<p>I don’t disagree, I just don’t think at that point there is any need to even try to “rank” them. One could just add stats like SAT/ACT ranges, average UW GPA, last year’s total COA, average FA pkg, things like that. Then people could more easily create a list of schools they personally find interesting and affordable and research the 6-30 websites that result.</p>
<p>I think a lot of this ranking is like trying to rank vacation spots. What’s “better” – a glitzy ski resort with lots of nightlife, or a low-key resort on a beach? What’s better is based upon what you want. I actually think so much of the experience is driven by size of campus that I would be supportive if it was divided into X number of categories (small, medium, or large, however) and then ratings fell into those categories. Because I just can’t compare the experience at, say, a Williams or Amherst to the experience at a U Mich. The sheer size makes for different experiences and different opportunities which are only good or bad in the eyes of the beholder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fantastic idea, Alexandre!</p>
<p>If USNews can separate the schools according to **status<a href=“1.research-led,%202.quasi%20research,%203.LAC”>/b</a> and **size<a href=“less%20than%205k,%205-15k,%20over%2015k”>/b</a> and rank schools according to their category, then we wouldn’t be hearing a lot of complains.</p>
<p>^^ Totally agree with Al and RML on the idea, but there will be problems about the definition of research-led and quasi-research. What will classification be based on research budget, graduate school size?</p>
<p>size (less than 5k, 5-15k, over 15k)</p>
<p>I believe that the categories should be less than 5k, 5-20k, and over 20k instead, so that borderline top colleges like Cornell & GTech (both at ~14,000 undergrad) would not feel being screwed… ;p </p>
<p>Anyway, two thumbs-up for Alex!! </p>
<p>Anyone cares to give it a try now while we patiently await the new ranking?!
*First annual CC Best College Ranking 2010!! lol~</p>
<p>of course, who makes the call on what is “quasi-research”? </p>
<p>If I recall, USNews uses the Carnegie Uni designation, which at least is what the colleges consider themselves. (And, more importantly, you can’t blame Morse for it.)</p>
<p>[Carnegie</a> Classifications](<a href=“Carnegie Foundation Classifications”>http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My only problem is that while size is relevant to all undergraduates, whether a school is research-led or not isn’t relevant to all undergrads / fields / majors (IMO).</p>
<p>I would also add that I think the master’s universities that are currently kept separate on USNews should be “baked in.” Why shouldn’t Villanova or Santa Clara, for example, be baked into the national lists? Why separate them out arbitrarily?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exactly what happens, and that is why you have the military academies ranked with the LACs. </p>
<p>This year, you will see slightly different titles as the USNews will reinforce the regional aspect of a number of schools. </p>
<p>Since I do not think there is a perfect classification system, I do not think that USNews should introduce more sub-rankings (as some propose here.) On the other hand, I believe that schools that do NOT provide complete information or are SAT optional should not be ranked, and should be listed alphabetically at the end of the tables. </p>
<p>If we are discussing changes, I also believe that the selectivity index should be revamped by adding a fourth category, namely the percentage of instate versus OOS and NOT allowing the practice to ESTIMATE the rankings of the students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d hope that both Alexandre and RML understand that if this were to happen, it would give their favorite schools a lower “status” at least as far as rankings. Since their entire mantra is based on prestige and perception, this will surely backfire. Cal, Michigan, Virginia, et al ARE already recognized as the best public universities. All it would do is create a new “league” of peers. </p>
<p>Just imagine the current ranking of the top 30 schools. Now remove the public universities and place them on the next page. The first page does NOT change much at all. On the second page, you’ll see Cal, Michigan, UCLA on top of THIS ranking, but how would the next 10 peers look, the next 20? Now compare both top 30!</p>
<p>Please ban kineee, he’s just a spammer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. I didn’t know that. I think that’s a huge negative.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I doubt that there would be many “prestigious” universities past the top 15 in any category. You would have to stretch the definition of “prestige” to squeeze 20 schools into each category. </p>
<p>Major research universities with 4,000-14,000 undergrads:
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Princeton University
Stanford University
Yale University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Duke University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
University of Chicago
University of Pennyslvania
Washington University Saint Louis
Carnegie Mellon University
University of Southern California
New York University</p>
<p>Top Quasi Research Universities
Brown University
Caltech
Dartmouth College
Emory University
Georgetown University
Rice University
University of Notre Dame
Vanderbilt University
Boston College
Brandeis University
Wake Forest University</p>
<p>Top Publics:
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Virginia
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
College of William and Mary
Georgia Tech
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of California-San Diego
University of Texas-Austin</p>
<p>LACs:
Those would remain the same</p>
<p>xiggi, the idea is that large schools (Berkeley, UCLA, etc) and small schools (Dartmouth, Brown, Rice, etc) are different whether we both agree or not. </p>
<p>Large schools are, by and large, departmental in nature. The college of engineering at Berkeley, for example, is almost indepedent from the rest of the university and other colleges. Haas is also independent from CoE and so on. Each college at Berkeley has its own universe of standard. Each college has its own set of admission requirements. and so on and so forth. When you apply to the College of Eng’g at Berkeley, for example, your application is reviewed by admission officers, but the decision will be based on the college requirements and standards, not the university standard. That’s just one thing. </p>
<p>Another thing is, at large schools like Berkeley, eng’g students, for example, are separated from students of other colleges. You’ll have your own world - orgs, clubs, etc… The only thing that would make eng’g students, for instance, feel they belong to Cal is in housing and during games. So, in short, large schools like Berkeley is quite different from a small school like Dartmoouth. You can’t really pit those schools against each other. Apple and orange. I can understand why you can compare Dartnouth to Williams. But Williams - a Dartnouth like - and Berkeley shouldn’t be in the same group. </p>
<p>Now, if the segregation or categorization would destroy Berkeley, for instance, in the ranking, then so be it. At least, we all know that the schools that beat Berkeley in the ranking are schools whose set-up and standards are “real” peer schools of Berkeley. </p>
<p>BTW, we can limit the status to just two: Research-led and LAC. There’s no need to separate State universities and private colleges. But the size must be categorised, example: less than 4k, 4k-15k, over 15k. And,</p>
<p>since schools are also about brand power, it is important that USNews would come out a different list or ranking for brand power, even though I understand that this is a subjective thing. For a lot of people, school name is important. In the same way people buy branded clothes because of the name, not so much of the quality and design of the clothes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pizza Girl, why is that a huge negative? that’s like girls having their own loo, football players their own locker rooms, or doctors having their own facilities (hospital in this case) and lawyers their own court rooms so they can do their own thing free from the chaos of others. Berkeley is a large school and there must be some sort of segregation in order to create harmony and balance within the university or system.</p>
<p>How do you feel Berkeley students not separated from Davis or Merced or SB or LA students? Don’t you think that’s quite chaotic?</p>
<p>RML, like nearly everyone else in the other 49 states, I wouldn’t know Davis, Merced or SB if I tripped over them. Those schools are nothing more than names on a computer screen to me and most other people outside the state of California. It’s bad enough that you think everyone in the country reveres Berkeley; it’s worse that you actually think someone outside California would have any knowledge or opinions on those other schools. Enough with the California-centric point of view.</p>
<p>As to why it’s a bad thing? As someone who went to a university with an engineering school, the engineers weren’t “separate.” We all lived together, played together, took classes together in the same buildings. There was no segregation, real or implied. I think it would be dreary to just-hang-around-engineers or just-hang-around-journalists or just-hang-around-history-majors. That defeats the broadening purpose of going to a school, IMO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah. But what’s a “better” brand name? Gucci or Ferragamo? Louis Vuitton or Fendi? Prada or Loro Piana? Bottega Veneta or Coach? Don’t some of you get that sometimes there is more prestige in the thing that only the cognoscenti get?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre, please note that I only quoted the segregation between private and public, as I do not think you’ll ever see the division by size. Fwiw, I remember reading a quote by Bob Morse that dividing the schools between private and public schools would not be a positive outcome for the public universities. Again only in terms of rankings and public perception. </p>
<p>This said, I understand that your proposal is based on the adage of “Divide and conquer.” And, works in contradication to the other adage “if you cannot beat them, join them.” In this case, it is “If cannot beat them, create your own league or join another.” Why does Nebraska and the Big 10 comes to mind. 
</p>
<p>But enough torturing you for one day. </p>
<p>Here’s how the divisions would look at USNews, if they were to separate public and private schools. By the way, I am borrowing your list and reordered them loosely. </p>
<p>**FIRST PAGE OF US NEWS **- The one everyone would read AND quote on CC.</p>
<p>**Major PRIVATE NATIONAL universities **
Harvard University
Princeton University
Stanford University
Yale University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Caltech
Columbia University
University of Chicago
Duke University
University of Pennyslvania
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Dartmouth College
Brown University
Cornell University
Washington University Saint Louis
Rice University
Emory University
Georgetown University
University of Notre Dame
Vanderbilt University
Carnegie Mellon University
University of Southern California
Wake Forest University
and a few more to complete the first page of 30-40 schools</p>
<p>Second page of the rankings</p>
<p>Top Public Universities:
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Virginia
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
College of William and Mary
Georgia Tech
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of California-San Diego
University of Texas-Austin
- the rest of the UC, Washington, Florida, Tulane
- bunch of schools on the current second page of rankings such as Clemson, TAMU, Purdue, OSU, etc.</p>
<p>Just curious, are these prestige rating (perhaps based on PA score only)? Because I do not see Top Publics such as the University of Washington, Penn State, Florida, …etc from Page 1 being listed both in Xiggi & Alex’s ranking?!</p>
<p>PS. Ok, now I see Xiggi updated the ranking, and even added my beloved Buckeye!! lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML, if you did not have hundreds of posts tipping your hand and if you were not that predictable, we might not KNOW what this is all about. </p>
<p>Twist and churn all you want, it can be summarized in a few words:</p>
<p>Give me a ranking where Cal shows on the top === meaning a ranking for public schools only</p>
<p>or even better </p>
<p>Give me a ranking that eliminates “small” schools such as Brown, Caltech, Dartmouth, Emory,
Georgetown University, Rice, University of Notre Dame, Vanderbilt University. </p>
<p>The result? Finally, finally, there is way for Cal to jump those pesky schools such as Rice, Emory, Notre Dame that have precluded Cal to get its “prestige” and “recognition” just desserts.</p>
<p>The only mystery for me is … WHY IS THIS SO DARN IMPORTANT?</p>