The Correlation between PA Scoring and Political Voting Patterns

kluge · October 22, 2007, 12:08pm

Since the theme to Hawkette’s numerous posts on the subject of renking, PA, etc. seems to be “objective data” vs. “subjective opinion”, I thought I’d do some number crunching on Tarhunt’s politically incorrect (and tongue in cheek) suggestion that:

The “blue state” private universities which Hawkette suggests are overvalued relative to the red state schools are located in New Jersey, Massachusetts (2), California (2), Connecticut, New York (2), Illinois and Maryland. According to ACT, the average ACT score for the thousands of high school students who took their test in those states is 22.5 - vs. the national average of 21.2.

The red states listed are North Carolina (2), Missouri, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, Louisiana and Florida. (I think Hawkette meant Miami FL, not Miami OH) The average ACT score for those states is 20.9.

So the specified blue state students score 8% higher on the ACT than do the specified red state students. Colleges do tend to draw more heavily from their surrounding areas; that would suggest that the colleges in blue states get higher-scoring students than the colleges in red states. Smarter students = higher overall level of academics = higher peer assessment. Voila! Question answered.

Of course, my personal “peer assessment” is that it’s unlikely that the high school students in blue states are actually 8% smarter, on average, than the students in red states, but that’s just a subjective opinion. Can’t argue with hard data…

Tarhunt · October 22, 2007, 12:31pm

kluge:

That’s pretty funny stuff! Thanks.

Now, just to be fair, I think it should be noted that ACT scores from state to state are not always comparable. Illinois, as I recall, requires all high school students to take it whereas, in other states, the ACT is taken only by those who are college bound. In addition, in places like North Carolina where the SAT is the test of choice, only a select few tend to take the ACT, which should bump those scores up quite a bit.

Comel to think of it, this might buttress your point ;-).

hawkette · October 22, 2007, 1:22pm

Maybe I’m just expecting more from the PA number than I should be. Maybe I shouldn’t care and just let it go, but I don’t think so. I agree with hoedown that there are great faculties all around the country. I just want the PA scores to actually reflect this. I also want them to show how colleges have changed their relative position over time (up and down). But, as I read the PA scores, I do see a fairly small number of colleges with high scores and I have also seen virtually no change in absolute or relative PA scores over the last decade or longer.

With regard to how academics seem to measure PA, ie, by the quantity of research activity, probably the bulk of which is the technical fields, I generally think that the colleges which have high PAs deserve them. I’m not arguing against the schools that have the high PAs; I’m arguing FOR the schools that IMO deserve higher regard in these PA scores and that includes schools with high prestige like Dartmouth to ones with much less visibility like Wake Forest or W&M or Lehigh. Their scores perfectly capture my view that the gaps in PA scores among similarly ranked institutions are not accurately reflective of the undergraduate experience that a student will have vis-

bluebayou · October 22, 2007, 1:32pm

Kluge:

we will need to survey the employers and students and alumni of those red state schools to ask them if they are not as smart. :D

Hawkette: by definition, there are only 25 spots in the top 25. If Wake moves up, someone HAS to move down.

UCBChemEGrad · October 22, 2007, 1:35pm

Let’s just have 50 colleges tied for No. 1 and everyone can be happy.

Except for the students attending the 51st college.

hoedown · October 22, 2007, 1:53pm

This may not have come through, but my point is that you and I are not alone in this. Noit by a long shot. You claim it’s a “conventional truth” in higher ed that faculty quality is restricted to a few campuses. I disagree–not just with this so-called truth, but with the very idea that this notion is widely-held. That’s what I find preposterous. While it’s clear you don’t buy into it, my point was that I don’t believe many other people do, either.

bluebayou · October 22, 2007, 1:54pm

aha, the Lake Wobegone ranking. :rolleyes:

Tarhunt · October 22, 2007, 2:16pm

I agree. I know it’s certainly not an opinion I hold or that I can attribute to many of my colleagues. On the other hand, if forced to rank faculties in my field, only, I can certainly point to some schools that are loaded with distinguished scholars who are creating new knowledge every time I pick up a journal. I would generally rank those faculties above those that are good, but not quite that distinguished.

tokenadult · October 22, 2007, 2:23pm

In practical effect, the peer assessment scores are ordinal scores (which college is outranked by which other college). They don’t have any interval characteristics, so we can’t tell how “close” colleges are to one another. They also aren’t anchored to any absolute score value, so a rising tide can raise all boats without telling us how high up the masts of any of the boats are.

In other words, don’t worry about it.

hawkette · October 22, 2007, 3:43pm

bluebayou,
In PA terms, there are plenty of ties, so more than 25 schools can be in the top 25. That is what I was referring to.

hoedown,
IMO, now and historically, top PA rankings are only assigned to a relative handful of colleges. Here is how the scores are concentrated in 2008:

Top Group (4.6-5.0): 11 colleges
2nd Group (4.1-4.5): 13 colleges
3rd Group (3.6-4.0): 27 colleges
4th Group (3.1-3.5): 39 colleges
5th Group (2.6-3.0): 37 colleges

Here is how the scores were concentrated in 1998 which was the first year in which USNWR did its 5.0 scale PA rankings. I only have the data for the first 50 colleges so I can’t determine exact numbers below the first two groups:

Top Group (4.6-5.0): 12 colleges
2nd Group (4.1-4.5): 13 colleges
3rd Group (3.6-4.0) Est: 26 colleges

From 1998 to 2008, within the top group, the number of colleges declined from 12 in number to 11. Within the second group, the number of colleges stayed the same at 13. So the total number of colleges that ranked at 4.1 and above actually shrunk from 1998 to 2008 from 25 to 24 colleges. Only one college moved up (U Texas from 4.0 to 4.1) while two moved down (Rice and U Illinois each from 4.2 to 4.0). Thus, 22 out of 25 colleges received the highest rankings in both years. Of these 22 colleges, only 2 (Duke and U Penn) saw a variation of more than 0.1 in their rating over this 10-year span.

Can you see any better how one might interpret this data to mean that only a handful of colleges are accepted by academics as having top faculties and that this looks like a pretty permanent order, both absolutely and relatively?

I think that there is a lot more parity in faculty quality than the current PA rankings would have us believe. I am suggesting that the relative differences among the quality of faculties in the top three groups is not so great and that each of the top three groups could grow in size, maybe even significantly.

dstark · October 22, 2007, 4:07pm

<a href=“http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007Methodology.htm[/url]”>http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007Methodology.htm</a>

Schools where the faculties are expanding knowledge, are innovative, are making academic discoveries are the schools with the higher PA.

Tarhunt, wrote…
“On the other hand, if forced to rank faculties in my field, only, I can certainly point to some schools that are loaded with distinguished scholars who are creating new knowledge every time I pick up a journal. I would generally rank those faculties above those that are good, but not quite that distinguished.”

Looks like that is happening to me.

I am amazed that so many so-called regional schools are respected in Asia and around the world.

World Rank
Institution*
Region
Regional Rank
Country
National Rank
Score on Alumni
Score on Award
Score on HiCi
Score on N&S
Score on SCI
Score on Size
Total Score

1
Harvard Univ
Americas
1
USA
1
100
100
100
100
100
73
100

2
Stanford Univ
Americas
2
USA
2
42
78.7
86.1
69.6
70.3
65.7
73.7

3
Univ California - Berkeley
Americas
3
USA
3
72.5
77.1
67.9
72.9
69.2
52.6
71.9

4
Univ Cambridge
Europe
1
UK
1
93.6
91.5
54
58.2
65.4
65.1
71.6

5
Massachusetts Inst Tech (MIT)
Americas
4
USA
4
74.6
80.6
65.9
68.4
61.7
53.4
70.0

6
California Inst Tech
Americas
5
USA
5
55.5
69.1
58.4
67.6
50.3
100
66.4

7
Columbia Univ
Americas
6
USA
6
76
65.7
56.5
54.3
69.6
46.4
63.2

8
Princeton Univ
Americas
7
USA
7
62.3
80.4
59.3
42.9
46.5
58.9
59.5

9
Univ Chicago
Americas
8
USA
8
70.8
80.2
50.8
42.8
54.1
41.3
58.4

10
Univ Oxford
Europe
2
UK
2
60.3
57.9
46.3
52.3
65.4
44.7
56.4

11
Yale Univ
Americas
9
USA
9
50.9
43.6
57.9
57.2
63.2
48.9
55.9

12
Cornell Univ
Americas
10
USA
10
43.6
51.3
54.5
51.4
65.1
39.9
54.3

13
Univ California - Los Angeles
Americas
11
USA
11
25.6
42.8
57.4
49.1
75.9
35.5
52.6

14
Univ California - San Diego
Americas
12
USA
12
16.6
34
59.3
55.5
64.6
46.6
50.4

15
Univ Pennsylvania
Americas
13
USA
13
33.3
34.4
56.9
40.3
70.8
38.7
49.0

16
Univ Washington - Seattle
Americas
14
USA
14
27
31.8
52.4
49
74.1
27.4
48.2

17
Univ Wisconsin - Madison
Americas
15
USA
15
40.3
35.5
52.9
43.1
67.2
28.6
48.0

18
Univ California - San Francisco
Americas
16
USA
16
0
36.8
54
53.7
59.8
46.7
46.8

19
Johns Hopkins Univ
Americas
17
USA
17
48.1
27.8
41.3
50.9
67.9
24.7
46.1

20
Tokyo Univ
Asia/Pac
1
Japan
1
33.8
14.1
41.9
52.7
80.9
34
45.9

21
Univ Michigan - Ann Arbor
Americas
18
USA
18
40.3
0
60.7
40.8
77.1
30.7
44.0

22
Kyoto Univ
Asia/Pac
2
Japan
2
37.2
33.4
38.5
35.1
68.6
30.6
43.1

23
Imperial Coll London
Europe
3
UK
3
19.5
37.4
40.6
39.7
62.2
39.4
43.0

23
Univ Toronto
Americas
19
Canada
1
26.3
19.3
39.2
37.7
77.6
44.4
43.0

25
Univ Coll London
Europe
4
UK
4
28.8
32.2
38.5
42.9
63.2
33.8
42.8

26
Univ Illinois - Urbana Champaign
Americas
20
USA
19
39
36.6
44.5
36.4
57.6
26.2
42.7

27
Swiss Fed Inst Tech - Zurich
Europe
5
Switzerland
1
37.7
36.3
35.5
39.9
38.4
50.5
39.9

28
Washington Univ - St. Louis
Americas
21
USA
20
23.5
26
39.2
43.2
53.4
39.3
39.7

29
Northwestern Univ
Americas
22
USA
21
20.4
18.9
46.9
34.2
57
36.9
38.2

30
New York Univ
Americas
23
USA
22
35.8
24.5
41.3
34.4
53.9
25.9
38.0

30
Rockefeller Univ
Americas
23
USA
22
21.2
58.6
27.7
45.6
23.2
37.8
38.0

32
Duke Univ
Americas
25
USA
24
19.5
0
46.9
43.6
62
39.2
37.4

33
Univ Minnesota - Twin Cities
Americas
26
USA
25
33.8
0
48.6
35.9
67
23.5
37.0

34
Univ Colorado - Boulder
Americas
27
USA
26
15.6
30.8
39.9
38.8
45.7
30
36.6

35
Univ California - Santa Barbara
Americas
28
USA
27
0
35.3
42.6
36.2
42.7
35.1
35.8

36
Univ British Columbia
Americas
29
Canada
2
19.5
18.9
31.4
31
63.1
36.3
35.4

37
Univ Maryland - Coll Park
Americas
30
USA
28
24.3
20
40.6
31.2
53.3
25.9
35.0

38
Univ Texas - Austin
Americas
31
USA
29
20.4
16.7
46.9
28
54.8
21.3
34.4

39
Univ Paris 06
Europe
6
France
1
38.4
23.6
23.4
27.2
54.2
33.5
33.8

39
Univ Texas Southwestern Med Center
Americas
32
USA
30
22.8
33.2
30.6
35.5
38
31.9
33.8

41
Vanderbilt Univ
Americas
33
USA
31
19.5
29.6
31.4
23.8
51
36
33.6

42
Univ Utrecht
Europe
7
Netherlands
1
28.8
20.9
27.7
29.9
56.6
26.6
33.5

43
Pennsylvania State Univ - Univ Park
Americas
34
USA
32
13.2
0
45.1
37.7
58
23.7
32.7

43
Univ California - Davis
Americas
34
USA
32
0
0
46.9
33.1
64.2
30
32.7

45
Univ California - Irvine
Americas
36
USA
34
0
29.4
35.5
28
48.9
32.1
32.5

46
Univ Copenhagen
Europe
8
Denmark
1
28.8
24.2
25.7
25.2
51.4
31.7
32.2

47
Rutgers State Univ - New Brunswick
Americas
37
USA
35
14.4
20
39.9
32.1
44.8
24.2
32.1

48
Univ Manchester
Europe
9
UK
5
25.6
18.9
24.6
28.3
56.9
28.4
32.0

49
Univ Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh
Americas
38
USA
36
23.5
0
39.9
23.6
65.6
28.5
31.9

50
Univ Southern California
Americas
39
USA
37
0
26.8
37.1
23.4
52.7
25.9
31.4

51
Univ Florida
Americas
40
USA
38
21.2
0
37.1
24.8
65.5
26.5
31.1

52
Univ Paris 11
Europe
10
France
2
31.3
39.1
14.8
20.4
44.8
30.8
30.9

53
Karolinska Inst Stockholm
Europe
11
Sweden
1
28.8
27.3
32.3
16.6
47
24.5
30.8

53
Univ Edinburgh
Europe
11
UK
6
21.2
16.7
26.7
34.2
47
29.3
30.8

53
Univ Munich
Europe
11
Germany
1
34.8
22.9
14.8
27.1
51.8
31.1
30.8

56
Tech Univ Munich
Europe
14
Germany
2
40.3
23.6
25.7
20.2
44.4
29.9
30.6

57
Australian Natl Univ
Asia/Pac
3
Australia
1
16.6
12.6
36.3
30
44.7
32.2
30.4

58
Univ North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Americas
41
USA
39
11.8
0
37.8
29.3
60.1
27.7
30.2

58
Univ Zurich
Europe
15
Switzerland
2
11.8
26.8
22.2
28.3
48.4
31.1
30.2

60
Carnegie Mellon Univ
Americas
42
USA
40
32.8
32.8
32.3
12
36.7
31
30.0

61
Ohio State Univ - Columbus
Americas
43
USA
41
16.6
0
41.9
22
61.2
19.8
29.5

62
Univ Bristol
Europe
16
UK
7
10.2
17.9
29.6
26.7
47.3
32.8
29.4

63
McGill Univ
Americas
44
Canada
3
27
0
29.6
24.2
58.7
32.7
29.3

64
Hebrew Univ Jerusalem
Asia/Pac
4
Israel
1
31.1
20
24.6
23.3
43.6
28.2
29.0

65
Univ Heidelberg
Europe
17
Germany
3
18.6
27.2
18.2
22.8
48.7
29
28.9

66
Uppsala Univ
Europe
18
Sweden
2
24.3
32.2
12.8
23.6
49.1
21
28.8

67
Osaka Univ
Asia/Pac
5
Japan
3
11.8
0
24.6
30.4
64
28.5
28.6

68
Purdue Univ - West Lafayette
Americas
45
USA
42
17.6
16.7
29.6
20.9
51.3
20.2
28.3

69
Univ Oslo
Europe
19
Norway
1
24.3
33.4
18.2
16.8
42.5
27.9
28.2

70
Brown Univ
Americas
46
USA
43
17.6
13.6
31.4
28.2
39.9
29.6
28.1

71
Univ Leiden
Europe
20
Netherlands
2
23.5
15.5
28.7
20.9
45.2
28.2
28.0

72
Univ Sheffield
Europe
21
UK
8
22
14.1
22.2
27.8
46
29.5
27.9

73
Univ Helsinki
Europe
22
Finland
1
17.6
17.9
19.6
21.7
52.7
28.9
27.8

74
Univ Arizona
Americas
47
USA
44
0
0
29.6
37.1
54.6
25.7
27.6

75
Univ Rochester
Americas
48
USA
45
31.1
8.9
26.7
21.5
43.1
35.2
27.4

76
Moscow State Univ
Europe
23
Russia
1
51.6
34.2
0
7.5
48.5
31.6
27.1

76
Tohoku Univ
Asia/Pac
6
Japan
4
17.6
0
22.2
23.7
63
28.3
27.1

78
Case Western Reserve Univ
Americas
49
USA
46
38.1
11.5
21
19.6
43
32.2
26.8

79
Univ Melbourne
Asia/Pac
7
Australia
2
14.4
14.1
22.2
18.4
55.1
25
26.6

80
Michigan State Univ
Americas
50
USA
47
11.8
0
36.3
24.6
51
18.4
26.1

81
Univ Nottingham
Europe
24
UK
9
14.4
20
24.6
16.2
44.8
27.3
26.0

82
Univ Basel
Europe
25
Switzerland
3
24.3
17.1
21
22.9
35.6
35.1
25.9

83
Boston Univ
Americas
51
USA
48
14.4
0
30.6
27.1
50.4
17.3
25.5

83
Ecole Normale Super Paris
Europe
26
France
3
48.5
31.6
12.8
16.8
25.8
25.8
25.5

83
King’s Coll London
Europe
26
UK
10
15.6
23.1
19.6
15.4
45.1
26.6
25.5

86
Stockholm Univ
Europe
28
Sweden
3
27.6
29.6
16.6
17.2
36.4
19.4
25.3

87
McMaster Univ
Americas
52
Canada
4
15.6
18.9
22.2
14.3
45.4
25.7
25.0

87
Rice Univ
Americas
52
USA
49
20.4
21.9
22.2
22.3
30
29.8
25.0

87
Univ Goettingen
Europe
29
Germany
4
36.3
20
14.8
16.3
39.7
25.2
25.0

90
Indiana Univ - Bloomington
Americas
54
USA
50
13.2
17.9
27.7
20
39.9
18
24.9

91
Texas A&M Univ - Coll Station
Americas
55
USA
51
0
0
33.1
23.6
53.7
20.3
24.8

92
Univ Birmingham
Europe
30
UK
11
23.5
10.9
22.2
15.4
45.3
26.9
24.5

93
Univ Utah
Americas
56
USA
52
0
0
30.6
27.6
47.5
25
24.3

94
Nagoya Univ
Asia/Pac
8
Japan
5
0
14.1
18.2
22.3
50
25
24.1

94
Univ Freiburg
Europe
31
Germany
5
23.5
20.9
16.6
18.9
37.4
23.6
24.1

96
Arizona State Univ - Tempe
Americas
57
USA
53
0
14.1
24.6
26.1
42.7
18.2
24.0

97
Lund Univ
Europe
32
Sweden
4
27.6
0
23.4
19.1
50.7
18
23.9

97
Univ Iowa
Americas
58
USA
54
0
0
34
22.2
49.6
21.1
23.9

99
Tokyo Inst Tech
Asia/Pac
9
Japan
6
15.6
0
22.2
23.9
46.9
30.4
23.8

99
Univ Bonn
Europe
33
Germany
6
18.6
20
14.8
16.9
42.6
24.2
23.8

99
Univ Strasbourg 1
Europe
33
France
4
27.6
22.5
16.6
18.5
32.8
22.9
23.8

<ul>
<li>Institutions within the same rank range are listed alphabetically.</li>
</ul>

Tarhunt · October 22, 2007, 4:15pm

I’d like to see the distributions and SDs on those numbers, Hawkette. I’m going to bet that, for the top schools, nearly everyone who filled out a questionnaire had an opinion, and that the SD is very low. As one goes down the list, I would bet that the number of responses trails off, substantially, and that SDs increase, but not by a lot.

Actually, a distribution like this makes sense. I’m betting that, if we could see the curve, it would be slightly skewed towards the higher end (because not many raters actually give 1s), but the mode would be just about an average 3 or just above that. That makes sense. On a five-point scale, most ratings are going to gravitate strongly towards the center. Only those schools that really stand out as either being very, very good or very, very bad are going to get a score other than a 3.

Remember, it’s all relative. For instance, I believe that the University of Alabama has, overall, quality faculty. But by any measurement I can think of, which includes academy membership, awards, average publishing history, etc., the University of Alabama faculty is not on par with that of Harvard. It’s not even close.

Remember that the issue is “distinguished” vs. “better than average” vs. “average,” vs. “below average” vs. “marginal.” From an undergrad instructional standpoint, the actual distance between “distinguished” and “average” may not be all that great. In the Olympics, the distance between a gold medal and the last person in the pack may not be all that great, either.

As for the number remaining roughly the same over time, that makes sense to me. Remember that the most respected institutions have the money, facilities, students, etc. to attract the best and most reknowned faculty, as well as developing young talent internally. It’s a self-perpetuating system.

Hawkette, can you point to a school in which academy membership (which is a fair measure of long-term quality and quantity faculty output) has skyrocketed, but the PA has not, or vice versa? If so, then you may well have a point, but I’m betting that, if there are any such schools, there are probably not more than one or two.

[inappropriate (and inaccurate) comment regarding moderation deleted]

Tarhunt · October 22, 2007, 4:22pm

dstark:

Thanks for the Chinese numbers. I had thought about these numbers, previously, and how they might relate to US News PAs. I thought they’d be pretty close but that the PAs would be modified by what we, in the US know, about class sizes and the like at research-oriented publics.

I don’t think the Chinese study makes enough allowance for faculty size, and I think they double count in some areas (publishing and high cites). I once checked out a school on there that surprised me, and found that its relatively high ranking came on the strength of only eleven highly published and cited faculty in a single year out of a total faculty of, as I recall, a couple of thousand. It has since slipped back in the rankings, since publishing and high cites, at least from some schools, can fluctuate pretty wildly.

Thanks for the numbers, though.

hawkette · October 22, 2007, 5:02pm

tarhunt,
Re the nature of the current and historical PA data, I agree that everyone had an opinion and that the SD was probably lowest at the top of the rankings. For the highest ranked colleges, there is very little change either absolutely or relatively over a ten-year period, including on a year-to-year basis. I am questioning if this is an accurate conclusion.

One’s answer to this question might well depend on what one values in making that judgment. I care a heckuva lot more about the undergraduate student experience and how well prepared he/she is upon graduation than with the research work that takes place at a college or how many members of an academy are associated with a college. I believe you hold the opposite view. I’m sure that such measures are important to those in academia to see who is doing what, but to most folks that I know in the for-profit world, such considerations don’t have a lot of applicable value.

It looks increasingly clear that you and I will not find a common ground on this PA issue. Hopefully, we can find more agreement on other topics in the future.

dstark,
I agree that the Chinese rankings have value if a student plans to work in China. Also, I think that most (if not all) of those rankings are for an entire school and quite likely relate the status of graduate education at a college far more than its undergraduate status.

UCBChemEGrad · October 22, 2007, 5:10pm

^ Hawkette, if you’re mentioning the “for-profit world”, China’s influence on that world is growing ever more stronger.

Tarhunt · October 22, 2007, 5:14pm

Hawkette:

TOS violation deleted
I don’t think we disagree much on the value of an undergrad education and how the PA is suspect in measuring that. Our differences appear to be that I am quite comfortable with taking the US News rankings within the context of its methodology, warts and all. I am also comfortable believing that finding criteria and weights upon which everyone will agree is not possible given the data available to us, and that there may never be such criteria and rankings given the difficulty of extruding benchmarks.

I really don’t have any reason to attack the US News rankings. Those rankings are valid only within the limits of the methodology used. That’s all they are. You and I cannot agree because you seem to want some sort of final, abolutely valid rankings, and such things don’t exist. We also appear to disagree in that I feel that, absent completely objective criteria that may never be available, at least some subjective criteria are actually useful.

hawkette · October 22, 2007, 5:23pm

No doubt about it on China, but they’ve still got a ways to go. The US has the world’s largest economy with GDP of $13 trillion, representing 20% of the world’s economy. China has been growing quickly, but still has a GDP of only about $2.7 trillion and is the world’s fourth largest economy. It is increasing in importance and I don’t underestimate the role that China will have in the next 50 years of the world. Maybe over that time, they will learn more about the great breadth of higher education in America, particularly at the undergraduate level.

ramaswami · October 22, 2007, 5:25pm

hawkette, I always enjoy your posts but who the hell are you, where do you get the time to do all this?

bluebayou · October 22, 2007, 5:42pm

tarhunt:

fwiw: I read that post and had the exact same reaction as you. :)

dstark · October 22, 2007, 5:52pm

Hawkette, I asked you about the classroom experience at Notre Dame and Chicago, as did others, and never received an answer. Evidently, the people involved in the China rankings knows at least as much about the classroom experience at Notre Dame as you do.

Repeat this. At many of the universities with strong graduate schools, the undergrads get to take classes with the same professors as the grad students. The undergrads get to take graduate courses. They get to take classes with graduate students as classmates.

I’m shocked regional schools like Berkeley, UCLA and UCSD are ranked so high in the China rankings. I didn’t think anybody in China ever heard of these schools.

If you are going to compare and judge schools based on classroom experiences, it makes sense to me for you to actually have had classroom experiences at the schools.

The Correlation between PA Scoring and Political Voting Patterns

CONNECT WITH US