What are US top 7 universities good at?

College Search & Lists
121

<p>I agree Sakky, 5% is not much. But it adds up. </p>

<p>For example, the USNWR blows up graduation rates to the point were a 5% difference will knock a university down disproportionately. Michigan and Cal graduate 87% of their students. Schools like Columbia and Penn graduate 92%. I personally do not think there is such a difference and yet, when used statistically, those figures really do hurt the state schools. </p>

<p>And faculty resources can be misleading. One of the key figures in the faculty resources equation is faculty salaries. On the plus side, it does take cost of living adjustment into consideration. However, it does not look at the makeup of the faculty. Michigan has a schools of Nursing, Social Work, Kinesiology, Natural Resources, Music, Art etc… Professors in those programs get paid muich less than traditional major professors or professional school professors. Schools like Harvard and Stanford have huge professional programs (relative to the size of their faculties) and almost no low-professor paying programs. As a result, the average faculty member at schools like Harvard and Stanford will be disproportionately higher than at schools like Michigan. Among the Ivies, Cornell suffers the most because like Michigan, Cornell has schools of Human Ecology, Hotel Management and Agriculture, where the faculty is not as highly paid. And what about class size? Over 50 and under 20. What if a school does not make a conscious effort to work the USNWR system and has a large number of classes with 21 students and 51 students? The numbers would be skewed against it vis-a-vis a school that manipulates the data by having a bunch of classes with 19 and 49 students. </p>

<p>Financial resources take financial aid into consideration. Again, that hurts state universities. Why should state universities, which as already highly discounted for the majority of their students, give as much aid as a private university? </p>

<p>In short Sakky, about 50% of the USNWR forumla specifically targets state schools in ways that do not really determine quality of education or institution.</p>

122

<p>It’s ridiculous to correlate alumni giving with student satisfaction. I’m a medical resident, and I would love to donate money to my undergrad school. However, I really don’t make that much money right now. Yet I appreciate that the undergrad education at my alma mater helped me get into medical school. Some of us go on to many years of post graduate education, and our finances are limited. Sorry, but this USN&WR criterion is absurd. Many see this criterion as more of a measure of the schools with the greatest numbers of students from priviledged backgrounds. The top private schools tend to have a greater number of students from wealthy families. </p>

<p>The National Research Council (NRC) Report is really the only respected ranking in academia. If you don’t believe me, just pick up any reputable academic publication and read about academic polls. The NRC Report was commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences and required 2 years of evaluation to complete. It’s only published every 10 years as opposed to these absurdly prolific commercial polls which are published on an annual basis. Common sense should tell you that academic rankings shouldn’t change from year to year, if you utilize sound criteria & methodology. You need to keep in mind the motivation behind putting out annual academic polls…$$$$$. And if you don’t change the ranking on an annual basis, you won’t be able to spark much public interest. Less public interest means that you won’t sell very many copies of your publication. This is common sense. </p>

<p>Just because the USN&WR has better defined criteria than the Gourman Report, this doesn’t make it a valid source. The USN&WR poll uses some objectionable criteria and largely ignores the academic offering of each institution. There’s also the issue of questionable weighing of criteria. Strength of departments, quality of library systems, & research resources aren’t really given any weight in the USN&WR undergraduate poll. US News expects us to believe that the undergrads at Berkeley won’t benefit from studying at the world’s 2nd best university according to the Times of London poll of the top 200 universities. This is rubbish. The USN&WR poll clearly uses criteria that favor the small, private undergraduate program. </p>

<p>On the other hand, the Gourman Report appears to favor the undergraduate programs of the larger research-oriented schools with the best graduate programs. Although the methodology behind Gourman’s ranking is not apparent, it’s obvious that this poll favors the undergraduate programs associated with the best grad programs & top research schools. Ie. Harvard is #2 for undergrad and #1 for graduate education. Michigan is #3 for undergrad and #3 for grad. Berkeley is #7 for undergrad and #2 for grad. Actually the schools included in the Gourman undergrad top 10 all fared well in the NRC Report. Yet the Gourman poll is every bit as biased in favor of the undergrad programs of the top research schools as the USN&WR poll is biased toward the small, private undergrad programs. Both of these commercial polls show evidence of bias. </p>

<p>The NRC Report is considered the most valid & respected source of academic ranking. Although it only ranks grad programs, the departments with the top graduate programs are largely accepted as the best departments. To my knowledge, the only source that ranks individual undergraduate departments is the Gourman Report. The USN&WR only offers an undergrad ranking in engineering & business. The Gourman Report appears to claim that the schools with the top graduate programs have the top undergrad programs as well, while USN&WR disagrees. </p>

<p>If you visit the websites of different schools, you’ll see that most schools will quote their ranking from USN&WR or Gourman only if it’s favorable. So I suppose if the schools are doing this, then everyone else is allowed to do the same. It boils down to a matter of preference. Some prefer the smaller and more selective private programs, while others prefer the programs of the top research schools. Yet just because a particular undergrad program is more selective, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll receive a superior education there. Both smaller & larger programs have their advantages as well as disadvantages.</p>

123

<p>How come its always the people ranked low who complain about USnews? Alumni giving is a small part of the formula.</p>

124

<p>Devil May Cry, tell me, how would you like it if a ranking had Duke at #20 or #25? I have seen your reaction to rankings that have Duke out of the top 10. It is not a positive one. </p>

<p>Cal and Michigan were globaly admired universities when Duke was a regional player (in the 1890s and early 1900s). Today, Cal and Michigan are still considered among the top 10 undergraduate institution by the top academics, adcoms of top graduate programs and corporate recruiters of Global 50 firms. In every reputational and prestige poll, Cal and Michigan are ranked in the top 10 for the quality of their undergraduate offerings. Ranking them at #20 or #25 is comparable to rating Duke at #20 or #25…or Harvard at #10 or #15. In other words, altough to many universities, being ranked #20 or #25 is an honor. To schools like Cal and Michigan, it is insulting. </p>

<p>That is why I complain about the USNWR. And like I said, if the only flaw of the USNWR was the alumni donation rate, I would not complain. but as I have clearly demonstrated above, roughly 50% of the equation is designed to harm state funded universities in a way that is completely unrelated to academic excellence. In the end, the USNWR undergraduate rankins are deisgned to sell, not to inform people of the quality of undergraduate education.</p>

125

<p>Haha ok. You know, if I saw a ranking that had Duke #25 or Caltech #45, I would simply laugh. We talk online about how we are so fed up with the rankings, but does anyone REALLY care? You know Umich is good, don’t you?</p>

<p>Cal and Michigan were globaly admired universities when Duke was a regional player (in the 1890s and early 1900s). </p>

<p>Haha ouch. Thanks for the flashack.</p>

<p>Today, Cal and Michigan are still considered among the top 10 undergraduate institution by the top academics, adcoms of top graduate programs and corporate recruiters of Global 50 firms.</p>

<p>We will never agree here. I would normally retreat into quiet disdain for this comment, but the people I know going to those schools would have gone elsewhere if had the chance. I mean…I don’t see someone turning down Columbia or Cornell for those schools. It has never happened at my school. My school does not represent the globe, but I would argue that every school in the top 10 on USnews has much better students then Cal/Umich. You yourself have admitted this. Moreover, you cite better faculty again and again. How? You mean to tell me Umich and Cal have more accessible and better UG teachers then Cornell/Duke/COlumbia/Uchic (esp.)/Penn/etc. Who are they? Are they on TA.com ?Also, you say that every research school has large classes at the intro level. That is a bit absolute, isn’t it. I have not had a class over 35. At Duke, yes the intro econ is around 300, but then the classes are disseminated into small discussion clusters. I would argue that accessibility is better in privates than publics as well. Why? Look at the numbers. Duke has 6000 UGs and Umich is MUCH more populous. Do the math.
In every reputational and prestige poll, Cal and Michigan are ranked in the top 10 for the quality of their undergraduate offerings.
Hehe. I have not seen one ranking purely on the UG level that puts these schools in the top 10. Overrall they are though.</p>

<p>Ranking them at #20 or #25 is comparable to rating Duke at #20 or #25…or Harvard at #10 or #15.</p>

<p>A bit much, aye? </p>

<p>In other words, altough to many universities, being ranked #20 or #25 is an honor. To schools like Cal and Michigan, it is insulting.</p>

<p>Damn. Then don’t read USnews. Its graduate rankings are right on the money though, aren’t they? :)</p>

<p>PS: Don’t take my comments too seriously. You have to admit, this discussion is humorous.</p>

126

<p>DMC, between us, yes, this conversation is indeed funny. But not to young and impressionable seniors who are looking for real input and advice. </p>

<p>As for students not chosing Michigan and Cal over Columbia and Duke, why not? This year, of the 16 students I assisted with Michigan, 1 chose Michigan over Duke, one over Penn, one over Columbia and 2 over Cornell. So yes, I would say that many students chose Michigan and Cal over the Ivies. I personally chose Michigan over Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke and Penn. And let me tell you, I was not unique at Michigan. Almost all of my friends had acceptances to other top universities. Now admitedly, most of my firends were internationals or out of staters, so they were above average by Michigan standards, but I would say that roughly a quarter of Michigan students chose Michigan over other top 10 universities. </p>

<p>I agree, I too would laugh at a ranking that has Duke at #25. Clearly, I have far more respect for your opinion than you have for mine. </p>

<p>I am affraid you are basing your entire judgment on what your buddies in high school thought. Your opinion will change over time. In the meanwhile, I will be sure to help students sort the garbage from the truth.</p>

127

<p>Alexandre, don’t be silly. I respect your opinion a great deal. How can I not? I am but a college freshman, whereas you have already gone through grad school and are endued with all sorts of prudential powers. Do I base my decisions off my buddies? Hehe I wouldn’t put it that way.</p>

128

<p>I think that DMC is actually living in the present, and it is Alexandre that is having a hard time letting go of the past perhaps? :)</p>

129

<p>Alexandre, personally, I think the most serious warping factor in USNews is that it continues to make artificial distinctions between research universities and LAC’s, and other distinctions between supposed “national” schools and “regional” schools. At the end of the day, all these kinds of schools grant bachelor’s degrees, so I think it’s fair to rank them in one unified system. Many you could also include asterisks to designate the LAC’s to denote that LAC’s are quite different from research universities and are not completely comparable. That would be fine. But still, there ought to be a way to compare, say, Michigan vs. Swarthmore, on a single scale, even if that scale is imperfect.</p>

<p>And even if I could agree with the artificial distinction between a university and a LAC, there are plenty of schools that I would argue are misclassified, or perhaps should be “duly” classified. Dartmouth and Brown, for example, are basically LAC’s, and to some extent so are Caltech and Princeton. I also don’t understand why Bryn Mawr is a LAC despite the fact that Bryn Mawr offers doctorates, and in fact, its claim to fame was that it was the first US women’s college to offer graduate degrees.</p>

130

<p>“In every reputational and prestige poll, Cal and Michigan are ranked in the top 10 for the quality of their undergraduate offerings.
Hehe. I have not seen one ranking purely on the UG level that puts these schools in the top 10.”</p>

<p>Well, peer evaluation is the closest thing to a reputational and prestige poll and Cal has, I believe, a higher peer ranking than all but maybe five schools.</p>

131

<p>Actually Alexandre has more polls backing him/her than Devil Cry, if you want to argue polls. Both Berkeley & Michigan fared much better in the NRC Report and outrank Duke in the international polls. If you’re going to argue polls, you must consider all of the polls. Duke lacks the strong departments across the board of Berkeley & Michigan. The USN&WR poll is every bit as valid as the Gourman Report. These are the 2 major commercial undergrad polls. Both Michigan & Berkeley rank among the top 10 undergraduate programs in the Gourman Report, while Duke ranks among the top 10 in the USN&WR poll. </p>

<p>Actually the most prestigious source of academic ranking (NRC Report) places Berkeley & Michigan far ahead of Duke. Berkeley took the overall top ranking in the NRC Report. It also had the most programs ranked in the top 10 and the greatest number of distinguished programs. Michigan finished 10th for the most programs ranked in the top 10 and 9th for the greatest number of distinguished programs and had an overall NRC rank of 4. Duke had an overall rank of 22 and didn’t rank in the top 10 for the other 2 categories. These are the most recent polls available. To sum it up, Duke only outranks Berkeley & Michigan in one poll, the USN&WR undergraduate poll. Both Berkeley & Michigan outrank Duke in the NRC Report, the Gourman undergrad poll, and the international polls (Times of London & Institute of Higher Learning polls).</p>

132

<p>Gentlemanandscholar, I was referring to “reputation” rankings. Even the Peer assessment score of the USNWR ranks Cal and Michigan among the top 10 nationally most years. </p>

<p>A recent article (Consus Group, which I do not necessarily agree with) I read stated that if you average the main undergraduate rankings from all the generally accepted undergraduate rankings, Cal is #5 and Michigan is #10. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.consusgroup.com/news/rankings/colleges/published.asp[/url]”>http://www.consusgroup.com/news/rankings/colleges/published.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So even if you are looking at the overall rankings of undergraduate institutions, Cal and Michigan are still considered top 10. </p>

<p>But I will always say that I do not believe in rankings as much as I believe in groupings or ratings. I just do not believe that one can truly distinguish between say #8 and #18. Or between #9 and #27. There is almost no difference between schools at that level. All of those schools should be assigned a ***** rating or be ranked in one large group.</p>

133

<p>Miriam, only two of the 5 polls you mentioned are undergraduate rankings: US News and Gourman. NRC and the international rankings don’t really apply to what we are arguing.</p>

<p>And I would also like to see just an “undergraduate ranking” instead of regional, LAC, etc. It would be good to see how Amherst compares to Northwestern.</p>

<p>And Harvard and Yale, among others, call their undergraduate schools (Harvard College and Yale College) “liberal arts colleges.” Your Harvard bachelor’s degree says “Harvard College” and most Harvard undergrads say they went to “Harvard College.” If the university itself makes the distinction, why shouldn’t we?</p>

134

<p>YaleSocietyMember,</p>

<p>Minor point, but…
Actually, I just checked… my undergrad diploma from Harvard says “Harvard University”.</p>

135

<p>Yale, Columbia also calls its undergraduate wing Columbia College. That is because of tradition…and has very little to do with the operation of the institution. At the end of the day, the undergrads are taught by the same faculty as the graduate students and share the same buildings.</p>

136

<p>Sakky, I do not believe that you can mix LACs with research universities. It would be like comparing Theater with movies. Gorillas to chimpanzees. Apples to oranges. Sure they have things in common, but they are too different to compare. I think one can divide universities into three major types:</p>

<p>1) RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES (the main specimen are):
Columbia University
Cornell University
Harvard University
Johns Hopkins University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Northwestern University
Stanford University
University of California-Berkeley
University of Chicago
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Pennsylvania
Yale University</p>

<p>Other major research universities:
New York University
University of California-Los Angeles
University of California-San Diego
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Southern California
University of Texas-Austin
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin-Madison</p>

<p>2) QUASI LACS (the main specimen are):
Brown University
California-Institute of Technology
Dartmouth College
Duke University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Princeton University
Rice University
University of Notre Dame
Vanderbilt University
Washington University-St Louis</p>

<p>Other major Quasi LACs:
College of William and Mary
Tufts University</p>

<p>3) LACs (the main speciment are):
Amherst College
Bowdoin College
Carleton College
Claremont McKenna College
Davidson College
Grinnell College
Haverford College
Middlebury College
Oberlin College
Pomona College
Swarthmore College
Wesleyan University
Williams College</p>

<p>Other major LACs:
Bates College
Colby College
Colgate University
Macalester College
Reed College
Vassar College</p>

<p>Comparing a Research university to a quasi LAc or a Quasi LAC to a LAC works. But comparing a research university to a LAC is not possible if you ask me. As our good friend Bagheera so aptly asked Baloo…“you wouldn’t mary a panther would you?” hehe</p>

137

<p>-Undergrads may or may not be taught by the same faculty…</p>

<p>-Guess I was wrong about the Harvard College, but I do know a bunch of Harvard undergrads who refer to it as that</p>

<p>-The point I was getting at is that the undergrad education at a lot of these schools is substantially different and that applying grad school rankings to undergrad doesn’t make much sense.</p>

<p>-Why not compare research universities to LACs? The curriculum requirements for an english major at Harvard will look VERY similar to the curriculum requirements for an english major at Williams.</p>

138

<p>Also, if Duke, WUSTL, and Vanderbilt are “quasi-LACs,” I don’t see how Yale isn’t (Yale has around 5300 undergrads and 5500 grads).</p>

139

<p>I had a tough time with Yale. It can go either way to be honest with you. Like I said, there are enough similarities between research universities and quai-LACs for some of the schools to cross over.</p>

140

<p>Caltech only has 900 undergraduates compared to 1200 graduates, and little “liberal arts” education.</p>