<p>At large research universities much of your reputation is based on the quantitiy and quality of the research going on. It's a big part of what they are about and how they get ranked among themselves. It's just as important to the overall ranking of the school in the eyes of academics and many around the world as the SAT score range of the undergraduates. What do you think made MIT or Stanford what they are today? It sure wasn't the football teams.</p>
<p>xiggi, I didn't mention numbers. I was not saying that the majority of academe participated in the PA. I merely saying that it is top educators who participate in the PA survey. But I am willing to bet the vast majority of academe approves of the PA. If it didn't, the PA would not exist.</p>
<p>As for the PA difference between Caltech and Harvey Mudd, I can easily attribute it to two factors. First, Caltech is better than Harvey Mudd. No offense to HMC, but as far as small tech colleges are concerned, Caltech is in a league of its own. Secondly, the two schools are rated by a different set of peers. Xiggi, unlike you, I believe that graduate programs are directly related to undergraduate programs. It is possible for a college that has no graduate programs to have excellent undergraduate programs, but it is impossible for a university that has top graduate programs to offer less than an excellent undergraduate education.</p>
<p>barrons,
You keep going to the well on Professor Kiesling. How about the other thousands of faculty members at U Wisconsin? </p>
<p>Sorry to see you taking such a negative view on the importance of classroom teaching (blah, blah, blah). It is obvious that your sympathies lie with the professors and their research tasks and not with the undergraduate having a good classroom experience. Such an attitude only reinforces my conviction that student input with ranking consequences, is needed to protect the interests of students.</p>
<p>"The "Dinner at your prof house" versus "see your prof through binoculars" would indeed be an interesting index."</p>
<p>Xiggy, I only had dinner with a couple of professors when I was in college. That's a couple more times than my friends who attended Carleton and Middlebury. Do not assume that large research universities are impersonal. They can be as personal as a tiny LAC if one wishes them to be.</p>
<p>Hawkette, 50% of eligible Amercian voters turn out for presidential elections. Does that mean that the remaining 50% don't believe in the US political process? And as long as none of the top 10 universities openly speaks out against the PA, I will assume they support it 100%. </p>
<p>Brand_182, can you provide us with a link that says Wellesley condemns the PA? As far as I have seen, every single top 30 LAC and top 100 university endorses the PA, and rightly so.</p>
<p>alexandre,
Poor analogy. Perhaps as a foreigner, you are not familiar with the fact that American elections are determined not by the popular vote, but by the electoral college. And there usually is only an A and a B choice rather than voters being asked to rate scores, if not hundreds, of candidates many of whom they may only have zero or scant knowledge of.</p>
<p>I am very well aware of the electoral college Hawkette. I lived in the US for 11 years and am a Greencard holder currently eligible for citizenship. And my analogy is dead on. No survey or election will ever yield 100% participation. 50% is not bad at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, do we really expect ANYONE associated with Cal to admit that the stratospheric PA is more a reflection more of the reputation of the graduate school and research facilities than of the ... quality and dedication of teaching undergraduates? Do we ever expect Barrons or Alexandre to change their opinions about the PA at Michigan and Wisconsin, except to want an even higher one?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alexandre and Barrons can speak for themselves, but in my small corner of the world, I don't think anyone beleives that Cal's 4.8 PA is anything but Graduate reputation (which is not a bad thing, IMO). I would also guess that[part of] the PA score for HYPSM is also the rep of the grad school. </p>
<p>fwiw: Some of us fit into both camps. Methinks the PA adds value (but perhaps not 25% worth). And, I also believe that it is nothing but a survey of the powers-that-be, and a 50% response rate is not bad for government work. That being said, I think it much more valuable than what others have proposed, such as a survey of employers -- talk about the ability for manipulation. If those in academe do not know what makes prestige.....</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre, I am not assuming anything. I have no idea what happens at Middlebury or Carleton. However, I believe to be able to speak about what happens in Claremont, and to a smaller extent in Los Angeles.</p>
<p>And, look at the context and snarkiness of the original "dinner" comment!</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for the PA difference between Caltech and Harvey Mudd, I can easily attribute it to two factors. First, Caltech is better than Harvey Mudd. No offense to HMC, but as far as small tech colleges are concerned, Caltech is in a league of its own. Secondly, the two schools are rated by a different set of peers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alexandre, with all due respect, I think you seem to rely way too much on "reputational indexes" and urban myths. </p>
<p>Fwiw, what schools do you believe are the peers of Caltech UNDERGRADUATE? What schools do you think Caltech consider to be peers?</p>
<p>And, by the way, the challenge was about comparable elements.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, unlike you, I believe that graduate programs are directly related to undergraduate programs. It is possible for a college that has no graduate programs to have excellent undergraduate programs, but it is impossible for a university that has top graduate programs to offer less than an excellent undergraduate education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A top graduate school does not automatically make the undergraduate program a TOP undergraduate. A program can be excellent but still not what you call a top. That is the difference you REFUSE to accept.</p>
<p>
[quote]
fwiw: Some of us fit into both camps. Methinks the PA adds value (but perhaps not 25% worth). And, I also believe that it is nothing but a survey of the powers-that-be, and a 50% response rate is not bad for government work. That being said, I think it much more valuable than what others have proposed, such as a survey of employers -- talk about the ability for manipulation. If those in academe do not know what makes prestige.....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Blue, I agree that a 50% respond rate is not bad. However, we do not know the percentage of replies that are complete, accurate, and ... truthful. :)</p>
<p>alexandre,
Well, if you are familiar with the electoral college, then hopefully you understand that the votes in one state go all to the winner in that state. In such a scene as applied to a state-by-state vote of the top schools, I would gladly bet my house that your undergraduate at U Michigan would not be anywhere close to a 4.5. </p>
<p>Like I said before, it's a lousy analogy.</p>
<p>xiggi, since you are a Big 12 kinda guy, I'll admit that the PA is accurate and truthful as the BCS. :D</p>
<p>I am not taking a dim view of teaching at all. As I said, my experience was that typically the more accomplished the prof the better was his ability to hold a classroom and inspire the students. The clinkers were often gone in a year or two as teaching was given strong weight in overall evaluations of profs. We were doing prof evalautions back in the late 60's and they were taken seriously. </p>
<p>I can provide many other examples of people hired away to some of the more elite schools. The point is that the same people teaching at Yale and Duke and Penn and Stanford often came up throught he ranks teaching at places like UW, UM and the rest. They did not get smarter or better as teachers just by changing their address. They just got more $$$ and better staff support--and maybe a better parking spot. Now if you think teaching at the elite schools is crappy too--well then there is really not much to discuss as you have your opinion and I have mine.</p>
<p>Hawk, the former President of Stanford way out in California wants your house keys. He said specifically that any ranking that does not have Michigan near the top is not worth crap.
I think you don't really know much about this topic and all the evidence to the contrary goes right over your head. That old cognitive dissonance thing again.</p>
<p>" I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27."</p>
<p>I agree with Barron's middle-of-the-road view. PA adds some value, it's useful to have it, but not at 25 percent weight in the overall score --- too much of a thumb on the scale for the status quo and the
powers that be" and almost ensuring an insurmountable uphill climb for any college trying to improve its way into the upper echelon.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with Barron's middle-of-the-road view.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Middle-of-the-road view of Barrons? I shudder at the thought of what an extremist view would be!</p>
<p>BB, despite the parallels, talking about the BCS is more fun than talking about the PA. Although the favored sons carry different names. Berkeley, Michigan, USC, and Notre Dame seem to be treated quite differently by the voters. :)</p>
<p>alexandre, hopefully someone more familiar with the school can post a link. The statement that Wellesley does not participate in the PA process has been made several times on CC by reputable posters.</p>
<p>hawkette--In connection with your post #40, if the response rate for the peer assessment surveys is 50%, it doesn't necessarily mean that 600+ colleges didn't respond since the survey is sent to several administrators at each college and we don't know how many at each school responded.</p>
<p>As I stated in another post, I think that the peer assessment figure can be very useful, although it is possibly weighted too heavily. Having a relative who is a college administrator, I am often impressed with his comments on various colleges and his knowledge of the faculty, the administration and the educational opportunities provided at these schools. I believe that most people filling out these forms are probably fairly honest (although they might hype their own schools) and I think that this measure can be quite useful. I actually prefer it to some of the supposedly objective measures, such as 10 point differences in SAT scores or 1% differences in acceptance rates, which are fairly meaningless, but which many people somehow assume means a school provides a better educational experience.</p>
<p>That's an interesting point about the BCS and the similarities. You've got the computer ratings vs. the general opinion. It's similar to the US News ranking vs. the peer assessment. There's always gripes about the "computers" and how they don't rate what they should in games, and then there's always gripes about the pollsters and how they tend to favor some schools over the other. LOL, I can finally understand the US News ranking debates now!</p>