<p>^^ Agreed 10 char</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, your post didn’t ititially resonate immediately with me, though it was well stated.</p>
<p>UCLA during the 60’s…</p>
<p>A bit different than Cal’s leading the protest movement…</p>
<p>UCLA was enrolling a lot of Jewish kids who were rejected because of their religious beliefs/ethnicity from other universities…</p>
<p>So UCLA gladly enrolled them. Many were kids originally from NYC who moved west because their parents saw the cheap tuition and the burgeoning quality within the UC system…</p>
<p>And anyone who qualified under UC standards made the cut, and were enrolled…</p>
<p>But there wasnt the coddling of students as these days, eg, recentering of the SAT to ease bruised egos in the 90’s, etc… </p>
<p>You hear old-timers say, a 3.3 gpa back then meant a 4.0 today…</p>
<p>Despite the standards many would scoff at today… Many of these kids became very, very successful and settled in the areas around UCLA: Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Palisades, Bel Air…</p>
<p>And helped UCLA gain the name of JewCLA…</p>
<p>General facts about UCLA:</p>
<p>Don’t discount UCLA wrt Nobelists. UCLA undergrad has produced, I think it’s five who’ve won Nobel prizes, chem, econ, and the most unique, Mr Ralphe Bunche, an African-American who won the Nobel for Peace, in mediating the settlement between Egyptians and the Jewish nation wrt land and helped African nations in their quest towards becoming autonomous nations. Read his story sometime. The latest is a prof from Indiana University who won for econ, I believe, this past year.</p>
<p>Mr Bunche played basketball at UCLA. So among UCLAs athletes it had Jackie Robinson, the first AA baseball player; Arthur Ashe, an AA who helped open up South Africa after the world closed them up because of Apartheid; Mr Bunche; and a football player who became the father of emergency medicine in Turkey. Not bad for a bunche of jocks…</p>
<p>Hey Wolverines, I will repeat this again and again. Michigan were #8 12 years ago but now do not expect to be in top league, even in its top gear, due to changing circumstances. I feel so sorry…</p>
<p>For Wake, good for y’all :D</p>
<p>Thanks for the input, drax12. Much appreciated :)</p>
<p>On another note, I’m jealous UMich has such a kicka$$ mascot. Come on, Wolverines? Sure as hell beats Ozzie the bear, a beaver, and Blue Devils (which I always thought resembled a Captain America gone through a terribly implemented plastic surgery :o)</p>
<p>
I completely agree. You might be my favorite Michigan poster in this forum and represent the school very well. Both of my parents went to Ohio State and are proud Buckeyes and are enjoying their moment in the sun but I secretly want the Michigan-Ohio State to be back at full strength again so here’s hoping Denard Robinson is as good as advertised according to summer camp reports.:)</p>
<p>I personally love the Demon Deacon. And how I wished the Buckeyes will beat the Wolverines in football this season, and academics soon. Ohio State’s current system is working quite well.</p>
<p>“Hey Wolverines, I will repeat this again and again. Michigan were #8 12 years ago but now do not expect to be in top league, even in its top gear, due to changing circumstances. I feel so sorry…”</p>
<p>I don’t think you are sorry…</p>
<p>“I personally love the Demon Deacon. And how I wished the Buckeyes will beat the Wolverines in football this season, and academics soon. Ohio State’s current system is working quite well.”</p>
<p>Now I know you aren’t…</p>
<p>USC and Wake Forest are at least up and rising colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michigan were #8 12 years? To keep up with the “were” allow me to say that If Michigan were number 8 12 years ago, you must own a rather old calendar. </p>
<p>Now allow me to help you with an easy way to remember this. USNews started a long time ago, and that was in 1983. Since they did not have much to rely on, they arranged for a quick polling of “experts” and called it a day. The second time they did it, they did NOT list Michigan. The third time they did the ranking they DID rank Michigan in the eight slot. However, considering the growing popularity of the rankings, the august magazine realized that they better add a bit of “science” to the rankings and actually start doing some research. The result? A more reasonable ranking system for the 1990s … and the twenty following years. </p>
<p>Now, the easy part. Michigan was ranked 8th in 88 … that is pretty easy to remember. Now, 2010 minus 1988 … that is a lot more than 12!</p>
<p>If I were you, I would not repeat your “12 years ago” again and again.</p>
<p>People just get so angry when the status quo is perhaps shaken up a bit. There is some science, as Xiggi has reiterated, and thus some value in the rankings. They are never going to be perfect, but they are in general a decent gauge. </p>
<p>It just never ceases to amaze me that people get so petty and just attack other schools with just terrible arguments. It is particularly true when the posters know absolutely nothing about the school and just view it as a data set. </p>
<p>Sure, publics have fallen in the rankings, but maybe isn’t there some truth in what is happening? State governments are in shambles, the economy is in hell and oftentimes state schools are more expensive. Hell, Rutgers would have been more expensive for me in-state than Wake Forest was.</p>
<p>
Nope. The USNWR methodology changed. If we utilize the same methodology today as used in 1988, Michigan would be ranked #13, Berkeley #6…not a whole lot different. But the change in methodology leads to public perception that publics are falling.</p>
<p>In other words, Berkeley and Michigan are #6 and #13, respectively, according to collective opinion of ~2,000 academics…versus #21 and #27 according to some magazine publisher.</p>
<p>A friendly reminder to the Top-5 ‘Public’ Universities!!</p>
<p>‘college’ of William and Mary is lurking in the background…lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup, and it changed to better the privates. Indeed, it’s changes continue to better the privates; e.g., adding ‘alumni giving’ as a component – real easy to give back when you are a trust fund baby.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is analogous to the use of sabermetrics in baseball. This has been the debate throughout the game since the Michael Lewis’ “Moneyball” popularized the use of stats rather than traditional scouting. Yes there is value in scouting, just as there is value in the opinions of academics. However, there is also truth in quantitative data and both the subjective and the objective are necessary to come to an informed and intelligent conclusion. </p>
<p>Considering the low participation rate regarding the peer assessment portion of the rankings as well as the liberties that certain college presidents take, something else is needed. This is why the USNWR, while not perfect, is the best system that there is.</p>
<p>Furthermore, we can all agree that the perceptions of these academics (not even considering that there are many flaws with peer assessment) leans heavily in favor of research-producing institutions. As someone who just completed undergraduate, I still do not understand how that helps me as a student. If anything it detracts from my experience, because then my professors are there to do research and dabble in their own endeavors, rather than provide me with a stimulating learning environment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, obviously because alumni giving is 5% of the rankings methodology and a trust fund is necessary to donate $20 a year to your alma mater.</p>
<p>I think you are being sarcastic will, but think about a student body where 30+% are on Pell Grants, and who work full time to attend their neighborhood public uni and help their families out with rent bcos thier parents have been unemployed for 99+ weeks, then make your re-consider your remark about $20. </p>
<p>Contrast such a student body with the Ivies: Dartmouth had a 99% giving rate from its graduating seniors. Obviously, only a few of them were on a real payroll by graduation day, so they made their contributions with daddy’s money…</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>willmington,</p>
<p>A few points:
College costs are not a metric used in the ranking.</p>
<p>
How is it true quantitative data when subjective weights are applied?
Also, the quantitative data does not compare apples to apples. For example, the financial resources ranking includes medical school spending…how does this pertain to undergrads in a supposed undergrad ranking? This also penalizes schools without medical schools.</p>
<p>
No question that is true, because you’re surveying academics…research is very front and center in their minds. Research is how they advance in research universities. </p>
<p>Polling others, like GCs, is a good start.</p>
<p>The PA question is “rank a schools academic offerings from distinguished to marginal”…higher PA schools typically offer more academic breadth and depth than lower PA schools. That is the value of PA.</p>
<p>
No, but costs can deter a student from attending a school. This causes quality students to attend private schools if they offer better financial aid packages.</p>
<p>
The weighting is subjective, but I don’t have much of a problem with it. I think it is reasonable, and again, it will never be perfect.</p>
<p>As far as financial resources, that is not necessarily the case. The methodology states that:
Which infers that they are not utilizing data from graduate programs (unless it is presumably being used by undergraduates). However, it is not clear. Nonetheless, this would help major research schools with facilities and research funding if you are correct.</p>
<p>I think that some sort of peer assessment is necessary, but I think the undergraduate quality is the more important indicator for a publication targeted towards those interested in their undergraduate education. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, it is only 5% and it does not just gauge recent graduates. If anything, recent graduates would be a small drop in the bucket of giving among living alumni. I don’t want to be “that” guy, but I worked as many as three jobs throughout college, worked during the summer and on all my breaks at home, and graduated with a sizeable amount of debt. I still am contributing to my alma mater, albeit if only a small amount.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter if it is one half of one percent. Do you dispute that a financial criteria – any criteria – favors schools with wealthy student bodies? And that those schools tend to be private? And of course, many of the other criteria used by USNews also correlates well with wealthy schools, i.e. , class size, faculty resources, test scores, graduation rates, etc.; sum it all up…</p>
<p>Perhaps the only criteria not immediately correlated with wealth is the (infamous) PA…</p>
<p>willmington, the financial resources includes all spending, including graduate programs. I believe this is because it would take a gargantuan/impossible effort on USNWR’s part to breakdown a school’s spending on just undergrad. Case in point is the difference in financial resources scores for UCLA and Cal. UCLA’s is much higher…both campuses get similar funding, the only difference is UCLA has a medical school.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights.html[/url]”>http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights.html</a>
</p>