediate courses (and also, for those large lecture classes, whether professors teach supporting discussion sections.)</p>
<p>For now, maybe we can agree at least that all “large public universities” are large AND are public AND have graduate programs. Those 3 features - for better or worse - set them apart from schools that are small AND are private AND have no graduate programs. If you want to argue that many “top” private universities are more like big state universities than LACs in some important respects, I’m not sure I’d disagree.</p>
<p>
Agreed. Some of my classes at Berkeley were very small. I remember taking an obscure class in Demography for a general elective. Very interesting material. The class was about 15-20 students, a lot were graduate students. This course had no discussion section since the lecture was small. </p>
<p>So size definitely depends on the class and material.</p>
<p>tk, at most major research universities, private or public, intro level premed courses, as well as intro-level courses in popular subjects such as Econ, Political Science or Psychology, will be large. I have looked at several private universities, including a couple of Ivies (such as Columbia, Cornell, Harvard and Penn), and 200+ freshman classes are not uncommon.</p>
<p>I’ve combed through a few class registration/enrollment pages for class size information, and will share what I’ve found so far. I looked at intro/intermediate courses in biology, chemistry, econ, history, and psych. Not every university site is equally easy to browse for class size information. I compared numbers for Chicago, Columbia, JHU, Berkeley, and Williams (to have a highly-ranked LAC for comparison).</p>
<p>This really deserves its own thread (to compare other schools, to delve more deeply into who is teaching these courses, etc.)</p>
<p>Williams College Spring 2013 (averages for past 4 years)</p>
<p>The Organism (enrollment: 77)
Principles of Microeconomics (enrollment: 31)
Fundamentals Modern Chem (enrollment: 66)
Organic Chemistry (enrollment: 50)
Cog Psych (enrollment : 50 )
History of US, 1865-Pres (enrollment: 24)</p>
<p>UChicago Spring 2013</p>
<p>Core Biology (enrollment: 47)
Intro to Microeconomics (enrollment: 151 lecture)
Comprehensive General Chem III (enrollment: 154, 14-16 lab *)
Organic Chemistry III (enrollment: 139 lecture + 7-13 labs/discussions *)
Cog Psych (enrollment limit: 126 lecture + 26 discussions * )
America in World Civ III (enrollment: 15)</p>
<p>Columbia Spring 2013</p>
<p>Biology I 001 (enrollment: 256)
Principles of Economics 002 (enrollment limit: 228)
General Chemistry 002 (enrollment: 194 lecture, 29-50 lab)
Organic Chemistry 001(enrollment: 272, 25-39 lab)
Intro to Social Cognition (enrollment limit: 200)
American Civ since Civil War (enrollment limit: 77)</p>
<p>JHU Spring 2013</p>
<p>General Biology II (enrollment limit: 200)
Elements of Microeconomics (enrollment limit: 22)
Intro Chemistry II (enrollment limit: 290)
Organic Chemistry II (enrollment limit: 375)
Intro to Cog Psych (enrollment limit: 350)
Making America
since Depression (enrollment limit: 20)</p>
<p>Berkeley Spring 2013</p>
<p>General Biology (enrollment: 653 lecture, 596 lab, 15-28 lab section )
Intro to Economics (enrollment: 647 lecture, 24-31 section <em>)
Gen Chemistry I(enrollment : 423 lecture, 10-30 section/lab *)
Organic Chemistry (enrollment: 354 lecture, 24-28 lab *)
Basic Issues in Cognition (enrollment: 65 lecture, 9-13 section *)
US from Civil War to Present (enrollment: 431 lecture, 6-20 section</em> )</p>
<ul>
<li>In some cases, the large classes listed above have break-out lab/seminar sections. For the sections at Berkely, the section instructors are named, but I could not find any of them in the faculty listings. They may be grad students , or they may be staff members with PhDs (can’t tell). For the sections at Chicago, the section instructors are named, and appear as Lecturers, lab managers, etc. in the faculty listings. Some of them (at least) have PhDs.</li>
</ul>
<p>In some cases, there may be honors/majors-only alternatives to the classes listed above. In intro Biology courses at Chicago, the 47-student Core Biology course is for non-majors. It is taught by a Lecturer (PhD, McGill, 1992). The “Serious Introduction to Biology for Majors” is larger (97 student lecture) but is taught by a team that includes Jose Quintans (MD, PhD, and Master of the Biological Sciences Collegiate Division since 1995). This course appears to be paired up with “Introduction to Quantitative Modeling in Biology” (72-student lecture, 13-20 student labs, taught by Lecturers with PhDs and interest/background in quantitative methods).</p>
<p>So the lecture enrollment numbers alone don’t necessarily tell the whole story.</p>