<p>Thethoughtprocess didn't say Duke was better, he said it was an equal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hm? I think you should take a look at those.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not due to "Southern ignorance,"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that was my favorite part. Way to make a grossly unfair generalization about an entire region.</p>
<p>EDIT: Er, I guess katho deleted his/her post.</p>
<p>Yeah...I realized that they were talking to someone else, but I'll repost since you quoted part of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If your little rant was directed towards me, don't get your hopes up. I'm not a prestige whore and am glad to see some good schools at the top of a ranking other than Harvard and Princeton. </p>
<p>Rankings in general don't mean too much to me because all of the schools in the Top Tier are great and pretty much any of them can be ranked first given the right judging criteria. The schools in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tiers are all great as well. They are the top 10% in the country, so don't expect me to whine over who should be ranked this or that.</p>
<p>It's not due to "Southern ignorance," either, it's knowing that you can get a great education at places outside of the fickle top 25.
[/quote]
</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>-Such a great and accurate post! :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uchicago is both less selective than wustl
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But UChicago is probably the one exception to the "selectivity as a metric" rule given that their applicant pool (take a quick look at its unique application / essays for one thing) tends to be self-selecting... guess what the Cover Title of the '07-'08 application for UC says? The "Un" Common Application</p>
<p>
[quote]
students traditionally prefer wustl if they are accepted to both uchicago and wustl
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i don't know the hard numbers, but it begs the question if you do - i.e. do you have the actual yield numbers for UC and WUSTL cross admits - i.e. what % choose WUSTL over UC? I'd be interested to see if the numbers back that statement up.</p>
<p>In the Revealed Preferences study, chicago was 27th and Wash U was 62nd.</p>
<p>In the Revealed Preferences study, chicago was 27th and Wash U was 62nd.</p>
<p>While I dont agree with that part of the post I quoted ( I mostly believe people on here are jumping on the Chicago bandwagon), the silly RP study also says that people choose the universities of Illinois, Maryland, and Texas over WashU. To me, just like most of the nonsense written in that study, thats a little hard to swallow.</p>
<p>No matter what happened, or what will happen, saying Wash U is better than UChicago is more like an "academic crime". period.</p>
<p>
[quote]
thats a little hard to swallow
[/quote]
perhaps, but is there any evidence to the contrary?</p>
<p>Porsche you are an idiot. Here are some facts. Do you even know anything about colleges in general, outside of 100 miles where you live (assuming you live in the middle of Columbia, Brown, and Penn, since you assume these are better than Duke even though in every useful undergrad measure they are either tied of slightly worse).</p>
<p>Duke has higher average SAT scores than Columbia, Brown, Penn, Cornell
Duke - 1360 - 1540
Columbia - 1340 - 1540
Penn - 1340 - 1520
Brown - 1330 - 1540
Cornell - 1280 - 1480
This is according to US News. </p>
<p>Duke has more National Merit Scholars than Columbia, Brown, Penn or Cornell.
Duke ~120
Penn ~100
Columbia ~80
Brown ~70
Cornell ~40</p>
<p>Duke feeds more students into top professional schools
<a href="http://wsjclassroom.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://wsjclassroom.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf</a>
DESPITE the fact that Columbia and Penn have their own professional schools among the survey schools, Duke does better, and its outside of the Northeast. So Duke owns the other schools. No real way of denying that, atleast according to WSJ.</p>
<p>Duke's Peer Assesment is 4.5, HIGHER than Brown OR Dartmouth, TIED with Penn, while Columbia is 4.6. There we go. You said "just look at peer assesment scores." Well, its higher. I mean, Peer Assesment is the only actual piece of Data you mentioned, and you were incorrect about it.</p>
<p>On the Times international ranking, Duke is higher than any of the schools you mentioned. Duke is 11th. Columbia is 14th. The others are outside of the top 15. However, this is a University ranking, not specifically an undergrad, so its not that useful for undergrad.</p>
<p>Your mootest point of all is Nobel Prize winners - WHAT DOES NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS HAVE TO DO WITH UNDERGRAD EDUCATION. We are talking about UNDERGRAD. And maybe Duke has a bunch, I dont even know or really care what some Chem Laureate who got his PhD from Duke 30 years ago did.</p>
<p>Porsche, you really need to work on learning about things before stating your own misinformed opinions. Ideally, you would say "oh, well I stand corrected." But trolls like you rarely do that....</p>
<p>ttp,
I find it interesting that you bring up the Times Ranking. I just looked it up and it seems back in 2004, Duke was ranked 52. How it jumped 41 spots beats me. Maybe Duke "cooked the books" in 2005 and provided more accurate info? Anyway, I think a more reliable ranking list of world universities would be The Academic Ranking of World Universities, which is most often cited by the Economist for the rankings' objectivity. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings</a>
Accordingly, Columbia #7, Penn #15, Cornell #12 and Duke #31. Duke wasn't even mentioned in the Kaplan/Newsweek list of New Ivies, despite mentioning the usual suspects in the intro, Stanford, Chicago, etc. Also, look at the Atlantic Monthly Rankings on the most selective schools: Columbia #7, Penn #8 and Duke #14. As for the number of students attending top grad programs, I think the results must be questioned because each school has a different number of students. I think Duke is probably the biggest in that regard.
As for Nobels, personally I would love to be able to be taught by the winner of a Nobel or having studied among future winners. I don't think Duke has a great record in this regard compared to the aforementioned schools. As far as selectivity, Columbia (and to a lesser degree, Penn) is far more difficult to get into than Duke. I don't want people to think that I am knocking Duke. It is a fine school, but I have to raise issue when someone is making irresponsible allegations on a public forum. I actually visited the campus when I was considering grad school and thought it was lovely.</p>
<p>“Duke wasn't even mentioned in the Kaplan/Newsweek list of New Ivies, despite mentioning the usual suspects in the intro, Stanford, Chicago, etc.”</p>
<p>-This is a terrible argument.</p>
<p>“As for the number of students attending top grad programs, I think the results must be questioned because each school has a different number of students. I think Duke is probably the biggest in that regard”</p>
<p>-This is already taken into account. How do you think Caltech with a class size of 249 is on the list? In fact, Columbia, Penn, and Cornell are all bigger than Duke."</p>
<p>As for Nobels, personally I would love to be able to be taught by the winner of a Nobel or having studied among future winners. I don't think Duke has a great record in this regard compared to the aforementioned schools."</p>
<p>-Who cares?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, I think a more reliable ranking list of world universities would be The Academic Ranking of World Universities, which is most often cited by the Economist for the rankings' objectivity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That ranking is too reliant on grad programs and skewed towards the sciences and engineering to be all that useful when evaluating undergrad schools.</p>
<p>Funny how the peer assessment seems to have slipped your mind now. Looks like someone should've taken my advice on the previous page before posting.</p>
<p>if a school has a fantastic grad program, why would its undergrad program be crappy? You get the same professors and can take advantage in research.</p>
<p>I have to wonder where you got "good grad programs = crappy undergrad" out of my post.</p>
<p>HAHAHA Porsche your reply is so pathetic</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Newsweek wouldn't mention Duke. Its long been considered one of the top schools in the country. Along with Stanford, Chicago, NU, MIT, CIT, etc. Its an "old" new Ivy.</p></li>
<li><p>I'm glad you mentioned a graduate program ranking when we are discussing undergrad. Better yet, you mentioned a ranking quoted in the Economist made by a Chinese university that measures research contributions to science. Even better. That has NOTHING or at best little to do with undergrad quality. </p></li>
<li><p>Duke didn't "cook the books" - why would they even care about a foreign ranking when the undergrad student body is as strong as Columbia, Browns, or Dartmouths. Instead, the Times changed the methodology. Not sure how. I'm sure you can satisfy yourself and find out. </p></li>
<li><p>Did you even look at the Wall Street Journal Link? Its based on PROPORTIONS. Duke sends a HIGHER PROPORTION of its students to top professional programs than Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth, and Brown. Not significantly higher, but STILL HIGHER. </p></li>
<li><p>Duke has higher SAT scores, more National Merit Scholars, better grad placement, similar or better ppeer assesments, than Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, and Penn (and also Cornell). I'm not suprised you refused to address the actual facts. Facts really sting when you don't know what you are talking about.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>On selectivity, half the students admitted to Duke or Columbia choose Duke, same with Penn, Dartmouth, and Brown. Duke wins the majority against Cornell, according to matriculation data. </p>
<p>So, Porsche, after viewing the facts do you still disagree that Duke is AS GOOD as Columbia, Brown, and Dartmouth? I'm not saying its BETTER, though I could make (an albiet weak) argument that it is.</p>
<p>For someone considering Duke for grad school, its stunning how little you know about it - so please, just say "OK, I didn't know that much about Duke, I stand corrected" - no shame in that.</p>
<p>And best of all, you address me of making "irresponsible allegations" hahahahahahahhaahahahah</p>
<p>"That ranking is too reliant on grad programs and skewed towards the sciences and engineering to be all that useful when evaluating undergrad schools."</p>
<p>well, look! you say rankings are "too reliant" on grad programs. I say why would a good grad program mean crappy undergrad in the same department, so the rankings can be useful for undergrads. I dont think they should be looked upon as the "see all, end all" for evaluating programs, but I do believe they can be useful for evaluating schools at the undergraduate level. </p>
<p>also, it should be noted that Duke can attract good students with scholarships, while the ivy's can't. Not sure if this was mentioned anywheres.</p>
<p>don't forget porsche is also the guy who ranked berkeley above columbia/penn/dartmouth/brown and ranked michigan equal to the aforementioned schools and above duke/northwestern/wustl</p>
<p>gomestar - Seeing as you apparently have a talent to find super secret (re: nonexistant) hidden messages in posts, I'm going to break this down for you nice and slow, okay?</p>
<p>1st point: A school can have an outstanding undergraduate program without an uber-elite grad program, or even a grad program at all. The LACs are good examples of this, as are undergraduate-focused universities like Dartmouth and Princeton. </p>
<p>2nd point: There sometimes exist discrepancies between the relative quality of a school's grad and undergrad programs. This is often the case with large state research universities, with Berkeley being a particularily good example. It can make a case for being THE best in the world when looking at graduate programs, but its undergraduate schools are not quite that elite. </p>
<p>So what have we learned? A ranking that focuses on grad programs will shortchange some undergrad-focused schools while giving a boost to schools whose grad programs outpace the quality of their undergrads. Hence its value in comparing undergraduate programs is questionable at best (although this really goes for any ranking).</p>
<p>if you want to talk sheer RAW numbers, Duke = UPenn = Columbia = Brown = Dartmouth (and perhaps even better than Cornell).</p>
<p>THAT SAID (and here comes a little controversy, folks)...</p>
<p>the one thing i would agree with Porsche is that in the "real world", I'd say the Ivies have an edge over Duke reputation-wise, particularly in the Northeast (obviously, but let's be brutally frank - that's where the real action is), but also every other region in the nation, save the deep South... I'd draw the line below Virginia since the Ivies more than likely trumps Duke in the DC/MD/VA metropolitan area, furthermore the Ivies carry stronger reputations internationally as well.</p>
<p>the other "regional bias" that works hugely in Duke's favor is that - to be brutally honest - how many GREAT schools are there in the South? You've got Duke, then a significant drop, then UVA, then another drop, then UNC / Vanderbilt / Wake Forest / Emory... but really the key point is for a region that covers from the north to south: Virginia, North C., South C., Georgia, Florida then from east to west: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi... how many ELITE universities are there? Relatively minimal. How many "Top 10" contenders? It's just Duke. Period. Now compare that situation with the crowded Northeast / New England area.... Do we really need to count the ways? Harvard, Yale, MIT, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Columbia... just say when... UPenn, Princeton...</p>
<p>Simple matter of supply / demand dynamics at work here applied with a simple look at a map and demographic figures.</p>
<p>I mean if you left Duke (traveling on a train at a speed of... j/k) you'd have to travel all the way west to Texas until you get to Rice or travel all the way North until you get to Princeton / UPenn or travel Northwest until you get to UChicago / Northwestern and if you want to go south - you'd have to go all the way to Daytona Beach, Florida until you ran into some ivy leaguers chilling out for spring break... that's a whole lot of real estate to recruit from folks.</p>
<p>So basically, if you are a really, really smart HSer / high achiever hailing from the South and want to stay in the South and you want to go to a Top 10/15 ranked university? - what are your choices? Actually, what choices? It's pretty much Duke. Period.</p>
<p>So while Duke is spoiled silly for candidates from an entire major region of the US and can "cherry pick" the absolute best of the South - the crowded Northeast / New England schools are busy cannabilizing themselves - and have to fight tooth and nail just to keep "home court" - BUT, even then, schools like Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, Columbia - manage to attract, maintain and graduate OUTSTANDING classes, year in and year out.</p>
<p>Frankly, if Duke had one or two more schools that provided meaningful competition in its region - i'd be more than willing to bet that Duke's numbers would drop pretty significantly.</p>