UNDERGRADUATE ranking based on the student’s environment

[tk21769]

<p>

Of course, the quality of a student body cannot be measured statistically because different schools publish statistics differently. Even if all schools adhered to one basic system, comparing students through statistics would be inconclusive as there are varying opinions on the matter of quantifying intellectual ability through testing.

</p>

<p>Opinions certainly do vary. But virtually all top institutions make some use of standardized tests as an admissions factor. The Common Data Set establishes a standard for reporting the data. There’s been some discussion on CC about some schools not using the CDS or reporting figures for admitted rather than matriculated students, but it isn’t clear that those numbers differ all that much. I think it’s fair to assume some correlation between median test scores and intellectual ability, for lack of a better system. Moreover, many schools with the highest median scores also base admission on ECs and other subjective factors that some of the best public universities hardly even consider.</p>

<p>

Like I said many times in the past, student quality does not determine the quality or reputation of a university. Quality of faculty, contributions to the advancement of humanity through path-breaking research, size of endowment, contribution of funds from the state to the universities, overall reputation of the school, school spirit, availlability of on-campus artistics, social, political and athletic activities, alumni size, affluence and influence etc… play a much larger role. But none of those criteria can be measured effectively.

</p>

<p>All these factors are important in differing degrees to different people. But to me, student quality is a huge factor. It greatly affects the quality of discussion in and out of the classroom as well as the standards a teacher can apply in presenting material and assigning grades.</p>

<p>

Class sizes vary very little from one research school to another. Typically, intro-level classes will be large (over 150 students at smaller private elites, over 200 at larger private elites and over 250 at larger public elites), intermediate level classes will generally be manageable (40-60 students) and advanced classes will be small (fewer than 30 students).

</p>

<p>I don’t think I ever attended a class, intro or otherwise, with as many as 150 students at any of the private schools I attended. Maybe 75-100 in one first year science lecture at Chicago. And I don’t consider 30 students “small” for an advanced class. 5 is small. 15 or so is a good size for undergraduate seminars. Some LACs and a few small universities have no classes (or very few) larger than 50, with the average around 15. I don’t see how you can have a lively, inclusive discussion of difficult material with 30 students or more.</p>

<p>To me, high student quality and small classes are essential features of a high quality liberal arts & science learning environment. Top public universities like Berkeley and Michigan do attract plenty of excellent students. They offer many small classes, especially in upper level courses, and superb resources for research. If I lived in Michigan or California and could get all that for half the out-of-pocket cost of a private school, I’d probably pick the state university. If cost were not a factor, then personally, small class sizes and selectivity would be more important to me than many of the other factors Alexandre mentions (because, to me, discussion and mentoring are key elements of liberal education.) A TA lecturing in a heavy foreign accent to 250 students may be passing information, but that’s not a very high standard for higher education. Is this just a stereotype or is it not fairly common in undergraduate classes at even the best state universities? Of course, for a well-prepared student who can bypass those classes, that issue sorta disappears.</p>