<p>Of course undergrad education has a lot to do with the “university around it” inso far as libraries, facilities, etc. go, but undergrad specific measures (such as the quality of the undergraduate student body) also play a huge measure. </p>
<p>Undergraduate students take classes across all disciplines, but they also take them at levels where differences in rank among disciplines is meaningless- i.e. at the entry level. Therefore, the things that matter in this scenario are class size and the quality of the students in the class. Star professors also matter, but you can’t measure that. Quality of the students in the class is a main determinant of US News.</p>
<p>Undergraduate education is not only about labs and nobel prize winners, its about class discussion, interacting with your peers, resources of all kinds at your fingertips, etc. This is what US News gets at.</p>
<p>And assuming students at top colleges are generally considered to be the top students in the country (reasonable proxy), then all you have to do is look at declared majors. At Yale, 81% of students majored in arts, humanities, and social sciences. At Princeton, its 64%, and at Harvard, and I would guess Harvard is between those two (I haven’t been able to find their data).</p>
<p>Let me ask you about Dartmouth. I don’t see how Cal or Michigan rank about Dartmouth for undergraduate education, which you seem to be arguing. Dartmouth has better students, smaller classes, more resources per students, better placement in grad schools, etc.</p>
<p>YaleSocietyMember, I respectfully disagree with you regarding the validity of USN&WR’s undergraduate program ranking. And I’m certainly not the sole critic of this poll. Commercial polls, including USN&WR, aren’t highly regarded sources in academia. Numerous articles decrying the validity of the USN&WR polls have appeared in numerous reputable academic publications including “The Chronicles of Higher Education”. There’s not much more I can tell you other than most academicians don’t hold commercial polls like USN&WR in high regard. Nor should they. How much credibility should we lend to a poll that changes its methodology on an annual basis? </p>
<p>Then there’s the more pressing issue of questionable criteria as well as questionable weighing of criteria. Like most polls, the data and the process of data collection have questionable validity. It’s fine to consider the quality of the faculty, selectivity, & SAT/ACT scores as major criteria. However, the quality of the institutions’ academic departments is largely ignored. How many threads have we seen on this board asking for info. on the strongest departments in a particular academic discipline? Ie. A Cal-Berkeley has many, many more specific course offerings for its undergraduates than a Notre Dame or many of the top 10 undergrad programs listed by US News. </p>
<p>The U.S. News is criticized for not placing a heavier weight on the actual academic offerings of the institutions. And criteria such as selectivity, class size, & alumni giving are excessively weighted. Actually alumni giving is probably the most ridiculous criterion of all. Alumni giving as a measure of student satisfaction? And there are 2 categories of alumni giving? Everyone should be raising a brow over this. The criteria used by USN&WR clearly favors the smaller private undergrad program. Unfortunately, many of these smaller programs lack the numerous strong academic departments of a Berkeley or a Michigan. Furthermore, schools have been known to “tinker” with their admissions policies, alumni files, and other ranking factors in order to maintain a boost in their U.S. News rating. </p>
<p>I don’t know what more to tell you other than the NRC Report is the most respected academic ranking in existence. Yes, it ranks the grad programs. Agree or disagree, the departments with the most highly regarded grad programs are considered to be the strongest. To my knowledge, only the Gourman Report ranks the individual undergrad programs in specific disciplines. Among academicians, the prestigious NRC Report is largely accepted as the THE source for ranking the individual departments of the top institutions. This source is only published every 10 years and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. Rankings shouldn’t change on an annual basis, and methodology should largely remain constant to garner respect & credibility. </p>
<p>Actually both Berkeley and Michigan were ranked among the top 10 undergraduate programs by the USN&WR up until the late '80’s, when the publication decided to dramatically change its methodology. I would never recommend this poll or any other commercial poll as an accurate or valid source. I’m not alone. In '96, Stanford University President Gehard Caspar publicly criticized the USN&WR polls. He wrote a letter to the editor of U. S. News in which he questioned the validity of its poll. In protest, he released “An Alternative to the U.S. News & World Report College Survey” to the press. The USN&WR poll is controversial like any other commercial poll.</p>
<p>What “academics” perceive as the best poll may differ from what “students” perceive as the ebst poll. The US News ranking is designed for students, not academics. </p>
<p>The NRC rankings have little or no applicability to the undergraduate experience for MOST students. This is the key. The NRC ranking is great for ranking graduate school departments. It is POOR in ranking undergraduate education. The US News Undergrad Report would be POOR in ranking graduate education- which is why US News has a separate ranking for it.</p>
<p>You guys are trying to use the US News report for a purpose its not intended to do. Of course Cal and Michigan have great engineering, business, biology, whatever else grad departments, US News undergrad rankings don’t address that. The NRC rankings don’t address the quality of student bodies. Both sets of rankings have a place.</p>
<p>Actuall alumni giving is a good measure, IMO. I gave money to my alma matter as an appreciation for the experience it gave me. If the experience was bad, I would not have donated. Its a pretty good measure of satisfaction.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, applying NRC rankings to undergraduate education is like saying Washington University in St. Louis has a better law school than Chicago because US News ranked Washington University as a better undergrad institution than Chicago. Both applications are equally misguided and frankly make no sense. US News recognizes this (which is why it ranks Chicago Law over WUSTL law in its grad school rankings), why don’t people on CC?</p>
<p>This discussion is beginning to get just a little bizarre. Comparing Dartmouth undergrad to that of Berkeley and Michigan?! It probably would be more appropriate not to rank Dartmouth among national universities. IMO it would be more fitting to rank Dartmouth with the Swarthmores & Amhersts. You’re comparing apples & bananas. Undergrad programs like Berkeley & Michigan have greater numbers of schools, programs, & undergrad students. When you have more undergrad slots to fill, normally you can’t be as selective. Also Berkeley & Michigan are required to accept a certain percentage of state residents. Having acknowledged this, you could take half of the engineering undergrads at Berkeley or Michigan, and they would probably blow away the entire undergrad student body at smaller schools like Dartmouth. </p>
<p>However, the flip side is that there’s a huge advantage to studying at larger schools like Berkeley or Michigan. Numerous highly regarded departments, much greater course offerings, world class research, superior libraries, greater numbers of renowned faculty members, and more Nobel Prize winners on the faculty are just some obvious “fringe benefits”. Talk about comparing apples & bananas. Berkeley and Michigan are world class institutions. You’ll never convince me that there’s not a huge advantage to studying at a “super university” like Berkeley or Michigan. In regard to resources for undergrad students, Dartmouth and most smaller private undergrad programs don’t even come close to Berkeley or Michigan. </p>
<p>It’s just a matter of preference. Some favor the larger prestigious schools, while others prefer the smaller ones. Dartmouth has the Ivy League name label, but schools like Berkeley & Michigan are proving everyday that “Ivy League” is more about mystique than substance. Don’t get me wrong. The Ivies are top notch schools and are quite deserving of their academic reputations. However, not all of the Ivies are created equally, and some public universities are more complete institutions of higher learning.</p>
<p>It’s not bizarre at all. Berkeley, Michigan, and Dartmouth all offer bachelors degrees. A student may presumably come across the choice of studying at one of the three for his or her bachelors degree. Why not ask which one would provide a better experience?</p>
<p>The vast majority of engineering majors at Cal and Michigan probably wouldn’t be able to get into Dartmouth.</p>
<p>There are also huge advantages to going to Dartmouth over Cal and Michigan- more individual attention, higher quality student body, and more financial resources per student, among others. Its up to students and maybe even rankings to figure out which set of advantages outweighs the other.</p>
<p>And again, we are not arguing what is a more “complete institution of higher learning.” I already said Cal was better than Dartmouth as a “university” or even a “complete institution of higher learning.” I also said that Dartmouth is better than both as an undergraduate institution. There is a difference. I am sure Dartmouth has some highly regarded departments as well, and I know Dartmouth has better students than Cal or Michigan…</p>
<p>I went to a top “university” and I am sure I would have had a better undergrad experience at Dartmouth than at Cal. I know that’s just me, but it is what it is</p>
<p>YaleSocietyMember, the USN&WR poll is not an “applicable” source for undergraduate applicants. This is what every reputable academic society is trying to communicate to prospective undergraduate applicants. If anything, the USN&WR poll only serves to mislead. It’s a commercial poll with questionable criteria. Sorry, but I find it a little amusing that you believe that alumni giving is a valid measure of student satisfaction. But I must point out that many see this criterion as more of a measure of the number of students from a particular school that hail from wealthy families. </p>
<p>I can see that you’re firmly set in your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. On the other hand, numerous academicians share my opinion. IMO the USN&WR undergraduate ranking is every bit as valid as Gourman’s poll, which ranks Michigan 3rd and Berkeley 7th among undergraduate programs. The USN&WR poll favors the smaller private undergrad program, while the Gourman poll favors the larger public undergrad program. Both polls have questionable criteria & methodology. I think we should simply agree to disagree in regard to the validity of the USN&WR undergraduate poll.</p>
<p>“Academic societies” rank universities from the eyes of professors and “academics.” Academics are looking for a community of academics in a variety of fields. Their criteria would naturally be different from students, who may be looking for a great community of students. I think the US News, with its weight on selectivity, hits this point right on. I dont’ doubt Cal and Michigan are great universities. I also don’t doubt many schools, like Dartmouth and Brown, do undergraduate education a lot better than Cal and Michigan do.</p>
<p>Yale, what if I told you that your school has a poor undergrad experience, even though I haven’t attended a single class there? Now, thats exactly what you’re doing. I’ll let you be an “expert” on what the experience of your school was, but I’ll be the expert on mine. Also, you seem to be a big fan of USnews. Could you please post the selectiviy rankings for Cal, Michigan, Dartmouth and Brown. Also, could you put their peer assesment scores with them? Thanks.</p>
<p>YaleSocietyMember, we’re arguing in circles and getting nowhere. You’re claiming that a “complete” university is of no benefit to an undergraduate student, but I emphatically disagree. You’ve listed the advantages of attending a small undergrad program, while I’ve listed the advantages of a larger undergrad program with greater numbers of highly regarded departments. IMO the advantages of attending a larger “complete” university far outweigh those of attending a smaller school like Dartmouth. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, you’re underestimating the credentials of the engineering students at Berkeley & Michigan. Many of the undergrad engineering students at these schools have very high SAT scores. They simply chose to attend schools with top engineering programs. Even the USN&WR ranks the undergrad engineering programs, and both Berkeley & Michigan greatly outrank the undergrad engineering programs of any Ivy League institution. This certainly doesn’t help your argument. One of my friends from med school attended Columbia as an undergrad engineering student, and his SAT scores were in the mid 1200’s. He would’ve been turned away by Berkeley & Michigan.</p>
<p>You are underestimating the credentials required to get into Dartmouth- SAT scores are not enough. </p>
<p>And Berkeley and Michigan both have thousands of undergraduates with 1200 SAT scores…</p>
<p>And again, we aren’t talking about a specific major here. Engineering, math, sociology, biology, economics, history, drama, whatever. We are talking about overall undergraduate education. </p>
<p>You are attempting to apply selective, grad school, engineering rankings to ranking undergraduate education across the board. This makes absolutely no sense.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if you read my post, but do you think you could post those USnews selectivity rankings? I don’t have the magazine and I’m curious where they stack up against each other. Thanks.</p>
<p>Sometimes a man
Just dont be a man
Its not an excuse
Its just how it is
Sometimes the wrong
Dont know that theyre wrong
Sometimes the strong
Aint always so strong
Sometimes a girl
Is gon be a girl
She dont wanna deal with all the drama in your world
God knows I dont mean to give it to you
So girl Im sorry for the stupid things I wish I didnt do…
…but I do</p>
<hr>
<p>Um, yeah, neither one of you will be swayed, just understand that to each his own standards of what the quality of education is. But this will never be settled, personally, I hold my position against CAl, but other disagree, and others say that the attention of LACs and CalTech are overhyped. So let them do…</p>
<p>YaleSocietyMember, the selectivity of a particular institution doesn’t have much significance for me, unless I’m rejected by that school. Since I’m the one paying, I’m the one who should be more selective in choosing a college. Why pay more money to attend some of these so-called “selective” schools, if they lack the quality departments & resources I require? Even Notre Dame & Emory are considered to be selective undergrad programs. So what? No offense to ND & Emory, but what can they offer me compared to Berkeley or Michigan? Who in the world would choose a program largely based on its selectivity?!! Now, that would be stupid. If you prefer a smaller program like Dartmouth, ND, or Emory because you’d feel intimidated or lost among the larger numbers of students at Berkeley or Michigan, that’s valid. But who favors a particular school simply because it’s more selective? </p>
<p>Now, I can understand why Harvard is so selective. Everyone & his sister wants to attend Harvard. But Harvard has top quality programs and is considered to be the best university in the world. Even I would like to apply to its doctoral program in health policy analysis one of these days. Harvard is Harvard. Princeton, Yale, & Penn are academic giants as well. Yet I want to get into this Harvard doctoral program, because it’s considered to be the top program in the nation. Yale, I have a question for you. If you wanted to study business as an undergraduate student, which institution would you prefer to attend? Let’s say that you were accepted into the undergrad business programs at Dartmouth, Brown, Michigan, Cornell, Columbia, and Berkeley. Where would you go?</p>
<p>I pay more to go to selective colleges so I can be around driven, intelligent, creative, and amazing people, which I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to do for the past four years. They made my undergraduate experience as much as the coursework, academics, athletics, dorms, etc. The quality of your classmates is a KEY determinant of how much you learn.</p>
<p>And funny you ask that question. First of all, there is no undergraduate business program at Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, or Yale for that matter. However, since I work in investment banking now, I feel like I can answer this question readily- I would go to Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, or Yale over the schools you mentioned, because the recruiting for business is awesome, and you get a much more well rounded experience. There are more Dartmouth and Columbia kids at my investment bank than Michigan or Berkeley.</p>
<p>And given that most students (even at elite colleges) are generally undecided about majors when they matriculate, what else do you have to decide upon besides general undergrad excellence? I was undecided and toyed with majoring in history, political science, classics, and art history before I decided on econ…</p>
<p>YaleSocietyMember, you should go back and check the USN&WR polls. I was referring to its ranking of undergraduate engineering programs. There’s a separate poll for the top graduate engineering programs.</p>
<p>We aren’t talking about specific department excellence, we are talking about general undergraduate excellence. Thats the whole point of the discussion… Engineering, history, biology, english, each is one major out of dozens.</p>
<p>I’m talking about the academic quality of the departments in general. Berkeley and Michigan appear to have alot more of them than most schools. How can you claim that you’re getting a quality education at a particular institution, when the departments are relatively weak? According to the NRC Report, the departments at Dartmouth and most other small, private universities are vastly outranked by those at Berkeley and Michigan. And that’s an understatement. </p>
<p>Sorry, but I didn’t see a single Dartmouth department ranked in the top 20, 30, or 40 of any NRC ranking. Only Brown outranked Berkeley & Michigan in Spanish, but nothing else. Further, the avg. SAT score at Michigan for '04 was 1305…not bad for an incoming freshman class of over 6000 students. I think you got your SAT info from some unreliable source like the Princeton Review. I’m sure Berkeley’s avg SAT was in the 1300’s as well, perhaps higher. </p>
<p>It seems as if you’re arrogantly implying that there aren’t any “driven, intelligent, creative, and amazing people” at schools like Berkeley & Michigan. Please don’t let their accomplished alums get wind of this. “The quality of your classmates is a key determinant of how much you learn.” Who said this? George Bush? Please. That’s certainly not a key determinant for me. Yet there is no shortage of “driven, intelligent, creative, and amazing people” at Berkeley or Michigan. You’re right about most of the Ivy League schools lacking undergrad business programs, but this just plays right into my argument that very few institutions have the numerous highly regarded programs of a Berkeley or a Michigan. </p>
<p>Yet Cornell does have an undergrad business program, but it only ranked 14th in the USN&WR poll. Penn has the top undergrad business program in the nation according to the USN&WR, but Berkeley & Michigan are tied for 3rd. Since you have such high regard for the USN&WR polls, I thought I might point that out to you. I seriously doubt that the graduates of the business programs at Berkeley or Michigan would have a problem in the job market. Please. Michigan’s business school is ranked no. 1 by the Wall Street Journal and 6th by Business Week.</p>
<p>I think he meant quality of overall undergraduate education/experience, and graduate rankings really shouldn’t matter for those at all (except for specific things like business schools)</p>
<p>To be honest, you’re probably both right. On the one hand, people try to go to schools that excell in the areas that they’re interested in. If that department is weak, which generally does depend partially on the graduate program, the person will probably have a less satsfactory education. However, on the other hand, as a chemistry major, I couldn’t care less how brilliant a university’s business, sociology, history, or ir departments are. So saying that the school with the most top majors will automatically provide the best education is silly. A chemistry major couldn’t do better than MIT or Caltech, but a politics major could do much better. Furthermore, as much as the quality of the departments is linked to the quality of the graduate program, it means nothing if the professors focus only on research and their grad students while all the undergrads are merely taught by TAs.</p>