<p>“Why? Does that mean that the undergrad education at Williams and Amherst is poor, or even not as good as at UCLA? By your reasoning that has to be so, since they have no graduate school.”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go as far as to UCLA. The editor of Usnews has publicly claimed that it was better to be in the top 10 in the National Universities Ranking than to be #1 in the LAC ranking.</p>
<p>I’m disappointed in the fact that most of the elite publics fell. (Berkeley down from 21 to 22; UVA and UCLA both down from 24 to 25). I do think there is an unquestionable bias toward the privates. It’ll be interesting to see how this pattern continues and the effect, if any, on the premier public institutes. I can’t help but think Jefferson would be cringing right now. It’s a slap in the face to the ideals he held so sacred when he founded the first public institute of higher education. Hmmm…privates = $ = prestige = higher rank??? Perhaps by USNWR standards but definitely not by mainstream America’s standards.</p>
<p>fallenchemist, although the absense of top graduate programs does not necessarily impact the quality of undergraduate education, the presence of top graduate programs typically indicate top faculty, excellent curriculum and strong ties to academic and corporate sectors. There are very few professors, facilities and resources that are off limits to undergrads.</p>
<p>I think ND will pass an Ivy some day. First, the administration is making improving grad programs a huge priority. Engineering just got a new $70 million building/research facility, and we got partnered into some huge federal research initiative. (alot of the research done on campus). Secondly, the same research drive is present everywhere else, and I know the science departments are growing rapidly as well. This should patch the PA score a bit, which is what holds us back.</p>
<p>Secondly, what really drives this is per student endowment (basically measuring per student resources since tuition is pretty much the same at all the privates). Our Alumni giving rate is usually top 3 so that’s poised for pretty good growth. Plus, stuff here only gets built if we have cash on hand, so we have no outstanding debt like some universities.</p>
<p>Third, from what I’ve heard admissions wants to add to the international contingent at ND. This means less kids getting FA so more $$ to go around to domestics, and probably a slight test score bump. (plus we’ll fill the “diversity” quota more easily)</p>
<p>Fourth, if football ever gets good again revenue will increase dramatically, as will applications (free press). Since football is self funding and funds all other athletics, BCS money would be diverted to academics, and alumni giving sky rockets when football is good.</p>
<p>And yes, ND attracts different kids than lower Ivys . Not less qualified than Cornell, but different personalities. I don’t think that should handicap us at all.</p>
<p>The day Notre Dame passes an Ivy is the day you can build an igloo in hell.</p>
<p>With the weak economic climate many flagship universities experience budget cuts each year. While private schools have experienced declines in endowment values, they often can tap into their strong alumni networks and high alumni giving rates. Schools like Duke, ND, HYP, Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, and Holy Cross(54% giving rate this year!) can still maintain quality and be need blind for financial aid.</p>
<p>jc:</p>
<p>the tweaks to this year’s methodology – increased emphasis on grad rate, decreased PA – ended up hurting publics; they were just collateral damage in an effort to quell the noise from the chattering classes and improve mag sales.</p>
<p>fwiw: I predicted UVa’s relative decline several years ago, due to its new found interest in actively recruiting lower income kids. (It hurts test scores, and grad rates.)</p>
<p>^ The Berkeley Blog had a posting from a professor asking the question: Being really good or being really public: [Being</a> really good vs. being really public: Is this our choice at UC Berkeley? The Berkeley Blog](<a href=“http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/03/10/being-really-good-vs-being-really-public-is-this-our-choice/]Being”>Being really good vs. being really public: Is this our choice at UC Berkeley? • The Berkeley Blog)</p>
<p>The prof thought being really good was more important than being more public.</p>
<p>I’m a bit surprised as to how UVa’s counselor score dropped from 4.6(I think) to 4.3. What happened in the last year to merit such a large drop?</p>
<p>However, congrats to all the schools who rose in the ranks. i hope everyone on here remembers that all these schools are peers, all top 25, and really all top 50 schools are great schools for the people who go there.</p>
<p>Can anyone explain to me why West Point and Annapolis are in the National LACs section while the AF Academy is in the Regional School section? Doesn’t make any sense. They all look for similar students across the country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bluebayou, should we not take a few examples to show the real impact of the changes in methodology? </p>
<p>Should we not first define the changes correctly? Did Morse change the graduation and retention rates? Or did he change the expected graduation rates? </p>
<p>Should we not look if the reduction of the PA from 25% to 15% and the addition of a 7.5% for the GC polls really hurts all public schools, or just some of them?</p>
<p>“I’m disappointed in the fact that most of the elite publics fell. (Berkeley down from 21 to 22; UVA and UCLA both down from 24 to 25). I do think there is an unquestionable bias toward the privates.”</p>
<p>I have said it before and I will say it again. The USNWR formula is designed (whether intentionally or not) to suit private universities better than public universities. I predicted a couple of years ago that in time, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, UNC and UVa will all be ranked between # 27 and #33. There was a time when I thought that the USNWR would turn things around to save its credibility, but since its primary market seems to buy its rankings, they see no reason to fix its many flaws.</p>
<p>The mid-tier UC schools have all been steadily creeping up the last 3 years:</p>
<p>2011 - UCSB: 39, UC Davis: 39, UC Irvine: 41
2010 - UCSB: 42, UC Davis: 42, UC Irvine: 46
2009 - UCSB: 44, UC Davis: 44, UC Irvine: 44</p>
<p>I just noticed the Best Undergrad Teaching rank:
[Best</a> Colleges - Education - US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-ut-rank]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-ut-rank)
Best Colleges: Undergraduate Teaching at National Universities
Best Undergraduate Teaching</p>
<p>Dartmouth College Hanover, NH 1<br>
Miami University–Oxford Oxford, OH 2<br>
Princeton University Princeton, NJ 2<br>
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 4<br>
College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA 5<br>
Brown University Providence, RI 6<br>
University of California–Berkeley Berkeley, CA 6<br>
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI 8<br>
University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 8<br>
Stanford University Stanford, CA 10<br>
Yale University New Haven, CT 10 </p>
<p>Perhaps this will have some weight in future USNWR rankings… ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>big suprise for me is that as UC Berkeley and UCLA go down and UCSD stays the same the Mid Tier’s are going up up by 3-5 spots. i actually dont know how to explain this but nevertheless it is an impressive accommplishment.</p>
<p>Nice to see DePaul make a jump into the rankings. DePaul went from not being ranked last year (and being considered a tier 3 school) to 136 and earning the classification as a tier 1 school. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
LOL, yeah big surprise. 25% of UC Davis students are barely above the national average on their SAT reading scores, and 15% at least are not. Exactly the same for UC Irvine. Yet Davis rated 4.2 on the counselor scale, Irvine 4.1. It’s a joke. It has more to do with name recognition, proximity, population skewing, and the like.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with UC Davis or the others. But if that is what we are calling one of our 40 best universities, well…</p>
<p>Columbia ahead of Stanford … I thought I would never see the day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s comparing apples to oranges. Williams and Amherst are LACs, and have a strong undergraduate focus to begin with. The initial statement was that Berkeley should be placed higher than rank 21 (or 22, I forget). You can’t bring LACs into this because it’s not a valid comparision</p>
<p>fallenchemist: what do u have againest the middle UC’s the should be in the Top 40 in the nation. Their average admited applicant has SAT scores of 1900+ which is in the 88th percentile. These are very very good schools.</p>