<p>
[quote]
They should use the Cross Admit preference data... at least that is real money being played with.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that a revealed preference ranking year by year would be a significant addition to the writings about college choice. I hear that the co-authors of the original revealed preference working paper are preparing a paper for peer-reviewed publication. I'd like to see that methodology applied to broad, current data sets.</p>
<p>^ It might be fun to look at but it's not going to change anything...</p>
<p>"I hear that the co-authors of the original revealed preference working paper are preparing a paper for peer-reviewed publication. I'd like to see that methodology applied to broad, current data sets."</p>
<p>UCLA better have a better ranking than Furman. :)</p>
<p>Yes schools with many of the most famous brilliant professors should be dumped for those great little teaching colleges--where the profs all learned what they know--- AT Berkeley and the like. Makes sense to me</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes schools with many of the most famous brilliant professors should be dumped for those great little teaching colleges--where the profs all learned what they know--- AT Berkeley and the like. Makes sense to me
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does it start making sense when one component of the PA is (or is purported to be) DEDICATION TO TEACHING. Having famous brilliant professors who hardly ever teach does not much good for undergraduates, does it? Or are there various definitions for the word "dedication" at little teaching colleges and ginormous education factories?</p>
<p>Xiggi, you do know that schools can't be ranked 1,2,3 ... with any accuracy?</p>
<p>"Then, of course, people who care about objective and verifiable assessments could start reading the pages that follow the main section."</p>
<p>I took this statement to be a joke.</p>
<p>It was, right?</p>
<p>There was plenty of objective data that showed that Bear Stearns was worth $80 a share. I believe that was what the company said its book value was. </p>
<p>Whoops.</p>
<p>Bear Stearns was even ......rated. Based on Bear Stearns numbers, Bear was rated above junk, by S&P, Moody's, and Fitch. I can't remember the exact ratings. They were a little off. ;)</p>
<p>BSC:</a> Summary for BEAR STEARNS COS THE - Yahoo! Finance</p>
<p>Look at the eps of Bear Stearns. The company made $1.52 a share in the last 4 quarters. The company's PE is under 7. Objective data.....;)</p>
<p>The presumption that famous profs can't teach is based on what again??? Many of UW's most famous profs also won top teaching awards which are highly prized at UW. One does not prevent the other from being true nor does being unknown mean you can teach. 95% of UW seniors rated their academic experience good-excellent. (NSSE 2006)</p>
<p>And more research dollars per student than only a handful of universities, and yield higher than Dartmouth and Duke and....</p>
<p>
[quote]
The presumption that famous profs can't teach is based on what again???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The presumption is NOT that "famous profs can't teach." The presumption, based on countless accounts, is that famous profs are rarely part of the undergraduate experience and exhibit dedication to other avenues such as publishing, researching, and chasing the mighty grant dollars that keeps their department humming with activity. </p>
<p>I believe that you tend to misunderstand the basic argument of this discussion. While nobody can deny the huge benefits (to the school and to society) of having famous professors pursuing ground breaking research, one needs to weigh the relative impact on ... undergraduates. For instance, how beneficial is watching Nobel winner Prof X crossing Harvard Square hurriedly in direction of the next Starbucks or his well-guarded ivory tower? Except providing a good anecdote for the Christmas gathering, that does not amount to a whole lot. What matters is if Prof X is teaching or not, and not via the typical army of teaching proxies. That is what is called DEDICATION! </p>
<p>Yet, whenever discussions regarding the PA start, they always turn into debates about intangibles, perception, reputation, or the best of all ... the perception of a reputation.</p>
<p>^ Different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>Personally, I was very satisfied with my undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Xiggi, I know you like to focus on objective, measurable data to determine the quality of a university, but there are many subjective, intangibles that affect experience and reputation.</p>
<p>I can envision a hypothetical university that would beat all Ivies and top privates in objective data. For example, let's describe Xiggi U:</p>
<ol>
<li>Only 4 students attend...each is a 2400 SAT scorer...SAT average is tops.</li>
<li>Only 1 student is admitted...100 applicants...admit rate is 1%.</li>
<li>Xiggi U has 2 professors...student/faculty ratio is 2/1.</li>
<li>All alumni are required to donate $2/year to Xiggi U...100% alumni giving rate</li>
<li>% of Classes Less than 20 = 100%, % of Classes Greater than 50 = 0%</li>
<li>The profs are highly compensated...along with the small class size and low student/faculty ratio, Xiggi U has a very high faculty resources rank.</li>
<li>Endowment is $20 billion due to Xiggi's fortune amassed in SAT prep service and spending is lavish...financial resources rank is high.</li>
</ol>
<p>All of these factors would place Xiggi U at the top of the heap in terms of objective factors. Would the university be very good? Probably not because few students to interact with, and the 2 profs couldn't cover all academic subjects...</p>
<p>Do you buy a car strictly looking at objective numbers like horsepower and fuel economy? Probably not, because other subjective factors come into play (and are likely more important) like reputation for reliabilty, level of rarity (prestige of brand), cost and design.</p>
<p>This is why focusing on objective data could lead to a very myopic view...The PA score helps address these intangibles.</p>
<p>Maybe we should break up public and private university rankings...car magazines don't compare SUVs to sport sedans. However, both have their benefits and appeal to different people.</p>
<p>I don't think xiggi is trying to elevate "objective data", but rather to express distaste for the peer ratings, which tend reflect regional bias and prejudice, reverence for graduate programs (when undergraduate schools are being ranked), anti-religious school bias, over-respect for the images of days gone by (some of the women's colleges), etc., etc. The whole thing is the "good ol' boy" system run amok.
I am no huge booster of USN&WR, but before the wide broadcast of consumer information to the public, the "good ol' boy" rankings held sway, and only the in-crowd had access to them.</p>
<p>^ The opinions are what they are. Over 2,000 academics rated university programs from "distinguished to marginal"...</p>
<p>If dissenters want their voices heard, they should rank the universities as they see fit and return the survey...or, mark the survey as "i don't know" like they were instructed.</p>
<p>It would be much more productive than whining about the results.</p>
<p>ucbchemegrad,
Re your description of xiggi U,</p>
<p>"1. Only 4 students attend...each is a 2400 SAT scorer...SAT average is tops.
2. Only 1 student is admitted...100 applicants...admit rate is 1%.
3. Xiggi U has 2 professors...student/faculty ratio is 2/1.
4. All alumni are required to donate $2/year to Xiggi U...100% alumni giving rate
5. % of Classes Less than 20 = 100%, % of Classes Greater than 50 = 0%
6. The profs are highly compensated...along with the small class size and low student/faculty ratio, Xiggi U has a very high faculty resources rank.
7. Endowment is $20 billion due to Xiggi's fortune amassed in SAT prep service and spending is lavish...financial resources rank is high."</p>
<p>I know that he'll speak for himself, but for the top student who is choosing where to go to college, other than your ridiculous entering class size assumption, what's wrong with looking for:</p>
<ol>
<li>a highly selective entering class of students </li>
<li>learing in a classroom size that allowed for meaninful interaction between students and with the professor</li>
<li>led by a teacher who actually prioritized the teaching of his/her students as the number one priority</li>
<li>at an institution that has a lot of resources that are drawn upon to enhance the undergraduate student experience.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>I think that this might be a pretty swell combination for any school. What's not to like?</p>
<p>
[quote]
reverence for graduate programs (when undergraduate schools are being ranked)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you segregate "graduate programs" from "undergraduate programs" when they are taught by the same faculty?</p>
<p>The whole idea of Consumer Reports etc, was to give the public information that was not defined by the producers. PA is a relic of the bad old days.</p>
<p>Ok Hawkette, if that's how you define academic greatness and where you'd like to go to school...more power to you.</p>
<p>Such a small environment cannot possibly give you a broad range of experiences that will be encountered in the real world. I don't like sheltered environments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The whole idea of Consumer Reports etc, was to give the public information that was not defined by the producers. PA is a relic of the bad old days.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair enough. Who do you suggest USNWR poll that has broad knowledge of academic programs? And especially a group that won't introduce the biases that you're trying to eliminate?</p>
<p>Hawkette, nothing's wrong with it...I was just pointing out that only looking at the objective data could lead to a basis for choosing a university that is "ridiculous". I meant for my example to be ridiculous...that's the point!</p>
<p>ucbchemegrad,
Who said it had to be a small environment? My suggestions are applicable whether the student body is 1500, 15,000 or 40,000. I still care about the quality of the students, the size of the classroom in which I am learning, the nature and quality of the teaching that I receive in the classroom and the amount of resources my school has and if/how they are spending them to support undergraduate education.</p>
<p>^ You're still missing the point Hawkette....If USNWR were to rank hypothetical Xiggi U, it would be rated #1 based on the objective measures...however the school would be very limiting in activities and breadth of academic program offerings wouldn't you say? </p>
<p>My point is, forming a ranking off only objective data shows that it can be manipulated and not show the whole package...</p>