<p>Don’t be so anal; you know what he meant.</p>
<p>I know EXACTLY what he meant.</p>
<p>The POINT is he’s not backing up any of his statements with anything meaningful.</p>
<p>when do the new rankings come out??</p>
<p>Er, actually there is a difference jpps. Bryn Mawr has an acceptance rate near 50%, but it’s still very selective. </p>
<p>joey- They come out in August, which is why this argument is premature (or perhaps, based on some posts, immature).</p>
<p>well said…</p>
<p>August!!!</p>
<p>That’s like 5 Months Away, Here I got excited and crap, for no reason. Oh well.</p>
<p>Ivy_grad, did I just read you say that Michigan is a “great” university? A few hours ago, I could have sworn you used the word “solid” to describe Michigan. Which is it? There is a significant difference between being merely solid and being great!</p>
<p>But seriously Ivy_grad, if you want to discuss history, from the 1870s until the late 60s, Cal and Michigan were among a handful of national universities that were considered the best. In fact, according to a survey conducted by the American Council on Education in 1966, Cal and Michigan, were both ranked among the top 3 in the nation. In the 1860s, Ezra Cornell founded Cornell and hired Andrew White from the University of Michigan, to run his new university. Cornell felt that the University of Michigan was the model of the time.</p>
<p>So yes, some of the Ivies were not as significant as Michigan in the 1870-1970 period.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Kudos to you my friend. </p>
<p>You are THE authority on all things Michigan.</p>
<p>It is indeed a “GREAT” university! =)</p>
<p>"Er, actually there is a difference jpps. Bryn Mawr has an acceptance rate near 50%, but it’s still very selective. "</p>
<p>Again, you know what he meant.</p>
<p>Willmingtonwave, if GPA (meaning grades) and class rank are poor idicators of student academic ability, what is a good measure? Of course they’re flawed, just as test scores are, but besides these three things, what else is there to measure by?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You put statistics in quotation marks. Are you discrediting their validity? Because it’s california, and because of your reasoning, they aren’t as real as Harvard’s statistics, or some little liberal arts college? Alsmost all undergraduate schools seem to be regional to some degree, if not from the applicants, to those who end up attending. Many students in California haver fewer options for good schools within say, 8 hours travel from them by car than the students who live on the East coast. Group East coast states together around colleges and do the math, they’re concentrated around the schools generally. Other reasons many students stay in-state and attend UCs is perceived quality (all of the UCs have a few strong programs, all are generally solid to good, all are in the US News top 80 somethin, all but two in the top 50), low cost, and availability of programs- there are few majors not represented. And anyway, most people major in something conventional.</p>
<p>When the large publics were ahead of many big-name large privates in US News, the big name large privates had fits. This probably led to us news changing its ranking system in favor of things that benefit the priavtes. What a system! I think the system of school classification should be changed, but how? I’m not sure.</p>
<p>
No I agree with you, but in the US News this gives the California schools an advantage b/c they have so many applicants. I think class rank and GPA aren’t good indicators, because they aren’t universal, and you can’t compare different High Schools, as different weights are put on different classes etc. I’m not bashing the UC’s, but I feel they are somewhat overrated on the undergraduate level. Nonetheless they are great schools, and I’d probably go to one if I was in California.</p>
<p>
Again I agree with you, I just don’t think the UC’s and schools like Michigan, UNC-CH, and UVA should be compared head to head against Vanderbilt, Emory, Wake Forest, Tufts, Lehigh, Boston College, etc. They need to change the rankings to match schools of different sizes against each other.</p>
<p>Well, I could make a similar argument for schools on the common application. While it does increase number of applicants and reduce acceptance rates, guess what? It also make some UCs look easier to get into! I got into every single one. I’m reduced the yield to every school but Berkeley. The UC application changes many factors, not just the one you mentioned. I don’t think your bashing UCs. I do think schools can only work with what they have, GPA, course schedule, test scores, ECs, and usually an essay to judge academic performance. Maybe the UCs are overrated at the undergraduate level (although many think they’re terrible, and are vocal about it). A good student who does well at any UC can easily use any UC as a stepping stone to great things, and according to things like US News, the “worst” UC (that has been around for years) is better than many state’s flagships. But maybe they’re wrong <em>shrug</em>. According to formulas, they’re better, and that’s what US News judges- how schools do with the perenial formula. </p>
<p>What new system do you propose?</p>
<p>You have to pit schools against schools of similar size and not compare publics and privates. Right now they have got it right for many of the rankings (ie separating LACs and schools that only offer a bachelors), but they need to take it a step further. Perhaps breaking down the top doctorate universities into:
Publics vs. Privates and then into sub-categories based on the size of a school. You can’t compare schools with 25,000 kids to schools with 5,000 kids.
So we would have for the Top Doctorate Offering Schools:
Large Publics (over 10,000 kids)
Small Publics (under 10,000)
Large Privates (over 10,000)
Small Privates (under 10,000)
I’d also eliminate Peer assessment as it enters a subjective “number” into an objective equation. This way you would be comparing “similar” schools and we wouldn’t have to compare Vandy and Michigan.</p>
<p>Not a fan of the subjective? I hate to break it to you, but in comparing colleges, that’s most of what we have. How do we weight our formula? We decide what we think is most important. That’s human decision about values, not the all mighty telling us which is better, Mich or Vandy. In addition, how schools are received is important. That Harvard is Harvard, Yale Yale, Princeton Princeton means something as far as colleges go. It is a big factor in many people decision, just as where someone went is a big factor in determining employment, or at least effects the inverview. </p>
<p>Why divide by public and private? I think too many people assume private>public straight off of the back. In many countries (Japan, France) the public schools wipe the floor with the privates. Why do you think that they should be seperated? Some publics are essentially private (people say this U Va, some of William and Mary). Some</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Woah… let’s just wait a minute.</p>
<p>Let’s not mix apples and oranges.</p>
<p>Now while I agree that saying ALL private school systems are > public school systems is erroneous, let’s not take those “terms” and mix them all up.</p>
<p>As you say, these terms and systems are VERY different across countries.</p>
<p>To take your example of Japan - many of the very BEST highschool students attend the elite “public” schools (such as University of Tokyo and Kyoto U.) The reason behind this development goes back to these institutions’ connection to the powerful Ministry of Education - basically the best and brightest generally wanted to attend law school and go on to work for the government.</p>
<p>BUT, as the Japanese educational system evolves more toward a “western” system - the elite “private” universities are gaining momentum: Waseda, Keio, etc.</p>
<p>Historically, the government was where all of the brightest, newly minted graduates went - why? Because of the government’s overwhelming power across all industries - law (MOJ - Ministry of Justice), business (Ministry of Finance - MOF), etc. However, the power of the government is waning and, subsequently, is University of Tokyo’s appeal. Ask the current generation of high achieving Japanese highschool students and not only is the appeal of a career in government falling by the wayside (the private sector is a much more appealing) - similarly U of T is not the no. 1 Uni by any stretch - that position is arguably now taken over by Keio and Waseda (or at least as strong)</p>
<p>Basically, “private” and “public” mean very different things across different countries.</p>
<p>Just because one “public” university dominated the educational landscape in one country (e.g. University of Tokyo = Japan) doesn’t mean that all systems should by default be compared by this measuring stick - every country has its own unique system… and finally, ask any well informed Japanese educator and ask them if the University of Tokyo (or Kyoto) “wipes the floor” with Waseda or Keio…</p>
<p>I don’t think that Japan is the rule. I am merely pointing out a contrast to our American system. I agree with you, and I’m not sure about some of your reasoing, and I’m not sure about much of it. Basically, I don’t like it when Americans, or anyone else for that matter (and I am primarily surrounded by Americans and notice in them) that private is just better than public. Always. End of question. QED. That is what part of my post was discussing.</p>
<p>I have said it all along that there should be at least 3 classifications…maybe 4. I agree that comparing Cornell to Dartmouth or Georgetown to Stanford or Cal to Emory is useless. Academically, all those schools are stellar, but they are not at all suitable for the same types of students. </p>
<p>The first classification should be the MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES. The top 15 would probably look something like this:</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology
Columbia University
Cornell University
Duke University
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Tecnhology
Nothwestern University
Princeton University
Stanford University
Johns Hopkins University
University of California-Berkeley
University of Chicago
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Pennsylvania
Yale University</p>
<p>The second classification would be the LAC-LIKE RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES/QUASI LACS. The top 15 would probably look something like this:
Boston College
Brandeis University
Brown University
College of William and Mary
Dartmouth College
Emory University
Georgetown University
Rice University
Tufts University
University of Notre Dame
University of Rochester
University of Virginia
Vanderbilt University
Wake Forest University
Washington University</p>
<p>The third classification would be the LACs and it would remain the same as it is today.</p>
<p>Privates are better than publics USUALLY for one important reason.</p>
<p>Privates are totally under the free market system and admit the best students based on their own self interest.</p>
<p>Publics? They have an obligation to give priority to in-state students and therefore usually admit students who sometimes DO not deserve to attend the university under free market conditions. We all know people who have LOWER stats who get into UVA and UNC instate instead of out of state.
We all ask “are you in state?” when giving answers to “chances” threads.</p>
<p>Summary:
Because public schools do not look toward their own self-interest (much like a business) as much as private schools do, the BEST public schools do not compare to the BEST privates. </p>
<p>That is why in MOST cases of top colleges, Private > Public.</p>
<p>Its simple economics folks.</p>
<p>Hey Alexandre, what about Bryn Mawr, and a few other “LACs” that grant some PhDs?</p>
<p>I would keep them in the LAC bracket. That includes Wesleyan and Washington and Lee, both of which also have graduate programs.</p>