Top 10 US Universities for Graduate Level

<p>

</p>

<p>Fine, then i’m glad to have entertained you. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And I’m going to go out on a limb and posit that not all - and probably not even the majority - of the rejected students were rejected simply because the school felt that they couldn’t have successfully graduated. Honestly, most truly incompetent students won’t even apply to UM at all, as they know that they won’t get in. (If you graduated from high school with straight C’s, you’re probably not applying to UM.) Hence, there are clearly plenty of students who were are capable of graduating from UM, but who the school nevertheless rejects, almost surely for “lack of space” - the very space that those lingering students are occupying. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, I don’t think so, for I don’t in any way see what problems would be created. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why should they need to do this? Such a student has probably already demonstrated enough knowledge about engineering or architecture as an American Studies has demonstrated about, well, American Studies. What’s wrong with giving him a generic “engineering studies” or “architectural studies” degree for his trouble? Like I said, it’s no worse than the hundreds of thousands of other relatively useless degrees that are being granted every year anyway. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not talking about raising anybody’s self-esteem. They’re already conceding that they can’t or don’t want to complete the full-blown program. </p>

<p>But at the same time, I don’t see what’s so outrageous about giving them a degree that lets them compete with the hundreds of thousands of other new graduates who have degrees. At least we can put them on the same playing field as everybody else. </p>

<p>You, on the other hand, seem to be more interested in cruelly punishing people. Why so sadistic? </p>

<p>Besides, I would also note that I don’t think this is particularly different from the practice of PhD programs - including most engineering programs - granting ‘consolation’ master’s degrees to those students who can’t complete the PhD. Fine, he spent years trying to complete the degree, he passed his qual exams, made a good faith effort, but he isn’t good enough to complete the PhD. But at least you can give him something for his troubles, and which will allow him to obtain a relatively decent job. If engineering programs are willing to grant consolation masters, I don’t see what is so outrageous for them to also grant consolation generic bachelors degrees. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong - for it excludes all of those who enter finance and then obtain MBA’s (or other common grad degrees for former IB analysts, such as law degrees or economics PhD’s) - which is to say, the overwhelming majority of them. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Um, actually, I’ve supported my arguments quite well throughout this entire thread, and it is sadly your arguments that have been supported by little more than hand-waving and hyperbole. I have shown that UM’s 4-year graduation rate is indeed substantially lower than Harvard’s 4-year rate. I have shown that Harvard is widely considered to be a better undergraduate program than UM, something that even Alexandre would not dispute. I have established that UM has vast financial resources, which, again, nobody has seriously disputed, and could therefore deploy those resources in a wide variety of ways if they so chose. </p>

<p>But most importantly of all, I continue to question the notion of why it is so utterly impossible to help those students who may want to learn something about engineering (or architecture), but may not necessarily need to complete the entire accredited degree program. What’s so wrong with helping these students meet their intellectual interests?</p>

<p>what is UM?</p>

<p>UMichigan.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>ha!</p>

<p>good one</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I couldn’t disagree more. Academics, by definition, are prestige hounds first and foremost.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well yes, in that a Uni need to have something that you want to research AND a faculty member is willing to take you on so you can research it. But after that, prestige rules easily.</p>

<p>OP: for engineering, the top four are (and have been for a long time): MIT, Stanford, Caltech and Cal-Berkelely (not necessarily in that order).</p>

<p>

Academics are concerned with academic quality - nothing more, nothing less. Most universities have good reputations because they provide sound educations. Additionally, professors are biased toward universities with scholars with whose work they’re familiar, and top scholars are more often than not affiliated with top universities. </p>

<p>I’ve never understood why graduate rankings exist. Undergraduates change their majors so often they’re not very useful, and they’re often based on factors irrelevant for them anyway. Graduate students have such specialized interests that one-size-fits-all rankings are laughable. What’s the point other than to give universities something to brag about on their websites? People in programs like Middle Eastern studies and marine biology get by perfectly fine without rankings; why it would be such a terrible thing to do the same for chemistry or English, I haven’t the faintest idea.</p>

<p>NRC Quality Assessment Rankings
For 32 Core Arts & Sciences Programs</p>

<p>100—Harvard</p>

<p>97.1–Princeton</p>

<p>89.5–Berkeley
86.8–Stanford</p>

<p>— gap—</p>

<p>62.0–Yale
61.8–Columbia
61.5–MIT</p>

<p>— gap—</p>

<p>48.6–U. of Chicago
47.3–U. of Michigan
42.6–Cal Tech</p>

<p>39.1–UCLA
38.9–Duke
36.7–Penn
35.4–NYU
34.1–Penn State
32.7–Brown</p>

<p>26.4–Northwestern
25.3–Cornell
24.4–UNC Chapel Hill
24.2–UT at Austin</p>

<hr>

<p>Of the 32 fields, the following schools had the given number of programs ranked in the top 20 of all universities:</p>

<p>NRC Quality Assessment Rankings
For 32 Core Arts & Sciences Programs
(number of top 20 programs out of 32)</p>

<p>27----Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley</p>

<p>24----Columbia, Yale</p>

<p>21----U. of Michigan</p>

<p>19----UCLA</p>

<p>18----MIT, U. of Chicago</p>

<p>17----Duke, Penn</p>

<p>16----Cornell</p>

<p>15----Penn State, UT at Austin</p>

<p>14----Brown</p>

<hr>

<p>Of the 32 fields, the following schools had the given number of programs ranked in the top 10 of all universities:</p>

<p>NRC Quality Assessment Rankings
For 32 Core Arts & Sciences Programs
(number of top 10 programs out of 32)</p>

<p>25----Harvard
24----Princeton
23----Berkeley
22----Stanford</p>

<p>—gap—</p>

<p>17----Yale
16----MIT
14----Columbia
13----U. of Michigan
12----
11----U. of Chicago
10----NYU
9-----Cal Tech, Duke
8-----Penn
7-----Brown, UCLA
6-----
5-----JHU, Penn State, UC Santa Barbara, U. of Wisconsin
4-----Cornell</p>

<hr>

<p>Of the 32 fields, the following schools had the given number of programs ranked in the top 5 of all universities:</p>

<p>NRC Quality Assessment Rankings
For 32 Core Arts & Sciences Programs
(number of top 5 programs out of 32)</p>

<p>19----Harvard
18----Princeton
17----Berkeley</p>

<p>—gap—</p>

<p>12----Stanford
11----MIT</p>

<p>—gap—</p>

<p>7----Columbia
6----U. of Chicago
5----Cal Tech, Duke, Yale
4----U. of Michigan
3----Brown, NYU, Penn State, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara</p>

<hr>

<p>Of the 32 fields, the following schools had the given number of programs ranked in the top 2 of all universities:</p>

<p>NRC Quality Assessment Rankings
For 32 Core Arts & Sciences Programs
(number of top 2 programs out of 32)</p>

<p>13----Harvard, Princeton</p>

<p>—gap—</p>

<p>7-----Stanford
6-----MIT
5-----
4-----Cal Tech, Berkeley
3-----
2-----Brown, Columbia, Duke, UCLA, U. of Chicago
1-----Indiana U., Penn State, Rutgers, UT Austin, UC San Diego, WUSTL, Yale</p>

<p>^was that for the 2000s report or for the 1990s report?</p>