What are US top 7 universities good at?

College Search & Lists
141

<p>But again, its hard for me to justify these categories when the functional educational requirements and such are the same at a lot of these institutions. What does it matter that Williams is an LAC, Dartmouth is a quasi-LAC, and Cornell is a university when a student majoring in history will:

  • Have a similarly difficult time getting into all three
  • Come across the same sort of curriculum at all three (distribution requirements, electives, and major requirement)
  • Have degrees that will be seen as very similar structurally by graduate schools and employers
    -heck, all three get similar applicant bases and are in rather isolated, cold locations</p>

<p>I don’t see why you couldn’t rank them side by side.</p>

142

<p>Actually, Caltech is much more of a research university than an LAC. This is because Caltech is not teaching-focus, not even in the undergraduate level. The undergrads are somehow treated like grad students. I would personally place Caltech into research university category altogether.</p>

143

<p>I agree with you Rtksyg. Caltech is definitely NOT a LAC. </p>

<p>Yale, in terms of quality, all the schools in the primary list are excellent. But they varry a great deal in terms of academic environments. You can most certainly rank them together, but at that point, you will have very strange disparities. If you rank all three categories together, there will be virtually no difference in the top 50.</p>

144

<p>Ppl who apply to both LACs and research unis seem to have no problem comparing them. :)</p>

145

<p>They may vary a great deal in academic environments, but so do schools within these categories (University of Virginia, a research university, has a totally different academic environment than Berkeley, another research university). Where a lot of these schools don’t really differ is the degrees they offer (bachelor of arts and bachelor of science, and in some cases, bachelors of engineering) and the structure of the curriculum (major requirement, distribution/core requirement, electives). We aren’t talking about schools like Julliard, we are talking about schools that offer BA’s and BS’s. We all had the choice to apply to LACs, universities, quasi universities, whatever when looking for a bachelors. It makes sense that there should be some way to compare them…</p>

146

<p>To each his own I suppose. If you believe that there is a lot in common between Cornell or MIT and Oberlin or Reed, knock yourself out. I personally think they are too different to compare. Overall, they all get ***** ratings, but should they be compared to each other? I don’t know.</p>

147

<p>If one wanted to come up with a ranking system, and that person has no stake in the outcome (i.e. s/he would not care where his/her alma mater ends up in the result), I think they would come up with a methodology similar to that of USN&WR. </p>

<p>Heck, we would not even mention Gourman, for example, if it were not for the fact that it ranks highly someone’s former school. I could start a new publication and rank academically all the schools in the world according to the taste of the food served in their cafeterias and call it “propreitary methodology” and refuse to explain how I did it. I can assure you most of my top-ranked schools will consider my publication very respectable.</p>

<p>Regarding NRC, let us assume that it is as prestigious as it is claimed. USN&WR sends surveys to all the top academics, who presumably know the NCR rankings, the publications of their peers etc. and they rate them accordingly. Then USN&WR averages the results and publishes them. Is this not a logical way of trying to assess a schools reputation within academia? In some categories, like business schools, it also includes recruiters’ assessment of reputation. What could be more beneficial for a prospective MBA grad? How about the fact that NCR ratings come out every ten years? I know of many schools that have changed significantly since 1995 (for better or worse). USN&WR allows to see the changes yearly. But that does not make it an erratic rating system. The majority of schools rank within a narrow band of scores for years. But you will at least see up-n-coming schools and ones slowly declining.</p>

<p>USN&WR report uses the classifications of the respected Carnegie Foundation, who, I think, are about to come up with a revised method. I think that “Masters” schools are sigificantly different from research universities. But I agree that it makes it difficult to compare across categories? How could someone with very little annecdotal knowledge pick between Penn, Swarthmore and Villanova, all top ranked in their categories? How do you compare, for example, a 4.2 reputational score at a “Masters” school with a 3.5 from a “National University”?</p>

<p>Anyhow, which is the best ranking publication in the world? It looks like the one that ranks your alma mater the highest. And vice-versa. If I were to come up with a ranking system, I would put Cal State, SUNY and the University of Texas as the top. This way, I will have the publication that most people agree with as the fairest.</p>

148

<p>Miriam, the only UG poll you got right was Gourman. The others measure the strength of the school as a whole. To tell you the truth, I have a much better chance of getting into Harvard Law or Harvard Business from Duke/Cornell/Penn than from Berkeley. Why is that? Look at the applicant stats from both schools. I gauge prestige by using real world machinations.</p>

149

<p>DMC, you gauge prestige by useing whatever helps your school look prestigious. Weren’t you the one complaining about people only liking ranking that put their school near the top? Look at the link that alexander put up earlier, which averages the out all the leading rankings. Your school comes in 12th. A very respectable rank that shows that Duke is one of the finest schools in the country, but I bet you have a problem with those rankings. So, are the only rankings that are worth anything the Usnews rankings? Funny, cause those are the only ones that rank duke so high. I like the averaged out ranking myself, but hey, thats probably just because my school gets bumped up a few places.</p>

150

<p>Your ranking has some major flaws. First, you can’t weight every field equally. If you look at which schools are the top in the most popular undergraduate majors, HYP are easily the top three. Also, I think you have to consider undergraduate class sizes/undergrad education quality, not just graduate department rankings. They are far more important. That’s why Dartmouth is far more selective than most other universities (like Berkeley) that have higher “department” rankings.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the grad “department” rankings themselves are fundamentally flawed. They are heavily biased in favor of huge schools like Berkeley (higher #s of professors). If you consider the quality (excellence per professor, or per student), then you’ll see that Caltech is the best, followed closely again by HYP.</p>

151

<p>^^^“If you consider the quality (excellence per professor, or per student), then you’ll see that Caltech is the best, followed closely again by HYP.”</p>

<p>Please explain how you’ve come up with this little tid-bit. Plus, how is Dartmouth far more selective than Berkeley? Using your bible (usnews) Dart is ranked 10th in selectivity (I think) while Cal is ranked 14th (I believe), and the consensus group ranking have Berkeley as the 9th most selective and dart as the 12 most selective schools in the country. I’ll concede that dartmouth is probably the more selective of the two, but we must be getting our info from different places if you think its “far more selective.”</p>

152

<p>Gentleman, I never decried the ranking that had Duke 12th. I just sought not to mention it. Moreover, you still have not addressed one single thing. Is ad hominem fallacy tolerated at Berkeley now? I was chiefly speaking of law, and in that respect…private schools are infamous/meritocrious (pick one. Innie minnie…) for getting applicants with lower stats into top programs. Why is that? That was not rhetorical…I was seriously posing the question.</p>

153

<p>First, look up ad hominem. I’m not attacking you in the slightest. Its fair to measure prestige in whichever way fits you, and I’m simply pointing out that you do that (as do most). Second, show me data that backs up your claim and I’ll take a stab at answering it.</p>

154

<p>Wow. You were most certainly attacking me. You claimed that I had not the perspicacity to view a ranking that does not suit my likeness rather than explain the grad placement analogy I posed earlier. That has nothing to do with my argument concerning grad schools. Since you missed it, I will reiterate:</p>

<ol>
<li>Is placement a gauge of prestige?</li>
<li>Why does every top 15 private have better placement than every top 15 public?</li>
</ol>

<p>Are you ok?</p>

<p>You did not help this discussion in the slightest, and I could care less whether or not you believe I am biased. Isn’t that where we are getting at? Of course I am biased. You, Alexandre, me, and everyone here is in some form. And you want ME to show YOU data? That’s amusing. Must I fill out your grad school applications as well? What I cited has been here on numerous occasions. Nspeds even cited the stats that put even Georgetown ahead of UCB in terms of the stats of potential law school applicants. Even with inflated GPAs, private schools still get kids into better schools EVEN with lower stats than top public kids.</p>

155

<p>If these stats are so readily available then I don’t see the problem with posting them, right? I mean, you’re basing an argument on them, the least you could do is to illuminate us with your findings.</p>

<p>“And you want ME to show YOU data?”
Well, who else would? You’re the one thats using it to prove your point. </p>

<p>“Is placement a gauge of prestige?”</p>

<p>I’ve thought about it and the answer is no. It says many things, but nothing about prestige. I wouldn’t be surprised if amherst or middleburry or pomona had higher grad placement than harvard, or mit or some other research university. Does that mean those lacs have more prestige? Of course not. It means they have a very small, very smart student body that wants to go to grad school.</p>

<p>“Are you ok?”</p>

<p>Yes, I’m doing fine. Thanks for asking.</p>

156

<p>DMC, here’s my issue with your argument. </p>

<p>Elite private universities are, on average, anywhere from a quarter to a half the size of elite state universities. As such, it is not suprising that the quality of the student bodies at elite private universities is indeed better than at elite private universities. That point was never a point of contention. I would say that at schools like Cal, Michigan, UVA etc…about 50% of the students are definite Ivy League/elite Private university material. That explains why, on average, students at elite private schools meet with better graduate school placement than students at elite state universities.</p>

<p>But why is that a problem? Do you honnestly think your personal chances would have been worse had you gone to Cal or Michigan instead of Duke? I am pretty sure they wouldn’t have been. A student will accomplish the same success at any of the top 10-15 research universities. In other words, whereas at elite private universities, you would be competing with 100% of the students, at schools like Cal and Michigan, you would be competing with 50% of the students. And as far as ratios, roughly twice as many students from top private universities are admited into top graduate programs as students from top state universities. In other words, things cancel each other out. </p>

<p>I know the WSJ is hardly an accurate measure of graduate school placement as it unfairly favors the Ivies, but even then, roughly 5%-7% of students from top private schools end up going to top 5 Medical, Law and Business schools as opposed to 2.5%-3.5% of students from top state universities. Again, there’s that ratio. But when you consider that only 50% of students at Cal and Michigan are really capable of competing for such schools compared to 100% at smaller private elites, things cancel each other out. </p>

<p>At that level of academic excellence, fit, rather than education, should be the determining factor. It is a fact that academe, adcoms of top graduate programs and corporare recruiters of global 500 companies respect Cal and Michigan as much as the top 15 private universities.</p>

157

<p>“Do you honnestly think your personal chances would have been worse had you gone to Cal or Michigan instead of Duke?”</p>

<p>In a word…yes. Is it so difficult to surmise? Mich and UCB are incredibly tough to get the GPAs that are demanded by top law schools. I suppose you would agree when I say that they are not inflated. Now, even with that aspect taken away, they must still often times perform BETTER than grade inflated schools akin to Duke/Penn/Stanford/etc. Now…let us backtrack. Is that not odd? That advantage is so morally decadent that I’m almost appauled. ALMOST. SO yes…the answer is most certainly yes. </p>

<p>“Ivies, but even then, roughly 5%-7% of students from top private schools end up going to top 5 Medical, Law and Business schools as opposed to 2.5%-3.5% of students from top state universities.”</p>

<p>Let me explain this to you. First off, less than 1/4 of people even apply to grad schools at privates. Second, from my personal experience, Duke alums have a 16% chance at Yale law as opposed to the rest of the country at around 6-7%. Moreover, Duke alums have an almost 40% chance of getting into Harvard Law, which is only around 10% for everyone else. My prof said it was top 5 in being able to get kids into top facilities and I wouldn’t doubt that the other 9 are privates like Penn, Cornell, Stanford, whatever.</p>

<p>“At that level of academic excellence, fit, rather than education, should be the determining factor. It is a fact that academe, adcoms of top graduate programs and corporare recruiters of global 500 companies respect Cal and Michigan as much as the top 15 private universities.”</p>

<p>No offense, but this is just too idealistic. Top programs most certainly DO care about where you went to school. Look at lsac site and you will see that it is weighted in admissions. As I said earlier, Nspeds gave data that put Georgetown ahead of both UCB and Umich when it came to stats. You would all massacre me if I said Georgetown was normally better than UCB, would u not? Numbers do not lie. I just woke up, so I will look for the link later. However, often times grad schools will take the Stanford alum over the Umich alum EVEN IF he has lesser stats. The averages do not lie, and I would say UCB/Umich kids have to work twice as hard to be on the same panoply. Below a 170 LSAT or a 3.8 GPa is no go most of the time. However, people at Stanford typically only need around a 164 to get into Duke law, a top 10/12 law school.</p>

158

<p>40% acceptance to Harvard Law? I don’t even think that Harvard, Princeton, Stanford or Yale pull a percentage like that. However, if thats true, you just made my life much much happier.</p>

159

<p>It was around 40% when it was averaged… There was a prelaw consortium and the professor mentioned the past yearly acceptances of Dukies to Harvard. It is remarkable because our acceptance to places like UCB, Stanford, Uchic, etc are significantly lower and around the 20 percents. I was baffled becauseI had never seen the stat so high. I mean a 16% avg acceptance rate into Yale is easier than getting into Yale College. Moreover, there really has never been any people who haven’t got into a top 20. The premajor advising center gives one a realistic approach to the whole process. By the way, aren’t there like 250 people from Harvard in Harvard Law each year?</p>

<p>Even still, I don’t think Duke is top 5. It is not Stanford, MIT, or especially Caltech yet. It is top 10 though with Cornell, Penn, Darty,etc. In my opinion, UCB, Umich, etc are top 15 UG. Is that really so awful? It owns (top 3) in everything graduate.</p>

160

<p>DMC., the are 250 Harvard students at Harvard law…but only 80 or so per class. I would say about 400 or so Harvard students apply to the Law schools annually and bout 100 get in. Last time I checked, Harvard admitted 25% of its own applicants. But even 20% is amazing. Michigan’s acceptance rates into some of those programs you mentioned hovered between 5% and 15%.</p>