<p>Ranking shouldn't really change on an annual basis.</p>
<p>The publics didn't really change all that much (the '05 US News public only list looked fairly similar). I'm sure it's not the most accurate list, but I think it's hard in general to rank colleges at all. The list just gives a general idea of how public colleges look.</p>
<p>No offense to the UVA faithful, but it didn't fare that well in the NRC Report relative to the other top public schools. The NRC Report is based on a thorough, indepth assessment of the nation's top schools across 41 fields of study. This is a much more thorough assessment of the academic quality of the institutions than any commercial poll. The NRC Report is the most respected source of academic ranking. It's fine to assess the undergrad programs by quality of its students, but the quality of the faculty and departments largely determine the quality of education. </p>
<p>The USN&WR & Gourman reports are 2 of the most popular commercial polls, but you must keep in mind that they're for profit. The USN&WR favors the small, private undergrad program, while the Gourman Report favors the undergrad program of a larger institution. I consider some of the criteria used by the commerical polls to be extraneous. Ie. Alumi giving should never be used as a criterion to determine alumi satisfaction in the USN&WR poll. This is only one of the few criteria used by USN&WR that are objectionable. </p>
<p>More weight should be placed on the academic offerings of the institution itself. IMO Cal Berkeley should be ranked in the top 5 of any undergrad poll. And Michigan & UCLA are definitely top 10 programs. No disrespect intended, but the smaller, private undergrad programs like Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Brown, Washington Univ., etc do not have half of the strong departmental offerings of a Berkeley or a Michigan. </p>
<p>Finally, if you want to discuss the top public universities, you must include all the programs....the graduate & professional programs as well as the undergrad programs. USN&WR should at least publish a poll listing the universities with the greatest number of highly ranked grad programs. Then you would see which public universities are truly the greatest. </p>
<p>These are the top 30 universities according to the NRC Report based on the greatest numbers of highly ranked programs & departments:</p>
<ol>
<li>Cal-Berkeley</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Texas</li>
<li>Cal-San Diego</li>
<li>Washington-Seattle</li>
<li>Cal Tech</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Illinois</li>
<li>Minnesota</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>North Carolina</li>
<li>NYU</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Penn State</li>
<li>Purdue</li>
<li>Suny-Stony Brook</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>Cal-Santa Barbara</li>
</ol>
<p><a href="http://www.eupp.umn.edu/uplan/2002/excellence.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.eupp.umn.edu/uplan/2002/excellence.pdf</a> (from U of Minn. report. Scroll down to page 28.)</p>
<p>According to the NRC Report, its criteria is calculated in this manner: </p>
<p>Each university granting a doctorate in an area was asked to rate each of the other doctorate granting universities in that area according to faculty quality and effectiveness of program. The resulting responses were converted to scores (having two decimal places) ranging from 0.00 to 5.00 where for faculty quality 0 denoted <code>not sufficient for doctoral education'' and 5 denoted</code>distinguished,'' while for effectiveness of program 0 denoted <code>not effective'' and 5 denoted</code>extremely effective.'' Based on these scores, rankings were obtained of all doctorate granting institutions within each area. </p>
<p>Okay, a school's quality in this RESEARCH report (as well as the Gourman Report) is heavily based on, of course, research and the amount of publications churned out by a school. It doesn't really take into consideration student-teacher interaction, the quality of teaching instruction, the quality of student life, etc. Personally, these criteria are as important or more important than research and professorial publications when deciding on an undergraduate institution.</p>
<p>For example, Harvard scores highly on the NRC Report, but according to a Boston Globe survey, "Harvard ranked fifth from the bottom of a group of 31 elite colleges when it came to all-around student satisfaction." Does the NRC Report show that? (This is not to say that Harvard is not a good school. As we all know, Harvard IS Harvard. What I'm saying is that these research rankings are not the best indicators of which schools are the best for undergrad students.)</p>
<p>Cornell is not a state school. It was a land-grant university, but it is private with the exception of 4 (of 14) schools receiving state funding thereby enabling New Yorkers to pay less tuition. Calling it a state school, implying that it's a public institution, is erroneous.</p>
<p>Maybe the Harvard students at higher expectations--it's hard to compare such a survey across schools as many factors can come into play.</p>
<p>"USN&WR should at least publish a poll listing the universities with the greatest number of highly ranked grad programs"</p>
<p>Why? Who chooses a school based on how many highly ranked grad programs they have? If I'm going for a PhD in Physics, I want to see highly ranked Physics programs, which USNWR will tell me. I couldn't care less if other programs are ranked highly. And again, research power means only research power. It does not equate strength of education.</p>
<p>This is where I differ in opinion with commercial polls like USN&WR. IMO the grad programs are the strength of any academic department. I consider research to be a cornerstone of any top university. If you're intimidated by larger lower level classes and require greater attention from a professor or even a TA, you don't belong at a top university IMO. If you make it to a top university, you shouldn't expect to be "spoon fed". IMO the importance of an "up close & personal" prof-student interaction is exaggerated & largely unnecessary. The profs lecture and tell you where to focus your study. You can schedule appts. with them during their office hours as well. So what's the problem? All I can tell you is that the NRC Report is the most respected source of ranking in academia. The USN&WR is merely a popular commercial poll and should be regarded as such. </p>
<p>Also the international polls consider research to be of utmost importance in evaluating the top universities in the world. At the top research schools, the undergrads have much greater opportunity to participate in world class research. IMO this is a huge advantage in attending a top research institution. Also you must have highly regarded research programs and as many Nobel Prize winners on your faculty as possible to be ranked among the world's great universities. Here are 2 sources that list the top American research institutions.</p>
<p>Top research universities based on number of highly ranked academic programs:</p>
<p>Top research universities based on endowment:</p>
<p><a href="http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research2003.html%5B/url%5D">http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research2003.html</a></p>
<p>[ol]
[<em>]UC Berkeley
[</em>]Virginia
[li]UCLA/Michigan[/li][/ol]</p>
<p>Thanks for the correction DKE, you are quite right, UNC should be in the list too. I will also add a runner-up list:</p>
<p>College of William and Mary
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Texas-Austin
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin-Madison</p>
<p>RUNNER UP:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Indiana University-Bloomington
Miami University (Ohio)
Michigan State University-East Lansing
Ohio State University-Columbus
Pennsylvania State University-University Park
Purdue University-West Lafayette
University of Arizona
University of California-Davis
University of California-San Diego
University of Californa-Santa Barbara
University of Colorado-Boulder
University of Florida-Gainesville
University of Iowa
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities</p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO the grad programs are the strength of any academic department. I consider research to be a cornerstone of any top university. If you're intimidated by larger lower level classes and require greater attention from a professor or even a TA, you don't belong at a top university IMO. If you make it to a top university, you shouldn't expect to be "spoon fed". IMO the importance of an "up close & personal" prof-student interaction is exaggerated & largely unnecessary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>small classes is NOT being spoon fed. One of the greatest resources at top schools are the students who are studying with you You can bounce ideas off each other and gain new perspectives. How many ideas bounce around in a 200 person class? One. The professor's.</p>
<p>Strength of a graduate program doesn't matter at all if you are there for undergrad. By this logic all liberal arts schools give you awful educations. Saying you don't belong at a top university if you want small classes is ridiculous.</p>
<p>If you make it to a top university, you shouldn't expect to be spoon fed, but you should expect to get A's for effort right?</p>
<p>In USNWR, the last time it rated schools on "commitment to teaching", W&M came in #1 in publics.</p>
<p>You really think research is the cornerstone, rather than teaching? I'm sure many people will disagree with you. If you don't know anything, you can't research!</p>
<p>Miriam Boo,</p>
<p>The problem with your reasoning is that at many schools where research is all important, the professors often don't care about their undergrad students. Yes, the students could try to meet w/ their professors after class, but many research-oriented instructors consider undergrad instruction a nuisance and don't give students the attention they need. I could quote testimonials from a slew of students from a number of top research universities who complain that their professors teach their classes because they have to and that those profs would prefer being in their lab. </p>
<p>If I'm taking a class about a subject, I want that professor to care about teaching me. Shoot, I'm paying for the class.</p>
<p>Miami University of Ohio is a really good public school.</p>
<p>Barrons, here's a recent article about Harvard in US News. It illustrates some of my points.</p>
<p>If you look just at the four year graduation rate, the best public school in the country is the University of Virginia. They have an 80% 4 year graduation rate, significantly higher than any other public university bar none.</p>
<p>Well, at the 6 year graduation rate, UVA's rate jumps up to 92%.</p>
<p>I would like to stress that what I've written is my opinion and is what I look for in a school. Apparently we're all different people, and we look for different things in a school. When I chose an undergrad program, I wanted to attend a school with a top ranked everything. That's why I admire schools like Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, Stanford, Michigan, UCLA, Columbia, Wisconsin, Texas, Penn, Cornell, etc. These are great research institutions with numerous top ranked programs, and they rank among the top universities in the world. </p>
<p>I don't expect everyone to agree with my point of view. But I do encourage others to look beyond the USN&WR poll, as it's just another commercial poll....although a very popular one. If you want to discuss the top universities, you must consider undergrad, grad, & professional programs. Keep in mind that the USN&WR ranking of undergrad programs is just that. It's telling you that these are the best public university undergrad programs....not the best public universities.</p>
<p>I agree that graduation rate should be considered, but also there is something called "grade inflation" at some institutions. This issue has been brought to our attention recently in the media. Some schools even go so far as to fix or gear their grading toward a favorable retention rate. Also these schools realize that a higher number of students accepted into professional & graduate programs reflects very positively on the institution. This needs to be considered. The standard is different at various institutions. Also students may drop out of school for reasons other than academic. I personally know of some students that chose to leave school due to financial hardship, pregnancy, illness, etc. Graduation rate should be considered but not as heavily weighted in determining the top schools.</p>
<p>That Boston Globe report on Harvard is a real eye opener, with the humers of applicants applying to Harvard, less than 10% actually have seen the school, they just applying expectiing greatness, expecting an Oxford or Cornell campus, instead they get accepted to the number #1 school from all corners ofthe globe and find out they get Harvard Yard, a small unsightly place in Cambridge. That is what is underwhelming, Harvard does not have the paradise fictious campus that ideally is something like Cornell or Princeton, and those good enough to get accepted into Harvard arrive with the bar set extremely high.</p>
<p>WHy do I hear from alums that UVA isn't very challenging undergrad? They all talk about it being such a party school. How can it be ranked so highly then?</p>
<p>DKE, most universities are only as "challenging" as you are willing to make them. UVA is no more a "party school" than Duke, Dartmouth, Michigan, Penn or Cornell. But that does not mean any of those schools isn't excellent. Parties and studies are not mutually exclusive, hence the common phrase, "work hard, play hard".</p>