What are Stanford's Peer Schools?

system
Sun, 27 May 2007 12:30:40 +0000

“Assessing schools based on the quality of their recruited students is imperfect, and therefore, a narrow-minded and flawed judgment.”

Joshua, lets not be so self-righteous. Because its “imperfect” its “narrow-minded”? Come on. You’ve never provided any empirical evidence to back up any of your view points. Every school tries to get the best students - those who get the best students are more successful and obviously have something to offer to those students. This is why it reflects on the quality of the school.

You instead point to things such as “graduate employability” and “academic facilities”. How can you measure graduate employability? Using global corporate surveys, which rank Duke has a top 10 school, ahead of Mich and right behind HYPSM? Or how can you rank academic facilities? In terms of student:faculty ratios or resources per student, in which case again Duke beats out most schools aside from HYPSM? Or maybe “research output” - which completely depends on the absolute number of students and professors - many professors which have plenty of research output but don’t teach many classes.

As usual, Joshua, it is very apparent that you don’t understand what is important for an undergrad, and how to differentiate between a graduate ranking and an undergraduate ranking. And how you ignore everything that is contrary to your own unverified assertions.

And yet you continue to talk about the peer assessment (nicely correlates with graduate rankings btw, coincidence? obviously not) while ignoring every other category of the US News rankings - so utterly convenient (note that Duke is still top 15, tied with Mich despite having a faculty half the size).