<p>
</p>
<p>Well, actually, I don’t think that is particularly dramatic at all, not when there are (in many cases) hundreds and hundreds of programs in a particular field.</p>
<p>What would indeed be dramatic is if one program that was ranked #1 in one year was actually ranked *last<a href=“or%20close%20to%20last”>/i</a> the next year. That would indeed be highly dramatic. But that doesn’t happen. Shifts of 5 ranking points out of hundreds is just not particularly dramatic.</p>
<p>The constructist model is interesting but it is just one of many models that explain resistance to change in complex systems. Systems engineering looks at similar phenomena from the perspective of interconnectedness and interdependence of multiple subsystems.</p>
<p>The more interconnections and interdependence, the more resistance to change.</p>
<p>It is all a part of a general area of study called Systems Theory, which dates back to ancient Greece.</p>
<p>[Systems</a> theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory]Systems”>Systems theory - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Yes, sakky, students learn from each other–but they learn far more from professors and through use of excellent tools. If we use otis’ argument–ranking schools entirely by “selectivity”–then according to my calculations, every top 50 university in China should rank ahead of all the Ivy league schools, Stanford, Duke, and MIT. Their acceptance rates are all far lower than 8%.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t understand why someone thinks that the difference between a 4.0 GPA and a 3.7 to 3.8 GPA student is so great. (which is what it takes at National Universities #1 through #50). We’ve all seen the statistics on here–nobody on this site can truly tell which student is getting into which school anyway. Half the time it depends upon if the student is in-state or out-of-state, their race, diversity of interests (does you school need another baritone for the choir), and a few minor differences in ECs and has nothing to do with the GPA or test scores–and I’ve probably done more “chances” for students than anyone on this site except maybe kyledavid80. </p>
<p>I think the “ego-centricity” on this site is amazing. People who get into a “top school” because of a good high school record all of a sudden think that anyone at a school not called an Ivy or named Duke, Stanford, or MIT somehow doesn’t know how to write an essay, make a speech, or interact with a professor or a fellow student when all the data is entirely to the contrary. Not only that, but there is no evidence to show that any Ivy school education is worth even a dollar more in the marketplace than a degree from a different school that ranks in the top 100. Do you really think that all the faculty at schools like Georgetown, Michigan, Wake Forest, UC Santa Barbara, Georgia Tech and the University of Florida don’t have anything else going for them also?</p>
<p>We all know people who did well in middle school who did terrible in high school and vice-versa–so why does it all of sudden seem that people who do very slightly (and I do mean VERY slightly) worse in high school can’t compete in college with those in a top “10” school. I find this whole “ranking” of USNW national universities to be a joke–and I say this as someone who was accepted to an Ivy-league school. The whole USNW system is geared to keep certain names on top–which is why there are over 120 schools fighting the USNW ranking system. Why else would you need to modify the actual things that might indicate a good university (peer ranking, faculty quality, freshman retention) by things that are unrelated to quality (such as alumni giving rates)?</p>
<p>And otis–I find it amazing that you think I don’t know that there are undergraduate business schools and then there are schools that offer economics and not business. Thank you for speaking down to me. Typical ego-centricity again. </p>
<p>Yes, I’m aware that Harvard, Chicago, Northwestern, and Yale don’t have undergraduate business programs. Exactly how that changes the fact that Business Week ranked UVA and BYU as among the top undergraduate business schools in the country is beyond me. If Harvard and Yale don’t want to sponsor undergraduate business programs, then why should we rate them high in that academic field. And why, if they value a business education (as indicated by them having a graduate business school), do they not also value it at the undergraduate level. So some of these students went into IB upon graduation–big deal–I can quote you students from Michigan that run Fortune 500 companies, students from University of Connecticut that are top entrepreneurs, and students from Texas that are top engineering innovators. So you’ll have to do better than that. </p>
<p>Also, I love how you look at a university overall for admission statistics and not at the individual schools within the universities: Here’s a statistic for you–Indiana’s acceptance rate at their university last year was 70%–but the acceptance rate for their business program was 28%. Average SAT scores for the university- 1221, for the business program–1340. </p>
<p>My point is that there are excellent schools within “lower” USNW ranked universities. Take NYU Stern, where the average SAT score is over 1420. You just automatically say–oh, these students didn’t do as well in high school as an Ivy or Duke or Stanford student or they wouldn’t go to this “sub-par” school–when my point is that there’s nothing sub-par about these students at all. NYU has the best finance program in the country–undergraduate or graduate–the best–no exceptions–not Wharton, not Harvard, not Yale, not Stanford can compete with graduates in finance from NYU. They have the faculty, they have the location (near Wall Street), they have the placement resources, and they have the infrastructure and internships to train people for finance careers. </p>
<p>Yes, the top 10 USNW schools have some good programs–yes, they have good faculty–but other schools out there compete well against these schools in certain offerings.</p>
<p>P.S. The Princeton Review ranking of Indiana as the school with the best business faculty was for schools at the graduate level–which included schools like Stanford (ranked 2nd), Harvard (ranked 8th), and Yale (not in the top 10). But, of course, the difference between USNW and the Princeton Review is that the Princeton Review didn’t skew the results by asking how many of Indiana’s graduating business students gave money to the school last year. </p>
<p>Also, so as not to belittle our international neighbors–one must question how much longer our “national universities” will be the best internationally. There are already many great competitors overseas in both the business and engineering areas.</p>
<p>And just so we’re clear–I’m comparing the top 10 USNW schools to others in the top 50–and even top 100 USNW schools.</p>
<p>And yes, I’m agreeing with USNW rankings of the disciplines (business, engineering, etc.).</p>
<p>Those rankings, unlike the ones that USNW uses in the “National Universities” and “Liberal Arts Schools” rankings, don’t engage in shenanigans by adding in categories completely unrelated to educational quality in order to skew the results.</p>
<p>I don’t even understand why we need this hierarchy of schools in the US. It certainly is not as prevalent in other countries and sadly admission to these schools are not chosen just by academia, but by personality and ecs. Things which I think should have no factor in admissions. The reason Ivies require so much detail about a person is that they are looking for someone who has a high chance of being successful in the future, but they would be successful no matter which school they attended. </p>
<p>See this article in The New Yorker: [Getting</a> In: The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge]Getting”>Getting In | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I would say that they learn more from professors who are good at teaching, and let’s face it, many of them are not. Professors at research universities are generally hired first and foremost for their research ability, with teaching acumen being a distant second. </p>
<p>As a case in point, while I don’t want to use myself as an example, I’ll use my brother. He went to Caltech. He freely admits that some of the profs there were absolutely terrible teachers; so much so that he often times would learn more by just sitting in his room and reading the book by himself rather than go to class. In fact, a few of the profs were so bad that he felt that when by going to class, he would end up knowing less than if he had never gone at all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, I don’t think anybody is arguing that selectivity can be measured purely by an acceptance rate. After all, the applicant body for many programs is highly self-selected, with many highly qualified people not even applying at all. For example, some graduate programs at MIT sport a nearly 50% admissions percentage, but that’s simply because very few unqualified people apply in the first place. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, well, actually I would say that this statement itself betrays a type of ‘ego-centricity’. After all, Georgia Tech, Georgetown, and Florida are not exactly 4th-tier schools. See below. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here I think you go too far. It’s one thing to say that you disagree with some of the elements of USNews. But I think even the worst critic of USNews would have to concede that there is broad truth in the rankings. For example, I think there is little dispute that Harvard (and also Georgetown, Georgia Tech, and Florida) is better than, say, Southeast Missouri State University (yes, that is a real school). </p>
<p>So even if, as you say, you have 120 schools bickering over the top of the ranking, there are clearly many hundreds of other schools that I think we can all agree do not belong in any discussion of ‘top schools’. Nobody - not even the students themselves - seriously believes that Northern Kentucky University is the #1 school in the nation. </p>
<p>The point is, I don’t see any difference between an Ivy student asserting that his school is better than, say, Florida, and a student at UFlorida asserting that his school is better than, say, the University of West Florida. Either way, it’s the same type of elitism. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the point people are making is that you don’t need an undergraduate business degree to get a very good business job, and THAT is how a ‘business education’ ought to be measured, even if it isn’t called that. After all, at the end of the day, what does it matter if you get a degree from a top-ranked business program if you can’t get the job you want because those employers would rather hire somebody else from some other school who doesn’t have a business degree? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“The best” in the country, is it? That’s very interesting, considering that Stern clearly does not match up to places like HBS or Wharton when it comes to yield. Only 57% of admitted students to the MBA program at Stern actually choose to go, compared to the whopping 77% at the cross-town rival Columbia. Why do you think that is? Are all those students who get into Stern but choose to go elsewhere just being dumb? </p>
<p>Look, Calcruzer, it’s one thing to say that there are other strong schools with strong programs out there. I can agree with that. But it’s quite another to then assert that those other schools are better than the Ivies. You are then engaging in precisely the same elitism that you decry. For example, is NYU Stern a strong school for finance? Sure, I have no objection to that statement. But to assert that it is the * very best, with no exceptions*? That’s elitist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then if you agree with that, then you have to agree that NYU Stern is NOT the best finance school, with no exceptions, which is what you asserted before. After all, I can simply turn to the USNews Graduate Edition and see that Stern is actually ranked only third when it comes to graduate finance. </p>
<p>So which is it, Calcruzer? Is Stern the “very best, with no exceptions”, or is it only 3rd? Remember, you said yourself that the USNews disciplinary rankings don’t engage in shenanigans. Or perhaps you’d like to take the opportunity to adjust your story?</p>
<p>Knowing people who have went to Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, Michigan State, Central, and Oakland CC (that should cover the full spectrum) they all agree that the most actual insight they learned was from their fellow students, rather than professors. Often times the textbooks are the same at OCC as at Michigan or the same at MSU as Harvard. And the same material is covered. So, although there are certainly better teachers and worse ones, and all of that, basically Calc 1 at Harvard will resemble very closely Calc 1 at OCC. However, study groups, idle conversations, and dorm room philosophies are quite different, adding very much to the depth and understanding of topics.</p>
<p>I don’t see how if nearly every college student or graduate I know feels they learned more from their fellow students than their professors Michigan State and Harvard are equals(or any such statement). ‘That is the Harvard Difference’(direct quote from a Harvard grad who transfered from UCLA), referring to better classmates.</p>
<p>I agree, the better the students the better the college experience…for the smarter students. I doubt there is any student in the world that benefits from being at the below the 25th percentile. Much better to be at the 75th percentile. Better job upon graduation, better confidence, etc.</p>
<p>Unlike other threads, I have nothing else I wish to add to this discussion, and will end my comments on this thread with this post. I do not feel the need to respond to multiple minor non-germane points in order to support a general theory of mine (and others I should add) that is quite clear, and which is:</p>
<p>USNW manipulates their National University and Liberal Arts rankings to arbitrarily keep certain schools on top of these rankings. In my opinion, by so doing they try to justify their own validity as the “top ranking authority” since the schools that people have for years believed were the best are the ones they continually continue to place at the top. Thus, a self-perpetuating situation arises–and one which is what the “Physics” theory this thread is about essentially supports. </p>
<p>You can believe it or you don’t have to believe it–I really don’t care–
but you might ask yourself why every other ranking group–Business Week, Princeton Review, and the Wall Street Journal–all of whom use less contentious ranking criteria–come up with quite different rankings than USNW on a continual basis.</p>
<p>P.S. I also think it important to let others have their say on this topic–and I can see that if I were to respond to sakky it would result in us continuing to dominate the discussion in a non-positive way–which is not healthy for this thread or this site.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure it’s that simple. I think that depends heavily on what kind of culture your school has. There’s a certain school in Palo Alto that immediately comes to mind in which it is almost impossible to get a truly bad GPA, such that even if you are in the 25th percentile, your grades are still going to look rather decent. The competitiveness is also highly constrained. </p>
<p>The same could be said for a certain school in Cambridge, MA (no, not the tech school, the other one). It wasn’t that long ago when a whopping 91% of the students graduated with honors. Granted, that has been cut back, but at the end of the day, it’s still not that hard to get decent grades. Granted, it’s not easy to get an A, but if you’re satisfied with just passing, it’s not that hard. </p>
<p>Furthermore, these are the kinds of schools whose very brand names inspire great confidence, in fact, sometimes to the point of arrogance. After all, when you have people constantly in awe of your school name, it’s hard not to develop a sense of confidence, even if you didn’t graduate high in your class. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, and you don’t think the other rankings do the same? Let’s face it. ALL of them are going to manipulate the rankings to ensure that, say, the University of North Texas does not somehow earn the #1 ranking. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I think you could ask yourself why ALL of these rankings differ from EACH OTHER. In other words, USNews doesn’t just differ from PR, WSJ, or BW. ALL of them also differ with EACH OTHER. </p>
<p>As far as contentiousness of the rankings, I would say that the WSJ is probably THE MOST contentious of all of them. I presume you’re talking about the WSJ MBA rankings. To simply rely on recruiting opinions; what’s up with that? *Recruiters are not your friends. * What recruiters really want are people who are willing to take the least desirable jobs for the least amount of money possible without complaint. But of course the students want the BEST jobs for the MOST money. Hence, what the recruiters want is not only irrelevant, it’s actually somewhat counterproductive. The easiest way for a school to increase recruiter satisfaction is to simply convince your students to demand less pay. That’s wonderful for recruiters, but doesn’t exactly bode well for the school itself. </p>
<p>But the upshot is simple: I see no reason to believe that USNews is any less believable than any of the other rankings. ALL of them have deficiencies in one way or another. All of them differ from each other. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, if you don’t want to respond, then just simply don’t respond. Those people who don’t like our posts are free to simply not read them. I don’t read every post on this thread.</p>
<p>^ Sakky, I think the poster was talking about SAT percentiles.</p>
<p>I think there has to be a balance with a variety of smart kids from all walks of life…this, IMO, would enhance learning the most if the students interact with each other.</p>
<p>i usually dont write on this kinda topic because of all the headaches attached to it. but i just want to say don’t diss Dr. Adrian Bejan and the constructal law because of this article.</p>
<p>he’s amazing and his theory is groundbreaking (regardless of its truthfulness. i mean it’s a theory trying to explain the mother nature, not the other way around). really look into the theory before you write about him/theory because there’s so much more to it than this stupid university ranking. (what a stupid article, i agree, regardless of its truthfulness)</p>
<p>and seriously stop talking about rankings.</p>
<p>Calcruzer,
I can’t disagree with you more strongly re your comments about the importance that other students play in determining the learning that a student receives during one’s undergraduate years. One’s fellow students are absolutely the most important ingredient at a college and how that impacts one’s learning, both inside and outside of the classroom. The students are far more commonly the deciders and the influencers of what happens in their future, not the professors. A select professor or two may significantly influence a student in his/her postgraduate path, but the student relationships, formal and informal and with new ones forming frequently in postgraduate life, have greater impact and will persist for many decades to come and play multiple roles from the work world to the social world to almost any sphere you can think of.</p>
<p>I see far more people citing an inspirational prof as the reason for their success than other students. Have you any real evidence of this theory? All I see are self-serving claims.</p>
<p>barrons,
The contacts that one has from their college experiences and the frequent benefits afforded them via their college networks are voluminous. Who is your spouse? Who are your closest friends? How did you get your first job? Has your alumni network played a role in your life, professionally, socially, or otherwise? What keeps you in touch with the college you might have attended 5, 10, 15, 25, 50 years ago? I understand your point about how professors can inspire individual students, but inspiration can and does come from many, many sources. IMO, the overall undergraduate impact to a student from a professor pales in comparison to the life impact of one’s student peers, either during or after the undergraduate years.</p>
<p>I got my job through the on campus recruitment office. Now you are switching the argument from academics benefits to making social contacts. Everyone makes good friends at college. Many keep in touch for life. But I think much of the other so-called advantages are greatly exaggerated. After 30 years most of your friends are likely to be in the neighborhood or through work. People who can help you get a new job will be people you have worked with–not some random person you knew from college days. They have no idea of your ability on the job.</p>
<p>I’ll generalize the interesting questions coming up here. </p>
<p>What have your fellow classmates from college done for you lately? Did you marry one? Has one ever helped you find a job? </p>
<p>What have your college teachers done for you lately? Did they set the course of your career? Have you had a personal conversation with one of your college professors in the last year? Did a college professor help you find your first job? </p>
<p>My answers: I went to a small major program at a HUGE university, and have not seen any of my major classmates for years. I last saw a college classmate (well, actually a friend from a student activity, who was later my roommate) a few years ago. But I saw a high school classmate (who also went to the same huge university) just a few days ago. My wife was not one of my college classmates. I met her overseas in her native country and she later attended my alma mater for her undergraduate degree. College classmates gave me great advice about my first trip to my wife’s native country, and some tips about finding jobs there. </p>
<p>My college teachers were very influential in setting my study aspirations, which in turn have influenced my career choices. I last saw one of my professors by chance on campus a few months ago. I’ve never been fixed up with a job by a professor. </p>
<p>I’ll be curious to hear what everyone else has to say.</p>
<p>I don’t automatically differentiate between academics and the overall benefit that one gets from a college. To me, they should be considered together. I don’t believe that a college should be looked at just for its classroom experience, but rather as a total undergraduate experience encompassing what takes place in and out of the classroom and what happens afterward and how an institution plays a role in one’s life, professionally and socially, for the rest of our lives. Your own U Wisconsin would be an excellent example of how the social and networking ties that the school provides might give one a nice boost in the working and/or social environments in which one lives. </p>
<p>As for academics and the actual knowledge gained in the college classroom, I greatly doubt much of its value in the real world. So much of what is studied is completely irrelevant to the working world that a student will enter and more than 2/3 of students will work in a field outside of their major study area. However, a student’s critical thinking skills and personal work habits, honed through the college years and IMO particularly sharpened by a quality student body, will be more important determinants of initial job success. After that, the undergraduate college has less and less professional use and the networking and social aspect of the college experience is almost certainly more important for both professional and social success.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm, I wonder what Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer would say to that one. He was Bill Gates’s old poker-playing buddy at Currier House at Harvard. Think that might have helped him get hired at Microsoft? </p>
<p>Furthermore, to the list of questions above, I’ll add another. Have you started a company with any of your classmates? Perhaps we should direct that question to Google founders Brin and Page, who met at Stanford. One might also consider Cisco founders Len Bosack and Sandy Lerner, who also met at Stanford (and then later got married: hence fulfilling two questions above). Yahoo founders Yang and Filo (also Stanford). Or Facebook founders Zuckerberg, Hughes, and Moskovitz, who all met at Harvard. Alex Rigopulos and Eran Egozy were pals at MIT before founding Harmonix Music Systems (developers of the games Guitar Hero and Rock Band)</p>
<p>Or, you can put the founders aside. Many (probably most) of the early employees at Cisco were old school pals of Lerner and Bosack at Stanford. Many of the early employees at Google were old school pals of Brin or Page.</p>
<p>In fact, entire books and stacks of academic articles have been written regarding how universities foster entrepreneurship and particularly how universities can serve as ‘matching algorithms’ for students to find and partner with each other to create new companies. There’s a reason why Silicon Valley grew up around Stanford and the “Technology Highway” developed around the Boston area and not, say, in the middle of Wyoming. </p>
<p>Now, granted, it is true that some entrepreneurs will found companies with their professors. So I’m certainly not discounting the importance of strong professors. But having other top students around is important also, as they represent another means of finding a partner. For example, Yahoo was initially a hobby that was worked on by Yang and Filo strictly in their spare time when they were bored by their regular studies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, even so, the point still stands. I don’t think it’s particularly painful to be in the 25th SAT percentile in a school like, say, Stanford, where the grading standards are relaxed and the fact that most people may be smarter than you (at least in terms of standardized tests) doesn’t really matter that much. </p>
<p>Now, I can certainly agree that being in the 25th percentile of a school like Caltech would be quite painful. But that just illustrates my point: it depends on the culture of the school. Some schools offer a relaxed environment. Others don’t.</p>