<p>The vast majority of graduate-level research, even in the hard sciences and engineering, have nothing to do with embryonic stem cells. Notre Dame professors are already getting research grants, and that funding source is increasing as more research-minded faculty join the university. There is no reason that Notre Dame cannot continue to be a first-rate undergraduate institution while it builds stronger graduate programs. There are many faculty members who enjoy working with both populations, and who see many benefits to their undergraduates from having a better graduate program.</p>
<p>but explain to me why Duke continues to climb in the USNWR rankings, and get much much more applicants, while ND is stagnant?</p>
<p>Duke climbs in the rankings because David Gergen, its former executive editor, is a Duke trustee, and will help US news to adjust the metrics so theyshow Duke in the best light. Another “prejudice” in the US News system is that the Publisher, Mort Zuckerman is a Penn alum.</p>
<p>I don’t think that ND is limited in its ability to get grants by being a Catholic school, but I think the faculty does hold it back some. When it comes to getting grants the environment and the applicant are just as important as the idea (for NIH and NIMH at least, which are the groups I am most familiar with). ND has made steps by building a new science building, that is a start, but Clairemarie is spot on about the faculty. You have to have very good faculty to compete. Schools can transform into grant-writing machines, my grad program is in the middle of it. You have to recruit junior faculty who are recent graduates from top labs and who have had their grants funded in grad school. Then you build upon them receiving grants. It is going to be VERY hard to get a big name to jump to ND, it just doesn’t happen often.</p>
<p>I don’t often agree with MiPerson80, philosopical differences, but he is spot on in terms of ND mimicing schools focused on undergraduate education. They won’t do this, and I think in the long-run it will improve the grad schools, improve ND’s rankings, but also weaken the undergraduate education at ND.</p>
<p>Clairemarie, I somewhat disagree. I think to be a great undergraduate institution you have to have professors who care about teaching. You don’t get to an elite level as far as research and research funding by caring about teaching. In fact, many professors (including my advisor) use research funding to pay the university so they don’t have to teach (aka buying out of teaching) and can do more research. This is great for the reputation of the school as far as research and good for the grad students (they buy out of undergrad teaching, usually not grad teaching) but it deprives undergraduates from interacting with your top faculty members.</p>
<p>One must remember that Duke is a very different school. While they technically are a religious school, they really aren’t, and they recruit different students than ND does. There are a lot of great students who would apply to Duke but not ND because they don’t want an overly religious environment, and that is fine. I think comparing them is slightly apples to oranges.</p>
<p>my son was accepted by both Duke and ND this year, but is going to U of Michigan. We almost bought into sending him to Duke because a lot of people said Duke was very quickly increasing their ranking (they brought in Brodhead from Yale to do this) and somehow have a strategy that seems to be paying off. But also the frat culture did turn us off.</p>
<p>Irish, I have to disagree on the teaching issue. My husband is a top research professor who was lured to ND to help jump-start a sagging department. He has always taught both graduate and undergraduate students, but the grad students at his previous university were several orders of magnitude better than the undergrads. The situation is reversed here, and he loves working with the undergraduates. He won several teaching awards at his previous university, and has never NOT taught at least one course per semester. He even taught a few undergrads last year in an unofficial course because they were so interested in a particular topic.
There are faculty who are great at research AND teaching. It’s not impossible.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure I know who your husband is 
and I am very glad that you both came to ND. You are absolutely right, there are faculty who can and do both, and I truly respect those who do. I hope I am one of those faculty members once I finish graduate school. However, I see many (my advisor included) who loathe teaching undergrads and wouldn’t be willing to jump to ND because of the emphasis on undergraduate teaching. That being said, I think that is part of what makes Notre Dame special. It is part of the reason I never have regretted paying full tuition during my time there. I got a great education and opportunities I could not have received elsewhere because of professors like your husband who are willing to teach undergraduates and involve them in research. I think we can agree that there aren’t many places that undergraduates have the research opportunities that they do at Notre Dame.</p>
<p>One of ND’s goals is to encourage more of its undergrads to consider PhD programs. So many talented graduates head straight for the professional schools because they are convinced (or their parents are convinced) that this is the key to professional success and personal happiness. And it is, for many students, but too many potentially great PhD candidates are being diverted into MBA/JD/MD tracks because they don’t realize the rewards of an academic career, and the possibilities that are open to the best students. Improving the graduate programs is one way to give these undergrads a look at the possibilities – they can take solid graduate-level courses, for example, or be part of a research team that includes graduate students.<br>
And thanks – we are both very glad to be here too!</p>
<p>Thats a lie…if it really was they will be better than berkeley but they are not</p>
<p>Better than berkeley in what?</p>
<p>Just better.</p>
<p>I mean they will be way better than UC bERKELEY in their US NEWS RANKING but they are only a number ahead of them which proves that the admissions statistics is much lower</p>
<p>Has there been any statement about admission stats, such as number granted admission compared to the number of those who will definitely be attending, average SAT scores, financial aid, etc… Has this information been posted?</p>
<p>The first post shows the total admission statistics for 2009. Below are the 2009 early action numbers, with the 2008 number in ( ). Note, when compared to the total admission averages, the early action SAT and ACT numbers were not significantly higher. This should be welcome news for 2010 to those who get deferred or choose to wait for regular decision.</p>
<p>Apps: 3,884 (4,228)</p>
<p>Admits: 1,724 (1,519)</p>
<p>Defers: 660 (725)</p>
<p>SAT Avg: 1451 (1452)</p>
<p>ACT Avg: 32.9 (32.9)</p>
<p>Good luck to those applying in 2010.</p>
<p>Why is Notre Dame’s middle 50% so much higher than other schools like Duke and Stanford?</p>
<p>not good numbers for 2009, ND had less applicants apply for EA but accepted more. Since EA is not binding, and with the common application being used, they should have had more EA applicants.</p>
<p>Oh no!!!</p>
<p>@Miperson: Give it a rest.</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m curious as to why ND’s middle 50% ACT seems so much higher. I’d always thought I was more competitive at ND than say, Georgetown, but is that not true? I know admissions isn’t all scores, but it seems like my 30 ACT really weighs me down at Notre Dame.</p>
<p>ND is an incredibly competitive school, and no one should be surprised by the 50% range. I think that sometimes those in the Midwest forget that. Remember that anecdotal info from admissions indicates that fully 75% of all those who apply are “qualified.” That tends to set the bar incredibly high, and moves admissions away from pure numbers and into the areas of character, passion, and excellence. Bottom line is that ND is not about getting in, or even graduating. It’s about the people it sends out into the world four years later as products of academic excellence, strong Catholic identity, and compassionate stewards of the world around then.</p>
<p>By the way, MiPerson, you’re an idiot.</p>