<p>Ok graduate school rankings:</p>
<p>1) Harvard-Berkeley
2) Stanford, MIT
3) Columbia, Cornell, U of Mich, Caltech, Chicago
4) Penn (wharton), JHU (medicine), Kellogg, Yale (Law), UCLA
5) meh, whatever</p>
<p>I would rank Michigan, Virginia, UCLA, Emory and Georgetown in the same tier. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>“This argument doesn't prove that it is a specialty school. This only shows that most Caltech students are not interested in taking non-technical graduate study. Most Caltech students do not apply for the professional (Business, Medical, Law) schools let alone attend them. This is not a proof that Caltech is a specialty school.”</p>
<p>So most Caltech graduates remain in technical fields and it has few top programs outside engineering and science, and yet somehow it is not a specialty school? Ok. </p>
<p>“What do you think make Caltech popular in the first place? Its party? Its girls? Its dorm? or the Californian weather?”</p>
<p>It is popular for its science and engineering programs. I have stated this many times. </p>
<p>“That means Harvard is always ranked no. 1 because it has been that way from the time it was founded.”</p>
<p>Whenever Harvard is not at the top, or very near it, the validity of the ranking in question is disputed. This is the ranking validity theory.</p>
<p>“can't believe that you do not count the faculty and student stature into your ranking consideration. How many times do you see Sakky, Alexandre, and other posters put these criteria as the main factors?”</p>
<p>I think Caltech has great students and faulty. I don’t however think Caltech has a distinguished faculty outside technical fields. Does having distinguished students and faculty change the fact that Caltech is a specialty school? No it does not. </p>
<p>“How many fields are mentioned above? Why don't you list some non-Fine Arts notable alumni from RISD and put weight to your words.”</p>
<p>-I have never said that RISD is not a specialty school. Like RISD, Caltech is also a specialty school. In fact, this is the first argument I made. Also, what is “notable” to some is not to all, so listing people is useless. </p>
<p>The only way Caltech can be shown not to be a specialty school is if it is shown that is has distinguished programs outside technical fields. It should have enough top programs outside these fields that a person could choose not to attend HYPSM and attend Caltech. How many people would choose not to attend HYPSM for Caltech for any other field than sciences and engineering?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So most Caltech graduates remain in technical fields and it has few top programs outside engineering and science, and yet somehow it is not a specialty school? Ok.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most Yale grads remain in non-technical fields, is Yale a specialty school? No.
I would consider a college as a specialty school if:
" The school mostly gives out degrees which do not give flexibility to the kind of job or graduate study that you can get. "</p>
<p>and not </p>
<p>" The school only have distinguished faculty and resources in only a few sectors ".</p>
<p>In other words, a Caltech student will not be hindered to pursue careers outside science/engineering by a Caltech degree and education. Bachelor of Science/Engrg is arguably the most flexible degree that you can get; it enables you to search for a job or graduate admission ranging from Fine Arts to Politics. Perhaps now as an undergraduate you don't realize this, but I'm sure you'll come to know this eventually. </p>
<p>
[quote]
-I have never said that RISD is not a specialty school. Like RISD, Caltech is also a specialty school. In fact, this is the first argument I made. Also, what is “notable” to some is not to all, so listing people is useless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The fact that you can not list any notable RISD alumnus shows that RISD, which is a specialty school, IS DIFFERENT from Caltech, which is not.
In my previous post, I gave an example how Caltech grads can THRIVE in many fields OTHER THAN SCIENCE/ENGRG IF THEY CHOOSE TO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only way Caltech can be shown not to be a specialty school is if it is shown that is has distinguished programs outside technical fields. It should have enough top programs outside these fields that a person could choose not to attend HYPSM and attend Caltech. How many people would choose not to attend HYPSM for Caltech for any other field than sciences and engineering?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you are wrong... WUSTL, for example, is mostly known for its distinguished programs in Health Care. UCSD is only famous for its bioengineering program. Are they specialty schools? No!!! It's a fact that Caltech strengh is mainly in science and engineering. But it doesn't mean that it is specialty school, evidenced by the not so small number of Caltech alumni in business sector.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This only shows that most Caltech students are not interested in taking non-technical graduate study. Most Caltech students do not apply for the professional (Business, Medical, Law) schools let alone attend them. This is not a proof that Caltech is a specialty school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's a fact that Caltech strengh is mainly in science and engineering. But it doesn't mean that it is specialty school, evidenced by the not so small number of Caltech alumni in business sector.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So let's see here... </p>
<ul>
<li>Caltech is a world renowned technology school.</li>
<li>Caltech operates and manages NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory</li>
<li>Caltech has one of the most impressive tech faculties in the world</li>
<li>Caltech attracts the best, most accomplished, tech students in the world</li>
<li>Caltech's core curriculum requires: 5 quarters of math (including differential equations and probability and statistics), 5 quarters of physics (including quantum mechanics, special relativity, and statistical mechanics), 2 quarters of chemistry, 1 quarter of biology, and 2 quarters of laboratory classes... (note: no non-science / non-math related requirements... yet quantum mechanics is required, folks! c'mon! if you just looked at the core and nothing else... would you confuse this school for a LAC?)</li>
<li>Caltech not only attracts the best techies, it retains them, trains them and then they go on to do great things in the technology world...</li>
<li>Caltech graduates that do choose to go into "business" generally do so in the tech-related fields</li>
<li>You can't spell Caltech without the word Technology...</li>
</ul>
<p>So if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... shouldn't we call it a duck? What's so bad if we are calling a spade a spade? Is anyone accusing Caltech of being a home for the mentally challenged? No, all some people are saying is that Caltech is really a technology school disguised as a national university.</p>
<p>What's so bad about being the best technology school in the world?</p>
<p>Btw, here is a little snippet about Caltech's origins from Wiki:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Caltech grew from a vocational school founded in Pasadena in 1891 by local businessman and politician Amos G. Throop. The school was known successively as Throop University, Throop Polytechnic Institute, and Throop College of Technology, before acquiring its current name in 1920. Caltech and the Polytechnic School, a private, college-preparatory school across the street, were part of the same institution until 1907.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Arguing that Caltech is not a top university is like arguing that the sky isn't blue! Caltechis definitely one of the nation's top 20 universities, and very possibly one of the top 10. IS it a top 5 university? I don't think so, unless we are talking about Engineering or the Sciences. But is it sufficiently diversified to earn a top 10 rating? Definitely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Arguing that Caltech is not a top university is like arguing that the sky isn't blue! Caltechis definitely one of the nation's top 20 universities, and very possibly one of the top 10. IS it a top 5 university? I don't think so, unless we are talking about Engineering or the Sciences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But WHY doesn't it deserve a spot in the Top 5? Why the Science / Engineering distinction at that point?</p>
<p>If we are judging the school as a true national university - taking only the raw numbers (SATs, NMSs, GPAs, Top 10%s, Faculty, Academic Rep) - shouldn't Caltech be No. 1?</p>
<p>Why the "tech" discrimination at the Top 5 level? Seems like we are arguing the same thing here - except that you are merely drawing the line at no. 5 (sort of like saying "wait just a minute there orange, you can hang around here in the Top 10 lounge but you can't enter the Top 5 lounge which is reserved for apples only), whereas I am questioning whether we should be mixing apples and oranges in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't spell Caltech without the word Technology...</p>
<p>So if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... shouldn't we call it a duck? What's so bad if we are calling a spade a spade? Is anyone accusing Caltech of being a home for the mentally challenged? No, all some people are saying is that Caltech is really a technology school disguised as a national university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you spell MIT without the word Technology, or how about GaTech?</p>
<p>Was MIT not founded as a tehnical school? What do you think about MIT without its science and engineering depts? </p>
<p>What I am arguing here is that Caltech is qualified for 'national' status. The fact that it's only famous in science/engineering and most students who apply there are science/engrg inclined do not necessarily make it a specialty school like RISD.</p>
<p>“whereas I am questioning whether we should be mixing apples and oranges in the first place.”</p>
<p>-Exactly….</p>
<p>
[quote]
Arguing that Caltech is not a top university is like arguing that the sky isn't blue! Caltechis definitely one of the nation's top 20 universities, and very possibly one of the top 10. IS it a top 5 university? I don't think so, unless we are talking about Engineering or the Sciences. But is it sufficiently diversified to earn a top 10 rating? Definitely.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It obviously depends on the criteria of your ranking. As what the_prestige said earlier, if academics raw numbers and the admission selectivity are to be used, then Caltech will be at 1st or 2nd position. If we use only 'prestige and eliteness' to arrange the list, then Caltech will be right there with HYPSM. If you use diversity as the criterion, then Caltech will not even be in top 10.</p>
<p>Your question 'Is it a top 5 university ?' will have different answers depending on the criteria used. I don't really think there is one exact measurement to compute the best overall ranking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can you spell MIT without the word Technology, or how about GaTech?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT (though still pretty technology oriented) is relatively much larger than Caltech (nearly 5 times larger) and offers a much wider, broader humanities curriculum than Caltech.</p>
<p>I agree Rtksyg, if one were to measure a university based on academic intensity, quality of education, resources, student talent and quality in of Engineering and Science programs, Caltech would definitely be in the top 5.</p>
<p>I'm going to stay out of the main debate here, I just need to correct the_prestige:</p>
<p>
[quote]
- Caltech's core curriculum requires: 5 quarters of math (including differential equations and probability and statistics), 5 quarters of physics (including quantum mechanics, special relativity, and statistical mechanics), 2 quarters of chemistry, 1 quarter of biology, and 2 quarters of laboratory classes... (note: no non-science / non-math related requirements... yet quantum mechanics is required, folks! c'mon! if you just looked at the core and nothing else... would you confuse this school for a LAC?)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Caltech actually does require non-math/science related classes. The equivelant of at least 1 humanities class per term, EVERY term, all 4 years is required of all students, as well as some PE, and possibly some other things that I'm forgetting about. So, 12 (Caltech has 3 terms in a year, if you didn't know) humanities classes is much more required than zero.</p>
<p>Why do you guys always put down WUSTL?</p>
<p>journalism rankings? are there any?</p>
<p>No, but check these link and other links shown.</p>
<p>Journalism schools are, in many cases, in the process of redesigning themselves.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mallasch.com/journalism/%5B/url%5D">http://www.mallasch.com/journalism/</a></p>
<p>"Why do you guys always put down WUSTL"</p>
<p>it's ok, the same people who are doing it are also jumping on the uchicago bandwagon, ranking it with columbia and dartmouth because this year uchicago reps met with the editors of usnews and 'discovered' $15 million of unreported academic spending, and something like 6% more classees under 50 students.</p>
<p>That's how close these rankings are, $15 million and something like 6% of classes will jump you six spots. Uchicago is both less selective than wustl and also students traditionally prefer wustl if they are accepted to both uchicago and wustl.</p>
<p>When schools 10-15 go next year to meet with usnews reps to try and 'discover' what they are failing to report, and all jump in rankings past chicago again, everyone here's list will be different.</p>
<p>"agree, actually this is way proper ranking
1) Harvard
2) Stanford
3) Yale-Princeton-MIT-Caltech-Berkeley
4) Penn-Columbia-Darty-Brown-Cornell-Chicago- U of Mich
5) JHU - Duke - Northwestern -WUStL- UCLA
6) meh, whatever"</p>
<p>lol you are an idiot, berkeley is not > dartmouth, brown, penn, columbia, haha, and michigan is definitely not = to dartmouth, brown, columbia, penn, and most definitely not > northwestern, duke, wustl. </p>
<p>That's not even an argument, that's indisputable statistics, no between any of those schools and michigan or berkeley would even allow you to make the case with any amount of seriousness.</p>
<p>I like the Washington Monthly College Rankings better...</p>
<p>Please start "spitting out facts" why Duke is better than Columbia, Penn, etc? I assume that you will say in basketball. Outside of basketball, Duke cannot hold a candle to these other schools in terms of reputation, nationally and globally. This, of course, is not to say that Duke is not a school with a great reputation. Unfortunately, for most people in the country I would venture to say, the school's b-ball championships eclipse its academic reputation. As for the academic/business elite, most prominently located in the northeast and westcoast, Duke is not held in the same regard as Columbia, Penn or Cornell - look at the peer assessment scores of the rankings! Maybe downsouth Duke has more pull, but then again, most people downsouth tend to be a little ignorant about stuff like this. Chances are they only heard of Harvard and Yale when it comes to prestigious schools. Duke has become more prominent since the 70s, and still not at the level of CPC. </p>
<p>I would be curious to see these facts...why don't you start off with nobel prize winners.</p>