I will accept some (probably most!) of the responsibility for this thread's sustained focus on national universities. This was not meant as any kind of slight to the LACs. . . . This is NOT to say that there is not great quality at the LACs or at the national universities ranked lower by USNWR. . . . 3. There seems to be more interest on CC in the national universities and there is greater disparity of college types in this universe of schools. While the Top 25 LACs are certainly not homogenous, one could say that they are compared to the Top 25-30 National Universities.
With all respect for the work you chose to undertake in providing the data, Hawkette, I submit, then, that you should change the subject of your thread under College Search and Selection so as not to confuse CC visitors. Since the moderator has chosen to remove my post to which you refer on the following grounds, let me restate my opinion in an acceptable form.
So, in the spirit of not discouraging discussion might I suggest: If a new visitor arrives at the CC forum for "Colleges" they're presented with 19 direct links to University forums specifically listed as "CC Top Universities", and links to 30 "CC Top Liberal Arts Colleges". When you choose to title your thread "2008 vs 1999: Whats changed in the USNWR data? Whos hot and whos not?" in "college search and selection" you minimize the importance of LAC to first-time visitors to CC. It's fine if that's your area of expertise, and you do a great service for those whose search is satisfactory based on such a limited universe. But it's too easy for the novice to assume you're discussing all schools (U's and LACs) deemed "hot" based on USNWR data. Heck, even I fell into that trap in my responses. Big State U is not the answer for everyone and if you want to assume that it is, why not accurately describe the limits of your findings in the subject? And I'm avoiding completely the subject of the validity of rankings in general.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I don't think LACs can be rated in a similar fashion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, LACs cannot be rated in the same fashion, despite the fact that USNews uses the exact same metrics for both Carnegie classifications.</p>
<p>However, are we not talking about quality of undergraduate education or quality of undergraduate experience? On this basis, it would not matter that much, except that sticking to the exact definition would not provide the typical ode to the huge research factories known for offering small classes, faculty obsessively dedicated to teaching, superb residential accomodations, wonderful advising, and TAs well trained in the art of English and teaching. </p>
<p>So, yes, let's continue to compose lists that are simply divided along great divides, and especially divided by our differences of opinion on the usefulness of the Graduate+Undergraduate Geographical cum historical reputational index (aka PA.) The reality is that we will never reach a consensus, and that is why I believe that the rankings should be separated, and a clear distinction should be made between the rankings that are utterly subjective and biased (based on PA) and rankings that are based on objective data (PA-less.) </p>
<p>Of course, this will never happen as the USNews, having ran out of tricks, needs to prop the rankings of large public schools and level the playing field.</p>
<p>Proud Dad,
Point taken. I will make a greater effort going forward to identify the focus on national universities, but please also recognize that there are character limits on titles so not all can always be disclosed there. </p>
<p>My intent is to widen the circle of schools that are discussed and known on CC and considered by top high school students as I believe that there are lot of deserving colleges out there that would be great choices for top high school students. As you and friedokra make clear, that universe of great choices is not limited to the top 25-30 national universities.</p>
<p>No, the University of Texas at Austin is not a bad place to get an education. It is, however, not for everyone, and not everyone who gets accepted decides to attend, especially when having opportunities to attend other schools. For some however, it is the only choice and for others it is the only school they applied to. UT-Austin is what it is, and most people in Texas know what that means ... the good, the bad, and the ugly. </p>
<p>And lastly, I believe that most Texans seem to be a lot more realistic about the greatness of their school than others. We know what to expect and also know with whom we will share four ...or five years.</p>
<p>I spent a little more time trying to dissect peer assessment. Earlier, I found that peer assessment could be attributed 86% to other hard data in US News Best Colleges. I wondered whether faculty quality might be part of peer assessment that is not captured by the US News data, part of the 14% unaccounted for.</p>
<p>So, I added a measure of faculty scholarly productivity to the US News data. For this, I chose the 1995 NRC rating in physics. If a school was not rated in physics, then I used the chemistry rating (there were only about 5 without a physics rating).</p>
<p>I again tried to predict the peer assessment from the hard data, this time including the NRC physics rating with the US News data. The "r-square" increased from .86 to .89. This means that faculty scholarly productivity in physics alone contributed an additional 3% to the actual US News peer assessment rating.</p>
<p>So, it seems like peer assessment captures some aspects of faculty quality. If I added the NRC rating in English, I might be able to account for still more of what goes into peer assessment, and so on. Peer assessment contributes faculty quality information.</p>
<p>Another way to say it is that peer assessment is correlated very highly with hard data (about .94).</p>
<p>Here is a new ranking of schools based on the "peer assessment" rating calculated by my new formula (with NRC rating included).</p>
<p>rank, school abbrev., peer assessment rating calculated by formula, actual US News peer assessment score</p>
<pre><code> 1 Harvard 5.0 4.9
2 Massachu 4.9 4.9
3 Princeto 4.9 4.9
4 Stanford 4.7 4.9
5 Yale Uni 4.7 4.8
6 Cornell 4.6 4.6
7 Columbia 4.6 4.6
8 Cal Inst 4.6 4.7
9 Cal—Berk 4.5 4.8
10 Pennsylv 4.5 4.5
11 Cal—Los 4.4 4.2
12 Notre Da 4.4 3.9
13 Brown Un 4.4 4.4
14 Chicago 4.4 4.6
15 Rice Uni 4.3 4.0
16 Johns Ho 4.3 4.6
17 Dartmout 4.3 4.3
18 Michigan 4.2 4.5
19 Virginia 4.2 4.3
20 Northwes 4.2 4.3
21 Washingt 4.2 4.1
22 Duke Uni 4.2 4.4
23 Illinois 4.0 4.0
24 Carnegie 4.0 4.2
25 Cal—Sant 3.9 3.5
26 Texas—Au 3.9 4.1
27 UWashingt 3.9 3.9
28 Cal—San 3.9 3.8
29 Wisconsi 3.9 4.1
30 Brandeis 3.9 3.6
31 Tufts Un 3.9 3.6
32 North Ca 3.9 4.2
33 Southern 3.9 4.0
34 Georgeto 3.9 4.0
35 Vanderbi 3.9 4.0
36 Maryland 3.8 3.6
37 Florida 3.8 3.6
38 Cal—Irvi 3.8 3.6
39 Rocheste 3.8 3.4
40 College Wm & Mary 3.8 3.7
41 Emory Un 3.8 4.0
42 Pennsylv 3.7 3.8
43 Georgia 3.7 4.0
44 New York 3.7 3.8
45 Rutgers- 3.6 3.4
46 Boston U 3.6 3.4
47 Ohio Sta 3.6 3.7
48 Renssela 3.6 3.5
49 Case Wes 3.6 3.5
50 Boston C 3.6 3.6
51 Arizona 3.5 3.6
52 Texas A& 3.5 3.6
53 Pittsbur 3.5 3.4
54 Cal—Davi 3.5 3.8
55 Kentucky 3.4 3.0
56 SUNY—Sto 3.4 3.2
57 Cal—Sant 3.4 3.2
58 Delaware 3.4 3.1
59 Virginia T 3.4 3.4
60 Michigan 3.4 3.5
61 Minnesot 3.4 3.7
62 Purdue U 3.4 3.8
63 Syracuse 3.4 3.4
64 Lehigh U 3.4 3.2
65 Arizona 3.3 3.3
</code></pre>
<p>Yes, of course, the correlation based on the entire population is pretty conclusive. </p>
<p>But, how do we explain these numbers:</p>
<p>9 CalBerk 4.5 4.8
11 CalLos 4.4 4.2
12 Notre Da 4.4 3.9
15 Rice Uni 4.3 4.0
16 Johns Ho 4.3 4.6
18 Michigan 4.2 4.5</p>
<p>Berkeley PA of 4.8 drops to the CH's score of 4.5. However, UCLA jumps from to 4.2 to 4.4. Accordingly, for Berkeley and UCLA, we have similar numbers in the CH results (4.5 versus 4.4) but vastly different PA scores of 4.8 versus 4.2. Why is there such a difference in the PA when CH scores are almost identical?</p>
<p>The same applies to ND and Berkeley ... 4.5/4.4 but a PA of 4.8/3.9! </p>
<p>Other comparisons are Rice and JHU ... Both are 4.3 in CH, but 4.6/4.0 in the US News survey. And what about Rice versus Michigan 4.3/4.2 and 4.0/4.5. </p>
<p>So, if faculty productivity index works as the overal correlation would indicates, why are the results so different when looking at separate examples. As far as I know, the examples cited above seem to underscore why a regression analysis cannot hide the obvious shortcomings of the Peer Assessment. I do not think that it is so interesting to understand the mathematical models and know how high the correlation of the ENTIRE group is when there are so many outliers that defy any logic. </p>
<p>So, what else is there to explain Berkeley, et al, silly PA?</p>
<p>Collegehelp, thanks for that analysis. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to convince people in the "undergraduate experience" camp because the NRC rankings were for graduate programs, correct? (Although, I do agree that NRC data correlates to faculty quality).</p>
<p>If so, your data does conclude, as originally surmised by many, that the PA scores more accurately reflect graduate programs. If you added in all 35 (?) disciplines ranked by the NRC, you may get an even more accurate correlation, as you mentioned.</p>
<p>Do you know when the new NRC rankings will be released?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, what else is there to explain Berkeley, et al, silly PA?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"In the most recent National Research Council (NRC) study, 35 of Berkeley’s 36 graduate programs ranked in the top 10 in their fields in terms of faculty competence and achievement."</p>
<p>UCLA and other schools with lower PA scores, don't have this record.</p>
<p>Since PA is more tied to graduate programs, as surmised, then Berkeley's PA score is not overstated.</p>
<p>Universities with Highest Number of Programs in the Top 10 (NRC rankings)
1. Berkeley 35
2. Stanford 31
3. Harvard 26
4. Princeton 22
5. MIT 20
6. Cornell 19
6. Yale 19
7. Chicago 18
8. Penn 15
10. UC San Diego 14
10. Columbia 14
10. Michigan 14
10. Wisconsin 14</p>
<p>Universities with Highest Number of “Distinguished” Programs
1. Berkeley 32
2. Stanford 28
3. Harvard 25
4. Princeton 24
5. MIT 20
6. Cornell 19
6. Yale 19
8. Columbia 18
9. Michigan 15
10. Caltech 14
10. UC San Diego 14
10. Penn 14
10. UCLA 14</p>
<p>It would have been better to use the average NRC ranking for all ranked depts instead of just randomly picking physics. Hardly anyone even majors in physics compared with chemistry, biology, psychology and most other depts.</p>
So, what else is there to explain Berkeley, et al, silly PA?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"In the most recent National Research Council (NRC) study, 35 of Berkeley’s 36 graduate programs ranked in the top 10 in their fields in terms of faculty competence and achievement."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course! And what does it say? 35 of Berkeley’s 36 graduate programs. Let's repeat: Graduate! Graduate!</p>
<p>Round and round we go with the same trite argument that consistently ignores the basic fact the US News sells a magazine THEY call "Best Colleges" and that their rankings are based on UNDERGRADUATE, and that the PA is "supposedly" based on UNDERGRADUATE. </p>
<p>And yes, you were correct that "I don't think it's going to convince people in the "undergraduate experience" camp because the NRC rankings were for graduate programs" because it just so happens that graduate statistics should not be relevant to USNews rankings. And it so happens that the PA, as defined by USNEws, does not mention graduate faculty! It does not get any simpler than that!</p>
<p>So, unless we finally are able to reach an agreement that the PA does indeed include MORE than US News admits, and that US NEws is indeed using misleading definitions of its metrics, all we can do is ask: What else is there explain the undergraduate [silly] PA of Berkeley, and other schools that benefit from USNews idea of field levels?</p>
<p>And, fwiw, how do we explain the UCLA versus Cal numbers?</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad...
Thank you for your lists.
What to make of your top 4, given the following number of grad students (from the 2008 Newsweek/Kaplan issue)-</p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to convince people in the "undergraduate experience" camp because the NRC rankings were for graduate programs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
...as originally surmised by many, that the PA scores more accurately reflect graduate programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The NRC rankings more accurately measure quality of faculty. Don't kid yourself in thinking that graduate students are taught by a completely different faculty than undergrads. </p>
<p>Berkeley has world-renowned undergrad pre-professional programs (business, engineering) and top science and social science departments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, fwiw, how do we explain the UCLA versus Cal numbers?
[/quote]
UCLA doesn't have as many prestigious programs!</p>
<p>UCB, I did not get "off" on you, and I did read the posts. </p>
<p>As I said, we keep dancing around the same issue. A few months ago, we filled dozens of pages about the definition of the PA and debated if it measured "quality of education" or "quality of faculty" or merely the "reputation" of the same. </p>
<p>Maybe, we should go back and reopen that discussion, and make sure the quality of faculty is placed in the correct column, either the subjective one or one of the objective ones.</p>
<p>Of, and considering the NRC/PA records, should we conclude that UCLA's faculty is considerably inferior than its northern compadres? Oh wait, the data posted by CH showed similar numbers for UCLA and Cal ... yet the PA doesn't. </p>
<p>Xiggi, I know we keep dancing around the same issue. But, you were questioning why Berkeley's PA is "silly".</p>
<p>I'm just giving you some reasons why I don't think Berkeley's PA score is out of line.</p>
<p>No, I don't think UCLA's faculty is "considerably inferior". I just think Cal's faculty has a more prestigious record (Nobel Laureates, Academy members, etc.) than UCLA does. When you ask a group of academics to compare themselves, these are the factors that are more prestigious to them. </p>
<p>USNWR PA questionaire maybe flawed in asking the right questions about undergrad teaching...but, when asking academic peers to rank schools, it's the public awards that get seen, not if their Chem 1A class is stimulating.</p>
<p>But, most of all, I am as surprised as everyone at how well PA; a subjective, intuitive (but educated) perception; can be predicted by hard data. It goes to show you that people can sense things they don't know for sure.</p>
<p>"when asking academic peers to rank schools, it's the public awards that get seen, not if their Chem 1A class is stimulating."</p>
<p>is right on the money. But as the undergraduate student (or his family) that is shelling out the big bucks (whether to a state school in California or private elite in the NE), why should I care about those awards? If I don't get access to those renown profs or if they teach in huge classes or if they don't even teach undergrads, what good is that to me? How does that translate into an excellent undergradute experience? That is the problem with students seeking prestige without thinking about what they will receive when they actually get to the college's campus. In action, prestige often falls miserably short. </p>
<p>For the record, neither UCB nor UCLA were ranked in the 1996 USNWR Top 25 for Classroom Teaching Excellence.</p>